The ban bing thread is too long. This is a continuation. Of course it is an the new open thread. Those who feel them must stay on the other one for continuity may stay there a bit. But if you are moving to a new topic, I suggest shifting here.
917 thoughts on ““Ban Bing” is too long”
Comments are closed.
Brandon S,
I havent’ identified any pattern in which of your comments get moderated either.
Alrighty.
So I think it’d be an interesting question to get feedback on across the web. I could ask people. Would you be willing to set aside any larger agenda you may be sympathetic too (social or economic reform or whatever the precisely correct phraseology for the idea is) to cooperate specifically to try to built some sort of coalition to reduce CO2 emissions by means X,Y and Z.
.
Why is this interesting? If answered honestly in the affirmative, maybe it is possible to build a coalition of some sort that could work towards the limited cooperative goals of reducing CO2 emissions by means X Y and Z. If answered honestly in the negative, it separates the wheat from the chaff in the sense that people know at that point that nope, unless they are willing to go whole hog with whatever the agenda is, there’s no working with the person in question. Finally, if they lie either way, it’s something to go back to and point out the discrepancy.
.
It sort of sounds like a lot of work. But I’m mildly interested. What would Anders say if I asked him this? I honestly don’t know. What would Willard say? [Edit: what would Judy Curry say? Anthony Watts? Lucia? Tamino? So on.]
Meanwhile I’m going to go investigate a more pressing question; will terra-cotta stand up to the shock of being heated by direct contact with nichrome wire coils at around 1000F, or will it shatter? Only one good way to find out! :>
Mark Bofill, I suspect all that’d happen is you’d find it impossible to come up with an X, Y and Z many people would give clear or useful answers to. There’d just be a lot of arguing over what X, Y and Z ought to be.
If you could get past that issue, then you’d find people are generally unwilling to sign on as people are generally only interested in pushing their own agendas. Just look at how pushing for expanding nuclear power goes amongst people advocating for action to combat global warming.
If you want to do a test run, try picking some small issue and getting people to agree on it. I can almost guarantee you you’ll fail. Call for openness and transparency, and you’ll find dozens of people like Anders finding excuses to oppose or undermine whatever ideas you might have. Call for people to acknowledge the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, and you’ll find tons of people from sites like WUWT clamoring to oppose or undermine you while more “respectable” people like Anthony Watts will try to avoid any meaningful participation so as not to upset the dragon slayer types.
I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think you could get agreement on any meaningful point in a sizable population of both “sides” of the debate. I think what you’ll find is for any point you pick, you’ll find a significant number of people will, if not outright oppose your efforts, at least oppose it in effect (as in, do things that undermine it).
This is the sort of thing that ensures warmists won’t acknowledge the many serious problems with work by people like Michael Mann while skeptics won’t acknowledge the many serious problems with work by people like Richard Tol. By far and large, it doesn’t matter how obvious or right these points are.
Durn nichrome. Five or six experiments to date with what I think is an appropriate gauge and length of nichrome to handle < 15 amps at approx. 120 volts and in every last one to date the experiment ends because of wire failure at the point where power is connected to the nichrome. I have got to sort that issue out.
Remains to be seen if the terra cotta survived the thermal shock.
.
So Brandon S,
.
I sort of think this too. I mean, what’s the cost to the underminer? Zilch. If I am secretly sympathetic to the skydragons or sympathetic to the socialists, I’ve got no motive not to ‘cheat’.
.
Except that in the blogging world, cheating is sort of a public thang. Maybe blogging is all about what you say, what people say in comments, what comments you support, what comments you oppose, and what you snip. Maybe.
.
I dunno. I’m curious to see what Brandon G thinks when he bops by later. I’m still not sure I personally care enough to roll the ball on this, and I don’t want to even start if I think I might lose interest halfway… Still thinking about it.
Brandon S,
The more I think about it the more I question that anybody would cheat. Why even sign up in the first place? That’d probably be the more sensible stopping point – a flat out ‘no, that’s not going to work, and I’m not giving up anything for some wacky coalition that’s not going to work’.
I actually think this is reasonable. It’s not unlike my position on cutting fossil fuel use while China and India continue to burn. What for, right.
Brandon S,
Also, you’re right about agreeing on the specific X Y and Z. That’s an ‘innocent’ out that anyone could use to avoid the whole she-bang. Even if someone is not looking for the innocent out, this is going to be a real issue. ‘Yes we should do something, and the something we should do is what ~I~ specifically think. What ~you~ specifically think is obviously wrong.’ That sort of thing.
[Edit: The terra cotta survived the thermal shock! Amazing.]
Huh. Small world. Anders has posted on Nic Lewis’s climate sensitivity work.
Mark:
there really is only one ‘middle way’, a way that provides cheap and reliable power with a low CO2 footprint, which is nuclear. There are prominent greens who have come to this view (George Monbiot, Patrick Moore, James Lovelock).
The problem is that nuclear is opposed by the gang who currently hold sway, and think that wind and solar is the answer.
I suppose the alternative is the pie-in-the-sky of a novel technology – it’s two decades away, I understand (as it has been for some little time).
Speaking personally I still like coal, because the little harm that might accrue from a little atmospheric warming actually does not outweigh the benefits of cheap power.
Off up the wooden hills to Bedfordshire, g’night.
mark bofill (Comment #146449),
.
.
When two people have opposing aims, they have less chance of cooperating. That need not entail bad faith; if it did, then acting in one’s own perceived self-interest could never occur in good faith. Is that what you believe? I don’t.
.
.
Yes. I got it from elsewhere, but I agree with both him and you about that.
.
.
Again I agree.
.
.
Well stated. Compromise is one way to do it, though compromise entails both parties giving up something they otherwise would not if there were no conflict. On the positive side of the ledger, the result of a “good”, “fair” or “equitable” compromise is that both parties get some portion of what they wanted. Not all, but some.
.
Another method is quid pro quo, otherwise colloquially known as “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” or “horse-trading”.
.
Even another method, my favorite of the bunch, is finding common ground. Or as you might say, identifying which similar values and stuff all parties care about, and acting together to remedy any mutually shared concerns with mutually acceptable solutions. Political power, or Force, may still be required to enact those solutions; however, in this case the Force is acting along the same vector. [1] Call it the minimal conflict exercise of Force.
.
A variant of the common ground method is killing two birds with one stone. Both parties need not have the same aims when a single solution satisfies both of them. I see this as the crème de la crème strategy for resolving a cause célèbre with minimal bloodshed.
.
.
I “know” there are militants on your side [looks upthread, ~shrugs~, moves on] just as I know (note lack of “scare quotes”) there are militants on my side [checks image of self in mirror … hey, at least I’m not a vampire].
.
I think lots of folk would like a little less militant behavior, even amongst our own corps. (Or *comrades*, as the case may be, eh?) Alas, as you say, we like to fight. I offer as well; when there’s a war on, having militants about is probably a Good Thing.
.
.
I like meta, especially when it serves as a framework by which to classify specifics and prioritize them.
.
Cheerio.
.
——————
.
[1] Diametrically opposed forces may cancel out, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When one does prevail over the other, it doesn’t mean the less-powerful one wasn’t there … or doesn’t yet remain. In short, forces exist independent of their net effects. Schrödinger’s Force did give me a chuckle though, it was a pleasingly creative riposte.
Brandon G,
Would you mind giving me your feedback regarding 146455? If so, thanks.
Mark Bofill:
I saw that shortly after it went up. Unfortunately, the post doesn’t seem that well-informed. Its discussion of how the TCR/ECS ratio varies with the magnitude of the sensitivities is… meh, and it somehow fails to discuss that Nic Lewis used Effective Climate Sensitivity rather than Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (which is poor, even though Lewis conflates the two). I have other issues with the post, but… eh, it’s just not very informative.
By the way, why do people use TCR/ECS instead of ECS/TCR? I mean, I’ve seen it both ways in different papers, but TCR/ECS seems to give nicer numbers.
Brandon S,
I’ve got no answer. But what do you mean by ‘nicer’? And if TCR/ECS gives ‘nicer’ numbers why not use that I guess.
~confused~
Mark Bofill:
ECS is, almost by definition, going to be larger than TCR. That means putting ECS in the denominator will ensure the ratio is always less than 1. Putting TCR in the denominator instead would ensure the ratio is always greater than 1. Suppose TCR is 1, but you aren’t sure what ECS is. Here are some possible results for TCR/ECS
1 / 1.1 = ,909
1 / 1.2 = .833
1 / 1.3 = .769
1 / 1.4 = .714
1 / 1.5 = .667
Those are a lot messier than if you switched the ratio from TCR/ECS to ECS/TCR as doing so would mean the results are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5
Obviously, the difference in neatness between the two approaches won’t always be that clear. It’ll still favor ECS/TCR most of the time though. You have a larger range of values to work with that way. A 2x ratio can either be .5x. or 2x. A 3x ratio can either be .333x or 3x. A 4x ratio can either be .25x or 4x. My question is which option should one pick, and why?
mark bofill (Comment #146476)
.
.
[pedant alert] If not you mean? I don’t mind at all, might be more fruitful than me ripping the Original B. a new one for fruitlessly lecturing me about not being frutiful. Or was it for being a fruitcake from the land of fruits and nuts.
.
Damn, too late. Well now, let’s see:
.
.
Uses language which appeals to Andrew’s known attitudes making it clear that you’re at least sympathetic if not understanding of his point of view. Also absolutely factual. Such statements are on record public and are undeniable, though “we” might quibble about the definition of “heck of a lot”, and “we” have. Problem with such qualifiers is their subjectivity which can often only reasonably be quantified by surveys — such are unfashionable in some circles. [1]
.
I might have written the first sentence, “I don’t dismiss your views for being cynical.” Or “appearing cynical” to allow for the possibility that your own impressions are now how Andrew would qualify is own views with one adjective. Labels are tricky, and ought be applied with care when the intent is to NOT provoke. OTOH, if you intended to provoke, if only lightly, your construction stands some chance of obtaining that aim.
.
.
This may be difficult for me to unpack. First I’ll note that “conspiracy theory” is loaded up with more than just dismissive question begging: it not only asserts without proof that the charge is wrong, but that the one making the charge is a wingnut to boot. One possible saving grace is that it doesn’t necessary entail the conspiracy theorist is intentionally making (putatively) false statements. In short, the whole “conspiracy ideation” argument is not intended to resolve differences, but to undermine and weaken the power of the opposition whilst simultaneously firing up one’s own partisan troops.
.
Next you note that just because it’s called a thing doesn’t mean it really is that thing, an appropriate response when things are ill-defined and therefore don’t lend themselves to objective falsification. So, I agree with your usage of that argument in this context. Then you write:
.
… it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s an observation.
.
Which sets off a somewhat nasty buzzing from my bullcrap detector, perhaps for wrong reasons; not least of which that I may be misinterpreting your meaning. [5] There are two things which trip me up here:
.
1) According to my view that “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” are terms which defy concrete definition and therefore evaluation, you have just concretely defined it and then declared without substantive support (which by my definition you can’t ever possibly provide) that it isn’t the thing it is called. Or as I sometimes put it, you have just given your personal opinion (which is fine) masquerading as fact (which is not fine). [IMHO, of course.] [6]
.
2) “It’s just an observation” causes me to think of Just Asking Questions, or JAQing off. Which is the bastard second cousin of Sealioning, also described in the same article, albeit far less humorously than the cartoon.
.
Again my triggers have been tripped here thus any semblance of objectivity I might have otherwise mustered has likely gone out the window. That said, the words of the online specimen known as One Planet Only Forever does illustrate your point. OTOH, it’s not clear to me that he has any actual influence other than his online commentary (reminds me a lot of me in that respect) and *may* not serve as the best ambassador of The Cause. I agree a lot with Tom Curtis’ rebuttal, as do you below, and this pleases me … not least because you’re giving a more … positive … example for Andrew to look at.
.
My tripped triggers aside, on balance I think your balance here is commendable and is the kind of thing one hopes would lead to less fractious … um … negotiations.
.
.
I have not read the book. Heard about it much of course, and opinions of it range from rank idiocy to crystalline brilliance and all points between (duh). One thing I can clearly say is that she’s no fan of capitalism, something which often tends to compel my ears to cock and one or both of my eyebrows to lift up. Pretty clearly you think her book is garbage, which is fine by me if only as your equal right as my fellow citizen to express one’s own opinions.
.
.
Ambiguity alert: there are at least two ways I can (and have) interpreted that:
.
1) Klein is dishonest, Curtis is not.
.
2) You disagree with Klein, agree with Curtis [therefore, see again (1)].
.
Again realizing that may not have been your implication, I offer instead how I would have written it:
.
These goals require a battle plan. But back to the SkS thread, watch *someone with views more compatible with mine* (Tom Curtis) lay it out.
.
That puts it squarely in the realm of rightfully expressing your opinions of Naomi’s position vs. Tom’s, without making the implicit value judgement that those with whom you disagree are inherently dishonest. This *I believe* is exactly the sort of “constructive” dialog you say that you would like to see more of. One caveat: the way you’ve constructed this argument gives me a prick of a doubt about your real intentions. [7]
.
.
I may have lost the thread here, but I think you’re arguing that getting off the battle plan stands a better chance of accomplishing the goal of solving AGW. I’m not entirely sure that’s true; it is what I’d like to think — and indeed during my “better” moments am attempting to do in my own small way.
.
A “darker” interpretation is that it reads like a setup for another stalling tactic. And yes, here I beg the question that stalling tactics have been and are at play across the entire AGW policy fracas, globally. I further opine that nowhere is that more evident to me than in the good ol’ US of A, which can least afford to be lagging the rest of the world in that respect.
.
Without a doubt, what collectively “my side” have been doing isn’t working out so well for us. Not just “us” as in “my side”, but humanity as a whole. It might not surprise you that this vexes me and is even more of a concern to me than the potential hazards of AGW itself — it’s a much larger issue than that alone.
.
.
Basically I see you laying out the opinion that if mitigating AGW risks is the *only* aim, you’re willing to compromise. If something else (I presume radical societal, economic and geopolitical change) you’re out. I probably agree with you more about that than less. The key thing for me that Tom said in that exchange is that he doesn’t see a need for coordinated sweeping radical global redesign of things, but that a piecemeal approach is more likely to prevail.
.
One reason I give for the “radical” greens’ failure to make more progress is that they’ve been on a sustained campaign to solve the problem globally from the top-down instead of more locally from the bottom up. Ironically, there’s a popular bumper sticker to this effect, often located next to (or slightly overlapping) a Save The Whales/Polar Bears/Spotted Owls sticker from Greenpeace: Think Globally, Act Locally. Yes! More of *that* please!!!
.
.
Pretty fair summary, but I would that both of them can, and likely are, true simultaneously. Me being me would tack on a few more, but this is loooonnng, so I’ll skip it [for now?].
.
I definitely agree no one person is running the show, but I cannot rule out that a conspiracy does not actually exist.
.
Having said that, much rests on the definition of conspiracy. There are coordinated efforts done by multiple people, and in private, if not clandestinely and/or elusively. We do know that much … by which I mean that I think we’re out of the realm of opinion here and into mutually acceptable provisional fact. It has a kicker: my *observation* applies to both “sides” in my view … I’m just sayin’. [evil grin]
.
That was longer than expected (but not really), however, fun to write. Hope it contains something you were actually looking for me to do, and that you get something positive from it.
.
Regards.
.
——————
.
[1] This would be me bouncing of your request for feedback by advancing one of my own agendas. I did say that sometimes the evil gets in me didn’t I? Why yes, I surely did. If being opportunistic is nefarious by definition, I hold that none of us are without blemish. [2]
.
[2] This would be me strawmanning and reframing to illustrate another common beast in these wilds. [3]
.
[3] This would be me noting that I sometimes have fun with recursion. [4]
.
[4] This would be me adding an exit loop statement on the fly because too much fun can become no fun.
.
[5] Consensus has it that I misinterpret a lot of things, sometimes deliberately so. Under some rules, that means I can safely dismiss the Consensus. Under my personal rules, I might do well to seriously consider it, which in this particular case at least, I have done.
.
[6] Or IMNSHO because I don’t easily do genuine humility. This is one of my finer qualities, btw.
.
[7] If ever there was a two-bladed broadsword to be had, I have just wielded it.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146446),
.
I wrote:
.
.
That is one Hell of a punchline, if you’ll excuse the pun. What else was in that stream of text? Oh, ah:
.
.
Kudos to you for including that bit. It could be productive [WOTD] if you were to solicit Mark Bofill’s opinion on why I might have placed that comment before and within close proximity to the punchline.
.
Oh hey, a request: in the future, please don’t paraphrase me without proper citation to the original text. Thanks.
.
PS: while we’re bringing old conversations forward to present discussions, I’ve not seen you correct the inaccuracies of my position you express in this post of yours, even though it’s been weeks since I first told you exactly how you misrepresented me and 11 days since I last did the same. This would be me holding you accountable, something you surely would understand and might even do when holding someone other than yourself to account. Just sayin’.
lucia (Comment #146445),
.
.
When wandering into the room where the main topic is, and always has been, AGW science and politics, saying “Hi, would you like to hear a message about how we might stop Global Warming?” seems a perfectly socially acceptable thing to do. If you have different ideas about that … well fine. Who am I to define your social behavior for you?
.
Damn, that was a rhetorical question. I answer thus: I don’t consider it within my purview to make such definitions for you. I do however consider it my right to express disapproval *if* that’s what I think it warrants.
.
I think that should about cover my hide from any further exploitation of my previous ambiguities, but if past performance indicates future results I have my doubts. [1]
.
Cheerio.
.
———————
.
[1] I can already hear some of the possible exploitations:
.
a) Which ambiguities?
.
b) Why are you accusing me of exploiting your ambiguities?
.
c) I never said I disapproved of your social skills, only that I was beginning to wonder about them.
.
d) etc.
Brandon G,
.
Wow.
.
.
For all that we’ve touched on the question of what “your side” is really about, AGW or radical societal change and you’ve given me a beefy reply, I’m still not clear which you identify as “your side”. Do you mean those who care chiefly about AGW or the others are “your side” in this context?
.
The reason (part of the reason) I crave this clarification is because I can’t say whether or not I think “your side” is doing well in their endeavors until I know what the heck their main objectives actually are; IE, are they about AGW or are they about radical societal change?
.
Regarding conspiracy, perhaps we can agree to use Merriam Webster’s definition:
Thanks Brandon G.
Brandons,
.
.
Good heavens, no. I got it that you guys don’t get along. I’m sorry about that, but that’s got nothing to do with me I don’t think. I hope it doesn’t bother anybody that I want no part of it, because that would be a darn shame. Because I’m having no part of that regardless of whether or not that bothers anybody. Thanks.
.
[Edit: Now, Lucia is a different matter, because this is her blog and I like talking here. We can talk at your blog Brandon G but then I’ve got the John Masseys and the BBD’s and so on to worry about. It’d be for me like commenting here is for you perhaps. If you want to, we can do that; we can spare the regulars here and I’ll go get my fair share of the abuse talking around your compadres. Let me know.]
“I’m left wondering about Brandon G’s social skills. ”
I’m not.
More his communication skills
“Sometimes I walk into a room* and get blasted simply for saying,”
-means
* “into a room [where the main topic is, and always has been, AGW science and politics]”
which is a very small and selective room out of all the room choices available.
I think Lucia was only gently yanking your chain that was left inadvertently lying about and so am I.
Your post to Mark was actually quite communicative, thanks.
” The Arctic is facing a decline in sea ice that [might] equal the negative record of 2012 Data collected by the CryoSat-2 satellite reveal large amounts of thin ice that are unlikely to survive the summer” – Neven
Someone tell him that is the norm at the end of every winter, please.
Surely data showing small amounts of thin ice would be much more of a worry.
If one has large amounts of anything it is going to take longer to mel than small amounts.
Also it is much easier to set negative decline records if one starts from a large amount than a small amount of sea ice.
Like how to make a small fortune.
Logic.
angech,
I haven’t read Neven’s blog. But if he means that much of the ice that is present is thin, it would be reasonable to expect a large amount of area that is covered by this ice to end up uncovered. That would result in loss in area covered.
Look:It’s a hot year. It was hot last year. We may see a lot of ice melted. I have to get the bets up, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of ice melt. (As I said, I need to get my “ice-elves” up though.)
lucia (Comment #146444),
.
.
Trying to run my own script against me does not work when the tale of the tape shows you to be wrong.
.
Anyone with functional eyes and a basic grasp of English can see my replies to SteveF and HaroldW wherein we are discussing the ECS value SteveF confidently and forthrightly volunteered, to his credit. My forthright response was a difference of about 50 years to 2 C over pre-industrial given the assumed upper and lower bound ECS values proffered.
.
.
After having said that you didn’t think it appropriate to pull a number out of your ass. Or as I put it, pulling one out of thin air. What has me rolling in the aisles is that you couldn’t even cough up a literature citation, which option I said I would be willing to accept at least *twice*. Why are my sides splitting, you might ask? Witness this howler of yours:
.
I’ve already said I favor spending more than $0– provided it’s done wisely, not foolishly. You don’t need me to give a provisional ECS estimate to work from that.
.
Pardon me for being dubious about your alleged wisdom in spending (or not spending as the case may be) money to address a problem when your best suggestion right now is that I just make a plot over the interval: ECS = c(1:30)*0.25 C.
.
You know *exactly* where to find far more rigorously-done science than that, and which you already know me to accept. If you’ve actually read any of it, it might occur to you that CMIP5 being biased about 10% hot over observation *very likely* means that it would be an insult to wishful thinking to call ECS = 0.25 K/2xCO2 even remotely plausible.
.
.
Irony.
.
.
Already ongoing. Do try to keep up.
mark bofill (Comment #146484),
.
.
We don’t get along, which is quite fine by me. The fact that you had already intervened [1] led me to believe you’d be interested in proffering an opinion. You bet I’m a sneaky Devil when I put my mind to it. But as there are probably more interesting and *productive* things to talk about here or elsewhere, I’ll respect your choice to bow out.
.
——————
.
[1] Or attempted to? Difficult to know about these things.
.
.
angech (Comment #146485),
.
.
I would expect nothing less. Any port in a storm from my POV, YMMV.
.
.
You’re welcome, I thought it was one of my better moments this week. Bofill brings that out in me for some reason.
.
Oh, I had something else for you. Yes my “coming out” against C13 has invovled me doing some pretty hefty political calculus (for me that is), but I think you overstated your case. I didn’t think he was … gah, here’s your direct quote (Comment #146362):
.
So different to ATTP where you demurred to his slap down of your views
.
Yeahno. My relationship with him is quite different than I imagine it is for the stereotypical climate contrarian. My view of his response to me was accordingly positive [edit: better than expected, actually]. Out of *respect* for his wishes, I demurred to his *reasonable* request to *perhaps* take it up later. If he doesn’t, no big deal; I’m on record, he knows where to read it — he had in fact without my prior knowledge already been made aware of it.
.
I typically only press my case for a response when I think it’s tactically useful for me to do so, and that wasn’t one of those cases.
mark bofill (Comment #146483),
.
.
That’s about the best response I could have hoped for, thanks.
.
.
Clarity often suffers when I get long-winded, especially when I caveat the hell out of everything. Mithra only knows why I do the latter so much …
.
I think my side is what Sou calls “climate hawks” which I think includes folk like me who have sort of a 2nd career making the case for CO2 mitigation [1] to address the potential threats of AGW. That includes Al Gore, Obama, paid activists, volunteer activists, scientist activists, op-ed writers, op-ed writers masquerading as straight reporters, PR flacks … you name it we got it. My side doesn’t really include actual straight reporters (the tell both sides of the story as any journalist program worth its salt teaches) or Joe and Sally Public who believe AGW is real but aren’t making a lot of noise about it.
.
Tally up however many climate hawks there are as a percentage of the general population, and polls suggest it’s < 97% by a long shot. It's not just a "consensus gap", it's that even for people who believe it's happening, AGW isn't a visceral imminent threat in most people's minds … including my own.
.
On that bombshell …
.
.
You’ll go nuts trying to figure out the Main Objectives of The Movement to Save Us From Ourselves, other than perhaps the one I just gave you. Or, as I mentioned previously, mitigating CO2 emissions — that one is pretty universal. It’s the variety of proposed methods for doing it which run the gamut.
.
Quite obviously, none of those have caught hold and in essence my side has been doing more to contribute to AGW by simply by virtue of the hot air we emit clamoring about it. [2]
.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to look for those of us who aren’t total fruitcakes *and* who have some semblance of plan that you can support. My suggestion would be that you also find some other motivation for you to think that’s a good idea. IOW, one doesn’t have anything to do with AGW — two birds, one stone.
.
Contrast 97% of the tactics both sides use, which is to pick out the looney toons, or the ones who got caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar, etc., and then break out the broadest brush they can find with which to paste the entire other side.
.
.
Pretty much the exact definition I had in mind, right down to the illegality qualifier. I’m actually surprised the harmful qualifier is in there because that gets out of the legal and into the ethical and moral.
.
We all have our pet examples of stuff, but without going through that drudgery here’s what I think: an illegal act done by a group of people isn’t conspiracy *if* the intent was not to cause harm — or, *if* the intent was to *prevent* harm.
.
Slippery slope that one, right into noble cause corruption if one doesn’t watch it. And when someone slips, or it can be plausibly argued they slipped, one side of the lines gets a whole new box of ammo. And it’s the kind of ammo box that doesn’t ever run dry. Fun, innit?
.
.
My pleasure.
.
———————
.
[1] Or to put a more positive spin on it, replacing fossil energy with … something … else. I still haven’t come up with a snappy term/label/meme/slogan for this … suggestions welcome. Even snarky ones.
.
[2] That’s kind of an old joke. While back, there was an article about re-branding (C)AGW/CC as “climate disruption”. Some wag at WUWT asked, “In what units is climate disruption measured?” Not to be outdone by such a gloriously executed troll, I immediately and unblinkingly replied, “Decibels.”
lucia (Comment #146487)
” Neven means that much of the ice that is present is thin, it would be reasonable to expect a large amount of area that is covered by this ice to end up uncovered. That would result in loss in area covered”.
True but it is the same every year that there is a mass of normal first year ice, the ice that forms last is always very thin and always melts away quickly and Neven always quotes first year late ice as being thin as if it is a disease and a sign of AGW.
–
“Look:It’s a hot year. It was hot last year.
True.Especially in the Arctic this last 3 months.
Ice does form more from water below the ice and water temp [currents etc] might play far more part in ice formation than SST.
I presume the water temps were above normal as well but do not know.
-“We may see a lot of ice melted.”
I will agree with you but only because saying it will happen is the best way for the Arctic to go the other way.
–
” I have to get the bets up”
–
B Gates
“So different to ATTP where you demurred to his slap down of your views.”
“Yeah no. My relationship with him is quite different than I imagine it is for the stereotypical climate contrarian”
My reply to that would be only when you “stay in line”.
It is a shame that you cannot seem to bring any of the same civility to your blog host here where you are allowed massive freedom but that is your prerogative, a bit like that batman villain.
Brandon R. Gates:
I guess linking to text and misrepresenting it may be better than accurately representing text and not linking it to you, but… *snorts* If you’re going to say things like:
I can’t take you seriously. I’ve repeatedly explained to you how not only did I not misrepresent your position in what you’re complaining about, I wasn’t even trying to describe your position at all. You willfully ignoring that is… well, not to put too fine a point on it, dishonest.
A person can disagree with someone’s response to their accusations, but pretending that response doesn’t exist is wrong. Saying I haven’t corrected a post to create the impression of malfeasance for the audience while you know I have repeatedly argued the post is accurate, and thus shouldn’t be changed is knowingly creating a false impression for the audience. So I’ll just close this off with what I told you the last time you said this:
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146492),
.
.
Your double-standards are showing again.
.
.
I pointed directly to your responses with a linky-link to your article. This is beginning to not look good for you.
.
.
Begging the question that your post is an accurate reflection of my own words. I’ve always wondered if using circular logic makes one dizzy.
.
———————
.
[1] This is an example of Brandon S. not “even trying to describe [my] position at all”:
.
But according to Gates and other people who are certain groups like Exxon are filled with nefarious intent, these documents prove Exxon lied.
.
For his next act, B.S. will explode in an apoplectic fit of self-righteous indignation for having once again being caught out spewing any old nonsense in a desperate attempt to tell us that he obviously never said all those things he said. What’s best, it’s completely free!
angech (Comment #146491),
.
.
My response to that is that I’ve never felt the need to step “out of line”. If you’d like to further attempt to define my own boundaries and relationships with others for me, I’d be quite happy to tell you where to stick it.
.
.
It’s a shame you cannot *seem* to understand that Lucia is an adult, who is apparently quite capable of managing her interactions with me all on her lonesome. In the next instalment of these object lessons in how to be a decent and respectful human being, we can perhaps discuss why tone trolling is a manipulative behavior which might tend to threaten this so-called civility you *seem* to be so enamoured of.
.
Ta.
Brandon
So your are finding a big difference in effect.
Do you have plots? And a link to a post where you discuss your method? (I’m about to create a new thread. This is too long.)
Hardly. The comments blocks are too lengthy.
Ok..
So presumably you mean this
Basically, you are finding a large effect of ECS on time to reach 2C. That is (2060-2016)=44 vs (2010-2016 )=94 years.
(Like others, I’m not sure why you use ECS. Not seeing any discussion of time constant.)
@mark bofill
Goodness me. A conspiracy theorist. It also appears that people who think global warming is a very important issue are really the ultimate cynics who really want more than anything else to bring capitalism crashing down in a smoking ruin.
I also have absolutely no idea why you think Naomi Klein is one of the Grand Imperial Wizards of the global warming conspiracy. The very idea is mind boggling.
Thanks Bugs.
Bugs, I understood Naomi Klein to have concluded that our existing political institutions were not up to coping with (solving?) the issues associated with anthropogenic climate change. It also appears that she advocated some form of new post-democracy system.
Did I misunderstand her?
Bugs,
.
Did you know that Naomi Klein is on the Board of Directors for 350.org?
At least according to this.
Say would you look at that. She ~is~ on the board of directors.
But I take your point. It’s not like 350.org has much to do with the CAGW issue.
On the topic of the models running ‘hot’. This was resolved years ago. The models did not model the ocean/atmosphere interface correctly as there was not much known about energy absorption into the deep ocean. Thanks to the Argo project there is now a better understanding of this.
I have never heard of 350.org before and all I know about Naomi Klein is that I recall her name being mentioned in the Media from time to time. I think it is safe to say she has nothing to do with the science and is someone who is a political activist.
Bugs,
.
.
Really. The name Bill McKibben rings no bells for you.
.
If this is really so, then it’s clear that you have no concept of who’s who at all in the discussion. You waste your time and the time of others by offering your opinion about Naomi Klein given that you’re so clueless that you’ve never even heard of 350.org.
.
But again, thanks.
lucia:
There are bigger questions in my mind about his methodology, with it seeming to be quite wrong to me, but I figure someone else should take that up with him. It might reduce the chances of his penchant for snark/rudeness to interfere. Besides, I’m still laughing at this:
Come on lucia, how dare you not have an estimate for ECS you think it “a reliablie representation of reality”? How could your only belief about ECS be it is “anything < 3"? That's so crazy, I just can't believe you'd feel that way. Oh right, you don't.
Seriously though, the IPCC doesn't even have a central estimate it considers "a reliablie representation of reality." I don't know why he would be surprised at the idea of you not having one. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect you to do something even the IPCC cannot do.
lucia,
Doesn’t it take on the order of a thousand years for ECS to mean anything? That was my impression. If so, for a period on the order of 100 years, it’s TCR, not ECS that determines ΔT.
It’s also still not proven that the non-linear response over long times that leads to ECS much higher than TCR in the models is real.
DeWitt Payne, after a few centuries, you get fairly close to the ECS value. Just how close depends on which model you use, but yeah, it does take a thousand years or so before you actually reach it. At shorter scales you may only get something like 50-80% of the ECS value.
The reality is neither TCR nor ECS can be directly applied to the real world as they’re both defined in terms which would never actually happen. They’re just approximations which have different usefulness depending on the time scale (and forcing record).
TCR is probably better than ECS on scales like what Brandon R. Gates is looking at, but if we want to really look at the issue, neither is really applicable. We’d have to do something more complicated to get a good estimate.
lucia (Comment #146495),
.
.
Assuming my ballpark method holds water as it were, I’d consider half a century a big difference. If you’ll excuse a really bad pun, I assume that’s why ECS is such a hotly contested parameter in this debate.
.
The questions about how reliably TCR and ECS relate to each other for how I’ve approached with my toy model it could be an interesting subject and a good learning experience for me. I would like to stress that the reason I used ECS in the first place is because that’s what you and I were originally discussing as The Number. I could just as easily do a similar model using TCR if folk insist that’s the more reliable way to do this kind of quick and dirty guesstimating.
.
.
No plots yet, I’ve been perhaps a little too busy with extracurriculars here and about. As my sleep schedule is completely whacked right now, I’ll try to have them posted early this evening California time. As for my results and method, the following two posts in this thread are my three most substantive remarks to date:
.
Comment #146303 – results
Comment #146319 – method
Comment #146427 – response to HaroldW with some clarifying answers, and a data file per his suggestion
.
.
Tell me about it.
.
.
Dunno what to tell you other than when I say I’ve said something, I’m not telling porkie pies. I’m off to bed, will see you anon on the new thread.
.
Cheers.
Brandon S.,
.
.
Someone knows his footnote 16: No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
.
It may be chopping the parsnip rather finely, but your paraphrasings are as creative as evah.
.
.
We here at Warmist, Inc. have an app for that, you know.
.
Of course that monster ensemble is only as good as the future emissions scenarios one feeds it. You ever hear of propagation of uncertainty? Precision bias?
.
Let’s not forget my central argument here: if change in x leads to a change in y by a very uncertain amount, and certain values of y may lead to extreme hazards which also cannot be quantified with any certainty ….
.
It might not be a good idea to make massive changes to x.
.
But these little academic what if exercises can be fun sometimes.
.
Good night, and good luck.
And shazam! There’s Nic Lewis talking about sensitivity over at Judy Curry’s.
[Edit: Oh. Just updating I see.]
Brandon G,
Willard keeps an awfully close eye on you.
Climate Etc, twitter, his own blog…
I’d think that’d be sort of disconcerting, were I you. I didn’t know if you were aware of it, but in case you’re not I’m pointing it out.
[Edit: … I guess he could just be bored? 🙂 ]
Brandon R. Gates:
If you have something to say, would you just say it in a clear and direct manner so people can tell what you mean without trying to guess? As far as I can tell, my description of what the IPCC says is perfectly fine. You seem to think otherwise, but I have no idea why or in what way.
The reality is the IPCC does not give a central estimate anymore
because it doesn’t believe we can know what it would be. That lucia might also feel she cannot know what it would be is hardly surprising.
If your rhetorical questions and whatnot have any bearing on what I said, it’s lost on me. Again, it would help if you tried addressing what I say in a clear and direct manner.
As for the CMIP5, I’m at a complete loss as to what its existence is supposed to have to do with what I said. There are many models used in the CMIP5 which can try to do what I said needs to be done, but… yeah, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Let’s not forget my central argument here: if change in x leads to a change in y by a very uncertain amount, and certain values of y may lead to extreme hazards which also cannot be quantified with any certainty ….
.
Well, model uncertainty is not necessarily real.
.
The models can’t even agree on what, or how much natural variability is.
.
As to hazards, what if increasing x actually decreases hazards? The jet stream, storm intensity, and other important factors are determined not by the thermal content of the atmosphere, but by gradients of thermal content. Increasing the heat content ( both sensible and latent ) increases the capacity of a unit parcel of air to transfer heat and reduce gradients. Thus, less violent exchange of air mass is necessary to revert imbalances back to equilibrium.
Brandons
Just stopping in to skim.
Brandon G:
Please stop trying to argue using rhetorical questions. It is impossible to guess what your point might be and it wastes everyone’s time. I’m sure you can stop if you wish. Please do so.
Thanks Lucia!
Brandon G
Good try. But
(1) I didn’t suggest you use ECS to estimate time to 2C.
(2) A word search on the other thread suggest you were the first to introduce ECS and began discussing it.
(3) Heck, I didn’t even propose you try to estimate time to 2C. (edit later: I have no objection to your estimating it. Just don’t see your choice of ECS or activity as being in anyway influenced by my using ECS as “the number”.)
That people engage your question about ECS hardly means your decision to use ECS to do something like predict short term climate rise shifts to anyone other than you. You decided to use it because you decided to use it for some reason of your own. These are all your own choices.
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #146513),
.
.
It’s an inherent property of models that they are not reality. If we must be banal to the extreme, all models are always wrong about their representation of reality.
.
.
It never ceases to amaze me how folks tell me things which are already widely known because the IPCC go out of their way to communicate them. IMHO, they do more “damage” ripping apart the inadequacies of their own models than their “critics” do. Might well have something to do with the fact that they know so much more about them than we sideline punters.
.
.
We here at The Blackboard don’t like rhetorical questions. If you have something to say, say it, because it is difficult to understand meaning when someone doesn’t clearly explain things as they would to a child who has not fully developed the capacity to think from themselves. Or, horror of horrors, when asked a question, one might actually have to commit to a position and substantiate it with logic, reason, theory, math and/or evidence.
.
I don’t like it any more than you do, but those are the rules set down by our hostess, and our participation here is contingent upon following them as is her right as blog owner.
.
If you do have something to say, my personal rule is that the one who says it gets to cough up the evidence to support it.
Brandon R. Gates writes:
But was that a rhetorical question? I can’t see any reason to think it was. To me, it seems like a perfectly sensible question to ask. Then again, he also writes:
So I don’t think he’s actually trying to have a real discussion. I believe this is what we call trolling.
lucia (Comment #146518)
.
.
What are you trying to say, Lucia? I’m having trouble understand what you mean. If you have something to say, please try to explain it clearly so people don’t have to try to guess your meaning.
.
.
I’m really confused here. Could you clarify for me what the point of all this is? You seem to think I have done something wrong, but I can’t tell what it is. You know, it would really help further the discussion if you weren’t so disapproving all the time.
.
.
/disingenuity
.
Yes, and in the post to which you are responding, I offered to use TCR since others here thought that might be more appropriate — and because I thought it might be an interesting discussion to help *me* understand something better that I might have missed.
.
When you’re done jerking around and pretending that I didn’t say things I clearly did, please let me know. Thanks.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146520)
.
.
Yes it was. And so is the one you just asked me. Your double-standards are showing.
.
Again!
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146520),
.
.
It takes one to know one.
.
And just in case my meaning isn’t clear … wait what am I saying, it isn’t by definition … yes, this is me calling your behavior trolling. Lucia’s as well. What I am doing here is mimicry in the form of satire. It’s one of the most scathing ways that I know of to call out disingenuous and intellectually dishonest behavior. I get it that you won’t see it, because that would require either a modicum of self-awareness and/or a willingness to change that which you are doing wrong.
The downward spiral continues…
[Edit: Brandon G, how do you see this conversation ending?]
mark bofill (Comment #146511),
.
.
Yes, he likes my writing.
.
.
lol. Sorry. Being an author is one of my avocations, and it especially pleases me to be quoted by someone whom I respect.
.
.
I didn’t know he tweeted me (which is fine) but he emailed me the links to his blog and Dr. Curry’s when he put those up. For a number of reasons, I did appreciate it that he’d done so. I appreciate you for letting me know, as I recognize they were well intended. You seem to be my kind of people in most respects; I’d hoist a beer with you any day of the week. (Any time of day to boot. All day if possible.)
.
In short: I appreciate appreciation.
.
.
Quite the opposite I think. Like me, he’s interested in human behavior and a much better student of it than I am … eh, I may be beginning to understand why you might think his watching me might be … creepy. Anyway, completely the opposite. He’s actually somewhat a mentor for me. If you read me closely, you’ll see some Willard from time to time … not just when I use his branding for things like “teh modulz”, ClimateBall, Integrity, Grrrrrrrowth, etc. Much of that was already there in me, but reading him has helped me refine it somewhat, and (hopefully) better understand why I do it.
.
Cheers.
Thanks Brandon G, that does clarify a few things. I’d noticed some ‘willardisms’ in the way you talk, little things. But you’re clearly not Willard. I was wondering if there was some other connection.
Bradon
That was a good try at attempting to shift the burden of your decision to use ECS to estimate time constants onto me. Thanks for asking for clarification; I’m happy to give it.
I didn’t say you did anything wrong and I don’t think you did. I replied to you. Let me recap:
I said something to the effect that I don’t understand why you are using ECS to compute transients. (I don’t.)
In a comment that seemed to be replying to that, you posted
I quoted that.
In my mind I noted you chose the quite strong verb “stress” which suggests you very strongly want to bring my attention to the notion that you used ECS in your estimate of transients because “you and I’ were discussing that as “The Number” (capital T). The “you” in that referred to me, Lucia.
My interpretation is your wording strongly appears as if you are trying to “stress” the notion that I, Lucia, bear some responsibility for you using ECS to compute a transient. As the context is my having said I don’t understand why you are using it, this would appear to be suggesting that you are using it because I somehow had done something to “cause” your choice. Had I done so, it would be rather odd for me to wonder why you are using it.
In fact: I had nothing to do with your using ECS to compute a transient. You picked it. For some reason. I don’t know that reason (because I can’t read your mind.) But I certainly didn’t suggest it. Moreover, the only reason we were discussing ECS as what you call “The Number” (with capitals) is you brought it up and began asking people about it.
That you later chose to use it to compute transients: Well, that’s your choice.
Real question: What do you think I claimed you said that you didn’t say? (My theory is perhaps you don’t think you said that I was somehow involved in causing you to pick ECS to do a transient. But I do think your choice of verb and roping me into your stated reason for why you picked it “in the first place” strongly implies that you somehow picked it under my prodding. I didn’t have anything to do with it.)
FWIW: I still have no idea why you are using ECS for a transient. But presumably, you will explain your model somewhere — possibly your blog. Or have done so and I haven’t yet visited it. Dunno.
For all I know you do have a good reason for picking it. But I think it’s very odd for you to “stress” that you “used ECS in the first place ” because I was discussing ECS with you.
On the other topic: rhetorical questions. I’m pretty sure you understood that I am enforcing my rule that you not attempt to argue by using rhetorical questions. Please stop doing do.
I realize you may think people do understand what your rhetorical questions mean, but they don’t.
Real questions are allowed. Generally speaking I can tell the difference. For example, you posted this
Those last two are examples of “arguing by rhetorical questions”.
I suspect you also know those are rhetorical questions. But given your posting of Brandon’s obviously real question, I can’t be certain. Feel free to answer Brandon’s real question. Or don’t answer it. But real questions do not result in confusion; rhetorical ones do. Refrain from asking them.
mark bofill (Comment #146524),
.
.
1) It’s not a conversation, and hasn’t been for at least a week. Could be two. This kind of surreality becomes timeless for me.
.
2) I’m not the only party in this “conversation” and tire of the implication that I’m the sole cause of what you perceive to be a “downward spiral”. [1]
.
3) I don’t see it ending. If not me here walking into this buzzsaw, it will someday be someone else. The same behavior I have been observing and calling out since I arrived existed here well before I wandered into this space. I see little reason for my departure to change it. I see little hope that me “amending” my behavior would modify it.
.
I believe that what you would see if you dared look at it is people who do not want to have a discussion. They want anything *but* to do that. That will need to be your journey, I cannot do it for you. At best I can drop some markers and lay down a path of breadcrumbs. It’s up to you to follow it if you wish.
.
———————
.
[1] As per usual, I must here caveat that *my* perceptions* may be wrong. [2]
.
[2] Which does not mean that yours are necessarily correct either. [3]
.
[3] In point of fact, whenever we observe someone else, we’re always wrong about something. Part of the human condition.
Brandon R. Gates:
My question was not rhetorical. I don’t know why you would say it was. I gave no reason to think it was rhetorical. Maybe you believe it was for some reason, and that belief makes you feel I am a hypocrite, but… you’re wrong. Just like you are when you write:
lucia and I are not trolling, and your claim to be merely reflecting our behavior back at us is ludicrous. Anybody reading these threads will see you’re behaving far more petulantly and hostillly than anyone else. You are clearly trying to provoke people into childish and unfruitful exchanges, and people are responding with far more maturity than you deserve.
For instance, most people aren’t laughing at you when you write things like:
Even though they understand the difference between nouns and verbs. Being ungrammatical with your childish retorts and weak insults makes your poor behavior look even poorer.
Mark Bofill, do you remember that joke I told you you walked yourself right into? It can’t help but see reflections of it here with Brandon R. Gates:
Maybe it’s unrelated, but you might want to think about the possibility there’s some significance to this.
lucia (Comment #146527),
.
.
No. Being confused and unwilling to become unconfused results in confusion. Rhetorical questions can be designed to accomplish at least two very different things.
.
1) Help the one being queried to think through the problem themselves and arrive at an answer. By so doing, the hope is that the person asked, having thought through it with minimal external guidance, will come to better understand the problem than if it had simply been spoonfed them.
.
2) Trap an opponent into an indefensible position, thus exposing its vacuity.
.
I use both, and neither of them lead to “confusion” on my part, they bring absolute clarity. It’s no small wonder to me that you do not like either form. I’d be happy to expand on why I hold that *opinion* if requested.
.
.
Asking them being so habitual for me, it has been admittedly difficult for to comply. I may again forget your stipulation. As this is your blog, I will of course do my best to heed to your rightful wishes. A gentle reminder should I forget again will be sufficient to induce an apology, retraction and rephrasing.
.
Cheers.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146529),
.
.
Therein lies the problem with dealing with someone [just to be absolutely clear so that you can “understand” what I am saying, that “someone” is *you*] who chronically and dishonestly deals in double-standards.
.
This would be *me* holding you to account for *your* bad faith, or as you might whine, an “accusation”. [Oh noes!] Surely you understand that concept — it is one you yourself have expressly held me to.
.
This is Lucia’s blog, and hers is the final say. It is my test of her Integrity to rule on whether your question was rhetorical or not.
Brandons,
Thanks both. At dinner, may post later if Ive got a y thing to say.
Wow. So now Brandon R. Gates is calling me a liar and saying lucia lacks integrity if she doesn’t determine that the real question I asked was actually a rhetorical question. And this is all based upon nothing more than his personal judgment my question was rhetorical.
As though that wasn’t… remarkable enough, the question he refers to came after he labeled somebody else’s question as rhetorical. I simply asked if that question really was rhetorical. So he labeled a question rhetorical, and when I asked if it really was, he labeled that rhetorical. And because lucia won’t agree with him, he says she lacks integrity.
I have to say though, I think a much more interesting topic would be:
I would love to hear why Gates thinks lucia doesn’t like rhetorical questions. Gates, would you explain why you hold that “opinion”?
mark bofill (Comment #146526),
.
.
No connection except that we “met” at Anders’ joint, and I immediately took to him because I recognized some of the very same patterns and techniques I had already long been using. He’s raised it to an artform I could only ever aspire to, but would never wish to duplicate. He is a Troll of Trolls [1] par excellence, one of the best I’ve ever met, and it commands my respect whenever and wherever I watch him work.
.
———————
.
[1] Which is not to say that he is a Troll’s Troll, which is something quite different.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146534),
.
.
Your double-standards are showing again. The faux moral outrage was a nice touch. You’re far too easy to provoke, you know. I keep trying to tell you that some thicker skin might be to your benefit.
.
Well that, and finding an honest bone in your body. But first things first. Without the thick skin, you’re liable to never be able to take good advice.
.
.
I’m sure you would, Drama Queen that you are. However, that conversation is between her and I. Should she wish me to expand on my *opinions* of her actions in that vein, I will be happy to offer them. But not until.
.
God in Heaven, and people say I have poor social skills and/or lack of respect for others.
by a very uncertain amount, lead to extreme hazards
.
I think you are exaggerating both uncertainty and hazards though you are not specific, so you have an out.
.
We should be specific.
.
Natural variability ( the link I provided ) is estimated by the models to be about +/- 0.5C. But the forcing from greenhouse gases is relatively uniform and constant. There is no physical basis I’m aware of that would tend to increase variability ( and thus, uncertainty ) as a result of increased GHG RF. Indeed, summer is an analogue ( though imperfect because of dynamical changes ) of reduced temperature variability as temperatures rise ( for a given hemisphere ).
.
As for hazards, the IPCC has, like moths to the flame, gravitated towards hypothetical disasters. To be sure, increasing temperature can lead to phase change ( melting ice ) and thermal expansion of the oceans. But these are relatively slow and not a present hazard. And humans will not stand at the beach for a hundred years waiting for SLR to be a problem. It is an immediacy bias to think of three centuries rise occurring today.
.
But of other intimated hazards:
.
Desertification: it would seem the increased desertification of the LGM is a contra-indicator of desertification by warming. This, like the green Sahara of the HCO, may have been due to dynamics, but they’re still contradictory.
.
Indeed the satellite record of vegetative stress indicates no significant change.
.
Forest fires: large tree scars and ash sediment indicate fires are less frequent now than at any time in the last millenium.
.
Extreme weather: this is nebulous, but the evidence is of less frequent strong tornadoes in the US. As I indicated above, the change in gradient of net radiance doesn’t indicate any significant change in the thermal wind.
.
Hurricanes: no change in ACE. No particular reason to believe either shear, nor stability would change significantly with increased RF. The GCMs indicate the Hot Spot which would act to stabilize the sub-polar troposphere, but neither the Hot Spot, nor significant change in TCs has occurred for the satellite era.
.
Drought: no significant change in US PDSI. And no physical reason to believe precipitation would change other than a marginal global average increase.
.
Heatwaves: There is a basis for higher temperatures once heatwaves occur. But heatwaves are caused by dynamics ( air mass stagnation ). The temperatures of heatwaves might become higher, but there is no basis for change in the frequency.
.
I’m having difficulty in finding any specific falsifiable hazards that aren’t already falsified.
Brandon R. Gates:
I find this amusing as I have never once gotten upset or angry about anything you’ve written. Even that one time I behaved like you and resorted to a series of pointless insults, I was perfectly calm. (And no, I didn’t enjoy writing it like you presumed.) I am easy to “provoke” in that I am far more willing to point out when people behave in terrible ways than most but that has nothing to do with being thin-skinned.
As for double standards, just throwing out random accusations without any description or argument to support them isn’t going to accomplish anything useful. It’ll just make you look bad. Same with:
I don’t think many people will agree I am dishonest, but I also think you’ve made it abundantly clear at this points your responses to me are meant to serve no purpose other than to insult me (and perhaps to give yourself some sense of delight or whatever). That’s about as clear a case of trolling as one can come up with.
Clearly, lucia and I are the ones trying to avoid having a discussion.
Brandon G,
Honestly, you do not appear to be trying. I’m not going to explain what it is about your behavior that give the impression that you are not trying, but: you don’t seem to be.
So, try.
I will not go so far as yoda as to say “there is no try”. I happen to believe “try” exists. Please try.
This is presumptuous and shifts a burden. As such it is rude and snide. Beyond that, the quite often the person who thinks they are attempting to achieve this end is deluded about what the “problem” is, and their assumptions about this are mistaken. In this circumstance, resorting to the rhetorical question results in confusion. It also stifles conversation.
So: that the one asking thinks this but is– generally– deluded in their notion– is a factor against permitting the questoins.
.
This never succeeds. The person acting my delude themself into believing they succeeded when they see no answer is presented. But in fact, the reason it is difficult to answer is the point they are trying to make is not clear.
Surely, you know the answer to your question about whether on has heard about propagation of error is “Yes”. After which they could tack on “relevance?” In which case, it’s back you your court to show that fact that propagation of error exists favors your position (whatever that might have been). It’s not at all clear that it did– and I suspect it does not.
So: I would suggest you avoid argument by rhetorical question for a number of reasons. (Among them: it makes it appear you have no real argument in favor of your position. And I suspect you don’t. But beyond that: people can’t reply because they don’t know the point you are trying to make.
I get that you might “diagnose” the lack of rejoinder for somehow succeeding in (1) or (2), but, I’m pretty darn sure that is merely a delusion on your part.
If you state your point and advance an argument instead, it may turn out you have a useful point and an argument to support it. But honestly, in the case of the recent rhetorical question I highlighted; I doubt it.
Brandon G,
Regarding my implication that you’re the sole cause, I’m sorry about that.
.
Regarding implication and rhetorical questions in general, it seems like it makes a game of communications, as if there’s nothing better to do. I’m not used to talking that way. I grant you, blog communications are exactly that – talking as if there’s nothing better to do. It’s just not my habit to deliberately try to phrase things vaguely so that the people I’m talking to will ‘reason out’ something. Usually when I talk with someone [edit: in RL] it’s because I need them to understand something. Life being short and busy maybe more often than not I’d like my point to get across quickly.
.
Further, I’d like to point out that at least twice now you’ve … noticed I guess, implications in my statements that I did not intend. Now in both cases I’ve appreciated your letting me know, because I prefer to know if the things I say are prone to be misinterpreted and I’d never have a clue if you (or someone) didn’t mention it. But setting this aside that I’ve appreciated these instances – doesn’t this seem like a heck of a haphazard way to communicate, prone to error and misunderstanding? It does to me!
.
Hey BTW – the exception protocol to the rhetorical question rule is to supply your own answer. I expect that probably sounds like I’m making the rules up as I go along or something ( ~grin~ ) but I’m really not. Honest!
.
Anyways.
Lol. Sorry, didn’t mean to pile on. I didn’t realize Lucia was commenting on the same thing.
.
I’ll shush for a bit.
Brandon S.
.
.
I don’t follow. I’d like to think we’d all enjoy the discussion more over a beer. I’m sure I would. 🙂
.
Seriously Brandon, I can guess a few things you might mean and I expect each of those few things are all of them dead wrong. This is why me no likey communications by unspoken implication. I end up never really knowing what the heck we’re talking about.
@MB
I’m sorry but I had no idea I have to know the identity of all the political activists in the USA. The there is a big world out there outside of the USA. I have been trying to keep with the science AGW in laymans terms. As for the meta wars, they appear to be mostly a waste of time. You have here, for example, what appear to physicists and statisticians second guessing what climate scientists are saying.
Bugs,
Hey look. I’d like to apologize for the dismissive and insulting phrasing of my [earlier] response.
.
This said, you accuse[d] me of being a conspiracy theorist because I described Naomi Klein accurately. That you don’t know who she is or listen to her doesn’t mean she’s without influence. That you don’t care about 350.org or activists doesn’t mean they are without influence.
.
I stick by my original statement which you dismissed. I think there are a lot of people out there motivated by politics rather than true concern for AGW. I think this is true in more ways than one, and also applies to contrarians.
.
Anyways, thanks for responding again and providing me an opportunity to apologize for my remarks.
You have here, for example, what appear to physicists and statisticians second guessing what climate scientists are saying.
.
WRT certain aspects of the physics and statistics used in climate science, yes. I’m not sure why you would find that remarkable.
Turbulent Eddie (Comment #146537),
.
.
I hadn’t taken my irony pill yet, thanks for that.
.
.
Except not really. As a man of Faith, I have my Holy Writ, and it is Inviolate.
.
[for the irony-impaired, the above was of course hyperbolic irony with a mix of satirical straw man, one of the best sorts IMO]
.
You, however, have a hodgepodge of chicken scratchings scraped together from far corners of the Disinformation Superhighway, which gives you *plenty* of room to manuver.
.
.
I don’t think that dialect is spoken here except sometimes in hushed tones, but we might have a go at it. [1]
.
.
Crap, you might actually be serious. And just when I was having fun going over-the-top meta on the meta.
.
Your description “The models can’t even agree on what, or how much natural variability is” said it all, or so I thought. The link is .png image of a CMIP5 ensemble members showing a large amount of variability in their pre-industrial control runs. I’m aware of talk that increased external forcing has been proposed to amplify and/or change the frequency of modes of internal variability like El Nino, but nothing concrete that I know of.
.
And of course, anyone who’s been around this issue for a while like you and I both have ought be familiar with proposals that large influxes of fresh water from Greenland may slow and/or completely stall the AMOC. Very very uncertain as to timing and effects of that occurring, and much debated — nay, contested — in literature whenever I have glanced that direction.
.
Not sure why it’s relevant here when the discussion is, or was, supposed to be long term secular change in GMST due to ongoing net positive increases in anthropogenic forcing.
.
Finally, as per your usual, you give no further context for what the traces on those plots *specifically* represent. Not all PI control experiments are created equal in much the same way as not all CMIP5 models do all the same things equally lousy — they are typically designed to be less crappy in certain aspects of the system than others, from which we attempt to divine component behaviors of the overall system. As much of a sausage fest as that appears to be, it’s a damn sight better than the runes you’re casting here.
.
TL;DR, I wouldn’t expect them to agree on all the modes of internal variability, they weren’t designed to.
.
.
At this point, it appears *specifics* have run out on your part, and I can now safely going back to playing whack a mole.
.
Appealing to motive is not a serious science discussion, TE. Nor is question begging. Geological history is replete with examples of *relatively* rapid climate change (rising and falling temperatures both) causing major extinction events. This is one of those conventional wisdom things I really ought not need provide examples of, but if you insist, I shall.
.
.
When you’ve figured out *exactly* when the WAIS will give up the ghost, please do let me know. Or simply lend me your crystal ball and I’ll gaze into it crosseyed for a while.
.
.
Sand is worth money. Present-day real estate value is based on human perceptions of its *future* market price. *When* the smart money finally figures out that they’re holding a depreciating asset on their balance sheets, there will be a rush for the exits long before the waves are lapping against the hastilly erected seawall in an effort to protect the bazillion megabux luxury hotel standing next to where the beach used to be. I have no precise idea *when* this will happen, but I know that it will. Going “pop” is what real estate bubbles do, and there are scads of examples of it having happened to the detriment of millions of good decent hard working people who never saw it coming.
.
.
I’m giggling like a schoolgirl. I’m going to get off your Gish Gallop at this point of the ride; I think it’s served my purposes quite well indeed.
.
———————
.
[1] Here I’m truly being a jerk by doing SteveF, HaroldW, Mark Bofill and others an implied disservice. I think there is genuine interest in having a real discussion about the science from some quarters here, which I respect and appreciate.
bugs,
” You have here, for example, what appear to physicists and statisticians second guessing what climate scientists are saying.”
.
Actually, I am a chemist by training (engineer/programmer/electronics circuit designer/salesman/troubleshooter by necessity). Lucia is a mechanical engineer, currently tutoring students in physics. Carrick and julio are both academic physicists (though they don’t comment much any more 😉 ). DeWitt is another chemist. Brandon G is (AFAICT) a programmer, who keeps odd hours, as is (I think) his antithesis, Brandon S. There are also lawyers, engineers of various persuasions, and others. Mostly, you have people who have a range of experiences, who are relatively well educated, and who are at least modestly skeptical of the pronouncements of climate science. I don’t find that even remotely surprising. I find it odd that you do.
Mark Bofill:
Not me. I can’t stand (American style) beer. Make that sangria, wine, bourbon, moonshine, or vodka (with pickles as snacks), and you might be right.
By the way, that list isn’t complete. I’d just worry if I wrote out all the options, I’d sound like I have a drinking problem.
Maybe, but I find jokes less enjoyable the more I explain them. Also, given the nature of the joke, it seemed a little crass to just state it bluntly. You might get what I mean if I tell you I was drawing a parallel between how and why Anders welcomed you at his site to how Brandon R. Gates treats you and welcomes you to his site (and why).
If you’re still not sure what I mean, I can drop the “by unspoken implication” approach all together and just state it bluntly. I just really hate explaining jokes too much.
.
It’s good to hear I’m not the only one. I mean, I’m not the only one who’d feel like they’d sound like that. Not to mean I’m the only one with a drinking problem. Which is not to try to imply that I think that you have a drinking problem. Nor to imply I have a drinking problem. Or Brandon G or Lucia does. Uhm. Yes. Ok.
:/
.
I’m sorry Brandon. I didn’t get that you were joking before. I mean, I got that you were joking the first time. I didn’t get that you were joking the second time too. But I get it now. Except that I don’t know if Brandon G gets it. Or if Lucia does. Maybe if we all had a few drinks. Uhm. Yes. Right. Okk.
.
whew. I feel like I narrowly avoided the sort of catastrophy that can happen when we just go for the one. I really need a beer now!
Mark Bofill:
To be fair, I do have a bit of a drinking problem. On an average of something like two times a day, I’ll try to drink something and it’ll go down the wrong pipe. It’s weird. It’s also really bad if it happens when you’re drinking straight moonshine. (Not as bad as when I accidentally inhaled some cayenne pepper though.)
No prob. I was actually trying to be clear enough you would get it without being clear enough everyone else would get it too. I like making “inside jokes” where the ingroup is “People who’ve followed the discussion.” I find them more rewarding.
I was going to sit down with vodka and pickles and watch a movie, but it turns out I’m almost out of vodka. That counts as a drinking problem, right? I think it does. I mean, it’s a problem that prevents you from drinking…
That’s the sign of a serious problem Brandon. Get vodka before it’s too late.
.
Nite all.
Fortunately, there is more than one solution Mark Bofill. Instead of altering the amount of vodka I have, I can always mitigate the harms that amount causes instead. It may turn out opening a bottle of wine is a better solution than taking drastic actions like speeding to the liquor store before it closes in 32 minutes 😀
On something of a random note, today my eBook broke 700 sales!
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146538),
.
.
Ah yes, the tactical change to casual dry humor. Someone has taught you well.
.
.
Your double standards are showing again. That said, I don’t have much trouble imagining that you’re, for once in the past several weeks, telling me the absolute truth.
.
.
I’m gagging on that one a bit, but remind myself that I really don’t know you from Adam, only the character you play on the Innern00bs.
.
.
I have two responses to that:
.
1) And I’m Henry the 8th. Pull my other one.
.
2) [Dear sweet Lord, he’s telling the truth.]
.
Wait, did I just say the second one out loud? I must be slipping or something.
.
.
And yet you do that exact thing so very *very* well.
.
.
You don’t say. Much, however, depends on the audience.
.
.
I’m so gobsmacked by the first clause of that sentence I could barely read the rest of it. As well, I’m atypically bereft any further response.
.
.
Absolutely; that’s exactly how I see the bullcrap schtick you and our hostess are running for what it is, and why I’m running it right back at you. I laid my cards face up on the table days ago while you two jokers are still shuffling the deck wondering what happened to all your chips. It does not impress.
.
.
Truest thing I’ve ever seen you write. Too bad you don’t really mean it.
Brandon G,
It’s really rather ridiculous to accuse someone of trolling you at her own blog. I don’t believe I lured you here at all. I certainly didn’t ensnare you in some mantrap where you are being forced to listen to ideas you wish to avoid.
You’re currently still welcome here, but if you really feel you are being trolled by me, I think it would make more sense for you to hang out elsewhere than to stick around here and complain about how people treat you. I promise I am perfectly happy not to follow you to wherever you go in some attempt to do whatever it is I do you consider to be “trolling” you.
Brandon G.
I have no idea what you think constitutes you “laying your cards face up on the tables”, nor what you think constitutes me or Brandon shuffling the deck wondering what happened to our chips.
Metaphors can be fun. But really, I doubt anyone other than you knows what you think that one is supposed to mean. I’d actually like to know what you think you are claiming.
lucia (Comment #146540),
.
.
You’re “confused” again. It is not my burden to do your thinking for you. In point of fact, you don’t want me to; that’s what your allegedly beloved “critical thinking” jibe at me the other day was *supposed* to convey — liberally salted as it was with appeals to your “convenience”. Or your power play move telling me that you didn’t have to accept the shape of “my” ECS probability distribution. Etc.
.
Next you’re going to ask me where you did all those things. You might once again plead that it’s a long thread. Yadda yadda yadda.
.
The only person you’re possibly fooling here between you and me is yourself.
.
.
Tone trolling me will not obfuscate the fact that you have few answers — save perhaps “answers” in the form of wishy-washy appeals to “qualitative” being an appropriate concept in science. That was a new one for me; I must say I almost wept at its brilliance.
.
.
The heck it doesn’t. And you know it does or else you wouldn’t have been *trying* to do it to me for the past several days.
lucia (Comment #146561),
.
.
Congratulations, you have just defined my wanting to discuss what you might be willing to do to address AGW as trolling.
.
QED
The heck it doesn’t. And you know it does or else you wouldn’t have been *trying* to do it to me for the past several days.
.
If you could link to any/all rhetorical questions Lucia has posed to you in the past several days, that’d be really helpful to your argument (about using rhetorical questions to trap…). If not, well, keep shuffling.
bugs (Comment #146545)
Good to see you about.
“I’m sorry but I had no idea I have to know the identity of all the political activists in the USA.”
She is much more than a political activist US, you can use disingenuity but it grates.
“You have here, for example, what appear to physicists and statisticians second guessing what climate scientists are saying”
Or, from another perspective, physicists and statisticians doing what good climate scientists should have done in the first place, got their physics and stats right.
mark bofill (Comment #146553)
.
.
You had me at “drinking”. I used to belong to a sailing club with a drinking problem. We solved the issue by rebranding as a drinking club with a sailing problem. Things were much better after that.
TerryMN (Comment #146567),
.
.
I would, except I’m trying to keep the Sealion population at bay by not feeding them. I suggest you read the thread and try to figure out at which point I stopped taking people seriously. I’ll give you a hint where you fell – the dick comment. HTH.
I would, except I’m trying to keep the Sealion population at bay by not feeding them. I suggest you read the thread and try to figure out at which point I stopped taking people seriously. I’ll give you a hint where you fell – the dick comment. HTH.
.
As long as we’re giving hints, you fell when your offer to doubly reimburse my hypothetical 3.4 Big Macs (which turned out to be about 51 – oops!) dropped after I did the math.
.
That you persist on being a dick to nearly everyone you interact with here, characterize it as “wanting to discuss what you might be willing to do to address AGW”, and use all sorts of ridiculous analogies in the process just becomes funny at a certain point. Maybe go back to Willard for some pointers. HTH.
.
Nice dodge on the list of rhetorical questions you accused Lucia of *trying* to use against you, btw.
TerryMN (Comment #146572),
.
.
I still haven’t seen your invoice in my inbox. I’ll be happy to send you the flat-rate I offered, not the pro-rata rate you unilaterally proposed I send.
.
.
The qualifier “nearly everyone” was very neatly wordsmithed. Now if you would open your crusty eyes and engage your brain, you might actually figure out why I’m an arsehole to some people and not others.
.
.
There is little need for me to point to that which exists on this thread for any and all to see for themselves just because you’re looking to be an annoyance, Mr. Sealion. The people who did it already know what they did. It’s their problem, not mine that they don’t own up to it.
Calling me a sea lion (it’s 2 words, maybe think “lion of the sea” if you have trouble remembering) doesn’t really mask that you’re now conflating Lucia with several people on the thread. Sloppy.
.
Here’s a comment from you to Lucia:
The heck it doesn’t. And you know it does or else you wouldn’t have been *trying* to do it to me for the past several days.
.
The bolded words in that statement of yours refer to Lucia, not “the people who did it” who “already know what they did.” If you’d originally meant that, you should have said something on the order of “the sealions[sic] have been trying to do this to me for the past several days” or something to that effect. You didn’t. I don’t read minds.
TerryMN (Comment #146574),
.
.
Spelling lames are sign you are getting desperate. Sloppy. However, since you’re not giving me much else to work from save tedium and trivia, Sealioning is an accepted spelling of the colloquialism.
.
.
Yes, I wrote that; thank you for reminding me of that which I already know.
.
.
That’s not all you don’t read. Go read it again, Mr. Sealion [sc]. I. Am. Not. Feeding. You. [1]
.
———————
.
[1] Me not feeding the burgeoning Sealion [sc] population around here means I’m not going to grind through several days of gibberish just to “prove” that it is justifiable for me to act like a rude, snide, arrogant prick of an SOB toward other folks in this forum because I disapprove of their blatant dishonesty. As the other B. might beg the question, “anyone who knows the truth about their words knows they are built entirely upon deception”.
lucia (Comment #146562),
.
.
What you just wrote is a good example. Back in the day when I was truly evil, I would have silently snipped everything after “I have no idea” and replied, “Yes, that is fairly obvious.”
.
.
I live and die by metaphor.
.
.
That would be another one of a litany of things you really didn’t need to tell me.
.
.
That you’re not interested in what I am claiming about AGW. Desperately disinterested, but willing to feign interest from time to time, or give lip service to being “willing to do something about it” just so that you can be seen as more of an honest broker than WUWT, et al. [1]
.
Climate realists is a term I see bandied about these days. It’s a brilliant branding and strategy; I expect to see a lot more of it.
.
———————
.
[1] You will now take umbrage and claim you don’t really think those things, and that I’m just making things up again, blah blah blah blah. It’s what one has to do when one gets called out on this particular style of chicanery. Please don’t complain too much, you *did* ask.
On the other thread Mark Bofill writes:
For me, what my comments are “for” is simple. Despite what Gates claims, we’ve tried to have discussions with him here. Whether they be regarding copyright issues, the Skeptical Science forum, IPCC projections or whatevrer else, he has consistently tried to not resolve them. And the more he’s been shown to be wrong about things, the more of a dick he’s become.
I’d rather discuss any one of the issues people have tried to discuss with him. If he’s going to make that impossible though, then I’d like to draw attention to his behavior so everyone can see what he is like. He wants people to believe commenters here are behaving completely unreasonably and even dishonestly. We obviously can’t debate that portrayal, so the only effective way I see to demonstrate who is acting in what manner is to encourage Gates to keep speaking his mind as that will cause himto keep being a dick and to keep making these false and ridiculous accusations.
Eventually, I imagine things become obvious enough there is no further need to put his behavior on display. If that point is reached, then he can be safely ignored as a troll with the knowledge onlookers will understand who is and is not in the wrong.
Brandon S
This is actually a futile endeavor. As mark bofill pointed out: Fodder for the wayback. Each person believes they have “shown” the other to be behaving as a dick.
I do agree that Brandon G consistent does not try to resolve issues and seems to back away from counter arguments. To some extent that is in the nature of blogs. I really don’t expect him to suddenly say, “Oh. Yeah. Your right, that’s what copyright law says.” Nor “Oh. Yeah, the metaphor with Mr. Inflagrante Dilecto” really does make mincemeat out of all the ‘ethics’ claims-by-metaphor the SKS crowd advances against Brandon finding Cooks stuff and making people aware of the urls where it could be found.”
So Brandon G is really no different from other people on that.
The reason I respond to his comments is to explain what I meant and to provided the context for the thing I previously stated. My hope is doing so will help him understand that I was responding to what he wrote– including the words he used. This seems to grumpify him in a rather general way. But I would still rather clear up misunderstandings if possible.
lucia:
I wasn’t referring to showing anything to him. I don’t think it’s possible for me to change his views on anything at this point. However, other people’s views of the situation can certainly be affected. If you and I were to start being total dicks to Brandon R. Gates like he has been to us, that would likely make them think less of us. Encouraging him to speak his mind honestly may help people determine what they want to think about him.
Eh, remember, he changed his mind about the Cook et al (2013) paper. That shows it is possible for him to realize he’s been wrong. Other people have done the same. I like to hold out hope in most discussions.
Sure. But what I mean is I don’t really expect people to always respond to everything instantly. Brandon G is no different from others who also don’t respond instantly to anything and everything. People have a right to not respond to counter arguments, not even read them and so on. Especially at blogs. Brandon G has just as much of a right to do so as anyone and is similar to other in that he, like everyone, sometimes drops topics for various and sundry reasons. (And to be clear: I don’t mean to imply those reason are “bad” or “unwilling to admit defeat”. They can be other things like “life happened” or “didn’t read that” or “still think I’m right but it’s just not worth continuuing” and so on.)
I can’t say I agree. At a minimum, when people make serious accusations (even if only via heavy implication), I don’t think it’s okay for them to just drop the matter. The same is true for many other things. While I get dropping some points of discussion, I don’t think it’s something that people can (justly) do just whenever they feel like it.
But then, my standards for what is and is not okay do seem rather different than other people’s.
By the way, I’ve written a new post about the new Cook et al paper. It’s really bizarre. Cook et al seem to have just hand-picked results to show while ignoring many other results. In one case, they only showed results for 7% of the people who responded to a survey, and in another case, they only showed results for 12% of the people who took a survey. I don’t understand how something this bad could get published.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/04/consensus-chart-craziness-part-3/
Oh… well, yes. If someone makes a serious accusation — especially in the category that could be libel per se– it’s not fair for them to just drop it. They should admit the counter evidence shows the accusation doesn’t stick.
I had in mind more mundane stuff like whether it is or is not a copyright violation for someone to post a url to a paper that has been placed on the web. There is no dispute that you posted the url. The only possible bones of contention are whether doing so is either (a) illegal or (b) unethical.
It’s clearly not illegal. It’s not unethical unless one starts trying to claim it would be unethical for someone coming across “mr and ms inflagrante dilecto” having sex on the beach to gossip about their behavior. At least so far, none of those trying to push the “it’s like entering a private residence just because the door is unlocked” or “it’s not right to tell people because the person who posted publicly didn’t want people to know etc. analogies has done anything but go silent after I post “mr. inflagrant dilectro” analogy. But I really don’t expect them to say… uhmm… yeah. I can see your point. It really is more like the “mr inflagrante” . And of course, I can’t really be sure they were persuaded by the “mr inflagrante” analogy. Perhaps in the future someone might explain to me why that analogy is not better. But for now, mostly I hear crickets after that. Which is fine. People are neither required to argue endlessly nor to admit that…well… now come to think of it….
Brandon, Lucia,
B Gates seems like a Fan of More… something… 🙂
lucia (Comment #146596),
.
.
I would love to resolve an issue with you. I want to spend more money, sooner, to mitigate the risks presented us by AGW. How much difference, how soon? We don’t know. You didn’t want to talk about it. When you’re ready to stop backing away from that conversation like it’s the plague, do please let me know.
This is somewhat random, but it’s so priceless I had to share. I was browsing the Skeptical Science forum today when I came across this thread in which John Cook quotes Stephan Lewandowsky as saying:
So priceless.
Lucia,
This is actually pretty funny: “I would love to resolve an issue with you.” Nah… he only wants you to accept his views of the world. The humor is that he can’t even appreciate that is the case. It is like a bird fighting with a reflection of itself in a silvered window: he can’t bring himself to actually see or hear the real argument from the other side, and focuses only a reflection of himself. He becomes furious when the reflection moves in concert with but exactly in opposition to his own moves.
Brandon, it looks to me like Lewinsky simply mistyped “Cook”.
But yes, it is priceless.
Carrick, do you have a blue dress you are saving as proof 😉
Carrick, it intrigues me that quote is from 2010, a couple years before either Stephan Lewandowsky’s moon landing paper or Cook et al’s consensus paper. I have to wonder if views changed over the years, or if they’re just willfully blind to the hypocrisy.
By the way, the paper they were discussing in that thread* doesn’t get cited in the new Cook et al meta-study of consensus estimates. Instead, this paper by only one of the authors of the survey is used. Not only is that strange for portraying the survey as being one by one person, not two, but the paper used doesn’t show the results they list while the one they don’t cite definitely does.
The paper they used specifically says it is only going to discuss a subsample of the 375 people who took the survey. The paper they don’t cite gives results for the full set of 373 respondents (I don’t know why the papers disagree about how many people took the survey offhand). Clearly, they should have used the latter. Which they did. That’s where they got their results. They just cited a different paper than the one they used for some reason.
*The survey they were discussing in that thread is not the same as the one Lewandowsky was referring to. Lewandowsky was referring to a 2003 survey while that thread was about a 2008 survey. Either John Cook misunderstood what Lewandowsky said, or Lewandowsky conflated the two.
Oh, I should also point out Bray and Von Storch, the people who did that survey, did a far more considerate and careful examination of the “consensus” issue than Cook et al. They actually looked at how the strength of the consensus varies depending on which issue you look at and how that position has changed over time. Several of the other studies did the same.
But Cook et al, for whatever reason, choose to ignore the distinction between various issues and plot all the “consensus” results together even if they are in regard to different questions. That’s a terrible way to do a meta-study. John Cook is bringing this field down so hard by refusing to look at how different people have different views on different issues regarding global warming.
Is the incredibly bad post modern play in one act with Brandon Gates over yet? Like watching ‘Waiting for Godot’ the sequel, where Brandon comes ‘in good faith’ to negotiate, takes a crap on the table, and after everybody quits talking to him declares with sorrow that negotiations have failed because of the bad faith and propaganda of the enemy.
.
Well, it was a learning experience. Never saw that before. Hope to never see that again.
.
[Edit: My question is not rhetorical, it’s heartfelt. I surely hope that pathetic thread is over, but I’m not sure it is. Reassure me somebody.]
I guess that sounded bitter. It was meant to. I never wanted a part in ‘Waiting for Godot’ the sequel. I didn’t even realize we were [edit: strike shooting] filming till the end.
mark bofill,
Have you ever seen ‘Waiting for Guffman’?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Guffman
Hilarious. I recommend it.
Andrew
Thanks Andrew_Ky 🙂 I haven’t seen it. Looks amusing though.
Sue, lol. Oops. Lewandowsky not Lewinsky. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is saving a blue dress, but as it happens I don’t wear dresses. If only because it’d scare the people at work if I did. Maybe a kilt though… hmm…
Brandon, it is totally without surprise that Cook has completely bolluxed this up.
It’s of course amusing that Stephan Lewandowsky is on the author list. I’m guessing he didn’t actually read the paper before agreeing to be a co-author.
Lewindowsky appears to be incompetent as hell when it comes to statistical analysis, and has behaved completely unethically, but he can at least reason at the level of a monkey, and should be able to spot errors of this magnitude.
Anybody here live in Seattle? Is this real?
.
I read stuff like this and wonder if I’m being tone deaf to satire or something.
[Edit: Sorry, should post at least a summary statement of the story:
]
Sorry, here’s a link to the more recent story that brought the story to my attention; apparently a judge has thrown this out.
Judge throws out Seattle’s compost rule.
[Edit: I guess it was real.]
Mark:
Is the incredibly bad post modern play in one act with Brandon Gates over yet?
.
Now that pretty much everyone has realized they’re playing chess with a pigeon, my guess is yes.
SteveF (Comment #146707),
.
.
That’s just brilliant. Of course I want you to accept my view of *global warming*. Failing that, I’ll take a mutually acceptable deal. Failing that, I’ll force it on you at the voting booth. I’ve been saying this honestly and consistently for some time now. This is how the real, adult world works, SteveF, perhaps one day you will join it.
.
I’d say more, but I wouldn’t want to offend your tender feelings by being “obnoxious” or anything.
mark bofill (Comment #146727),
.
.
I would ask you what you learned, but rhetorical questions aren’t allowed here. I’ll tell you what I learned. When you say to me that the conversation isn’t being “productive”, what you really mean is that you don’t like it when someone exposes your friends’ dishonesty. When you ask me at my own blog if I’d like to talk over there because I’m getting “roughed up” and you can’t control it, what you’re really doing is trying to bait me away from your friends self-destructing their own positions.
.
Nice to finally meet the real you, mark bofill.
.
Let’s please not continue to pretend I’m the only fellow at the table who acts in bad faith. When *everyone* is honest and open about their own ill-behavior, real discussions may happen. Not until.
.
.
I know you don’t. So long as you have that hope, you will not actually learn anything.
TerryMN (Comment #146737),
.
.
My guess is no. You’ve not realized yet that you’re playing checkers with a chess player. Up your game.
.
PS: metaphors are fun sometimes. I’m sure nobody really knows what you’re talking about. If you were more clear, perhaps people would understand what you’re really saying. This has been a recorded message from somewhere. Open your eyes, and you may find it.
mark bofill (Comment #146729),
.
.
Yes it did sound bitter. Thank you for being honest about your real intent. I don’t think what you say represents full reality, but it is always good to be honest about what you see, even if it’s wrong. That allows others to help correct your mistakes if they have better vision.
.
The true measure of honesty is seeing the truth even when you don’t want to.
Brandon G,
One more time Brandon, in the interest of civility, I’ll try to talk with you.
.
Brandon G, nobody likes ‘somebody exposing their friends dishonesty’. If you thought for some obscure reason that I was a guy who ‘likes it when somebody exposes their friends dishonesty’, then I’m sorry about that misunderstanding.
.
IMO, if you want to get someplace, you ought to consider making up your mind where you are trying to go. If you are trying to ‘expose my friends dishonesty’, that’s fine. If you are trying to engage in good faith debate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution to a shared problem. this is fine. If you do not realize that these are not the same activity, then you’ve got a problem.
.
.
You are a fine judge of character Brandon. I offered to talk at your blog because I felt badly for you, you fool. I didn’t think it was right that you had to put up with the abuse one sided like that.
.
I’m over it though, thanks buddy.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146600),
.
.
I certainly have not forgot. I still don’t like what I see either. My vision has not changed.
.
.
I’ll be more inclined to believe that when you correct how you twisted my words around in this post. You don’t need me to explain how again. It’s all right there in comments. I await your honesty, Brandon S., not just your lip-service to it. Until you become better at practising what you preach, your thoughts on this insane world are only making it more crazy than it need be.
Brandon R. Gates, you can repeatedly say things like:
But willfully ignoring people’s responses to you in which they explain why they feel you are wrong to claim they are dishonest for not admitting they are wrong isn’t going to convince anybody of anything you’d want them to believe. You could do the same thing with any disagreement to the exact same effect. Heck, I could do the exact same thing with you in this very exchange.
Disagreeing with people’s explanation for what they write is fine, but pretending they didn’t offer one in order to call them a liar is not.
Brandon G,
.
I mean seriously. Would you think about this for a second. In one breath you are saying you are trying to engage in good faith debate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution to a shared problem. In the next breath you are saying that you are trying to expose my friends dishonesty.
.
Does that sound like that’s going to work to you? This is not rhetorical, it’s not a rhetorical question when I really don’t know the answer. How do you think that’d play out for me if I showed up at Anders and tried that. How would that work out. Just imagine it. “Say Anders, you’re a liar. But come on John Hartz, lets reason together.”
puh-leeze.
It seems to me that a person has got to be an imbecile to think this is a good idea. I don’t think you’re an imbecile Brandon G, and I’d hate to conclude that your playing an imbecile deliberately. Good faith requires that I carefully go looking for my mistake. Would you kindly explain how this makes sense, to pursue both of these objectives (exposing people’s dishonesty AND trying to reach a good faith agreement with those people’s friends) at the same time.
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that you must not have thought it through. Unfortunately, that pretty much exhausts my charity at this point.
Mark Bofill, can we just take a moment to point out this whole exchange is predicated on the idea Brandon R. Gates is pointing out the dishonesty of people (who supposedly are your friends) who most of us do not agree have been dishonest?
That’s not rhetorical. Given how much ink has been devoted to this discussion and how many times his accusations of dishonesty have been repeated/referred to, I think it’d be appropriate to pause and remember this entire thing is about a bunch of us supposedly being dishonest liars who are intentionally sabotaging discussions.
Brandon S,
.
Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. But I think it underscores what a freaking travesty this is that it doesn’t even matter if Brandon G is right on that point or not. It’s still bad faith to mix a good faith effort at compromise and a mission to point out the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the friends of the people you are trying to negotiate with.
.
But yes. I don’t agree with the basic premise anyway that anybody is being dishonest around here.
mark bofill (Comment #146743),
.
.
I accept in the spirit you offer, and with thanks. Let not me speaking to what I see be interpreted as incivility.
.
.
No, of course not. At least for the second time I ask rhetorically: how do you think I felt when Brandon S. pointed to flaws in Cook (2015)? Or to SkS’ ill-behavior? I answer my own rhetorical questions per the rules of this forum: I felt horrible. My Come to Jesus post about it is one of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my online life. My friends and allies are *not* happy with me for it.
.
How did I also react? My already growing dislike for my evil twin Brandon S. grew to near hatred, and I lashed out at him for his gift of truth to me.
.
.
There was no misunderstanding, Mark. I knew and know that you do NOT like it, just as I wrote above, and just as I wrote in my original post. There is nothing obsucre at all about you or me not liking it when someone else says “bad” things about one’s friends. Perfectly normal human reaction, and not at all inherently wrong.
.
.
Where I’ve been wanting to go all along is toward a mutually agreeable solution to acting on AGW. It’s difficult swim upstream against a whole forum. So I went with the stream, away from that conversation. Open your eyes and look at what that means. Partially weakness on my part, I could and should have stayed on point. Me being a chip on the millrace did not best serve my main intentions. Having failed at that, I made it my primary intention to expose what was happening: people claiming to want to do “something” about AGW (Lucia’s words more or less) doing anything but.
.
.
Lack of self-awareness is indeed a problem. Being human, I have that problem. I’d like to tell you what I’m blind to, but I can’t see it. This really does not make me happy.
.
One thing I’m not blind to is that I do know the difference between exposing the flaws in your friends’ arguments, and trying to reach a mutually acceptable deal on AGW with them. You presume wrongly that my having attempted to do both here is my lack of recognition of the difference.
.
.
I make mistakes, Mark. I am sorry for having made that one. Thank you for recognizing the abusive behavior being directed at me. I’d be a bigger liar than I already am if I told you that the insults didn’t hurt.
.
Here’s the thing, once those insults started, I dropped the good faith good faith discussion with those *individual* people, but carried on the good faith discussions with those who weren’t. Read the tale of the tape with care. Look at how I was talking to you when all around me were people throwing rocks at me, and I picking them up and throwing them right back. Somewhere in one of my conversations with you, I pointed out how these things escalate in increments. That may be a *producive* (for me) place for you to review the conversation — I was laying down a marker for you as to what I already knew was happening. And foreshawdowing what was about to happen. As I told Lucia, this isn’t my first rodeo. FAR from my first.
.
Look at the situation today. Everyone thinks I was an asshole from the beginning. And that such was my intent all along.
.
No. What happened was is that I was pack hunted. One alpha wolf nipped at my heels and I nipped back at it. The beta wolves got bold and started nipping, and I nipped back at them. Escalated into a right hairy wolf fight. Just like I knew it would. I did nothing to prevent it, and everything to encourage it. Why?
.
Because. I. Do. Not. Shrink. From. Bullies. I stare them in the eye and give their abuse right back to them. It’s the only way to show bullies for the cowards they really are.
.
Look at the situation today. Everyone saying, “I hope this farce with Brandon G. is over because now we see who he really is.” Blah blah blah. You have no idea how satisfying it is to see a bunch of cowards licking the wounds I inflicted upon them. I hurt them on purpose, because that is the ONLY thing bullies deserve until they stop their bullying. It’s the only thing they understand — force used unrepentantly, cruelly and with supreme malice.
.
I’m happy that you saw their actions as wrong. I’m not unhappy that you see my own as wrong … I was uncivil. For a purpose. For MY purpose. I CHOSE to stand where I did and take it, because that was the ONLY way I could give it back and maintain my own dignity. It was my own will to be here and do what I did despite the fierce hostility. It’s what I do. Go read me at WUWT sometime. Start around the end of November last year.
.
I appreciate it that you wanted to help. I didn’t want your “help” in the manner of finding someplace quiet for us to talk like we used to. When you offered it to me, I (wrongfully) saw it as you trying to take me away from what I then wanted to do.
.
You and I have just had a mutual misunderstanding. That happens in the AGW conversation because of mutual suspicion — which is rightful because both sides act with bad faith and ill-intent *all the time*.
.
.
sigh. I think you’re angry, and not done being angry. It’s ok, I’m somewhat pissed off at you and rather more so at everyone else here too. I’ve no idea whether I’ll get over it or not, or even whether I should. I have a goal to discuss mutually acceptable solutions to AGW. No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. I adjust my tactics accordingly. My emotions do what they do along the way.
.
Cheers.
That comment is hilarious. Delusional, but hilarious.
Brandon G,
I’ve got no problem with you not tolerating bullies, and I got no problem with it being an overriding priority to deal with that. That’s more important than trying to build some ephemeral online agreement that in all overwhelming probability’s going to have no effect on anything, I get that. Fine. Let’s quit pretending we’re talking about some sort of agreement then; me too. [Edit: meaning, I’ll quit too.]
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146749),
.
.
Your double-standards are showing again, Brandon S. That is not good faith debate. I’m only using the same techniques you do when you talk about Cook (2013), or SkS in general. Just as you do, I point to the specific dishonesty where and when it happens. Just as you do, I refer back to it after it happened without citing the specifics — because I’m not feeding Sealions today.
.
You don’t agree with me. You want people to think that you don’t lie. I am not a liar for pointing out what I think is untrue. I am a truth-teller for pointing out that I often engage in bad faith, and that as a human being I also often lie.
.
Wake up.
So tell me this Brandon G, if we waltz over together to ATTP, you and I, are you going to stand up to the pack over there when they start nipping at me? Going to stand up to your buddy Willard for me huh.
.
I’d prefer to ‘not to’ to go through that exercise, as I have my own agendas and that experiment isn’t compatible with my goals. Let’s just assume you would if you like, and good for you.
.
So, you’re here to point out my friends dishonesty, that’s the mission now. ~shrug~
Doesn’t seem like an interesting topic to me, frankly.
.
Bye, hopefully.
Huh.
Brandon G
If mark follows your advice, opens his eyes and re-reads the thread I think he will see the problem is your inability to process information clearly.
Early on lots of regulars here discussing solution. Just to use your search tool set to “nuclear” on the earlier thread and you will easily find comments endorsing nuclear as a path forward to solving the problem of AGW. The first few hits will be for nuclear weapons, but then you’ll start finding these.
mark bofill (Comment #146023)
lucia (Comment #146024)
lucia (Comment #146025)
lucia (Comment #146026)
SteveF (Comment #146028)
Carrick (Comment #146047)
I stopped at that point, but I think you’ll see several people saying quite clearly they are willing to promote nuclear.
People continue to state they are willing to promote nuclear. On this thread see: Jit (Comment #146473)
It seems I stand accused of wanting to wanting to do “anything but”…. with no noun after but. As I have no idea what the noun after “but” is supposed to be, I can hardly rebut that accusation. However, I think if you view comments at the other thread it’s quite clear: I am willing to heavily promote nuclear. I am unwilling to do things that are window dressing or bound to fail. I said that: this seems to be the point where you went into some sort of tail spin. That is: you seemed to go into a tail spin when I expressed the notion that there are some things I would not do.
That said: There are things I am willing to do and I have said so. Moreover, I said quite clearly: promoting nuclear is a specific thing I am willing to promote as have others here.
I’m not going to engage the rest of your comment nor provide you a different interpretation of how you went off the rails. But I think it’s pretty clear that most of your problem is you don’t seem to actually pay attention to what people said, what claims they made nor what positions they have taken or are taking now.
mark bofill (Comment #146753),
.
.
Good. Your recognition of what I see makes me happy. There are two things you might do in the future to maintain and improve credibility with me:
.
1) Call out your friends for bullying when the do it. Not bullying ONLY me, bullying ANYONE.
.
2) Ignore them, and Lead by Example by having The Discussion with me how you’d want them to have it.
.
You can do both at the same time, one or the other as you see fit. Or something entirely different; you are intelligent and creative and have your own life experience to draw from.
.
Having the Discussion About the Discussion is not *productive* for having the discussion, and I am likely to interpret that as you wishing to further distract from my main purpose, which is to try and find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of AGW.
.
.
I have a counter-offer. Let’s you and I work on not pretending, period. Being human, we’re going to fail from time to time. The next post is an opportunity to do better. Or get a nice rest overnight, reset and try again.
.
This is me being honest: I don’t want to give up on trying to find a mutually acceptable agreement on the problem of AGW. I don’t think we as a nation can afford to do that. If I sometimes have to chastise bullies in the process of having that conversation, so be it. I’m not going to make that my main objective, because it is not *productive* to my main goal. It’s only to be done *as needed*.
.
Something else I’d like to establish: mutual agreement on a solution does NOT mean we all need to share the same “worldview”. We don’t need to agree on the same value of ECS. I don’t need to believe in your political views. I don’t even need to be your friend. We just need to stay on point and try to work out a political solution by which everyone gets something they want.
.
We do not need to “prove” that our personal views and beliefs are “right” to have that conversation. We just have to express what we want. And then negotiate the differences.
.
Arguing about whether something is a rhetorical question or not is childish behavior which is useless in the adult world of trying to work together toward mutually agreeable solutions.
Seeing as I am pretty irritated, I probably should have shut up an hour ago. Fine by me, although I’ve got no intention of presuming any further on the tolerance of my ‘dishonest friends’ here at the BlackBoard. I’ll unplug now and see how I feel about this tomorrow – not a promise I’ll engage you here. It’s not ‘managing my friends malfunctioning wardrobe’s so their genitals don’t show’ or whatever the heck your point was before, it’s consideration for other people who don’t want to read this.
I’m done here for today.
Mark Bofill, see, this is why I thought taking a moment to clarify things was worthwhile. Brandon R. Gates now writes:
But I’m pretty sure you don’t think people like lucia and myself were bullying him. I suspect you simply chose not to express your disagreement with the idea the same way as you chose not to express your disagreement with the idea we’re all a bunch of liars.
If I’m correct, Gates has mistakenly come to believe you think we’re bullies in the same way he might have come to believe you think we’re dishonest had we not clarified matters. That’s why I think it’s helpful to clarify when we disagree with premises rather than just fail to state an opinion.
Of course, I could be wrong. You might really believe lucia and I are bullies.
Brandon S,
.
Baby steps. That’s tomorrow’s trouble, or day after tomorrow’s troubles. For now we take baby steps.
.
Things are seldom simple and pure textbook black and white. I don’t think you and Lucia are bullies. I don’t think there is no basis whatsoever for Brandon G’s feeling like you are. I think the reasons that apparently similar people end up mortal enemies are complex and interesting, I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned that I think that before. I think this doesn’t much interest you Brandon S, and I’ve got no issue with it not being interesting to you. It’s why I thought I might oughta take it someplace else.
[Edit: I gotta exercise a little self discipline and shut up for now. Please read no offense into my keeping quiet until at least tomorrow all.]
mark bofill (Comment #146755),
.
.
I’m feeling irritated right now, Mark. However let me set that aside and answer your question: I would not stand up to each and every one of my friends who bullied an opponent. I know this because I already have not done so. I’m more likely to do it if the opponent is my friend, but most likely I would let them fend for themselves while choosing option (2): Lead By Example. I don’t always do that either, I’m human and often break my own rules. I have chosen sides, and I don’t want to undermine my allies’ credibility and/or them managing their own online reputation.
.
I do not require you to do either (1) or (2). They are options. You could do something else. You could do nothing else to increase your credibility with me if that is not your goal. You are free to make your own choices, just as I am.
.
I am only telling you the kind of behavior in others I look to for them to be credible to me. They need not do it all the time, it is my mistake for not having made that clear in my previous post. I’m already inclined to trust you more than I am inclined to not trust you for having done many of those things in the past.
.
.
You’re free as a sovereign human being to have your own agendas, do your own experiments, and talk about what you want. I’m free to do the same. We’re not always going to agree, which is fine. Better than fine: expecting everyone to agree on everything is tyranny. I don’t want to be an authoritarian any more than I want others to be. That’s what a free society is supposed to be all about.
.
.
Of course not. It’s not interesting for me to read Brandon S. harp on my friends’ dishonesty either. I choose to engage with him when I think he’s wrong. OTOH, I don’t go out of my way to agree with him when I think he’s right.
.
Is that dishonest of me to not speak to inconvenient truths when he speaks them? I answer my own rhetorical question: you bet your sweet ass it is dishonest of me.
.
.
I will leave when I choose, or if (when?) Lucia asks me to leave. If it is too unpleasant for you to talk to me, I will respect your implied wishes to not speak to you any further. You are free to talk to me anytime, anywhere. I will be glad to do so in the future if that is your wish.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146760),
.
.
Yes, bullying is the term I used to describe the behavior, bullies to describe the people doing the behavior. Also pack hunting. Mark saw something he didn’t like, and as a fellow human being, he had empathy for that and expressed it. Which I appreciated. By way of thanking him for seeing ill behavior, I used *my* words to describe what *I* saw.
.
In a bad faith discussion that is called strawmanning. In a good faith discussion, that is called a misunderstanding.
.
Clarifying is good faith behavior when there have been *honest* misunderstandings.
.
If I see it ill behavior again, I will call out what I see, same as you would. And do. That we may wrongly see ill behavior in others does not necessarily make us liars when we speak to it.
.
When someone says something about me I know to be untrue, I know that they are lying. Damn frustrating that I can’t “prove” it when dealing with other bad actors.
.
I’d rather we all just got along, but I know we won’t. We’re opponents. we don’t trust each others’ motives or intentions. We in fact think the others intentions — spoken or not — are WRONG and to be opposed at all costs.
.
This is how the adult world works. It is childish and dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146756),
.
.
Indeed. It gets trickier. The challenge is to figure out when I’m agreeing with someone for the sake of bolstering my credibility, and when I’m doing it because I actually agree. I do both. When I have to think hard about it, that’s a good sign to myself that I’m running game again. When I don’t have to think about it, it’s a sign to me that I’m being genuine.
.
What then proceeds to bake my noodle is wondering what my allies are thinking when I genuinely agree with one of our shared opponents.
.
Read what pro-AGWers say about Richard Betts or Tamsin Edwards when they reach across the aisle, and then you may begin to understand why I think about these things a lot.
Mark Bofill:
I wouldn’t have said anything about it except he said that you see we’ve been bullies, and I thought it worth clarifying that isn’t true.
I think there is no reasonable basis for him feeling like we are. I’m sure he could find some reasons to feel we are, but I’m also sure he could find ways to misread just about anything if it were convenient for his worldview. There’s already been a number of examples of that.
I don’t find it interesting because the fundamental answers are pretty simple. In all the disagreements I’ve ever had, the reason people didn’t reach an agreement is at least one party decided not to really try to understand the other. That’s all. If people genuinely try to understand one another, these sort of things don’t happen.*
You don’t have to if you don’t want to. It’s an open thread. People can discuss whatever they want. If you two find discussing the topic interesting, enjoyable or whatever, you’re welcome to it.
*Technically, there is another reason. Sometimes people have disagreement on some fundamental point which isn’t tied to logic or reason. For instance, someone who believes in God likely won’t reach an agreement with an atheist about whether or not he exists. If they genuinely try to understand one another though, they still can. You don’t have to agree with someone’s view to understand and accept it as valid.
Some things deserve special attention. For instance:
Brandon G.
You can stay as long as you like. Just don’t expect anyone to bother to reply. ‘Don’t feed it and it will probably go away’ being the operative phrase because browsers, unlike newsreaders in the days of yore, don’t have killfile options.
Bye
lucia (Comment #146596),
.
.
That is one problem with limited human perception. If we could only view the innards of the other person’s brains, we would know their true thoughts and intents. Instead, we have words on a page, and our repective prejudices and distrust of others “helps” us infer that which is not actually being said. Sometimes our suspicions are correct. I give an example: TerryMN was correct, I was behaving like a dick. I’m a right bastard when I put my mind to it, and my mind was very intentionally bringing to bear the fullest extent of my asshollery possible.
.
.
1) I cannot resolve issues when others don’t really want to resolve issues either.
.
2) I don’t fight on territory advantageous to my enemy if I can avoid doing so. Straight up Sun Tzu.
.
We don’t need to “prove” that I know less than you and SteveF about ECS/TCR ratios. We just need to agree on a method of using them to guesstimate time to a given temperature threshold *for the sake of argument*. When the discussion becomes about how ignorant I am of physics relative to you, I see that as an indication that you’re more interested in managing your own reputations, sullying mine, and not actually interested in resolving our differences. I in turn infer that you don’t actually want to “do something” about AGW, because you don’t actually believe that there’s a problem to be solved.
.
Your most effective way to prove me wrong about that last bit is to NOT re-assert your intent, but to actually do it by discussing mutually acceptable solutions to the problem you claim exists, albeit not to the same “biased” extent that I do.
.
On that note, thanks for the summary on prior discussions about nuclear power. I remember them well, having both read them and been part of them. That felt like forward *productive* progress to me when it was happening. Once everyone is done here venting their anger and frustrations (including me), perhaps we can return to them, this time in better faith. Or not. Either way, I’m sure this is not our last fight. It happens.
.
If all everyone really wants is to bash the token warmist for being a liar, so be it. I like my odds.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #146767),
.
.
You don’t speak for everyone, DeWitt Payne. The pretence that you do does nothing to manage your reputation with onlookers. Always mind the lurkers, and especially do not speak for them. They don’t like it when you do.
.
.
1) I have never once killfiled someone on Usenet. I like to know what k00ks and trolls are saying just for the intelligence (in the military sense). How’s that for a double-oxymoron?
.
2) I have never once said anywhere that I would never talk to or read someone else’s words ever again. That is because I know that most people who say such things end up re-engaging, and that most others have observed the same thing I have. Telling obvious untruths about standard human behavior does not help manage my reputation with onlookers. Well it does, just not in the way that I’d want.
.
Until we meet again, Dewitt Payne, adieu.
Mr. Gates confirmed for spy for the lumber cartel?
mark bofill (Comment #146748),
.
.
That’s because you’re not in my head, Mark. I have thought it through, years before I met you. I know what I’m about, you very obviously do not. Which is fine, we only just met. Here’s the short form for review:
.
1) I want to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of AGW.
.
2) I will speak to dishonesty and bad faith behavior when I see it.
.
That (2) may be at cross-purposes to yours does not mean that I am behaving in bad faith. I cannot control others’ speech here or anywhere, nor do I wish to. I can only control my own.
.
That you would do something different is fine. I’m me. I know what I’m doing most of the time. In this case, I know *exactly* what I’m doing here and there is no conflict on my part. The conflict is *external* to me. I meet that when it is appropriate. When I’m offered the olive branch, I take that and go back to (1).
.
Anything different, and I allow my opponent to control my message, which is not acceptable to me.
.
.
I don’t require any charity from you, Mark. I do appreciate being honest with me on that point, even though your *tone* is harsh. I don’t agree with you on this point, but I appreciate you being honest about how you see me.
Andrew_FL (Comment #146770),
.
.
I answer your illegal rhetorical question with my own: How can I be a spy on a blog which is open for all to read? [1]
.
———————
.
[1] Excepting those behind, say the Great Firewall of China. So I could in fact be a Chinese Spy. Be afraid. Be *very* afraid.
Brandon G,
As I recently pointed out in http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/ban-bing-is-too-long/#comment-146757
SteveF, Carrick, Marc, Brandon S and I were all proposing acceptable solutions to reduce GHG emissions on the other thread. Jit discussed them on this thread. You can keep discussing the gripes you think you have, or you can decide to go back to discussing acceptable solutions with the people who were perfectly willing to discuss these all along, who demonstrated their willingness to discuss these by discussing them and so on. But I think you’ll find it difficult to discuss acceptable solutions if you keep wanting to discuss these gripes you think you have. I can’t guarantee others will drop discussions of your behavior if you decide to go back to discussing acceptable solutions. But I can guarantee they will continue to discuss your behavior if you insist on discussing it and that of others.
Andrew_FL,
Brandon did correctly identify that as a rhetorical question. I assume it was meant as a joke… but still…
lucia (Comment #146773),
.
.
I remember those posts, Lucia, having read them. I have been part of many such discussions here, and receptive to them. Odd that you don’t point that out as well.
.
But not really. Gaslighting does not work when the tale of the tape for all to see. It only works when there is no record of the conversation. You do not manage your reputation with others well when you are dishonest about what is clearly evident.
.
Try a different tactic. I see through this one as if you were made of glass, and it is in *very* bad faith of you to be doing it.
.
One tactic which might help mend your reputation is to re-engage me on how we might find an acceptable solution to our conflict, and bring that conversation back to the present rather than refer to the past as if it “proves” my allegations of your bad faith to be my own bad faith.
.
Since you’ve shown yourself to not be a particularly good strategist, I have my doubts that you’ll take this advice. Fine. I will simply continue to use that to my *convenience*, not yours. I’m *indifferent to your convenience*.
lucia (Comment #146774),
.
.
As you can see, I don’t mind rhetorical questions, good faith or bad. When bad, as it was in this case you are attempting to play off as “just a joke”, I handled it. I don’t need your legal protections to manage my reputation, or to control my own messages.
.
I do appreciate that you were consistent in enforcing your own blog rules in this case.
It was an old Usenet reference, and yes, it was a joke. Ouch. Was not meant in animus at all, I haven’t even followed this conversation very closely.
Explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumber_Cartel
The real lesson here is don’t barge into a conversation with a mood lightening non sequitur that no one will get because someone’s gonna get *really* touchy about it.
Brandon
I didn’t point your comments out because you seem to be telling us that you tried to engage in these but you also claim others refused to discuss this with you. So I am pointing out the claims that address the part of your claim that is not true: That is others did not refuse to discuss this topic. Contrary to your perception, they willingly discussed the issue.
I don’t think my doing this is “odd” in any way. The purpose in my quoting them was not to “prove” bad faith on your part, it was merely to show that your claims about their behavior are untrue. (FWIW: I didn’t think your allegations were based on bad faith. I assumed faulty memory.)
As for further reasons not to point out your own participation in those discussions: I assume you are already aware and recollect of your own part in those discussions. I assumed that because you have been expressing frustration at trying to engage others– and think they refused. So it seems to me you do remember your own comments. You just don’t remember those of others.
Anyway: I don’t think my showing that Blackboard did not act as you claim they did demonstrates bad faith and so on nor do I think it shows any sort of dishonesty.
Honestly, I don’t feel my reputation has been materially harmed in this engagement. It is true that you seem to hold me in disrepute for something you think I did. You seem to be the only one. So, I really don’t see redeeming my reputation as much motivation for me to engage in any particular discussion.
As for going forward: You could undertake such a discussion now, in the present. As in: immediately. If you want to discuss options, go ahead. Start discussing them. Right now: presently. Or not. I’m going to go code more moodle problems now.
Lucia, while it’s true that we have all discussed ways to reduce GHG emissions, I’d like to point out it’s a bad argument to claim that we have to provide a counter solution before we can decide that a given solution won’t work. (That’s a general truism, not meant to be pointed any particular direction.)
Mind you, I’m a bit confused here on what Brandon Gates thinks is even controversial here. Here is my comment you linked to:
I could add to this—a lot of the anticipated emissions comes from the “dirty emissions” stage of development in these developing countries. That is, one of the problem is the “high CO2 intensity” that these countries exhibit while they are climbing out of poverty, but before they have established economies.
If we wanted to address that problem, one solution would be to invest in their energy infrastructure to help reduce the amount of CO2 they end up generating.
Again, this all seems pretty non-controversial to me.
Also tempers are too high when you automatically assume something can’t be a joke and has to have been meant seriously, when it contains the words LUMBER CARTEL
Andrew_FL, I got that it was a joke, but I wasn’t sure of the context. Gates needs to calm down.
I’ve said this before: It would be a better long term investment to subsidize the installation of solar panels and Tesla batteries in Sub-Saharan Africa or the poorer parts of Southeast Asia than on rooftops in the American Southwest.
Speaking of Tesla, I see the financing of Elon Musk’s empire is becoming even more byzantine. ‘Byzantine’ may not be the correct word here, but it’s what came to mind.
lucia (Comment #146757),
.
Ok, I addressed the things in this post that I thought were bad faith. You give me an offer below to continue the actual discussion, which I appreciate, and wish to return in good faith. This is me asking you to hold me to that. Understood? Ok, let’s try it.
.
.
Yep, understood. So. I saw a news blurb a few days ago over at Judith’s indicating that Infhofe and a Democrat (I forget which) are attempting to find a bi-partisan solution to ramping up nuclear power in the US. I was very encouraged by that news.
.
.
I understand that perfectly because I don’t want to do the same thing either. Now perhaps where we went off track is that I wrongfully interpreted your similar previous comment along those lines as, “…. and what you are proposing to do, Brandon G. is window dressing, foolish, or bound to fail”.
.
I’m going to now *assume* that you did not actually mean what you didn’t write, and which I put into your mouth. [1] Hence, I owe you an apology for previously *presuming* wrongly.
.
That said, I have some issues with what you actually just wrote: I am unwilling to do things that are window dressing or bound to fail.
.
1) I have heard things like COP21 described as “window dressing”. I don’t actually disagree, in truth, I very much disagree. Here’s the thing: we have to start somewhere. I have also seen it argued that whatever the EPA is up to won’t accomplish much, and then out come the teeny numbers … it will only have < 0.0001% effect on total emissions, etc. This puts me and my allies in somewhat of a double-bind because we know that lukewarmers and non-warmers will not accept a full-blown takeover of the economy just to address AGW.
.
2) I hold that none of us know for sure in advance whether something is bound to fail or not. Sometimes we have to try. That's not to say we shouldn't give it careful thought at first, but it does mean some things are still going to fail when we try them. The way to mitigate that risk is to start small, which does run the risk of appearing to be "window dressing", but it's better than betting the farm on something which fails because then we're truly screwed. What I know for *sure* is that if we say, "well that's bound to fail" — even if it truly wasn't, not being optimistic about a solution may destine it to fail as a self-fulfilling prophesy.
.
We need to find mutually acceptable small solutions, and approach the problem of AGW in small, well-planned increments. Keep the ones which work, and maximize those at the expense of things which have failed, or are failing. If those things are considered "window dressing" or "doomed to fail" each and every time they are proposed, the likelihood that they'll succeed is lower than it would be otherwise … if they see the light of day at all.
.
Double-binds abound in this discussion. There cannot be progress finding mutually acceptable solutions to AGW so long as those double-binds exist.
.
.
This is what happens when people who don’t trust each other just by the nature of the prior and ongoing partisan warfare. I’m part of it, and I was part of this tailspin. It was ten on one, Lucia, I’m not going to be a punching bag. Now that I’ve established that, I’m willing to issue blanket apologies for having been a dick so that we can get on with what we want to do: find mutually acceptable solutions to address the problem of AGW.
.
.
Right. So here’s the thing for me: that would be fabulous, but I don’t believe it’s the only thing we can do, or even should be doing. My turn to say that only doing nuclear power looks to me like “window dressing”. That’s hyperbole of course, it would make a difference. Fewer people would get sick and die prematurely if they weren’t breathing so many coal particulates.
.
So. That’s me being honest about more of my *full* agenda so that you guys know exactly what I’m all about. Rather than try to bite off a huge hunk of that, I suggest that it might be more *productive* to dig into the nuclear issue some more, and treat that as the main focus when I’m around.
.
I look forward to your thoughts.
.
———————
.
[1] I call out strawmen so much because I know how to build them, and often do … either unintentionally because I misread, or intentionally because I deem it an appropriate time to manage my reputation by acting in bad faith against an *adversarial* opponent. [2]
.
[2] Opponents need not be *adversarial*. This is part of the art of good faith *negotiation* and/or *debate*. [3]
.
[3] I can argue for the sake of argument with the best of them … I’m a Gates. We pride ourselves in this.
Andrew_FL (Comment #146781),
.
.
I didn’t get the joke, but I did reply with my own. That’s an indication that I wasn’t all that ruffled.
.
Now my temper *is* up right now in general: have you seen the bloodbath of the last few days? I answer my own rhetorical question: you may not have seen it.
.
I’m trying to calm down because I simply can’t stay pissed off for days on end and have it be good for my health. Give me a few days, and then watch the hell out.
.
The preceding was a joke, of course.
.
.
Carrick (Comment #146782),
.
.
I’ll calm down when I want to, Carrick. You telling me what I need to do is not a good way for you to manage your reputation with me.
Brandon G,
Jim just got home and we are going to eat. Then sit on the couch. Possible get sad (because it’s the 1 year anniversary of Rosemary’s death. So… not feeling real happy righ tnow.)
So I won’t be able to address much until morning. But why do you think nuclear power is “window dressing?”
lucia (Comment #146779),
.
.
No seem about it Lucia, I was directly accusing you an others of dealing with me in bad faith.
.
Now of course I recognize that we’ve discussed nuclear power, and said that I appreciated those discussions. I did enjoy them, it felt like forward progress, i.e. *productive*, to our mutual aim: cleaner healthier, reliable, constant, economical electrical power.
.
That was the good faith part.
.
The bad faith part was when the conversation turned into what an idiot I am. Then it turned into what a dick I am. Read the tale of the tape and see if you can figure out where that happened, because those comments do little to advance the main *productive* topic, and don’t do much to help us manage our reputations either.
.
Note that I am NOT saying that I wasn’t partially responsible for the downward spiral. But it WAS ten to one. I’m not a pinata, I’m a kicking stubborn mean ass of a mule with sharp teeth nasty pointy teeth. I consider it my right to defend myself, and I do it by going on the *offensive*. Dual meaning intended.
.
That all said, I’m ready to return to the discussion of nuclear power. We don’t need to dwell on the past to do this, it is in fact counter-*productive* to do so. [1]
.
——————
.
[1] Unless of course all we mean to do is attempt to damage each others reputations. I’d rather that not be the game, but I do know how to play it and am quite willing to do so if I think that’s my best course of action.
lucia (Comment #146786),
.
.
I hope you enjoy your personal time.
.
Window dressing, see this:
.
How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation?
.
In 2015, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the U.S. electric power sector1 were 1,925 million metric tons, or about 37% of the total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions of 5,271 million metric tons.2
.
My allies and I have a long-term goal to reduce CO2 emissions to zero. We know we can’t do it all at once. My personal priority is on the grid because I think nuclear is the the most economically and technically viable solution to that problem. Wind, solar and geothermal have their place — in about that order of efficacy — but they don’t do baseload power without storage. Which is expensive, and does not have the proven track record nukes do.
.
That leaves 60% of emissions in industry and transport if I’m reading the above correctly. So nukes are only like half-window dressing. This vexes me, but to the extent we can solve the world’s problems with what we’re doing here, we need to focus on the US first, and we can only really focus on one issue at a time. This is my chosen issue right now, because it’s the one to which lukewarmers and not-warmers are most receptive.
.
At the same time, when I’m able, I work on my fellow warmers and greens who oppose nukes. I have in the past *gone* nuclear on them for being fear-driven nitwits on the topic. Probably not the best tactic ever, but we all know about my temper by now, yes?
Brandon Gates:
Given your behavior on this blog, I honestly don’t care very much about your opinion of me.
DeWitt:
I agree. The place solar can compete is in places where there’s a lot of solar energy and the absence of a central grid.
Part of why solar and wind can’t compete in the US is we’ve over a century of investment in our electrical grid. Trying to get an early adoption of solar energy via subsidization is just nuts.
But it seems like a perfectly natural fit to much of Africa.
Erattum (Comment #146784):
.
1) I have heard things like COP21 described as “window dressingâ€. I don’t actually disagree, in truth, I very much
disagree..
Must. Get. New. Brain.
.
Stat.
Carrick (Comment #146789),
.
.
Good. Now I know how you really feel about me, and I appreciate you being honest to your true feelings instead of being critical of me in a softer “tone”. I have just gotten you to behave in a manner which increases my respect for you, without asking it of you directly.
.
Side note: people who follow bullshit rules like, “one must be nice to get their point across and have it be credible” are those that I can play like a fiddle. You might watch out for that in the future.
.
Further note: it’s stupid of you to not care about my opinion of you. When you’re not being a chippy asshole to people in a “nice tone” in an attempt to damage *their* reputations, you often have well-reasoned and rational arguments supporting your views. I’ll be more inclined to listen to those when you’re not trying to control my behavior, especially on a blog that you do not own.
.
Do as you will in the future. Just keep in mind it might be to my advantage if you continue with this petty sniping.
Andrew_FL (Comment #146777),
.
.
As somewhat of an old Usenet warhorse myself, I am embarrassed I didn’t get the reference. I understand it now. Well played sir, well played indeed.
.
.
Not a problem, no hard feelings. Appreciated in fact.
.
.
Indeed. As you can see directly above, I’m still somewhat on combat footing here. I’d ask Carrick to chill the hell out, but then I’d be applying a double-standard, wouldn’t I ….
.
I answer my own rhetorical question: yes, possibly, not really, nope not at all.
.
Which isn’t an answer. Cheers.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146766),
.
.
I feel like I am being heard by you now, Original B. This encourages me, it is a show of good faith.
http://s32.postimg.org/4831mjcr9/image.png
.
This is dumb. We don’t get along, we don’t trust each other is what I keep hearing Brandon G say, and [now] we’re not even going to make an effort to ‘be nice.’ [Explicitly.] Yet this is going to lead to us reaching some sort of rational agreement.
.
I doubt it, see no point in repeating the exercise. We just got done doing that. Count me out guys.
.
[Edit : There is no need in my view for anyone to consider this an invitation to discuss my point of view. I did not intend it as an invitation to a discussion. I’m just explaining why I think this is silly and why I don’t intend to participate. But best of luck to everybody, seriously.]
Brandon G.
And you’re playing here like a virtuoso. Not!
Though as bad as this argument is it actually provided some relative relief from how horrible the real world is, so, thanks for that guys!
mark bofill (Comment #146796),
.
.
Consider the possibility you do not understand, Mark. It may be harmful to your reputation to declare something stupid which instead turns out to be effective.
.
.
I think first recognizing the truth of *pre*-existing distrust and conflict between parties is what *adults* must be able to do before there can be a rational discussion about mutual goals. You obviously disagree, and that’s fine. It does tell me something about you that tends to make you incompatible with the aim of achieving mutual goals in a *non-forceful* and rational manner. This is inconsistent with things you have written to me previously.
.
.
Then you have just ensured that something mutually productive will not happen … or if it does, that you won’t be part of it (“Count me out guys.”) Suit yourself however.
.
.
This war has been going on for some time now, Mark. It won’t end in a week of talks.
.
.
I had promised you earlier that I would not engage you again unless you indicated you wanted me to. It’s going to be difficult for me to honor that promise (see, I have just broken it) if you instead say things to others about me which are intended to undermine my goals and damage my reputation.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #146797),
.
.
I imagine it is difficult for you to read the music from the peanut gallery, especially with your eyesight.
.
.
Andrew_FL (Comment #146798),
.
.
I begin to appreciate your view of things.
TerryMN (Comment #146795),
.
.
What a nice photo of you. Thanks for sharing.
Brandon G,
.
Right. Because my reputation here at the Blackboard is based on my infallibility. And of course I hang out here at the BlackBoard in the presence of people better and more knowledgeable about math and science than I am in the first place because I worry about my reputation.
.
~snort~
.
Whatever. Like I said, best of luck.
Brandon Gates,
“This war has been going on for some time now, Mark. It won’t end in a week of talks.”
You sound like you are think you are in some powerful political position. I’m assuming you are not and I don’t know what you think to achieve here even if you got everyone who follows Lucia’s blog to agree with your ‘goal’. But if it makes you feel productive in fighting a ‘war’, good luck with that.
Have you conceded yet that Brandon S did not hack the SKS site? It’s part of the ‘talks’, of course.
Brandon G
Working on the 37% that is due to electricity doesn’t strike me as “window dressing”.
I don’t see how that makes nukes window dressing. Shifting transportation to electrical vehicles is going to require the electrical energy to be generated. And if electricity was cheap enough, that can shift some of the industry useage to electricity. (Heck, my water heater, furnace and dryer are gas. If electricity were cheaper, I might go electric.)
Besides: you have to start somewhere. Nukes work.
(FWIW: Ethanol from corn strikes me as window dressing.)
Yet another reason that nukes are not window dressing. If the US is shifts to nukes that would reduce our foot print.
Brandon G
Not so much enjoy…
Rosemary was Jim’s mother
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/rosemary-liljegren/
We are a bit wistful right now. She was admitted to the hospital with a urinary tract infection about 5 days ago last year. We were still hoping she would make it on the 27th (my birthday). In fact, Jim’s brothers thought she was going to pull through and left the hospital 15 minutes before she died. Jim was holding her hand. Obviously, almost 95 years is a long time to live, but still, we miss her.
Negotiating rule one: don’t insult the other side….. unless you don’t actually care about the outcome.
SteveF – Vizzini’s got this; watch and be awed at his mastery. 🙂
Negotiating rule two: accept that your interests and those of the other side mostly diverge. Accept it and look for common ground where you can. If no common ground exists, walk away.
.
Negotiating rule three: assume the other side acts in good faith, or if you don’t believe that is the case, accept at least that you could be mistaken, and do not accuse them of bad faith. Unless you don’t care about the outcome.
Steve did not learn negotiating tactics at Trump U, clearly.
Terry,
No link.
Andrew_FL,
Clearly not. At least not the version of that school he promotes. In ‘real life’, Trump is almost certainly more reasonable, or people would just walk away.
mark bofill (Comment #146802)
.
.
Your reputation with me is based on you being conciliatory, I think that’s one of your best traits. You’re not doing that right now, you want to fight. So I’m giving you what you *appear* to want, while at the same time managing my own reputation with others — as well as my own dignity as a human being.
.
What’s particularly distressing for me right now is that eariler today, you said that you wanted to talk at my place because, well here, this wants an exact quote:
.
Me:When you ask me at my own blog if I’d like to talk over there because I’m getting “roughed up†and you can’t control it, what you’re really doing is trying to bait me away from your friends self-destructing their own positions.
.
You: You are a fine judge of character Brandon. I offered to talk at your blog because I felt badly for you, you fool. I didn’t think it was right that you had to put up with the abuse one sided like that.
.
I did in fact misjudge your intent, and I’m sorry to have done so. I can be an asshole intentionally, for which I don’t feel as bad as when I’m an asshole unintentionally.
.
.
~sigh~
.
I hate this construction, but I’ll use it anyway: I never said you didn’t have other reasons for being here. But unless one is a sociopath or a robot, we humans go to much effort to maintain our reputations with others.
.
In my case here, one reputation management concern of mine is that I will not be a pinata. I’m happy to have good faith discussions in “polite tone” with people, but if it gets to being “dogpile the warmist day” everytime I try to do it, we’re gonna have some words. And one thing I will do with my words is press the “you’re acting like an asshole and looking like a fool in front of everyone” button. Shit knows practically everyone else on this friggin’ thread has been playing it on me, eh? I answer my own rhetorical question: you bet their asses they have.
.
Now, it’s becoming quite tedious for me that you keep attempting to undermine me by painting me to be a hypocrite or untrustworthy for consistently holding these two principles at the same time:
.
1) I want to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem of AGW.
.
2) I will speak to dishonesty and bad faith behavior when I see it.
.
When I *percieve* that your friends are acting in bad faith toward me, they’re going to get option (2). *You’re* getting option (2) right now. That does NOT mean that I’m not still interested in option (1).
.
IF I don’t play option (2) as the minority negotiator for my side here, I will get my ass kicked if I let someone slide one past me because I’m trying to be “nice” while doing option (1).
.
Please tell me that you understand my position here.
Steve,
Link is in 146795
.
Cheers
Brandon G,
.
Stop right there. I do not think you are a hypocrite or untrustworthy for consistently holding those two principles at the same time. I think you are attempting to adhere to two mutually exclusive goals.
.
You can be a diplomat or a warrior Brandon G. You can’t be both at the same time. I mean, you can try; you can do whatever the heck you want, it’s a free country. It’s not going to work, and I’m not going to pretend I think it’s going to work.
.
Now I am not out to undermine you. I said this:
The only reason I am still talking is because you won’t let me be. I am trying to opt out of the conversation with an explanation regarding why I am doing so. Just quit talking to me and you can proceed with everybody else.
.
This said, I do not guarantee I will not comment again. You want the option of resorting to fighting, you ought to be comfortable with the consequence that people may elect to fight with you depending on how it goes.
.
I hope this clarifies my position. There is no need for you to address me again regarding this in my view.
.
[Edit: and I do not want to fight. Like I said, I want to not participate in the conversation.]
sue (Comment #146803),
.
.
You are correct, I am not. People who are in powerful positions do not spend all day on their laptop talking to perfect strangers on blogs.
.
.
I know what I’m trying to achieve, and have been upfront and honest about it from the get-go. If you have not done so, try reading from the beginning.
.
.
I have not “conceded” anything along those lines. I don’t know if he did or not, and that was my ending position the last time it was topical. You will also note that I have not spoken to that either, in some time. You raising it now *appears* intended to restart that acrimony, which tends to be divisive. That tells me that you are not interested in having a discussion about how we might mutually work toward addressing AGW, which is my *primary* reason for being here.
.
Thanks for playing.
SteveF,
.
I agree with you. I don’t understand why it’s controversial. There’s a reason diplomats practice what we know as ‘diplomacy’, it’s not some strange coincidence.
.
Nite all.
Good night Mark.
Lucia, my thoughts are with you and Jim…
Good night Mark and SteveF.
mark bofill (Comment #146815),
.
.
[screetching halt]
.
.
Whew, good, this is progress. Thank you for the clarification, with apologies for again misinterpreting.
.
.
Ah. There are thirty ways I could respond to that, in the interest of brevity (since when?) I’ll limit to a few in pithy bullet-point form:
.
1) I suppose I deserve that for telling you that you can’t be a dispassionate neutral mediator when you are clearly aligned with my opposition.
.
2) The hell I can’t. [and yes, I see your free country remark below, but this here was my knee-jerk reaction]
.
3) Diplomacy is war, it just uses words, not guns.
.
4) Since there is no dispassionate mediator in sight (which is fine, we all have our own disparate and conflicting interests) in this forum, it’s probably going to be difficult to be one thing or the other, especially if I want to prioritize diplomacy.
.
5) Hence, I can prioritize diplomacy, but when someone takes a shot at me, I’m going to fight back.
.
6) If I keep getting dogpiled, I’m going to be doing a lot of fighting.
.
7) When I do that, 10 people are going to be claiming 1 person is the asshole.
.
8) I then get to claim that 10 people at The Blackboard don’t really care to come to a mutual agreement about how to address AGW.
.
Now, (2) is meant to be lighthearted humor, with some steel behind it. Maybe nobody really cares about (8), but as you might say ~shrug~: if that’s to be the game, I’ll play that game.
.
Now. I see SteveF has dropped in and shared some rules of diplomacy. They’re good rules. If we’re to make any progress on finding mutual solutions, we would do well to follow them as best we can. I know that I won’t be able to do them perfectly, but I can try very hard to do so. I will be more successful if most everyone else helps. That won’t be perfect either of course, so I will probably from time to time intentionally shoot back someone who wades in with a drive-by snark attack — I really need to be given some leeway to do that because if I can’t defend myself, I’ll feel uncomfortable and more than likely I’ll just end up getting walked on.
.
Again if that’s the consensus view of The Blackboard wrt me, fine. I’d rather that not be the consensus view here, but I’m not about to get bent if it isn’t.
.
.
Fine you’re on record. If you want to keep expressing that opinion, you will all but guarantee that it won’t work. Which I will then *perceive* as you attempting to undermine me. Which means to me [drumroll please] that you’re not actually serious about finding a mutually acceptable solution to address AGW.
.
I hear “that won’t work” in other contexts here as well. Or “just give it up Gates” from others. Or, since China, India and Brazil aren’t going to give up fossil fuels … [dot dot dot].
.
Those are all things which say to me, indirectly, that folk here aren’t really serious about addressing AGW in some meaningful way, in a mutually acceptable fashion. As a diplomat, I would be remiss to not point out to the other side when I think they *might* not be dealing with me straight.
.
If *you* are going to interpret those as fighting words, you’re right … I can’t even be a diplomat here.
.
Double-bind again. Please think about what you are saying to me, Mark.
.
.
I will honor that when you stop talking about my aims and intent here to others. I explained that last post.
.
.
In a public forum, the way to opt out of a conversation is to stop talking without announcing it. If you announce something to the forum, you are still talking.
.
.
Yes, thank you.
.
.
Understood and fair enough. From my view there was a need — do manage my reputation with others.
.
Cheers.
lucia (Comment #146806),
.
.
I’m sure you do. I am sorry for your loss. Having lost some of my own family in the past few years, my thoughts are with you and yours now.
Brandon R. Gates:
Then your reading skills are as poor as ever. I highlighted that quote of yours because wanted to draw attention to how ridiculous it is. Just like this one by you:
I think most people who see me highlight quotes like these will understand why I draw attention to them and in what way I think they are deserving of being snickered at. You may not. That’s okay. You wrote them so it is hardly surprising you might not understand how silly it is to say things like:
Even though this one would have a fascinating implication about you.
Regardless, me highlighting quotes of yours to draw attention and scorn to them is not somehow a change in behavior indicating I’m acting in better faith than before. You are no more being “heard” by me now than ever before. Now I’m just being more concise when I highlight how ridiculous you behave.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146822),
.
.
I’m fascinated by the implications of you finding unassailable logic “silly”, B.S.
As always, I ask people not to call me by my initials due to the unfortuante association they have.
Lucia,
Would you consider opening a thread for me and anybody else who’s not interested in this?
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146824),
.
.
The above statement deserves special attention, B.S.
Oh lord, are we really going to go through this again? I thought after going through this with Neal J. King, we could be done with it. I honestly don’t know what to expect from people anymore. Rudeness is one thing, but this level of pettiness is just…
Brandon S,
That’s the face of good faith negotiations with Brandon G. I’d complain about it, but if I open my mouth:
.
.
Like good faith negotiations with Judge Dredd.
.
Brandon G, you want safe conduct, you need to behave. If you want to ad hom people, forget about it. Your fantasy about working to solve AGW by calling Brandon S. B.S. is juvenile and ridiculous, and I’m done with it and I’m done cooperating with you. I’ll show you the same respect I show any troll; none.
Mark Bofill:
You don’t need to tell me. This has been clear to me for quite some time. He chooses to read things in ways that let him take offense so he can believe himself to be a victim to justify his abusive treatment of others. Whether or not his interpretations are remotely reasonable doesn’t matter.
Consider his quote I highlighted above. To him, if anyone says anything about him that isn’t true, it’s fine for him to decide that means they’re lying. He says that is “unassailable logic.” In reality, people say things that aren’t true, even about other people, all the time without lying. Misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistakes are natural. But to him, they’re lies. Or at least, they are when it is convenient for him. (The number of things he’s said about other people that aren’t true would seem to be ready proof his “unassailable logic” is wrong, but it’s unlikely he’d acknowledge much of what he’s said about other people is wrong.)
This is actually a well-studied pattern of behavior. The cycle of convincing oneself they’re the victim of abuse (especially by groups) to justify abusing others is quite well-known in people who study this sort of thing.
Mark Bofill (Comment #146828),
.
.
I’m not the one with the behavior problem, Mark. Here’s Brandon S. the post before I called him by is given initials, B.S.:
.
Then your reading skills are as poor as ever.
.
I think most people who see me highlight quotes like these will understand why I draw attention to them and in what way I think they are deserving of being snickered at.
.
You are no more being “heard†by me now than ever before. Now I’m just being more concise when I highlight how ridiculous you behave.
.
Yesterday you properly recognized it:
.
I didn’t think it was right that you had to put up with the abuse one sided like that.
.
This could not stand, and Brandon S. wrote you:
.
But I’m pretty sure you don’t think people like lucia and myself were bullying him.
.
Here is your response, an almost complete reversal:
.
I don’t think you and Lucia are bullies. I don’t think there is no basis whatsoever for Brandon G’s feeling like you are.
.
I know how to defend myself against abuse. You need to understand that it is my right to do so. It’s required of me to maintain my dignity as a thinking, feeling, sovereign human being. It’s not at all childish to stand up to abuse.
.
Think very carefully before you answer. Not for me. For you. Please. I am not the only one here your so-called friends are trying to manipulate.
Brandon G,
.
I understand that. Pouring gasoline on the fire is not the answer.
.
I didn’t want to offer you this suggestion, because it’s presumptuous and I know that perfectly well. I apologize for the presumption but I really think this might help, why don’t you give this a try:
That’s it. That’s all you have to say. If Brandon S is being the dick, believe me. Other people are going to notice. Eventually the bad behavior will irritate the other people. You get the moral high ground. You get everyone’s respect for your restraint and sympathy for the abuse. You get everything you want, except the emotional satisfaction of hitting back. Now I got it that that’s alot to ask someone. It’s hard to do. It’s why it takes an effort for me to go to hostile blogs frankly, because I’m usually not up for frustration and work. But if you really want to do this, if you really care, why don’t you give it a try? Repeating the same strategy that hasn’t been working isn’t going to accomplish anything.
Anyway, if you don’t want to do that but want to continue what you’ve been doing, this is what’s going to continue to happen. You’re going to ‘defend yourself’ by making offensive statements towards people. Some of those people, thus offended, will make offensive statements in response. We now have a nice, self sustaining blaze going on. Occasionally, some additional person will become involved by remarking. Because everyone is in a bad mood, generating and receiving offensive statements, the odds are excellent that the additional newcomer people will become part of the fight. Note that the substance of the debate is completely irrelevant at this point; everybody is hitting back because they’ve been hit and no further reason is required. In such circumstance, how do people choose a side? They side with their friends of course.
.
What’s the net result? Bingo! The luckwarmer jerks at the Blackboard who ‘smell of pit and taste of horsepiss’ I think is the way you characterized the encounter at Anders, wasn’t it?
.
And you insist that I cooperate with this and pretend that I think it’s a good idea. It’s just not.
[Update: Yeah. here’s the comment I was referring to.
Looking good Brandon G. So you want to negotiate in good faith. Until you feel pissed off, at which time it’s perfectly OK to go bad mouth the people you are negotiating in good faith with publicly to your friends.
Get serious. If you want to fight, fight. If you want to deal, deal. You can’t do both at the same time.
mark bofill (Comment #146831) ,
.
.
No “if” belongs in at the beginning of that sentence.
.
.
Doubtful. Read your words to me again:
.
I didn’t think it was right that you had to put up with the abuse one sided like that.
.
Your eyes were not wrong then. Where did you go?
Here are some links where people here handle putting out the fire without dumping fossil fuels on it:
.
JD Ohio
Lucia
Mark Bofill
.
There are many many other examples, but I don’t have all day to go identify isolate and link them.
mark bofill (Comment #146834),
.
None of those links have anything to do with me. I don’t need examples of how to get along with people that I want to get along with.
.
I don’t want to get along with Brandon S. That’s ok. It’s my right not to.
Brandon G,
Sure. If not getting along with Brandon [strike G] [S] is the more important [thing], go with that.
mark bofill (Comment #146836),
.
He doesn’t deserve my respect. Some of my adversaries do. He doesn’t.
Doesn’t have to be about the people who aren’t worth talking to or about.
mark bofill (Comment #146838),
.
A person like Brandon S. who cannot stand to be called by his own initials is not someone who deserves respect, Mark. Especially one who demands respect of others whom he does not give it to.
So don’t respect him. Ignore him if you feel that way.
.
Look, fine. Go fight with him. You don’t respect him, you don’t like him, but all you want to do is interact with him. Knock yourself out. I just wish you’d quit kidding yourself, you aren’t here to discuss anything, you’re here to fight with Brandon S. Fine.
Mark Bofill:
Thanks for the reminder of those instances. In reviewing them, my opinion of things hasn’t changed, but it is good to refresh myself on how people will say ridiculous things then shut off discussions rather than deal with them. I know I’m an outlier here, but I still think it was wrong in each of those cases.
Though I suppose they were better than Brandon R. Gates’s approach of intentionally tying not to shut off discussions while trying to prevent those discussions from being meaningful.
mark bofill (Comment #146840),
.
.
When I’m attacked, I will defend. You do it too. It’s your right to do so. Read the threads, Mark. I don’t seek him out.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146841),
.
.
Please describe exactly how I did that, Brandon S. You have to answer honestly, because I respectfully didn’t call you by your unfortunate initials.
Brandon G.
.
I think we’re talking past each other. I don’t dispute that it’s your right. I don’t dispute that I fight with people. I don’t dispute that Brandon S. looks like he’s trying to pick a fight with you. Of course all that’s true. It’s what happened earlier, it’s what we’re repeating.
.
Exercising your right to fight with people is fine. Excercising your right to fight with people while you are trying to work something out with those people is silly. I keep insisting on this and you keep ignoring it in your responses, and instead we keep returning to ‘but it’s my right. It’s what I want to do.’ Fine! Go do what you want to do. Quit pretending that what you want to do is have a discussion. You want to exercise your right to fight Brandon S. Go for it.
.
Or don’t quit pretending. But I’m not going to pretend with you. You want to fight my tribal lukewarmer brother Brandoon, I guess we’re going to fight. If you want to go and misrepresent what’s going on here all over the web as you ‘negotiating with the luckwarmers’, I’m going to call you a liar when that happens. You’re not negotiating, you’re engaging in tribal warfare with us. Fine, that’s your right. My right to call you out for it.
Mark Bofill:
Huh? I’ve mostly refrained from responding to Brandon R. Gates in my comments for a while now. As things have progressed, I’ve responded less and less to him and directed my comments to audience in general. That’s not trying to pick a fight with a person. It’s the opposite.
One might view it negatively when someone starts to mostly ignore a person and instead talk to other people about him in the third person, but it is certainly not trying to pick a fight with the person they’re now trying to ignore.
This statement confuses me as I am no lukewarmer. As far as I know, I’m not part of any tribe at all. I certainly don’t think you’d find many people who’d consider me to be part of their’s, and I know I don’t feel any tribal obligations to anyone.
Brandon S,
.
.
Doesn’t matter. So you’re a non tribal regular of uncertain status who ended up in this case being misinterpreted as a tribe member by me. I’m not sidetracking any farther off onto this, I’m far enough out towards the weeds already.
.
[Edit: The ‘tribe’ thing is an analogy or a metaphor or something Brandon S. The analogy or metaphor or whatever it is does break down if taken too far. By hanging out here / commenting here regularly on more or less friendly terms with the other regulars, I think you are indeed ‘part of the tribe’ for all reasonable intents and purposes.]
Mark Bofill:
Are you sure? I’d think any diversion would be welcome at this point.
That could perhaps make me a member of this site’s tribe, if it has one, but it wouldn’t make me a member of the lukewarmer tribe. Either way, the reason I bring this up is I don’t feel any tribalistic instincts toward anyone. I don’t know if anyone feels them toward me, but if so, it’s not anything I’ve asked for or expected. I certainly won’t treat people here differently than I would treat people anywhere else.
(Save insofar people here might behave differently than people in other places, of course.)
Brandon S,
.
.
Yeah I got that. I think most people here get it. Thanks for making it clear though. I appreciate it when you disabuse me when I am potentially operating under false assumptions about you.
Mark B.
Flame wars, which is what this exchange has evolved into, are usually boring for the bystanders and consume entirely too much bandwidth. How about you and Brandon S. simply stop responding, no matter what Brandon G. says about you. That’s a suggestion, not a question.
Thanks DeWitt, sounds like sense to me.
I’d be happy to stop responding to him. The only reason I’ve kept commenting is Mark Bofill and lucia responded to Brandon R. Gates with what appeared to be actual attempts at having discussions, so I wanted to highlight things which show the futility of such.
If people are done trying to have real discussions with Gates, I’m happy to leave this all behind.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #146853),
.
.
Appearances can be deceiving.
.
Proof by question-begging is silly, Brandon S. I only highlight this to show how futile it is attempting to have a discussion with you.
.
Ta.
On a different subject, anybody know what’s up with ‘Climate Propaganda dot org’? Doesn’t seem to be up.
.
How am I supposed to find out what I’m supposed to think with the link down..
.
What is it with progressives and websites. It’s Obamacare signup dejavu.
I just wanted to say one more thing re: Mosher. Over at Judith’s he stated that he would not be watching Morano’s movie because watching movies are a waste of time. Someone questioned why he wastes his time responding on blogs. His response was that movies are passive, but blogs are active.
My response to him (because I don’t like her comment setup) is that books and sci papers are passive also, yet I bet he reads both of them. He’s just being his obnoxious self regarding the movie rather than being truthful about why he won’t see THIS movie ( I won’t either BTW because I really don’t go out to watch movies). The change in Mosher over the past 9-10 yrs is amazing. He’s a really smart guy but he has become abrupt and obnoxious. 🙁
😉
Andrew
sue,
Bringing my head up with answering AP C review questions for my tutees…. I almost never watch climate change movies or online videos because the information content is very, very low. Generally, the claims in a 90 minute climate change movie could be condensed into 10 minutes of reading.
The only reason I would watch such a thing is if it was necessary to respond to it. Unless Morano’s movie is a huge widely discussed hit, I will not be watching it either.
Papers are different: The claims are generally very easy to spot, and the density of claims and discussion makes reading them more time effective for me.
Andrew 😉
Lucia, if he had claimed he does not watch Climate movies for those reasons that would have been fine, but he only stated he does not watch movies… I don’t think he understands how his being so abrupt makes his comments so confusing. You would think he would, being a deconstructionist…
And for the record, I am going to see Climate Hustle tonight and will present a full report on the ‘morrow. Not that I think it’s an important movie, but it may be entertaining, especially if Warmers get made fun of.
Andrew
Before I say this, I’d like to note that propaganda doesn’t have to be a dirty word. Whether or not we call specific propaganda good or bad depends on what side of the fence we’re on. Not unlike saying soldiers or bullets or something like that are good or evil; depends [on whether or not] they are protecting you or kicking in your door I imagine.
.
The relevant definitions of propaganda, according to Merriam Webster appear to be:
.
So. With the preliminaries completed, lemme say that ‘Climate Hustle’ sounds every bit as much propaganda as ‘Climate Feedback dot Org’. I am curious to know if ‘Climate Hustle’ is well done, effective propaganda or not, but I’m not so much expecting it to tell me anything I haven’t heard about the science or the state of the conflict between people who think we should take certain actions now and others who don’t.
mark bofill,
If it’s poorly done propaganda, I anticipate lots of jokes about it tomorrow.
Andrew, Let us know.
Mark, It’s definitely propaganda just like Al Gores and Oreskes’s films. I honestly don’t know why anyone (sorry Andrew) would pay to see stuff like this. Problem of course, is that they all try and sometimes succeed to get it into the schools 🙁 The fact that Bill Nye (my and my kids favorite TV scientist in the mid 90’s) felt the need to tweet that all should not see it was entertaining alone…
Lucia,
.
Yup. Might make for interesting reading tomorrow, either way.
[Edit: Sue,
Oh absolutely. I can think of nothing the guy could have realistically done to promote the movie any more powerfully. Heck, almost made me go buy a ticket. 🙂 If Bill Nye says I better not watch it, I’d better go see what that’s about!
]
Mark, heh, they really don’t get this whole communicating thing,do they? No, they do not…
Speaking of unintentional promotion: All those anti-Trump protests and the bullying of corporations to not contribute to funding the Republican convention are almost sure to backfire too. I don’t know what those people think they are accomplishing. They even have me reconsidering my decision to not vote for him if (at this point it’s more like when) he gets the nomination.
DeWitt,
.
.
I keep going back and forth on that too.
“I honestly don’t know why anyone (sorry Andrew) would pay to see stuff like this.”
sue,
I generally don’t go to the movies because they just don’t make good ones anymore. I would walk out of most of them.
I’m trying to get my nephew to go with me (GF lives 1.5 hrs away), so I’m not That Loser Guy going to the movies by himself. lol
Andrew
Andrew, 🙂
Omg, please don’t anyone vote for Trump.
Sue,
Well, two things. One is that my state isn’t a swing state, so in that sense my vote is irrelevant. If Trump wins the nomination, Alabama will go to Trump. Two is a consequence of this, my vote is more a matter of ‘what I will look back on with the least regret’ than anything else. This is hard to say in truth. I could very, very easily see me kicking myself either way. In fact I think it more probable than not that I will end up feeling this way. Given all this, … I make no promises I guess. 🙂
mark,
I wasn’t going to vote for Romney (or anybody else either) last time, but some Yankee (in the Southern pejorative sense) started spouting off about the evils of Fox News in a fast food restaurant where I was eating lunch and pushed me over the edge. Of course, Romney isn’t Trump. I just didn’t think he could win after the fiasco of the primary campaign and would sink the Republican Party if by some miracle he did win. Four years later, it’s the same thing all over again.
Since the economy is going to tank big time sometime in the next four years, it might be better if it would be harder to blame the Republicans because a Democrat was President, not that they won’t try. The crash might be avoided with the right policies, but neither Trump nor Hillary are proposing anything like what’s needed.
Since this is an open thread and behavior by the blogger Anders has been a recent topic of discussion, I wanted to write a quick comment on a post I happened to see he had written when re-visiting at a previous one. The post draws attention to a blog titled Climate Sceptism, saying things like:
I think there is a bit of… whatever, as Anders frequently chooses not to even bother to try to be civil, but the more important issue to me is Anders is quite right. I think the tone and tenor of the blog he links to is terrible. I think people should be embarrassed by it. I’ve never followed the blog, having only read one post there (because it discussed my eBook), and I don’t expect to visit it in the future.
I just wanted to do a little to draw people’s attention to the matter and get my views “on the record.” This appears to be a matter Anders and I can agree on, save that he chooses to keep visiting the site and commenting there, something I don’t think I could stomach doing.
(I hope Anders happens to see this comment so he realizes not all the people he dislikes agree with the behavior shown on that blog. I would have posted this comment at his site just to express my agreement with him if I could have.)
Brandon G,
This is fine, no worries. I figured you were sick of the subject actually. You are most welcome to engage with me from my perspective.
.
I wanted to respond to this point. It seems to me that when you say ‘difficult’, we should both clarify what we mean in this regard. I think it’s a bad idea: I am not a psychologist, don’t know the exact mechanisms, but informally speaking when people perceive that they are being attacked I observe that they are more inclined to indulge in all sorts of behaviors that are less optimal IMO for reasoned discussion than otherwise. They ‘gang up’, they indulge in ad hom and other attacks against the ‘enemy’ to score points with other group members, they become defensive, they become emotional. Conflicts like this can become polarizing and spread; I think people often? sometimes? take a side because of these dynamics without even understanding the issue properly. Ironically, I think this may be close to or related to what some consensarians believe motivates some contrarians in general in the debate, and I think there is a grain of truth there, although it is not simply contrarians, it is people who behave this way.
I agree with this.
.
Thanks Brandon G.
Andrew’s Climate Hustle Review:
The theater was full. I bought my and my nephew’s tickets at $14.00 a piece. The seats were those reclining luxury chairs where you have room to stretch out your legs. I like that. 😉
I’ll give the movie itself 3 out of 5 stars. There were a couple of dumb moments in it, but that was not unexpected. I would have made the movie differently, the problem there is so much climate related BS to sift through, it’s hard to know where to begin. It tried to do some humor that just missed. No biggie.
The strength of the movie is that it simply catches prominent Warmers (scientists, politicians, enviros, tv anchors) saying really stupid stuff. There’s plenty of that to go around as we all know, and the movie did a good job highlighting some of it.
The weakness of the movie (IMO) was that it didn’t get into the deeper scientific issues at all, but of course not many people would sit through stuff like that. That’s the climate nerd in me wanting someone to explore all the holes in climate science and expose them.
I was surprised at how much Dr. Curry was in it. Anthony Watts only appeared for a few seconds. Richard Tol had a couple of nice bits, except for the hair.
I would recommend the movie to anyone who is interested the Global Warming discussion, simply because it presents relevant information about what’s being/been presented about climate you don’t get from typical media.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their paper list a lot of people saying ‘stupid’ things. So what. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether increasing ghg’s cause increasing temperature, all other things being equal. G&T then proceed to say a lot of stupid things themselves.
DeWitt,
Of course it does. The stupid things they say are based on the claim you make above. But I know you are a devotee of the above, so I understand your negative reaction.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
I’m not a devotee. I used to think that ghg global warming was wrong. But careful study of the science of radiative transfer and physical meteorology convinced me that the fundamentals were indeed correct.
People often say stupid things when they try to simplify the science for a lay audience. As I said, it doesn’t prove the fundamentals are wrong.
They also say stupid things like ‘Antarctica was the most habitable continent during the Eocene Optimum when it was a lot warmer than now’ when they try to convince people that global warming will be catastrophic. That’s a different issue entirely.
DeWitt,
I think that’s what this:
is.
Andrew
Ugh. I think I’m going to have to drop Anders’s RSS feed. In their discussion complaining about me, Brandon R. Gates wrote this over there today:
He later corrected it to refer to copyright law. Now, I didn’t say what he puts in quotation marks. What I said was, “There is no contradiction there.” THis was in reference to these two quotes:
Despite what Gates says, there is no contradiction. The first quote refers to how copyright law is used to protect a person’s income stream. The second quote says I don’t think that is the main purpose of copyright law. That a law does something does not make it the main purpose of the law.
Gates just ignored the word “mainly” in the sentence and repeatedly claimed that made the two quotes contradictory. Now he’s over there insulting me based upon this. It’s so weaksauce. There are all sorts of real points people could make to criticize me. Why is this the sort of thing what people choose to go with?
I don’t know, but I think I’m done paying even the slightest attention to them whining about me.
Brandon S,
.
I didn’t want to remark, because I didn’t want to do anything to upset the discussion but since you comment on this over on this thread anyway, I’d like to go ahead say kudos for your recent dialog with Anders here, I thought that was pretty well done.
Mark Bofill:
Remember though, there are a lot of things to vote on other than presidential candidates. There is actually more power per vote in basically any elections except ones related to the president. If people switched how much attention they payed to presidential nominations/elections with how much they paid to local/state affairs, they could greatly reshape the country in only a decade or so.
It’ll never happen, of course. As much as people like to talk about politics, the reality is most people are too lazy/apathetic to actually put much effort into figuring out how to change things. I think on some level it’s intentional. If they start working on changing the things they can change, then they will have responsibility for things. If they only focus on national elections, they can just say, “Well, they just don’t listen to me.” I can’t help but think one of the most important purposes of the American political system is just to give people a way to displace blame.
Mark Bofill:
Thanks. I wish it would have gone smoother, but… eh.
Brandon S,
.
.
I think this was an astute observation. 🙂 It’s essentially what I was saying after all; don’t blame me, my vote doesn’t count.
.
yup.
Wow, Cruz just dropped out.
mark bofill,
As I said above, the demonstrations against Trump were going to backfire. If they keep it up, he’ll be elected President by a landslide. If Hillary has half a brain, which I sometimes doubt, she should be doing everything in her power to rein them in.
DeWitt,
I doubt Hillary can control the demonstrations.
lucia,
No, but she or people in her campaign can put the word out to the leadership of the organizations responsible that what they’re doing isn’t helping. But who knows, maybe she thinks it is helping her.
My speculation is that what’s happening is that conservative voters (like me) are being marginalized and pushed out of the political process, to put it straightforwardly. And the GOP is cooperating in that plan.
Andrew
Well, now that Trump is the nominee, I hope he gets around to fleshing out his policy positions a bit, that’s all I can say. A bunch of 23 second video clips saying essentially ‘elect me, I’ll fix it’ isn’t going to continue to suffice in my view, if it ever did.
.
[Edit: I see that that was unfair of me. I’d say the average video clip length is probably closer to around 50 seconds. Still. A little more substance, maybe a few written paragraphs without all the fluff.]
Anders:
When having a discussion about a serious subject, it is perfectly appropriate for people to wish for everyone to engage in a productive manner. That is true regardless of what may have been said in any other forum. Doing so is not whining, and you should not dismiss it as such.
Quite simply, when I and others are trying to have a useful discussion, it would be nice if people who joined in did so in a useful manner. Stating that desire is not whining any more than someone saying, “It would be nice if people would stop trolling.” Anyway, for something topical:
I understand what you said there perfectly. I’ve done nothing to indicate otherwise. It doesn’t impact anything I’ve said.
Brandon,
Wow, my comment was too complicated for you. I’ll spell it out one more time. Concentrate now.
1. People who libel others don’t – IMO – get to complain about the tone of future discussions.
2. You weren’t just having any old discussion; you were discussing my post. You were wrong. You’re still trying to claim that it is somehow my fault. This is not the first time you’ve done this. This is bizarre.
3. If you do something like this again, I will potentially come and point out again that you’re wrong. If you don’t like how I may do that, be more careful about what you choose to say publicly. This should not be a complicated concept. For some reason it appears to be beyond you.
Orin Kerr from Volokh has published his paper “Norms of Computer Trespass” which will be in an upcoming issue of Columbia Law Review. It discusses the “Weev” case and has come to the same conclusion as “everyone not associated with SkS” I suppose is one way to put it. Interesting reading, relevant section starts on page 1162 – http://tinyurl.com/z7tfkco
Well, consider the “Cruz equivalents” in previous elections — such as Kemp, Gramm, Forbes, or Thompson. They tended to get tiny vote totals in the primaries (on the order of 3%), and drop out even earlier, while the anointed moderates swept in. Cruz managed a much stronger showing than any of them. So I don’t think it’s fair to say this time around that conservative voters were marginalized…just outnumbered.
Anders:
Leaving aside I haven’t libeled anyone, the simple reality is if you join a discussion and behave in an unhelpful manner, people may freely express distaste for your unhelpful behavior. You may feel that’s wrong based upon some past behavior of theirs, but using that as an excuse to behave in a disruptive manner will only make things worse for everybody, including you.
I hate to resort to such a trite saying, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if I did do what you claim, which I did not, it would not justify your behavior. Disrupting people’s attempts to have real discussions because you don’t like them is not a good thing to do.
So please, if you want to dwell on personal gripes, take it elsewhere. Here, people are trying to have useful discussions.
Brandon,
If you accuse academics of lying in a published paper, you are libelling them. Come on, at least own it. Denying that you’ve done it is bizarre.
I don’t care. I’m not really trying to help you.
The 120 W/m^2 comes from 33K x 3.2W/m^2/K. It is sometimes represented as 150W/m^2, but that’s the difference between the Greenhouse and non-Greenhouse surface fluxes (sigma (288^4 – 255^4)).
Brandon S,
.
.
Anders is being pretty straightforward about his position. It seems to boil down to the idea that he will engage with you, except that he’ll go out of his way to be a dick in doing so because of your blog posts / until you fix or back out your blog posts. It’s a free Internet out there (free as in speech but not beer), he can do that. So, really the question boils down to this. Do you intend to continue to engage with a guy who’s going to continue to deliberately be a dick until you meet his demands?
.
You can, of course, like I said. It’s a free Internet. Or not. But if you elect to continue to engage, it seems silly to continue to protest that Anders is being a dick. He’s basically said as clearly as anybody could want that yup, that’s how it’s going to be.
.
I wouldn’t continue to engage were I you. Just give it up. Free advice (free as in beer this time).
Mark,
You’ve pretty much summed that up. I’d be quite impressed if Brandon at least illustrated that he understood the point. To be clear, though, it’s only because Brandon claimed, here, I’d made a mistake in my post that I came here t point out that he was wrong – something he still seems unwilling to recognise.
Let’s clarify something. Brandon is the one complaining about my tone. I’ve been explaining why. So, if Brandon wants my tone when engaging with him to improve, then he fixes his posts. If he doesn’t care, then he can leave his posts, but should stop whining about my tone. He can’t have it both ways.
Anders,
.
.
I see. The term ‘demands’ implies that you’re the one seeking to have something changed, when the truth is you could give a darn.
Thanks for the clarification, I did have that wrong.
Joseph W,
Describe it as you will, but the bottom line is that the GOP is not presenting a conservative candidate for president. Arguably, in the past they have, more or less. Everything in politics is a judgment call, I realize. But as a conservative voter, I can’t support the (presumed) GOP candidate Trump because he’s fundamentally not what I can support.
I guess you can say the drift away of the GOP from conservatives has become obvious.
Andrew
Anders,
.
Do you have an opinion one way or the other about the UK exit from the EU? If so, I’d be interested in hearing what you’ve got to say about it, if you care to share your view on it.
Mark,
Why would you want to know that? I do try to avoid discussing politics, despite what some might claim.
Can I ask, are you in the UK, or the US?
Anders,
.
Absolutely no real reason. 🙂 Polite curiosity and making conversation. I’m in the U.S., in Alabama. We were talking U.S. presidential politics a bit and I remembered abruptly that you were European, and it occurred to me to ask your take on it.
.
I’ve got no opinion on it, am highly ignorant of whatever issues are involved with the question, so on. No real point to my question.
Mark,
I’m actually a South African living in Scotland.
That’s right. I remember now. I’m sorry I’d forgotten your nationality. Never mind I guess. Again, unless you have an opinion you’d like to share. ~shrug~
Mark Bofill:
As long as in the process of being a dick, he is also useful, yes. While Anders has set out to be a dick this entire time, some progress has been made. That makes me happy. I’d rather such progress not require one party be a dick, but I’d rather one person be a dick and progress get made than nobody say anything and no progress get made.
We’re about at the point where I’ll do that as Anders has taken to not responding to any points of disagreement, declaring victory and going on and on about points there are no disputes regarding. Well, that and making those silly personal gripes like:
When anybody who has even the most basic understanding of defamation knows the truth is never defamatory. That means Anders is expressing exasperation at the fact I won’t admit my accusations the authors of Cook et al (2016) lied were false. Well, that’s not going to happen because those accusations are true.
Cook et al (2016) claimed to examine the available studies on the “consensus” regarding global warming. In an earlier draft, they referred to Powell (2015) on two different issues: 1) Its claim that the Cook et al (2013) results were wrong; 2) It’s claim Richard Tol is wrong. In the final version, they continued to cite Powell (2015) as proving Richard Tol was wrong. However, they didn’t include any of its commentary on how Cook et al (2013) were wrong or its alternative estimate of the consensus.
In other words, I called the authors of Cook et al (2016) liars because they chose to cite a source to support a position they liked while simultaneously excluding the things it said that they didn’t like. Given the things they didn’t like and excised from their paper were directly relevant to what they claimed to have examined in their paper, their claim to have examined all available studies is a lie.
TL;DR: They claimed to examine all available studies while knowingly excising disfavorable results from a study they continues to cite favorable arguments from. Calling that lying is not libel.
mark bofill,
I have to admit to having no previous awareness of Anders nationality. I knew he was located somewhere in the UK.
My stray curiosity is: What do those in the UK think if Obama sticking his oar in. My feeling is that most American’s would be annoyed at a foreign leader advising what we should do on a matter that doesn’t really concern his country.
Beyond that: As an American, it seems strange to hear our President suggest there is some sort of “one at a time” type “line” for economic treaties. It seems to me we can perfectly well negotiate with the UK in parallel with the EU.
I have to admit to having no previous awareness of Anders nationality. I knew he was located somewhere in the UK.
.
Same. I knew he was in Scotland, but am now a bit bummed i can’t read his posts with a Scottish brogue, damnit.
Lucia,
.
I’m mildly curious to know if that’s right too. I’d think that’d be the case, but.
.
:> Of course. We all know that President Obama was really saying that he would punish them for leaving the UK by not treating with them, or by dragging his feet. Sometimes I wonder why politicians bother not speaking straight.
.
OTOH, Hillary spoke straight ‘we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.‘ and that came back to haunt her in West Virginia, so maybe there is a point to the B.S.. I don’t know, I don’t think President Obama was fooling anybody.
Lucia,
.
I try not to dwell on Anders personal details since he seems to want to maintain semi-anonymity. I didn’t think it through when I raised the question, that asking him about a UK policy question sort of violates that stricture. I remembered reading that he was South African somewhere though (since he mentions it).
.
I’m mildly curious to know if that’s right too. I’d think that’d be the case, but.
.
.
:> Of course. We all know that President Obama was really saying that he would punish them for leaving the UK by not treating with them, or by dragging his feet. Sometimes I wonder why politicians bother not speaking straight.
.
OTOH, Hillary spoke straight ‘we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.‘ and that came back to haunt her in West Virginia, so maybe there is a point to the B.S.. I don’t know, I don’t think President Obama was fooling anybody.
I just finished lunch and am about to head back to yard work (hopefully I can get this weed whacker to work), but before I go I want to point out an interesting aspect to libel laws.
Generally, opinions are not ground for libel. However, that does not mean you can couch accusations as opinion to avoid a lawsuit. What matters if whether or not the opinion could possibly be proven true. A statement like, “Chocolate tastes better than vanilla” cannot be proven true or false, so it considered a “pure opinion.” A statement like, “I think my neighbor is an alcoholic” is not the same because it could be proven whether or not your neighbor is an alcoholic. The reason is a reader may well assume you have unstated facts on which you base that belief. The potential for implied facts is what is grist for a lawsuit.
However, if you state the facts which lead you to hold your opinion, there are no implied facts, and thus your opinion is merely that – an opinions. That means it will (in most jurisdictions) be considered protected speech. That is why you will rarely see a libel lawsuit over something where the author explained the case for his accusations.
Anyway, back to yardwork. I swear the neighbor is intentionally planting weeds in this yard just to be evil. It’s the only explanation for these growths. (Oh no, I libeled her!)
Brandon
Actually, I’m expressing exasperation that you would go around calling us liars while complaining about how I interact with you. That’s what exasperates me. It’s as if you think that because you believe that you’re right (which you aren’t by the way, there are reasons that the draft changed that you do not know about) that those you libel should then still interact with you in some decent way. No, they probably shouldn’t give you the time of day and the manner in which I have interacted with you is far, far better than you deserve. At least indicate that you understand what I’m saying, because it seems that you don’t even get this basic point. I’m being a bit of a dick because that’s what I think you are. Come on, show some self-awareness.
Brandon S,
With all the rain my lawn is an absolute jungle right now. I am so not looking forward to tackling it this weekend…
mark,
I often only have a vague notion where people who visit blogs are. But over time I gather where they are. I think Robert Way is in Canada. I think you are in the US. I’m near Chicago; Brandon S is within a few hours drive and so on.
That’s the implication I get. But they vote in late June. Obama will be out in January. Any treaty will be initially worked out by whoever our next Prez is; that’s not Obama. And treaties require Senate endorsement: Also not Obama.
Anders,
.
FWIW, I understand where you are coming from regarding the blog post. I don’t necessarily agree with how anybody’s handled and or is handling it, but if it gives you some sense of peace to hear somebody over here indicate that they at least understand what you are saying, I can help you with that. I understand what you are saying.
Brandon
‘I think I’m done for the night. I just got to Steven Mosher’s comment where he responds to someone else entirely and writes:
HUH?
…..
“Even though that doesn’t respond to anything I had said.”
First thing.
1. My bad. In your post you addressed both me and Anders.
Reading back through it it was clear the text I quoted was directed at Anders not me. I’m sorry for missing that in my first read through it. My bad. I should have followed my own
advice and read harder. No excuse.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2016/human-caused-forcing-and-climate-sensitivity/#comment-146917
2. Now what me nit pick your response. watch me read your text with no charity. This is for illustration ONLY.
“where he responds to someone else entirely”
A) I didnt respond to someone else entirely. That’s a lie.
“”Even though that doesn’t respond to anything I had said.”
B) it responds to something you said. Dont lie.
It’s fun and instructive to be wrong. I misread your original post.
I failed to follow my own advice. And so it goes.I apologize. Still, I think its useful to point out how simple misuderstandings can either be settled ( oh I misread you, sorry ) or they can be COMPOUNDED.
I could have compounded the misunderstanding by nit picking your response and then raised the stakes by using the lie word.
Err Lucia.. does this belong on the other thread?
Lucia,
.
.
That’s a good point. Maybe President Obama thinks that Madam President will faithfully execute his legacy, but I rather doubt it. Maybe (apparently?) it was just empty bluster.
I agree with Steven Mosher (Comment #147099). This said, I don’t particularly admire how Anders is handling the matter either. Whatever. When I talk about tone too much it makes me feel like a mall cop. Mall cop uniform isn’t a good look for me somehow…
I was just hoping we could get past it I suppose. Guess not.
Mosher,
It’s here now. I love the ‘shift comments’ plugin. 🙂
Mark Bofill:
It wouldn’t be so bad except I seem to have terrible luck with machines. I got the weed whacker working with no problem and went through a tank of gas. Right as the tank was almost empty, the string stopped coming out. It turns out the plastic had melted together in various spots, and I had to cut the string with a knife in each spot it had melted together while it was still wound.
After dealing with that, one of the tubes carrying the gas came loose and began leaking. After dealing with that, it worked better than at the start of the day (I think the leak was getting worse as the day went on). Then the thing started dying again, and I gave up. I still managed to get ~85% of the yard done, but that was after four or more hours. It’s a big yard, but it still should have only taken me three hours or so.
In what is either good news or bad news, it’s raining now so I won’t be able to try to finish things tomorrow. I won’t get to do all the tree/limb cutting either. That’s a shame because I’ve come to find I really like pole saws. They’re so good at butchering the fauna.
By the way, that’s about the seventh time I’ve made that joke. I am going to keep making it until it lands. Somebody has to get why it’s funny!
Anders:
Ooh. There are mysterious reasons at play I couldn’t possibly know or have talked about. Make sure to do that thing where you sort of wiggle your fingers to make it seem even more mysterious.
Nope. I don’t think people should or should not interact with me at all. I do, however, think if people are going to interact with one another, they should do so in a decent way. I think if people can’t respond to one another in a reasonable way, they should just not respond at all.
I have never had any doubt this is why you behave the way you do. That I criticize you for bad behavior doesn’t mean I am unaware of the lame justification you offer for it. In fact, I’ve repeatedly indicated I understand this is why you behave this way, always following that by saying it is wrong. Telling me to acknowledge something I’ve acknowledged many times is just silly.
But sure, for the umpteenth time, I acknowledge you offer the lame justification for your behavior that I did things you don’t like and that I said negative things about you you find offensive. I further acknowledge you offer this as a justification for treating people who are not me rudely because you find their sheer proximity to me as sufficient reason to be a dick to them as well. And as always, I say your excuse for your behavior is lame and not acceptable at all.
Omg Brandon, slaughtering fauna with pole saws sounds disturbing to me! As usual I don’t get it. What can I say I suck.
Brandon and others, It is true that Ken Rice has a problem with civil interactions often. He had this problem with Richard Tol, Matt Ridley, and Paul Matthews and most of those he has chosen to attack publicly in dishonest ways, and there is a pretty long list, including myself. The thing about Ken is his sheer persistence in defense of the dishonest pseudo-science of Cook, Lewandowsky, and the SkS crew most of whom are by no stretch of the imagination scientists. Lest anyone be fooled, the primary purpose here is not to “explain” science to the masses, its to silence opposition and promote specific policy solutions.
And my earlier criticism stands, Ken and his crew’s most fervently held dogma is the extremely high esteem in which they hold modern science and refuse to acknowledge or outright deny its very serious problems, some of which affect climate science too. This quite old dogma has offered the propagandist really good opportunities for smearing the perceived opposition going all the way back to Voltaire and even the early Bertrand Russell, who when he was Ken’s age was equally sophomoric. Russell grew up about 1940 and his very strong preference for freedom of speech kept him from advocating suppression. We’ll see if Ken has potential for growth.
David,
.
Nah, I doubt it. It’s just the way the issue and blogging works. Times were that recognizing that AGW had a political aspect caused one to be labeled a conspiracy theorist ala Lewandowsky Moon Hoax (meaning that one of the ‘conspiracy theories’ in his paper was about this group trying to setup a world government; anybody who thought this was therefore a wackadoodle tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who nobody ought to listen to seriously). Fortunately, the times are a changing. Naomi Kline of 350.org has written a book called Capitalism-vs-climate, in which apparently (*1) she argues openly that the only way to deal with climate change is to abolish capitalism. other authors are beginning to publish on the necessity of a world government to deal with climate change. eco_governance is a thing now, with a global component.
.
What does all this mean? Simply that the deniers were never nuts to have an intuitive idea that they’d better resist this. The real issue isn’t scientific, never has been. It’s ideological. That’s why the fighting is so bitter. I assure you, we seem every bit as evil to them as they do to us, if not even more so. Every bit as dishonest, prone to smear, you name it. I don’t think this is any more true of most ‘deniers’ than it is most ‘warmists’. It’s just polarizing rhetoric gone too far.
.
I gotta take my dog out before she pees all over the floor. That makes this a good stopping point. That is all.
(*1 – haven’t read it. Will order on Friday.)
David,
.
In case that was ambiguous:
.
1. I identify as a denier.
2. I’m a conservative, definitely not a socialist. I like me some free market without too much government regulation.
3. I’m odd in that I like to recognize that the people on the other side of the debate are virtual identical to me, except for an ideological difference in many cases.
4. I think that ‘fueling the fire’ of divisiveness serves their cause (radical change) more than mine. I therefore tend to be a peace monger; one of those boring voices that drone on about getting along and understanding and all that sap.
Gah I said eco-governance and I linked environmental governance, because environmental governance was in fact what I was talking about. Eco-governance is a different thing / regulations for corporations. Sorry for the confusion there.
Brandon,
You still don’t get it, so I’ll give up. Let’s just say that this discussion has gone exactly as expected. Let’s also bear in mind that my supposed lack of civility is based on not responding to your questions as thoroughly as you would have liked. That seems rather over-sensitive to me, especially given how you seem comfortable behaving yourself. As I think Steven Mosher was trying to point out, a small amount of effort on your part to behave in a more thoughtful and reasonable manner may make a huge different to how discussions go. On the other hand, blaming others for them going poorly might simply be easier for you – you are never wrong, of course.
DY,
Since when have I attacked you publicly? I think I may have pointed out this before, but if we consider yourself and myself, the person going around publicly maligning the other is you, not me. This should be obvious from your comment here. You have similar ones elsewhere. That you lack the self-awareness to realise this, is not a surprise and I don’t expect it to change. I thought I would point it out nonetheless.
TerryMN Kerr’s analysis appears faulty – on quick reading he seems to suggest it is not trespass to use, for example, a brute-forced credential in the URL field of a HTTP request but, for social not technical reasons, it would be trespass to supply such a credential elsewhere in the request, such as a cookie field (last para p1173)
While it is preferable to not place credentials in the URL field of a HTTP request because it increases the risk of the credential leaking (e.g. via refer fields), because the URL is the only part of a HTTP request it is practical to embed in an email (& other messaging formats), placing credentials in URLs is common. This social use invalidates the distinction Kerr attempts to draw on p1173, which is not to say Kerr’s overall approach is not sensible, although it does seem limited by a 90’s view of a web server as mapping a fixed set of URLs to files.
Kerr’s doesn’t seem flawed reasoning to mr.
Mark Bofill:
That’s the joke. Pole saws are meant for use on flora, not fauna. It’s supposed to make you go, “Wait, what did he just say?” The ooint is to highlight how you can often say something horrible and people just won’t notice. The first time I said it was because I just mixed up the two words, and I was surprised nobody caught it. You don’t expect people to react to you saying you’re butchering the wildlife with a saw by saying, “Cool, cool.”
Anders:
I understand your position just fine, and my description of it is perfectly accurate. Repeatedly saying people “don’t get it” doesn’t make it true.
That isn’t true. Pretending all you’ve done in your responses is not answer my “questions as thoroughly as [I] would have liked” is laughable.
Brandon,
No it’s not.
Yes, it is. You’re a liar! Shall we carry on?
Brandon S.
.
hooray!! 🙂 I finally got a joke!
(happy dance)
Gents, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know I’m sure when I remind you that there’s no way to force anybody to concede a point they don’t want to concede. I’m pretty sure absolutely everybody else following the exchange understands your points and has made up their mind about it. Is there a point in continuing to flog the poor dead beast? I don’t see one.
Mark,
Fair point. I’ll try to let Brandon have the last word.
Thanks Anders.
andrewt:
I don’t get that from the text. He refers to a “hard-to-guess website address,” but parameter strings are not part of a website address. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t discuss the issue you refer to at all, though if he had, he’d likely treat it the same as he does the cookie issue.
Mark,
“I remind you that there’s no way to force anybody to concede a point they don’t want to concede. ”
.
Nobody remembers the Spanish Inquisition. 😉
.
Actually, I think some of the tactics we have seen recently from green lunatics (threats of RICO prosecutions, suggestions that oil company executives should be in jail, and climate ‘den!ers’ prosecuted for ‘crimes against humanity’) have altogether too much in common with the Spanish Inquisition.
Ken Rice of course simply ignores the strong evidence of his public quarrels with a long list of reasonable people and his habit of insulting them. Instead he focuses on a narrow point where he of course says that any disputes he and I have had are my fault. Lack of self awareness is surely evident here and has by now become one of Ken’s trademarks.
SteveF,
.
It might be interesting to compare and contrast.
.
I don’t want to call them ‘green lunatics’. While I get the sentiment (I think), (1) I doubt many of them really are crazy, (2) I think it makes it easier to dismiss these activists as likely to be ineffective, and (3) I don’t want to contribute to polarizing people into opposing camps.
.
This said, I think that some, possibly many of the more politically radical members of the environmental movement (blink blink) welcome the opportunity to blur the lines between issues and ignite emotions like fear and anger. I think it unlikely that it hasn’t occurred to any of these activists that by blurring the lines between economic, social justice, and climate issues, it might be possible to unify and take advantage of a potentially large number of dissatisfied people. I have no direct citation, but I’ve gotten the impression that Naomi Kline (who I’ve been focused on learning about recently, sorry to keep mentioning her) advocates exactly this sort of effort to unify dissidents and disparate types of activists.
.
RICO was a flat out mistake IMO. Yet another example of why it backfires to try to do good by evil means. We know the mobsters are guilty, so let’s gin up a way to get them. Oops, now that sword can be used for other purposes; let’s get Big Tobacco. Let’s get Big Oil. Etc. Where does it end.
.
Crimes against humanity; I love it. Solemn and sounding full of meaning, and as empty a term as any I can think of. Another example of something that seemed like a good idea gone [horribly] wrong I suspect.
.
Anyway.
DY,
I asked you were I attacked you. You could show me where, or you withdraw your claim. I suspect you’ll do neither.
I’ve clearly had public quarrels with some people (which you happened to call attacks) but I doubt many people would describe those you named as “reasonable people” unless you mean something different to what would normally be meant. Also, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having quarrels with other people. It’s almost as if you’re trying to close down the debate.
Let me repeat what I said in my earlier comment. You’re the one who seems to go around various blogs criticising me and calling me dishonest. I’m not aware of having done anything like that to you. Why – given that – do you think you’re in a position to suggest that I’m the one attacking you, when it seems quite clear that you’re the one attacking me. I don’t really mind, but I’m just wondering why you would seem to suggest the reverse.
Mark Bofill:
I don’t think they’re crazy so much as their behavior is crazy in regard to their stated goals. I think if you could figure out their actual goals, their behavior would make perfect sense.
Of course, their goals might be ones you’d find crazy.
Brandon S.,
.
I agree with everything you say there. In fact, I’ve often thought that an example of this (I’m sorry, I know this is a tired example) is the opposition of people who want to reduce CO2 emissions to nuclear power. This seems crazy when you consider the stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions. It’s not until you understand the larger rational (whatever [the larger rational] is, it seems to vary in my experience depending on the person I’m talking with) that much sense can be made of this.
.
I think that I disagree that some of the goals are desirable, or worth the cost. I don’t know that I’d say the goals are crazy though. Maybe to some extent it’s a matter of priorities? I don’t know.
I always hear about how those silly deniers can’t move on from the Hockey Stick graph even thought it’s 15+ years old and blah, blah, blah. But tell me, who is it that can’t move on?
That’s Andy Skuce writing at Skeptical Science to promote the six page paper he and 15 others wrote to prove the strength of the “consensus” on global warming. He’s directly associating their “consensus” results with the Hockey Stick graph which was complete and utter garbage, claiming to provide a 1000-year hemispheric reconstruction which was actually based entirely upon a small amount of tree ring from one area in North America.
If you don’t accept that has been independently confirmed by many independent efforts who independently happened to use much of the same data, thinking perhaps these results should not be described as “closely matched,” then you’re just a “doubter.” Though really, the worst part is probably how he claims such reconstructions extend back 2,000 years when none of the reconstructions can produce useful results that far back. (As in, they don’t even pass their own, overly-generous verification tests.)
Fifteen years after the Hockey Stick graph was made the figurehead of the global warming movement due to its prominent display in the IPCC TAR report, it’s still being held up as a beacon by global warming activists. I suspect it’s because they cannot admit any fault on this issue without their narrative of harassment by “merchants of doubt” falling apart.
I guess when so many people have spent so much time and effort defending Michael Mann’s hockey stick, they can never admit it was garbage.
Hey, that’s the first comment of mine to vanish into moderation for what might be a discernible reason!
I really ought to stop visiting Skeptical Science completely. I don’t go there often, but when I do, I find the strangest things. For instance, a recent post of there’s directed me to this PDF file condensing debunkings of “myths” into a handy guide. Check out some of these facts. Fact:
Fact:
Myth:
Fact:
Myth:
Fact:
With marketing like this, it’s clear the only reason people wouldn’t be convinced is those evil “merchants of doubt.”
Brandon S
Pretty funny. As if these are “either or” propositions. Models can be based on fundamental physical principles and still be “unreliable”.
Heck, potential flow is based on “fundamental physical principles” (conservation of mass & momentum. It’s totally unreliable if used to predict drag around a cylinder or sphere. (See D’Alembert’s paradox.)
Yup. It seems quite a few of the “facts” are not actually contrary to the “myths.” I get the Skeptical Science group might like to draw attention away from these “myths” to other points/messages, but that changing the focus isn’t debunking anything.
In general SkS specializes in pseudo-science and propaganda. Their attempt to defend models has always been particularly naive and wrong. I guess it’s good for entertainment value😄
Brandon S, Kerr says Auernheimer AT&T “collected information from over 100,000 website addresses”. Auernheimer brute-forced a parameter (“ICCID”) in the query component of URLs, so by website address Kerr apparently means URL.
Kerr suggests this should not be trespass, but if Auernheimer had supplied the ICCID parameter elsewhere in the HTTP request it would have been trespass – in other words trespass depends on the options Auernheimer supplied to “curl” (I don’t know if the AT&T script accepted POST parameters but many take both GET & POST, if so Auremheimer could trvially have used either).
If this distinction was law, a server could obtain trespass protection by accepting only credentials outside the URL component, but this is not practical where you wish to embed a HTTP request with a credential in message format such as email. That such use are socially common & accepted, undermines Kerr’s argument that a social distinction distinction exists.
andrewt, I don’t see that in his text at all. AT&T’s web pages were given URLs that were hard to guess, but that doesn’t mean they were parameters being passed to a server. They were web pages. The names were just complicated.
And even if the web pages were accessed via a parameter entry, like with the Skeptical Science forum, that still doesn’t fit anything he says would be wrong. Passing a parameter intended for navigation doesn’t meet any standard he provides for unauthorized access.
What he says would be unauthorized access is if a person passed cookies assigned to specific users for authentication purposes. It would also be unauthorized to do that with a parameter passed in a URL. Specifically altering an HTTP request to masquerade as another user to gain additional privileges is as illegal as doing so via altering a cookie. Specifically though, you have to be changing your request to input something for authentication, not just changing the request to ask to visit a different resource.
Brandon, the Aurenheimer’s HTTP requests used URLs of this form:
https //dcp2.att.com/OEPClient/openPage?ICCID=value&IMEI=0
As I said he brute-forced a parameter in the query component.
I don’t know what the internals of AT&T server were, but a typical implementation would be invocation of a program which makes database queries and outputs HTML which the server returned as its response.
Kerr’s argument is that this is not trespass because of the website address is “public”. Kerr suggests other parts of the HTTP request (cookie fields) are not public ,implying that if Aurenheimer had supplied the parameter elsewhere in the HTTP request (assuming this were possible and it often is) then it would have been trespass.
Kerr is apparently unaware Aurenheimer then, as I read Aurenheimer’s code, passed a cookie back in a second HTTP request to obtain the data he was seeking – which Kerr’s suggest should be considered.
andrewt
The contained parameters. So does the following address:
http://www.straightaphysics.com/blog/?p=976
It’s a blog post. WordPress uses that parameter to pull out a web page. One that is public (though somewhat restricted to avoid bot swarms.)
For that matter, I’m sure you know perfectly well that the “2016/ban-bing-is-too-long” is, in some sense, a parameter because a script reads that to find the correct web page to pull out of my database. This parameter doesn’t happen to preceeded by a “?”, but it’s still for all intents and purposes– and functionally– “a parameter”.
As for your injection of the ‘adjective’ of “brute force’, that’s just some sort of lens you want to see it through. A person can find all the […]?p=976 page at my site by:
* writing a crawler.
* visiting manually and using the “back button”.
No one would call that discovering them by “brute force” any more than walking down a street and viewing house numbers is “brute force”. (Nor is looking through a high school year book to find names “brute force”. The reason it’s not is no force is invoved brute or otherwise.
All get left in referrer logs (if someone visits your site from those pages.) All are sharable. There is nothing about ? that suggests in any way “what follows is a password”. Those addresses are addresses of web pages.
andrewt
It is socially common and accepted to embed parameter for one time use and in a scheme where the urls are are sent to a one specific registered email address. Generally, these one time uses are “reset my password” cases, and the user then “resets their password” (if it even does that. Some involve a second step.)
And after the password is reset, the “socially accepted” things is for the service to send another email saying “your password has been reset” just in case the person who owns the account didn’t intend to do that (and had instead suferred some sort of hack or attack.)
Heck, even if the intended recipient reclicks the those sort of links, they are dead on the second try.
Perpetually live pages that can be visited by anyone are a different category.
lucia has covered it, but just to reiterate:
Again, I want to stress the issue is authentication. If a taken is designed to authenticate a users’ identity, then modifying it to pretend to be someone else is attempting to obtain privileges not assigned to you. That is unauthorized access regardless of which part of your HTTP request the token appears in.
If a token merely identifies a resource to access, modifying does not give rise to unauthorized access. All you are doing is telling the server you want to visit a different resource. That is only using the privileges granted to you. That those privileges might be greater than the server admin wishes is not your fault or your problem.
(Of course, modifying a token can be illegal for other reasons, such as modifying your HTTP request to attempt a SQL injection or directory traversal attack. These are obviously different as they are not attempts to access resources published in a public location or a even a location you were granted privileges to.)
Brandon S,
With respect to the continuing mucking up that has happened with your access to Skeptical Science’s records, I would suggest that you add an explanation to your Youtube posting that refers to both Skeptical Science and John Cook. That way when people Google Skeptical Science and Cook, your Youtube posting will come up and there will be less re-inventing the wheel on this simple issue, which is continually misconstrued. Right now it is entitled, “Proof that I am not a Criminal” which could refer to virtually any subject.
JD
Brandon S.,
.
Or you could setup a link with a list of Facts, Myths, and Fallacies regarding the matter on your website. It might be the first step down the road to getting President Trump to tweet about your work someday!
.
:O
JD Ohio, that’s a good point. I hadn’t really thought about trying to have the video come up in search results as I had just thought I’d create it so I could link to it whenever the subject came up, but it could only help if people searching for information on the topic were directed to the video too.
I’ve made a quick change to the description/title for now. I’ll revisit it after the weekend when I have more free time. Feel free to offer suggestions on how to rewrite it if you think it should be.
Mark Bofill, I’m actually tempted to create a widget where “facts” of global warming are shown. I’d title it something like, “Did you know?” and then show what has been claimed to be a “fact” of global warming. It’d amuse me, if nothing else.
Brandon, I think 97% of us would agree that that’d be a neat little widget to have.
I had just left the house when it hit me I should have titled the video, “Proof I Didn’t Hack Skeptical Science Servers.” I’ll have to remember to change that when I get home.
“I agree with Steven Mosher (Comment #147099). This said, I don’t particularly admire how Anders is handling the matter either. Whatever. When I talk about tone too much it makes me feel like a mall cop. Mall cop uniform isn’t a good look for me somehow…
I was just hoping we could get past it I suppose. Guess not.”
I will just observe that no one likes to be called a liar.
I experimented with this once. My “victim” had a cow.
I can attest that once you call a person a liar you are basically
saying “There is no point in talking anymore”
True, you can still engage with people who call you a liar,
but deep down you know it’s all over.
So, even if you think someone lied its probably better to say
“Misrepresented” or Mispoke, or engaged in hyperbole.
Think about it this way
If I accused you of being a liar, how can you respond
A) If it’s true
1) admit it? then what? promise not to lie again?
2) deny it? then what? just a continual fight
3) counter attack.. ya that works
B) if its false
see 2 or 3 above.
Saying you “misrepresented” or misspoke or made a mistake
or anything else, at least gives you an “out” if the accusation happens to be true.
Steven Mosher,
.
You’ve not wrong. I didn’t like how Anders handled the matter at the time, but it seems to have worked out pretty well, so possibly I was wrong about that too. I’m wrong quite often actually. Regarding Anders tone, in my experience usually when I’m deliberately obnoxious to people from a different tribe that’s pretty much the end of that, regardless of any other questions or issues. Doesn’t matter who was right or wrong or why at that point. Anders made it work & more power to him I guess.
.
What made the situation a lot more complicated that it otherwise would have been in my book is that I thought Brandon was making what appeared to me to be an unusual effort to tone it down and be reasonable this time. Regardless, he did not ultimately back down from the ‘liar’ charge and as you observe that’s not really something that’s easy to get past. Still, six steps in the right direction is better than nothing in my view.
.
I always appreciate your remarks Steven, and I’ll go on thinking about it, sometimes takes me a few days to fully get what you’re saying. Sometimes I never fully get what you’re saying, but. :/
.
[Edit: No, that came out wrong. Nothing wrong with my English, I get what you’re saying. I don’t always know that I get why you say what you say. Anyways.]
.
Thanks.
In other news, the TVA has sold Bellefonte to a company that wants to generate electricity using electromagnetic induction. Yeah you read that right.
.
Anybody willing to sanity check me? The link to the company is here. Am I overlooking something, or is this not completely nonsensical? These guys seem to honestly think that they can use electromagnetic induction to boil water and drive turbines to get more power out than they put it, AFAICT. – and this the claim I’m wondering about – are they saying they’re doing something else and I’m just not ‘getting’ it?
.
[Edit: nevermind, it’s a scam:
Unbelievable. You’d think they’d come up with a more reasonable con storyline.]
mark,
Sounds like perpetual motion to me. I don’t see how it’s different from those devices that use a car’s generator to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen and feed it into the intake manifold of the car and claim to get increased efficiency.
I think so too. They don’t even seem to be aware of the problem. Oh well, back to yardwork.
mark,
They have stoves with induction rather than radiant or conduction heaters, but they heat the pan, not the contents of the pan. I’ll have to check, but I don’t think you can use a glass pan with an induction stove.
I checked, the pan has to be iron based, cast iron or stainless steel. Even aluminum won’t work. They specifically say you can turn the element to max and put your hand on it and you won’t be burned.
From here:
“Phoenix Energy (PENV) is now prepared to field, build and operate this new extremely innovative, evolutionary, revolutionary, disruptive and transformational cutting-edge electric power plant design and technology known and described as the PENV Steam Waste Heat Energy Recovery Dry Cooling Reverse Condenser Induction Energy Induced Feed Water Re-Heat Electric Power Generation Plant.”
I’m *guessing* that their technique involves increasing efficiency through recovery of heat normally dissipated in power plants, visible in the water vapor exhaust. But with descriptions like the above, it’s hard to tell. And obviously there has to be a primary generator of energy. Your article says their plans for Bellefonte are non-nuclear; perhaps they’ll burn coal or gas.
[P.S. You have to laugh at this statement on the above-linked page: ““BY REVIEWING THE CONFIDENTIAL PROCESSES OF PENV INCLUDED ON THIS SITE, YOU HAVE AGREED TO ALL TERMS OF A STRICT NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, WHETHER SIGNED OR UNSIGNED. IF NOT, DO NOT GO ANY FURTHERâ€]
HaroldW,
This was the sort of thing I was worried about missing; that they might have legitimate claims buried in there someplace. I didn’t want to start saying YARF (Yet Another Rossi Fraud) without a reasonable effort at making sure I understood what they were claiming. Which reminds me..
Steven Mosher,
So, after thinking this through, I’d like to say this. I settle for what I can accomplish, sometimes it’s not much or nearly as much as I’d like. Would it be neat if Brandon didn’t call Anders a liar? Yah, that’d be great. Not in my powers. If Brandon and Anders ended a spat on a relatively civil note, that’s better than it could have come out, so that’s what I try to encourage. Trying to accomplish stuff that I clearly can’t just breaks my ability to accomplish anything at all; nobody will give me the time of day if I go too far. I got no budget and no staff and no competence in this, limited hours of operation, and honestly there’s only a certain amount of interest I’ve got in the matter anyway. I take what I can get.
Mark Bofill:
I hope this isn’t surprising. Leaving aside that the accusations are reasonable, the point of making them that way was to alienate people like Anders. I spent a couple years intentionally not accusing John Cook and other people associated with his “consensus” work liars for the express purpose of giving them an “out” like Steven Mosher describes. Their response has been to double down on everything. I’ve done the same with Anders in the past when he behaved in dishonest ways. His response was the same.
Given the dishonesty and horrendous quality of this latest paper, plus the past behavior of most of its authors, I decided to stop doing it. Despite what Anders claims, I don’t expect them to respond to me when I do so. I expect the authors to do their best to ignore me and pretend I haven’t said anything. If that won’t work, I expect them to offer some weak excuse and pretend it undermines my accusations. Notice how Anders has already alluded to one. I suspect I can even tell you what that excuse will be, having discussed it with a couple people already.
When people consistently behave in a dishonest manner, you can find an endless series of excuses to downplay it to try to build bridges. However, after you’ve given them enough chances, it may be best to just accept that they’re always going to be dishonest and nothing you do will change that. Just look at Donald Trump. Do you think people not calling him a liar from day one helped create any dialog? No. It didn’t matter if people offered him an “out” on his many delusional sounding statements. His behavior was never going to change, and he wasn’t going to have any sort of dialog with those critics anyway.
I could write a lot more, but basically, being polarizing when an issue is new prevents you from reaching some people as you drive them away with your rhetoric. Once an issue is old though, and people have all taken their positions, that’s not much of an issue anymore. At that point, it’s useful to draw clear lines about what is and it not okay so as to alienate bad actors. That lets you make it clear people who support the work are siding with dishonesty/lies/fraud, and that is what the problem is. It’s not a dispute over methodology or perhaps questionable statistics – it’s that these people actively attempted to deceive everyone.
Some people will get upset over such accusations. Tough luck. If Michael Mann didn’t want to be accused of committing fraud, he shouldn’t have promoted his favorable results while hiding his disfavorable ones then used his position in the IPCC to tell everyone there were only favorable results, all while intentionally failing to inform people he knew a headline result of his was wrong. And if Anders didn’t want to be called a liar, he shouldn’t have signed his name to a paper which claimed to examine the available studies on a matter which excluded tons of data for no justifiable reason, to the point of intentionally excluding disfavorable results. They may not like having these things pointed out, particularly when not couched in qualifiers, but there was no chance these people were going to engage critics in an honest manner anyway.
Thanks for speaking candidly on this Brandon. I’ll think about what you said while I finish the yard over the next few hours.
No prob. I wish I knew how that got double posted though. Sometimes my comments do that, and I don’t know why. It’s particularly weird as WordPress isn’t even supposed to allow duplicate comments (and there is a short timer to prevent posting too quickly).
Brandon,
I don’t know why it does that either. I deleted. 🙂
Brandon,
I wrote a long comment responding to your latest, and then deleted it. You genuinely aren’t worth it.
The problem here is the politization of climate science. This has two sides of course. There is WUWT and its mirror image SkS and HotWhopper. People of a particular dishonest character are attracted to these things. Ken Rice has chosen the HotWhopperette side, which fits his political predispositions. Once this happens, one must stick to one’s guns even when you are clearly wrong. The supposed skill of GCM’s for climate modeling is one where there is a lot of dishonesty and careful selection of out of context statements. The replication crisis is another one where denying there is a problem or at least just averting ones eyes is required. The word denier itself (applied to people) and its use is a sure fire way to spot an SkSer or fellow traveler.
I wouldn’t use the term “liar” to refer to this essentially political behavior because there are plenty of other more descriptive terms for what these people often do.
lucia, thanks. Normally I manage to delete the duplicate myself, but the Delete button didn’t work this time. I’m not sure if it took me too long to notice so I ran out the timer or what.
Anders, thanks for putting the time and effort into writing a lengthy response to me. Thanks further for putting the time and effort into deleting what you wrote and replacing it with a comment stating I’m not worth it.
Truly bizarre. That last comment got duplicated too (I’ve deleted the copy).
David Young, that sounds about right. I myself don’t like using the word “liar” much. I know some people use it loosely to cover all sorts of dishonest behavior, but there are so many shades to dishonest behavior the word “lie” doesn’t give you much information. In some cases though, people specifically say something they know isn’t true in order to mislead people. There is a lot that can be explained by personal biases and close-mindedness, but I have to call that lying.
It just so happens the Skeptical Science group does that with some regularity. They even continue to use a fabricated quote in multiple locations on their site despite being fully aware the quote isn’t real for over two years now.
Brandon S,
I know you don’t want to be nice to Anders. But at a certain point both you and he have to recognize it’s better to just not communicate with each other. Same goes for Anders of course.
I think it was useful for the two of you to discuss to some extent here. But I also think that conversation is over. You two are never going to agree on a number of issues, and everyone else has heard both your sides. Each person has enough information to decide what they think.
And now… back to AP Physics C. (The test is Monday. I told my husband I was sure all the AP Physics C students would be slating emergency QA today… and I was right.)
mark bofill (#147234):
“they might have legitimate claims buried in there someplace.”
I was merely opining that it’s possible that they might; there’s some wasted energy. Having read a little further…frankly, their words sound like bs to me.
“[N]o other fuel is needed after start up” sets off alarm bells at maximum intensity.
Completely off topic – *checks* ooh cool, open thread. 🙂
.
Lucia did you have the Sask haze and smoke this morning also? It was near horrible in MSP this morning. Feel bad for my Sask friends, but I’m happy the wind direction has switched.
@HaroldW – the sheer number of adjectives, hilarious NDA, and “my first web page” graphics and layout set off my BS meter.
Not that I noticed. I haven’t gotten out much though. I’m answering student questions by skype, phone etc.
Glad you didn’t. It was *really* noticeable here, enough to keep all of the windows and doors closed until noon or so just so the house didn’t smell like a fire pit. I saw a graphic that claimed the jet stream was bringing significant smoke all the way to D.C. but am not sure how far it got before dissipating, or if it went east or west of Chicago.
Brandon,
.
Yeah, what Lucia said. 🙂
Still, I very much appreciated hearing how you view the matter, it was interesting and illuminating.
Harold,
.
Something strikes me as very very wrong with some of what they are saying. I have been able to concoct non-nefarious interpretations, but suffice it to say they are … stretches of the imagination.
.
But it boggles my mind that a fraud could get this far. Of course Rossi did, but at least Rossi had claims of something extraordinary. This smacks of ignorance of the basic idea of conservation of energy, how do they get anybody’s money with such stuff I wonder.
DeWitt,
Thanks. I found a clip of magnetic levitation and induction melting of aluminum here, apparently one can heat aluminum this way.
[Edit: Holy smokes DeWitt, thanks! I had no idea I could buy an induction stove! I’ve got to have one now! Once I can figure out how to justify this to the wife. She’s usually pretty tolerant of me seeking out new ways to burn down the shed, but you never know…]
mark,
You can heat lots of metals by induction, but I think the circuit has to be tuned for them. You don’t make transformers, for example, with aluminum cores, or at least I’ve never heard of one. I think it must be the iron because there are lots of stainless steels to which magnets won’t stick. I’ll have to go check one of my stainless steel pans. Nope. Magnet doesn’t stick. I think the magnetic permeability of stainless steel is still a lot higher than aluminum, which is not much different than air. That doesn’t mean you can’t get eddy current heating, though.
mark,
Go for it! You’ll need a lot of cast iron cookware, but it’s not all that expensive. Of course, you can’t put them in the dishwasher or it will ruin the seasoning of the surface. Or you could go with all stainless steel.
Just think, no more worries about destroying plates that you accidentally set on a hot burner and then put cold food on them.
lucia, Mark Bofill, I agree. You may not have noticed, but I said I’d stop when it seemed the usefulness had run out and that it looked like it had. I then posted one more response, and when nothing useful followed, I stopped, ignoring both Anders’s petty attempt at provocation and his suggestion I have the last word.
I mean, yeah, I did respond to Anders again just recently, but that was a completely different thing. I’d have done the same regardless of who had written that comments. Who takes the time to write a lengthy response, delete it then go out of their way to tell people they deleted it because the person they were responding to isn’t worth it?
That’s a serious question. I’ve always wondered if they even write a lengthy response like they claim or if it’s purely a rhetorical trick. I don’t want to assume they’re lying, but I can’t understand writing comments in the form of, “I was going to respond to you, but you’re not worth it.” I have to laugh when I see it.
Mark Bofill-
Re: induction burners
As a professional chef, I’d say don’t bother. There are some uses for which they make sense, but my experience is that they have no real advantage over a good gas range, some unique disadvantages, and the pans needed are more expensive. The only real advantage is that there is no open flame (which is why I’m occasionally forced to curse at them), but that only is important to the terminally nervous.
I’m not a good cook, but I can cook some. Mostly I want one ’cause it’s cool. 🙂 My kids would get a kick out of it too; valuable science lesson.
Mark Bofill-
Cool I’ll concede, just not spectacular for real cooking. As a science lesson they are neat, though. If you are really interested pick up a portable burner. You can get a reasonable home version on Amazon for $50 and up, so not a very expensive lesson at that.
kch
I think you mean terminally nervous overly indulgent cat owners who are afraid the cat will walk on hot burners.
Jim wants an induction range.
Did I mention we own cats? …(Yeah. Pretty sure I have. Should I mention the cats have never gone near the stove top? At least not as far as I have witnessed…. They haven’t. I think Jim just thinks induction ranges are cool and worrying about the cat is an excuse.)
@AndrewKY we put our tomatoes, cukes, and non-super-hot peppers in today. Crossing my fingers that we’re done with frost. The superhots are fussy as hell, so won’t go out until next weekend.
How good are portable burners for cooking, in general? I was considering getting one for while traveling so I can increase the range of foods available to me, but I’ve never used one before so I don’t know what to expect. Are they worth the trouble?
Lucia –
Not being a cat owner (dogs all the way for me) I can’t speak for certain, but I think most animals in general are pretty fire shy. So for me, another argument for gas, though I guess an induction range would present no danger to them.
.
Brandon –
I use portable burners quite a bit (demos, off-sites, that kind of thing) and I’d have to say they are quite useful. The butane versions won’t put out the BTU’s that a commercial range will but aren’t too far off a home range, so you shouldn’t see much difference.
Portable induction burners are pretty much the same as a full range, but have all of the cooking drawbacks I find as well as needing a power source.
Portable electric burners are completely useless, imho.
@ATTP.
You may want to refer BS to Lucia’s policy here and see if he agrees with that.
It appears to be OK for Lucia to state that nothing is to be copied without asking permission. Even if she fails to explicitly forbid it you are not to copy it. You are also not permitted to display anything you have copied anywhere else.
Anders,
.
.
I’d like to be able to show good faith and accept that I have misunderstood your remark. You could help me to do so by helping me to understand what you meant, rather than what I misunderstood you to mean. Otherwise I am left unable to substantiate good faith and verify that it was not misplaced; to verify that you indeed meant something sensible that I simply misunderstood.
.
A number of other useful purposes might be served. For example, seeing how I came to misunderstand you in this instance may prevent future repetitions of the unfortunate incident. Perhaps others will benefit from this in various ways; perhaps others will see that a useful purpose can be served by asking for clarification in good faith. Perhaps others will understand your communication style better and be less inclined to misunderstand you in the future. Finally, that you found the misunderstood thing to be worth talking about at all seems to imply that you saw something there worth saying, and I’d like to understand what it was.
.
Obviously I speak for myself and nobody else.
Anders,
.
Because what it looks like, and what must be part of the misunderstanding I’d like to dispel, is that the real issue isn’t context but implication. Part of my misunderstanding must be this, that it seems that what you really mean when you say your statement was taken out of context is that you don’t like what your statement logically implies about something else.
.
That’s not what ‘taken out of context’ means.
.
If you’d just explain what you meant, then it would become clear and I could with much relief apologize for being so dense and misunderstanding you so badly and still keep some shred of a sense of integrity about myself while doing it.
.
Thanks.
:> I’ll just rattle along with one more comment on this before I shush.
.
Let’s say I want to make an absurd claim for my own reasons. When challenged on it, I will say I am being misunderstood and taken out of context. When asked to explain what I really mean, I refuse, saying that I don’t see the point in explaining.
.
It seems to me that I’d be abusing the good faith of anyone who accepted my refusal to explain my meaning in this scenario.
.
[Edit: The thing I ought to do, IMO, is withdraw the absurd statement, rather than continue to insist that it has some other unknown meaning that is being misunderstood. I think that’d be the good faith path for me to get out the situation.]
bugs,
(1) I don’t grant permission for copying and I want to be sure people are aware that my posting is not intended to grant permission.
(2) Of course I cannot change copyright law. To the extent that any copying is fair use, it can be copied. Because my permission is irrelevant to copying under those circumstances.
There is no dichotomy there. My not granting permission in cases where my permission is required to copy has no effect in cases where my permission is not required. I’m fairly certain Brandon S would agree with me on that.
Beyond that: Brandon S did not post a copy of Ander’s paper. So I’m not sure why you think my failing to grant permission to copy is relevant here.
On another matter, I suggest you address Brandon S by something other than his initials.
Mark,
No, I don’t like that someone introduces something that I didn’t mention in my post. My post was about what Gavin Schmidt said wrt to a paper that compared observed trends (without uncertainties) with the model mean, using the uncertainty on this mean. My point was simply (and obviously) that such a comparison is almost guaranteed to fail if you were to run sufficient models to produce a very accurate estimate of the model mean – given that the single observation is unlikely to have a trend that is going to end up close to the mean of all possible observational trends (and note, I used singular “trend” even in the bit of my post that Lucia has chosen to quote). That is all I meant. I don’t think it is even particularly controversial.
Given that I’ve already agreed with Lucia that if you were to include the uncertainty in the observed trends the comparison would be more reasonable, I can’t see what it is that I am meant to be defending and why it is that Lucia is continuing to push this point, especially as think I have now explained it for about the fourth time. Doesn’t bode well, IMO, and I have better things to do with my time than play word games. I also don’t have a time machine, so can’t go back in time to write it differently, so it would appear that I am incapable of doing what would be required to get Lucia to move on.
Anders,
.
Thanks for your response. I don’t yet understand you, but after looking more closely at your response and thinking it through carefully perhaps after a time I will.
Anders,
.
I still don’t understand and am still working on it. This said,
.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that perhaps you could add an update to your post rephrasing the notion so it is expressed more clearly? This may both remedy the matter with Lucia and help those of us who still don’t understand put the issue to rest.
This is where I founder:
I don’t understand what is meant by ‘all possible observational trends’. Is this different from the uncertainty in the observations somehow? I suspect it is. [Edit: but I don’t know what it means.]
Here is what I am thinking, and it sure seems wrong to me:
Are we saying that some part of what we observe (other than the uncertainty that comes from the possibility of measurement error) is purely random? In other words, if we could remove all measurement uncertainty from the picture, that what we observed is this, but it equally likely could have been that or the other, and that this realization of our actual climate was to some extent due to pure random chance?
I expect this is wrong, and this is why I persist in believing that I still don’t understand you Anders.
Anders
The beginning of your post links to Gavin Schmidt’s recent discussion of Christy’s presentation to Congress http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
This recent post has nothing to do with Douglas nor Gavin Cawly or Gavin Schmidts criticism of Douglas 2007. Which is fine but a reader might develop the impression your post was about more than just what Gavin said about Douglas 2007
That saidL: you did segue into a discussion of what Gavin S said about Douglas 2007
What gavin claims in your quote is incorrect. In fact, the multi-model mean is not “irrelevant” when comparing models to observation. That the uncertainty in the multi-model mean becomes smaller and smaller with more runs does not make it’s use “irrelevant” . It is so “not irrelevant” that Santer– in a paper co-authored by Gavin himself– used it to compare the model model mean to observations.
Now perhaps Gavin had something more nuanced and much weaker in his mind when he used the term “irrelevant”. But that’s the word he chose, and it appear to be a statement of his you are defending as correct.
Gavin mistatement is worth of being called out.
You then translate Gavin into Anders:
Actually, Douglass et all did not assume the uncertainty in the model trends was the uncertainty in the mean of those trends. He correctly recognized the uncertainty in the model mean is the uncertainty in the model mean. (Using the exact same method to estimate it Santer used in the paper Gavin signed on to.)
It’s possible you don’t actually understand what Douglas did assume and where his mistake likes. Douglas made an entirely different error: He failed to account for the uncertainty associated with using a single realization of observations when estimating the expected value of the observation. This is an entirely different error.
Of course. I think everyone agrees with this. This is why one needs to include the estimate of the uncertainty in the observation when used as an estimate of the expected value of all possible observations. Douglas didn’t. This the mistake Douglas made: not the one Gavin S is blabbing on about and not the one you are accusing him of making.
We all agree model mean trend is unlikely to match an individual observation. However, that this is true does not support the conclusion you, Gavin S or Gavin/Beaker are drawing.
You then quote Gavin “beaker” Cawley who makes pretty much the same claims Gavin S makes– but in somewhat different words.
You follow that with:
You chose the word “can’t” and appear to be referreing to the uncertainty in the multi-model mean. In fact one can use that uncertainty to compare models to observations. Santer did so.
And so on.
And now:
It’s worth pointing out that this I thought you meant. This is what I have been quoting and criticizing. I have not suggested you used plural “trends”. I interpreted you to mean singular trend when you used singular trend.
And I have been saying is that you are mistaken. I am specifically saying that your claim
such a comparison is almost guaranteed to fail if you were to run sufficient models to produce a very accurate estimate of the model mean
Is mistaken. If by “such” you mean a comparison that compares the one and only singular observed trend to the multi-model mean is almost guaranteed to fail, you are just flat out wrong. It is not almost guaranteed to fail if done correctly; doing so requires including the estimate of the uncertainty in the observation as an estimate of the “expected value of all possible observations”.
If “all you mean” is “the way Douglas did the comparison was wrong”: Everyone agrees with that.
But you (and Gavin S and Gavin/Beaker have utterly mis-identified what Douglas did wrong. His mistake was not that he used the standard error in the multi-model mean when comparing observations to the model mean– and his mistake was not to elect to do this comparison.
And there is nothing in your post that suggests you have any notion what Douglas actually did wrong and plenty that indicates you really intend to tell readers you think Gavin S and Gavin/Beaker are correct to claim that one cannot use compare a single observation to the multi-model mean because the standard error in the multi-model mean goes to zero as the number of models or runs approaches infinity. Their claim was wrong when they made it and it remains wrong.
There is no “context” that makes this claim remotely correct.
You are correct about one thing though: This is not actually controversial. What you, Gavin S and Gavin/Beaker say about the comparison is botched and confused. There no controversy there.
Ken Rice on the other thread continues his misrepresentations about GCM skill. Rice and Sou (who only knows the superficial but apparently wrote most of the screed to which kens name is attached) amoung others wrote a rapid response screed trying to debunk an equally superficial piece questioning the consensus by a nonscientist. Rice and Sou quoted out of context a paper by Hargreaves whose conclusions section was pessimistic about GCM skill. Rice now adopts the Hillary defense. Namely, quoting out of context to deceive is not technically a lie, therefore I am truthful and won’t deal with this any further. Not exactly inspiring confidence that.
Alright, I’ve read about the parallel earths thing. I think I ‘get’ that the observations aren’t the mean of all possible observed trends now.
.
I’m still chewing on it. But, like I said; if you have anything else to offer to explain what you are saying that’s different from what Lucia thinks you are saying, it might help people get it if you’d say it, either here or as an update on the post on your blog.
.
OTOH, if Lucia is representing your position properly but you both just disagree, it’d be great to hear that too, so I can quit scratching my head.
mark,
I prefer having the Magratheans construct a thousand identical Earths and compare them rather than deal with parallel universes. Paying them might be a bit of a problem, though.
DeWitt,
Just deposit a few cents and jump forward till the end of the universe. I’ve heard there’s a good place to eat there too.
[Edit: I just bought ‘hitchhiker’ for my 12y old. 🙂 ]
Anders,
.
My last remark on this if you’ve got nothing else.
.
Your post certainly gives the reader no inkling that Gavin uses the standard error to compare the multimodel mean with the observations in another paper with Santer. You seem to want to insist that this is some sort of irrelevant red herring. But something stinks as a result, and anybody who cares about figuring out what this is really about ought to care. It makes no sense for Gavin to pan a technique he uses, does it? Please – does it make sense to you? There is no way that can be all above board. Either the technique is bad and the criticism is correct (in which case why in the heck is Gavin using it in Santer et al) or the technique is fine and the criticism is bad (in which case your readers ought to hear that).
.
It shouldn’t have taken Steve Mc. and Lucia to point it out, your readers should have heard about it from you. I’m done here.
mark
For what it’s worth, here is a link to what Wigley has to say about Gavin S’s post (and in the process Gavin/beakers) idea.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0006.txt
This is, of course, after Ben has already patiently explained to Gavin “beaker” Cawley that the problem in Douglas is not that one should not use the standard error in the model mean– you should. The error is that Douglas et al left out the uncertainty in the observations. Note that Santer (correctly) informs Cawley that the two are “a very different beast “.
Cawley/Beaker (in the past), Gavin S (in the past) and now Anders (now) are complaining about the wrong term.
Douglas was wrong but not in the way Ander claims. And assuming Anders thinks that likely means Anders does not understand what the problem in Douglas was. Beyond that: Anders is certainly making incorrect broad sweeping claims that are simply mistaken.
I get that Anders somehow wants to think the “context” helps him. But it doesn’t. If Anders wants to say “You can’t do the test the way Douglas did it.” That’s fine. If that’s what he thinks, great.
But that’s not the information content that his words communicate. His words are communicating something that is mistaken.
Thanks Lucia. I think I got it now, although that answers the first (and last) unanswered question I had, which was what the climate-gate emails had to do with any of this.
mark,
The email I linked isn’t even the only time Santer was asked about this term. Gavin “beaker” Cawley visited this blog at length in his “beaker” manifestation and went on and on and on with his silly notions about problems with using the “standard error in the mean”. He insisted quite strongly that the equation in Santer must be wrong.
Given “Gavin/Beaker’s” perpetual insistence on this point, I emailed Gavin who emailed Santer. And– as in his answer to Gavin/beaker, Santer confirmed the term was not a typo and that standard error in the multi-model mean must be included in the comparison of the model mean and the observations. Gavin S emailed me back confirming that there was no typo in the manuscript.
So it is quite bizarre to have Anders suggesting Gavin was correct to deem the term “irrelevant” to the comparison of between multi-model mean and observation. “Irrelevant” is quite a strong term– and there is nothing in Anders write up to suggest he thinks that overblown. And in fact: it is simply wrong to say it is “irrelevant”. The term is must be included the pooled uncertainty when comparing the multi-model mean to observations.
A term that is required in an analysis can hardly be “irrelevant”.
No wait. Dr. Gavin Cawley, who goes by an alias in use on the thread over there at ATTP right now.
Oh. My. God.
I’m flabbergasted.
…and disappointed, actually. Isn’t that goofy.
Oh well.
.
Thanks Lucia.
mark bofill,
Are you saying Gavin/beaker has another alias?
here
Oh, I see. He’s also Dikran Marsupial.
So “Gavin-Beaker-Dikran Marsupial Cawley”.
It makes me sad when the only options the people I’m trying to talk with leave me with are either:
1. pretend to believe they are acting in good faith even though a moron ought to be able to realize otherwise or
2. be forced to acknowledge that they’re deliberately scamming me.
That just sucks. Belittles everybody involved.
Whatever.
mark bofill,
I’m sure there are other alternatives. I can think of at least one. 🙂
Such as?
Recognize they may actually believe what they claim– no matter how deluded, inconsistent, illogical or irrational those beliefs appear to be.
This was the e-mail Dikran Marsupial/Gavin Cawley/beaker regarding this paper:
From the response:
His follow-up:
Now, over at Anders’s place:
And:
The reality is the issues regarding what Gavin Schmidt are very simple, and he was, as Tom Wigley put it, “simply wrong.” If people like Dikran Marsupial/Gavin Cawley/beaker would engage with the people they dislike in an honest manner, such as having acknowledged their errors after recognizing them, perhaps these sort of disputes wouldn’t continue half a decade and more after the fact.
Don’t count on it though. I mean, in private members of the Skeptical Science group even recognize Michael Mann’s original hockey stick was incredibly flawed. You won’t see them talking in public to correct people though. No matter how obvious or known problems may be, they have to toe the party line.
ATTP:
Brandon didn’t make it public. But as a blogger, he’s a form of journalist (just as you are). And as such, he has a right to make it public, regardless of whether it has meaningless words like “confidential” on it.
If it personally embarrassed McIntyre rather than you, I suspect you’d be all over it. And you wouldn’t find me criticizing you if you did.
It’s in the public now, as are statements from the SkS group such as:
The question I have about this statement is–what kind of scientific process requires a research design where having “5-10 authors per paper” with “experience with the peer reviewed literature” is something that gets discussed before the research project has been chosen?
This sounds an awful lot more like trying to create propaganda pieces, and much less like sound scientific research.
If something in the public record that Anders doesn’t like reveals his group to be liars…then yes, they are still liars even if they didn’t want people to see the evidence that they lied. If they inadvertently released damning documents…next time be more careful. Or don’t lie.
Mark Bofill:
lucia:
You can never know what’s in a person’s mind. However, it is sadly true you can often reduce people’s options to “dishonest” or “delusional.” The reality is people lie to themselves all the time. The result is people hold all sorts of irrational beliefs they will defend viciously and with great vigor.
But ultimately, it still all comes down to dishonesty. People lie to themselves over and over to create beliefs they can then “honestly” share with other people because they’ve become self-delusional. It sucks, but that’s the world we live in.
Incidentally, that’s why I’ve long called the world insane. People choose to be irrational because the lies they tell themselves make them feel better. Each lie may seem small on its own, but the result of people constantly telling them about all sorts of things is they build up and trickle through all of society, to the point the world and everything in it is simply crazy.
Or hey, maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about. I could be the crazy one.
can you lie to yourself?
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147554)
“The reality is people lie to themselves all the time. The result is people hold all sorts of irrational beliefs they will defend viciously and with great vigor.But ultimately, it still all comes down to dishonesty.”
No, it comes down to living in the world we are in.
We all make choices based on human drives that we have very little control over and regret often. One of the counterbalances is the desire to keep living at almost any cost. Lying to ourselves is the only way to keep us happy in the insane world you mentioned.
I have no doubt that they do believe what they are saying in some sense. But they are also predisposed to find reasons to believe what is politically convenient to them and supports their mission of faith. This is the classical definition of theology as discussed by St Thomas. Paraphrasing: “While faith alone is sufficient for us to believe these truths, the faithful will seek out what other reasons they can to prove the truth of what faith has already shown to be true.”
SkS’s mission statement is basically apologetics for the climate science establishment and to counter skeptics. Ken Rice is a frequent collaborator of the SkSers and clearly a fellow traveler. He therefore will seek out whatever reasons he can find for his already determined mission. It’s not that hard to understand. It is amazing that they might believe these facts are not well known. This also explains the tendency to focus on narrow points while ignoring the overarching facts.
Sorry Steven, posted just after you, in response to Brandon.
No, you cannot lie to yourself.
But two people can have different belief systems.
mark bofill (Comment #147522)
“Are we saying that some part of what we observe (other than the uncertainty that comes from the possibility of measurement error) is purely random? In other words, if we could remove all measurement uncertainty from the picture, that what we observed is this, but it equally likely could have been that or the other, and that this realization of our actual climate was to some extent due to pure random chance?
I expect this is wrong”
– Me too, but Christopher Galfard author of “The Universe in your hand” mentions p.322 Theoretical physicist Hugh Everett 111 1956 who evolved parallel histories [worlds] which claimed exactly what you said. At this moment there are an infinite number of MB’s reading this or not reading it and acting on it or dismissing it. Cheers.
Steven Mosher:
Yes. Yes you can.
angech:
The world as we know it was created by humans. Ift’s humans who choose for it to be this way. Creating a world then blaming the world for how things are is just displacing blame.
People have the option to be honest with themselves and accept what they are. That doing so might make them unhappy doesn’t stop it from being an option. That there is incentive to make a particular choice doesn’t mean people stop being responsible for making that choice.
DY,
Wow, you are either incredibly dishonest, or incredibly stupid.
No, this is your assertion. We did not quote anything out of context. We correctly quoted a paper. You are free to disagree with this, but suggesting that I’m arguing that quoting out of context is not a lie, entirely misrepresents what I’ve said. I will repeat, we did not quote anything out of context.
Are you capable of at least acknowledging this? Or, are you simply like some others here who seem to think that noone is allowed to disagree with you and that doing so makes them dishonest?
On a related note, anyone willing to recognise an issue with this
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147560)
“angech:People have the option to be honest with themselves and accept what they are. That doing so might make them unhappy doesn’t stop it from being an option.”
I think it might stop it being a reasonable option and an unreasonable option is not really an option except semantically.
Unhappy if honest? I’ll choose that option!
Seriously.
Your saying so does not stop it from being an option, but people can opt out of choosing that option in which case it is longer an option for them.
Which thread should this be on?
Anders,
.
.
That’s great. When you leave out information that you have that has bearing on what you are quoting, you start down the slope in my book. That’s not honest. Cawley in particular, that was shocking for me to realize. When you jump on people like Steve and Lucia who try to supply that information that has bearing, you take another step down the slope.
.
I wish I could find the words to make this clear to you. It isn’t my opinion on this that matters. You are demonstrating that you’re not trustworthy by doing this type of stuff, and people aren’t going to be able to avoid coming to the realization over time if you keep it up. Quit it, for christ sakes. It’s stupid and beneath us all.
Mark,
How can I make this any clearer to you. We did not leave out anything that has bearing. Just because DY and you and Lucia and Steve want to claim that we did, does not make it true. I wish I could make this clear to you.
There’s a reason why many people do not engage publicly in these type of discussions, and you’ve just illustrated it beautifully. I have absolutely no time for people who says things like this
I expect this kind of dishonest crap from Brandon and DY. I didn’t expect it from you. It seems I was wrong. That is a great pity. It is, however, a mistake I won’t make again. If you’re going to accuse me of being dishonest when I’ve answered all your questions as honestly as I can, then you’re no better than a typical internet troll.
Interesting, because ATTP is a known troll in several places himself.
Andrew
Anders,
Whatever Anders. Fine, Let’s say I’m a typical troll, if that gets us someplace.
.
.
The fact that Dikran IS CAWLEY and has history with the issue, and has investigated parts of the issue with Santer and been told he’s got it wrong with the standard error thing has bearing Anders. I don’t care if you think it makes me a troll.
.
Maybe you think I am attacking you. Strangely enough, I’m not inclined to. Not your best friend here, I’m your only friend, because apparently none of your buddies are willing to tell you when your wanker is hanging out.
.
Let me see if this helps. Fine, you aren’t being dishonest in your own view. Great. As a PR matter then, let me do you the favor of telling you that they way you are presenting this looks like crap. It makes you look dishonest. That’s a particular shame, considering that you know you really are honest.
.
That pretty much exhausts my willingness to try to help you here Anders. Whatever.
Mark,
I’m not trying to do PR. I was trying to simply discuss a contentious topic. You’re illustrating why it’s not worth people’s time to do so.
No, it doesn’t. Gavin Cawley one of the most decent, honest people I’ve encountered, so seeing him maligned by others on a blog is extremely annoying. He’s also a professional statistician. He’s allowed to have his own views about this, irrespective of what someone else has told him.
I’m not looking for your help, especially not if it includes accusing me of being dishonest. Just because I don’t give you the answer you want, does not make me dishonest. This pretty much exhausts my willingness to interact with you.
Anders,
.
.
Yah. I think it’s extremely annoying that I wasted a bunch of time reading carefully and taking your argument seriously when you and Cawley didn’t even have the basic decency to tell me Cawley had looked into the issue Steve and Lucia were raising by contacting Santer. I feel like you wasted my time and bullshitted me. That’s extremely annoying. So I don’t give a crap if it hurts your feelings or Dikran’s feelings that I [say I] feel like you mislead me.
Mark,
Well feel completely free to not read my blog, it’s not as if I benefit in some way. How annoyed do you think I am about spending time engaging with someone who then turns around and decides to insult me because I didn’t say something they think I should have (I didn’t even mention Santer in my post; it’s got nothing to do with my post; how many times do I have to say this). Do you think I’m providing some kind of service? Don’t bother answering that, I’ve wasted enough of my time.
Yeah? Then piss off. I’m going to stay here and vent until I’m done or until Lucia and the regulars tell me they’ve had enough.
Mark,
Good for you. Hope that makes you feel better.
Anders,
.
Thank you at least for adding the update to your main post. I just saw it.
Anders, talking about Gavin “beaker/Dikran Marsupial” Cawley:
He’s certainly allowed to have his own views about the statistical techniques to apply when teasing out the answer to a question that is posed.
He’s certainly allowed to have his own views about what questions are worthy of posing. (One need not even be a statistician for this. Hair dressers are allowed to do this.)
But it’s singularly odd that it seems he didn’t even recognize that Santer had performed a classic t-test, diagnosed a typo, stuck to his diagnoses for a very, very, very long time. Argued so firmly as to motivate me to write Gavin– and wrote so himself.
One would expect a person who is competent in statistics to at least recognize what Santer had done and then explain that he thinks that test is not the appropriate and why.
There are reasons some people don’t like that test. One is that to estimate the uncertainty in the observations requires doing time series and making assumptions about spectral properties of the noise. (FWIW: Tamino does time series analysis and makes such assumptions frequently– so the people who don’t like analyses that do that ought to pretty well discount nearly anything Tamino posts as suffering from the same flaw as use of time series in to estimate the uncertainty in the observation when later doing a t-test. )
For some reason, some people don’t like the Santer test because they don’t like the question “is the model mean biased” on average to be asked. But in that case, a professional statistician ought to be perfectly well able to say that. In which case, their gripe with Santer (and all other tests testing to see whether the model mean is biased relative to reality) ought to be that they don’t think the test he did is worth doing at all. That’s entirely different from trying to find minor errors in it.
In all: I’m pretty surprised to hear Gavin “beaker-Dikran Marsupial” Cawley is a professional statistician since his lapses on that score are manifest and seem rather amazing. But perhaps he really more of a computer scientist who uses certain statistical techniques– often focusing on numerical implementation. I can’t say I know.
I’m not going to get into the argument about whether when should consider him forthright or whether he acts in good faith. Some will read mark bofill said about Gavin “beaker-Dikran Marsupial” Cawley said and agree with mark. Others will think something else.
2 aspirin and a good lie down for 6 hours or a cup of tea.
Guaranteed to make everyone feel better.
I’ll try it myself right now.
angech,
I’m just up and sipping morning coffee!
So yeah, popping my head in for a moment before breakfast, I just noticed I somehow replaced Steven Mosher’s words in a quote with an entirely different thing. I’m not sure how that happened. I must have had that sentence in my clipboard before and failed to actually copy Mosher’s words when I highlighted them.
Sorry about that.
Evidently, Anders doesn’t understand that if he makes a general claim that is false people get to weight the claim against specific examples. Santer is the specific counter-example that shows Ander’s general claim is false.
Anders appears to be harboring the delusion that people are not allowed to bring up the specific counter examples to his claim because he didn’t mention that counter example when making his general. Sad.
For more on counter examples and logic:
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/logical-validity-counterexamples/
Brandon S,
I’ve done that…. Fortunately I usually catch it.
Eli always gets to these things late, but what Obama said was that if England (there is little doubt about what Scotland would do in that case) left the EU then bilateral trade treaties between England and the US would have to be negotiated and that would a) not be the first thing on the plate for the US and b) in any case it would require a number of years. It is also not really clear whether England would have most favored nation status in general, so leaving could be quite expensive to the UK.
If anybunny wants to think about this a bit more, read up a bit on the flailing negotiations btw the EU and the US on the TTIP.
Also Robert Way is Canadian, but keep in mind that he grew up in Labrador, and is of Inuit descent. He has both direct knowledge and great concern for the Arctic.
Eli
Yes. Those negotiations with the EU are flailing. Which means that staying in the EU could also be expensive.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt. But I’d be interested to know how someone in the UK feels about the remarks. You, dear rabett, and I are not in the UK.
ATTP:
So maligned? GMAFB.
Gavin said certain things, which were wrong.
That’s it.
People make mistakes. Gavin obviously made a mistake here. But nobody is “maligning” anybody.
Ah dearest Lucia, Eli is an international science Bunny and has spent a couple of years in the UK, some recently
Anders,
I think this is a sensible point you are raising. I apologize for losing sight of this. I don’t know what I was hoping to achieve. I lost my temper and didn’t achieve anything apparently. That was pointless and worse than not getting us anywhere, it gets us in the hole of having an obstacle to being able to communicate in the future.
.
I dont want to reengage on these points, as I don’t have a clue at this point how to proceed constructively, but at least I want to apologize for losing my temper and accusing you of bad faith and dishonesty. Probably be best for me to shut my mouth for a few days and think about it.
Eli
Has the Bunny been living there? I thought you were teaching at Howard U. (Can’t keep track.)
If you’re there now, is there a general reaction to Obama putting his foot into the issue? That’s what I’m curious about.
I know when I was in El Salvador, locals sometimes were sort of huffy at the thought of the US weighing in. (Of course, often more huffy if the US said something the individual didn’t like than otherwise. But there was a general sort of negative feeling. I’d tend to feel the same way if an outsider started being a bit…shall we say “pushy”? Do the UKers have the same general feeling… or not? )
Eli-
FWIW: I did know Robert was at least partially of Inuit descent. Also, I think his twitter handle is “Labrador Ice” and it’s pretty obvious he is genuinely concerned about the effect of warming in northern Canada. That’s one of the reasons I do tend to remember where he is from.
Other people often.. fuzzy. (I know Nick Stokes is in Australia and so on. But lots of people… not so sure.)
“But it’s singularly odd that it seems he didn’t even recognize that Santer had performed a classic t-test, diagnosed a typo, stuck to his diagnoses for a very, very, very long time. Argued so firmly as to motivate me to write Gavin– and wrote so himself.
One would expect a person who is competent in statistics to at least recognize what Santer had done and then explain that he thinks that test is not the appropriate and why.”
ATTP and Dikran routinely abuse richard Tol for his failure to answer simple straightforward questions. They routinely argue that a good scientist just admits when he is wrong.
I find the obsfucation funny in this context. Like the time Tamino got caught out by RomanM or when he banned Lucia
I find this discussion funny.
Not now, but not so long ago:)
Eli,
It appears my hope of learning how the UK locals reacted to Obama’s speed about the Brexit has been dashed!
“I find this discussion funny.”
.
I felt that way initially. Like ooou here comes a good conflict. But the word intractable describes the eventual let down. If climate-ball appears in all character like arguing religion maybe it is. The “consensus” side feel the skeptical side is deluded into denial because of religious beliefs while the skeptics believe the consensus has just adopted their own religion while wearing lab coats. This was essentially the determination of what “scientific creationists” or science of intelligent design was by the PA state court in the US about ten years ago.
.
I posed the question on Anders site if anyone thought it might have been a good idea to have established an agreed tests for model validation at the time of submission of the models. The answer was “no”.
.
My definition of a religion is a set of beliefs simply supported by consensus and immune from testing. When opportunities for scientifically controlled test are declined in favor of operator devised tests ad hoc uncontrolled that’s an indication of a problem.
.
I posted similar thoughts on Anders last night but they seemed to have evaporated at first light in the UK. So Anders or Willard, if you read this I hope you were not too personally offended.
“No, it doesn’t. Gavin Cawley one of the most decent, honest people I’ve encountered, so seeing him maligned by others on a blog is extremely annoying. ”
I will have to say this for Dikran. I ranted about him on Judith’s.
apologized and he accepted the apology.
I dont want to be accused of Kumbayaing this whole matter, but
it might be interesting if folks dialed it down a little bit.
From the big view I see very few blogs where I can go to actually learn things. Maybe CA, ATTP, and here.
But the traffic tends to be light.. and folks ( with notable exceptions) dont travel between these blogs.
I think it would be nice if folks did. So I went to ATTP and tried to be less of a dick ( ok maybe 10% less dickish). And I learned a few things.. got annoyed a bit..
Anyway..
A comment on aTTP about what is going on here:
“Joshua says:
May 11, 2016 at 10:29 pm
I was trying to not participate in the echo-chamber/group think/preach to the choir dynamic that’s going on…”
The total lack of self awareness is astonishing
Too funny, to quote the classics 🙂
Finding today Dikran is Cawley is a mindblower. I wonder if McIntyre knew that? Clearly Anders did.
Steven Mosher,
.
I’m going to have to get the wife to make carrot cake. I don’t do Kumbaya without carrot cake with cream cheese frosting.
.
So I wasn’t initially interested in picking a fight and I’m sorry it went that way. I lost my temper and I regret doing so, and I apologize to Dikran and Anders for having done so, and I apologize for suggesting that Anders and or Dikran were being dishonest, and I withdraw my suggestion that Anders and or Dikran were dishonest. I appreciate that Anders engaged here, and I appreciate that he added an update to his post.
.
I’m gonna just skip the Kumbaya and go for the carrot cake now, cya all.
SteveM: “…and folks ( with notable exceptions) dont travel between these blogs.”
.
I think moderators should be strictest about cautioning etiquette to their own choir. I can’t think of a good reason for deleting comments or banning people unless they are intentionally spamming or disruptive, or the ground rules clearly are to stay narrowly to topic.
Eli, Clive Best did a post on the UK/EU decision, FYI.
What I think would give some closure is for Lucia to write a new post summarizing her earlier work and stating clearly what the issues are. It’s pretty clear that there is a disinclination for climate scientists or SkSers to delve too deeply into this issue of GCM performance even in the very simple norm of global temperature. However, it would seem that the Santer et al /Douglas the of analysis should at least be updated using the last decade of data. Should be a good contribution in the peer reviewed literature.
Continuing to try to restrict the conversation to a very narrow issue (as ATTP is doing) does not illuminate.
David Young,
I was thinking of a different but related post. First I need to nail a few things down about a graph. Obviously, it’s difficult to engage someone who claims you didn’t understand what he meant but won’t clarify what he meant.
Joshua
I posted an answer to you on aTTP, but am not sure whether it will see the light of the day, so I’ll repeat it here:
Talking about echo chambers… Is it really so difficult to understand? My understanding, looking at what followed, was that the echo chamber you were talking about was Lucia’s Blackboard. If not, I admit that my comment was wrong. But if not … just read what is going on over here. Or Realclimate, or Tamino or any other (except maybe Climate etc. where these days any subject turns into an annoying battle about whatever people want to dispute about GW or AGW. And the same people go on and on and on). Pretty much all climate sites are echo chambers. And this here much more than Lucia’s or McIntire’s. Though, as I said, they all are. So calling one of them an echo chamber and especially on a site and on a thread that is even more an echo chamber is just what I said – too funny
Sven,
I understand your point, but I think The Blackboard gets credit for being less of an echo chamber than a lot of other places. It does have it’s tendencies, but I see a lot of differing opinions presented here. Sometimes certain commenters dominate certain topics, but there’s no getting around that.
Andrew
Andrew_KY
Yes, I agree and that’s why I said that Lucia’s and McIntyre’s are much less of echo chambers (or to be exact, I said it the other way around – aTTP is much more than these two). As I wrote, my comment is a copy of a comment that I wrote on aTTP, so the “here” in “just read what is going on over here” is aTTP.
PS. I find it really difficult to have a decent discussion on a site (aTTP) where (some?) comments appear much much later. That is another thing that is an advantage of Blackboard and CA. And of course much less (or almost non existing, apart from obvious violation of site rules) censoring.
Sven,
Gotcha. I had a knowledge gap (the thread at another site) that you have filled!
Andrew
Sven,
I notice Joshua told you he was disinvited from this site. That is true.
The dis-invitation followed his saying it was his intention to be rude to me and specifically not engage me. My view is that if it is his policy to be rude to me and not engage in conversations with me, he should participate in conversations elsewhere.
I do see that despite his stated intention to ignore what I say here he seems to have visited my blog, read what I have to say, and decided to decided to post it at Anders and discuss what I have to say there. Evidently, he doesn’t like my use of passive voice.
How devastating. 🙂
Mosher,
I do sometimes read what is at Anders. But comments over there are hardly conducive to discussion particularly as Anders does seem to be rather heavy handed with the ‘deletion’ form of moderation.
You will notice the deletion at ATTP’s place of any quotations from Climategate emails even though relevant to the Douglas/Santer/Schmidt controversy. Why would that be? No reason given except “I have no interest in leaked emails.”
Lucia, I would be very grateful if you would also reprise the issues involved from your old post. It will help me understand an issue that is very relevant now in CFD.
David Y
As my comments are still not visible on aTTP, so again I’ll copy it here. But as it’s not an earth movingly important issue, so I’ll stop now.
No, Joshua, I do not have actual evidence. Without a real comprehensive research I’m sure nobody has. So … just my subjective opinion and as such, of course not disputable 🙂
PS. I agree with what you wrote in the paragraph after IMO in your comment. Of course it’s very human and very true.
“SteveM: “…and folks ( with notable exceptions) dont travel between these blogs.â€
.
I think moderators should be strictest about cautioning etiquette to their own choir. I can’t think of a good reason for deleting comments or banning people unless they are intentionally spamming or disruptive, or the ground rules clearly are to stay narrowly to topic.”
Ya. You need a good moderator that holds the choir to a higher standard.
That said if you walk into anyones house and relieve yourself
in the middle of the living room, you’ll have problems.
Joshua,
Already a big difference between The Blackboard and aTTP: My comments have still not appeared on aTTP and so for other readers you seem to be responding to nothing. It is not normal for a site that would wish not to be an echo chamber. If it would, of course?
And even Anders himself has been around with several comments after my invisible posts, so one can not assume he’s been away or asleep. As you can see from here, I’ve not been rude and I’ve only responded to a direct question from Joshua. Quite something…
Lucia:
Hi Lucia, my two ‘pence’ – of the few people who have mentioned it to me :
– A cousin of mine was very displeased that President Obama had weighed in on the topic. She’s in the Remain camp, and a slightly disillusioned supporter of his.
– Another cousin, and his brother-in-law, were both pleased that he’d spoken, as they thought that it had shifted public opinion in their favour (both also in the Remain camp).
– A friend of mine, who’s quite a senior academic economist, and strongly pro-EU, also thought that Obama’s input seemed to have coincided with a shift in public opinion.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me that he’s spoken his mind – in fact I’d be interested to know more about what other US citizens think of the issue (if they are in fact aware of it, and care). I’m not a fan of the EU but I think it would be premature to leave, and would more likely than not hurt both GB and the EU.
No, Joshua, I do not have any history on aTTP that I know of. I’m usually a lurker, lurking on many different climate sites, not bothering (and usually not competent enough) to get involved. Was participating a little on the New Statesman site many years ago after the famous David Whitehouse article (2007 I think it was). That was what started the interest in the whole thing for me. Then was participating at Climate etc. at the beginning, but as I said, in my mind at least the comment section over there has gone down the drain (though I find the posts great). At aTTP, if I remember correctly, these two comments are the first ever.
oneuniverse,
I was working on the design of an industrial project in Ireland in 2000. The need to adhere to EU regulation arose during the project, probably not to its detriment, but equipment acquisition documents required considerable ‘refinement’ to meet the regs.
My question about Brexit: Would British goods traded in the EU still be required to meet the evolving burden of their regs? Wouldn’t you be better off participating in the development of this sort of stuff?
jferguson
“Would British goods traded in the EU still be required to meet the evolving burden of their regs?”
They sure would
“Wouldn’t you be better off participating in the development of this sort of stuff?”
You sure would
The problem with all referendums is that the participants pretty much never answer to the question asked. Usually, what ever they are asked, they answer to the questin “Do you like the government”. That’s why I (being also from the EU) find the referendum most unfortunate. Especially now with all the problems with the economy (not only in the EU) and migration and so on
jferguson,
My understanding is that we’d still need to meet the EU regulations for goods traded in the EU. Yes I agree, it seems more sensible to stay in and have a say (and put the brakes on, when necessary).
mark bofill (Comment #147603),
.
.
Sounds like good policy. The Kumbaya accompaniment du jour in this household is coconut creme pie … that is if someone hasn’t already nicked the last piece, in which case there will be hell to pay.
Sven, I know that can be a tendency but I really don’t get the impression that the EU referendum in the UK (where referenda are rare) is being treated as a referendum on the government. The debates are not always rational but they seem on-topic. Maybe it’ll be different at voting time but I’d be surprised.
Brandon G,
🙂 Coconut is good too. Coconut flan is the premiere coconut dessert in my household at the moment, but now that you mention it coconut cream pie sounds like it really ought to work. It’s been a long while since we’ve had that. It might be one of those necessary experiments that I just have to man up and face one of these days in the near future. It’s tough, but. I’ll struggle through.
Yes, oneuniverse, that might be true but it’s quite certain that the outcome will be very strongly influenced by current difficulties. I’m sure that before the crises that started in 2008 the results would have been quite different.
Yes, Willard. As you notice, I said “that I know of” and “if I remember correctly”. So I did have one comment that I did not remember more than a year ago. One centence. ATTP’s response WAS lame as it did not address anything that Nic had said. That’s it. A reason to be banned? Or even to “have history”. You are quite something, Willard…
Willard
“Perhaps this counts as an history, or that Sven knows what he writes.”
You are paranoid, man…
mark bofill (Comment #147628),
.
Yes, a good flan is good. However, I prefer less eggy custards. For a time, creme brulee with coffee was my dessert of choice when I was on the road. Bonus points if the coffee contained a splash of whiskey or Baileys.
@Sven – that, I’m going to guess, is less likely than the possibility that he’s just playing a game.
TerryMN
Colud be. Even more of a reason to go back to my lurking status.
TerryMN
Could be. Even more of a reason to go back to my lurking status.
Selective amnesia, Brandon Gates? So you remember all the comments you’ve written more than a year ago? Be serious!
Creme brulee can be awfully good. It is a matter of some sorrow to us that we’ve been unable to find a restaurant in Huntsville with a creme brulee that is reliably good. That’s another matter I might just have to get my wife to take into her own hands.
.
I read what I’m typing and I hope it doesn’t sound insanely sexist. It’s just that she’s both a better cook than I am and a much much better dessert cook than me, and we both appreciate it. And appreciate good food. I can cook, but. Our skill levels just aren’t even close.
.
Anyways. I’ve got a weakness for booze and as a result I seldom indulge anymore, but. Whiskey. Bourbon. Baileys. mmm mm good. I’ll catch up when I retire I think. 🙂
Jacques Pepin has a good creme brule recipe for people who aren’t great cooks.
Sven,
Are you responding to something Brandon G said here? Or at ATTP? If he said it there, I’m afraid you should try to respond there.
I realize that might not be possible, but it’s just way to confusing to have Brandon G say something there and the responses over here.
Pepin! I love his show, but I never learn anything because I’m always too distracted and delighted by his accent. I ought to just look up the recipe and try it.
hmm. The custard part doesn’t sound that different from flan. I didn’t know I could get the hard caramelized layer with [the oven] broiler! [But] I think it’d be a little immoral to have the opportunity to use a blowtorch in the kitchen and pass it up.
.
It doesn’t sound too hard…
.
:> Famous last words.
Sven (Comment #147636),
.
.
Certainly not all the details. However, I don’t say sharp things to others lightly, and tend to remember it when I do.
Yep. It’s at aTTP and I can’t respond over there (that I find to be a completely unfair situation. Maybe this is a tactic of some climateballers) but thought that it did deserve a response. Sorry to burden everybody else with this confusing dialogue. Will stop now and follow my promise to go back to the lurking mode
Lucia,
Yes, Sven is replying to me about this comment at Anders’.
All this talk of dessert is making me *very* hungry.
:> I noticed that and laughed Brandon G. You actually can comment here, so what was up with commenting from over there? I mean I get Joshua and Sven not having a good alternative, but you…
I was tempted to go over there and write a comment to Sven over here as well until I realized this might not be the most opportune time for me to go try to make silly remarks over at ATTP.
Caution
Outbreak of civility on this site.
Where will it all end?
–
Brandon Gates
Just look at what it was all about. I do not really consider this even to be a sharp response what Willard was refering to. Nic had written a very detailed and technical comment here on the Blackboard and aTTP did not respond to any of the substance but concentrated just on the fact that in the beginning of the post Nic had called some people SkS activists. Come on, I guess that even the SkS guys themselves don’t deny that they are activists. And so I said that it was a lame response. That”s it. And I still think that it was. And as I said, I only participate on any sites only every now and then, I did not remember that.
And Brandon Gates, I think that blaming me of selective amnesia (as if it would be a tactic of mine?) is much sharper than my “lame response” comment I think.
mark bofill,
It looks like Brandon G was commenting over there because he was talking to people over there. It touches on Sven, but it seems to me Brandon didn’t intend to be talking to Sven.
Of course I can see why Sven would want to interject.
As for Joshua he is not banned. It is merely that if he policy is that he will be intentionally rude to me as an actual policy (rather than the occasional exasperated comment) and he plans to refuse to engage anything I ask him as a policy there’s no point in his visiting.
I don’t expect everyone to tip toe around me or to engage everything I wrote to them or to anyone. But, Joshua stated policies he felt he wanted to adopt while visiting comments here; they were inconsistent with participating in comments here. If he decides to change those policies, he can visit.
Hi Mark,
We found that no bottle of Bailey’s ever survived the evening it was opened. I don’t know if it comes in larger sizes, but a fifth could certainly be consumed by the two of us at one sitting, sitting being a bit relative. We decided not to buy it anymore for that reason.
mark
Given all the discussion of dessert possibly when we all have heartburn. Or clogged arteries.
mark bofill (Comment #147645),
.
.
TBH, I didn’t think about it much. Laziness I suppose, with an implied lack of concern. In all fairness, I really can’t expect others to have my … social memory … for want of a better term.
Bailey’s last forever around here. I prefer red wine or hot chocolate. Jim prefers anything not sweet.
Sven (Comment #147649),
.
.
Yes, I was implying that you were being tactical. Yes, that was meant to be pointy.
Lucia,
1. Re Brandon, I see, you’re probably right.
2. Re Joshua, thanks for explaining actually. I’m not sure he knew that.
3. Re clogged arteries, yeah. ~sigh~. I quit smoking, I cut back on drinking. Other than irritating people on blogs I have no remaining vices besides dessert. I gotta keep something.
.
J,
Baileys is the double whammy. Besides being pleasantly alcoholic it’s just too darn delicious for weak willed mortals like myself to withstand.
.
Angech,
I think this place is usually reasonably civil. I apologized, I’m over it. Nothing more to be gained by worrying about it that I can see.
Wait, what?
Sounds like drinks are at Lucia’s tomorrow night! Thanks Lucia, what time are you expecting us?
😛
One sure way to get blasted and regret it in the morning is the Espresso martini: Baileys, Kahlúa, vanilla vodka. Chill, top with ground cinnamon and/or garnish with a cinnamon stick. A bit like a White Russian but with a mad caffeine buzz.
So, Brandon, you do not say sharp things to others lightly but for some reason you had the urge to say a sharp thing about me at the very first time you’ve ever communicated with me. And if you consider this to be a tactic of mine, it means that at our first encounter the first thing you say to me is pretty much that I’m lying. Yes, Mr. Gates, you definitely do not say sharp things to others lightly. I guess I must repeat my expression (to Joshua that started it all) of lack of self awareness.
Sorry, folks over here, but I can’t not respond.
Yes, Willard, you are paranoid
Sven (Comment #147659),
.
.
That’s about the size of it, yes.
.
.
I logically must consider that you genuinely don’t recall the exchange. OTOH, as Joshua points out to you:
.
Like I said, I wouldn’t want to generalize from poorly crafted sampling…but it would be rather ironic if you were banned because the host thought you were being “rude.â€
.
I’m generally suspicious of the reasons anyone gives about being banned from blog participation — to do so is to impute the “real” motive(s) of the blog owner.
.
.
Um, in my previous post I told you specifically that I intended it to be pointed. Way I’m actually reading this is that you simply don’t agree that the pointedness was warranted.
mark bofill (Comment #147656)
Angech, I think this place is usually reasonably civil.
Nothing directed at you, Mark.
For the last three weeks you have been the glue trying to hold us all civil, many thanks for that attempt.
It is very hard to argue without emotion, I cannot do it but I do find that whenever I do a post and get waylaid I am able to temper my previous words much better when I redo the post.
Or if I walk away for 5 minutes.
Being human I forget to apply this rule to all posts.
Brandon,
“I’m generally suspicious of the reasons anyone gives about being banned from blog participation — to do so is to impute the “real†motive(s) of the blog owner.”
As you can read from the dialogue, I did not give any reasons for being banned. And so I could not impute anything. I did not even know I was banned. And still do not know. Am I banned? Anders has now told Joshua that he did not remember my comment either. There pretty much was no exchange. Just me saying one sentence – that TTP’s response was lame (as it really did not address anything that Nic ha said) and he said my comment was lame. That’s it. Nothing that would make it a big deal to remember. So I do not see how your “sharpness” or “pointedness” was in any way warranted.
And so, I do think that your self image of “I do not say sharp things to others lightly” is just wrong. You probably do
And, BTW, I pretty much don’t even visit aTTP. Only very rarely when directed over from some other site. Usually from here or, like this time, CA. That might also be one of the reasons I did not remember commenting there and not knowing I was (?) banned
@ Lucia
Your feeling is correct. I am a UK conservative outer. Obama has made it clear to Brits that he is no friend of the UK. Obama has no business sticking his nose into UK domestic politics, and his threats to single us out for special treatment post-Brexit have been noted.
We were sold a lie by our (UK) and European politicians (surprise!). We voted to join the EEC (European Economic Community) as it was sold. That was: a free trading zone with trade and travel barriers being removed within Europe. Great. No-one was told that the EEC would stiff our traditional trading partners (Commonwealth countries) when we became buried behind the EEC CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) protection. It wasn’t about free trade, it was about protecting French farmers from foreign competition. New Zealand in particular lost its major export market (butter and lamb) and their economy was totally screwed. Kiwis, understandably, are still bitter about the betrayal.
The jokes never stop coming. The Nobel committee voted the EU the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping peace in Europe. No mention of the fact that Germany and France (the self-appointed cultural and intellectual leaders of Europe as opposed to us dumb Anglos) decided that after 150 years of mutual destruction, it might be better to stop going to war with each other. No mention of NATO either. It was NATO that kept the Soviet Union at bay and NATO (not the EU) that fixed the Balkans crisis. It is NATO that preserves security in Europe, but it can’t be mentioned, because ‘Merica, Brits and Anglos in general.
The EEC morphed, as always intended, into the EU. An economic partnership changing into a political union by stealth. Eurocrats pay no income taxes but get generous salaries, expenses and pensions. The EU accounts are never published because the accountants won’t sign them off. Fraud is rampant but never identified or punished. The voices we hear in favour of Remain are all establishment and Oligarchs. The CBI (Confederation of British Industry) is solidly behind Remain. Nothing suits big business better than layers of regulation and beaurocracy: they preserve established positions and stifle competition. The CBI doesn’t speak for small business. We are getting vague threats of trade sanctions if we vote to leave. That’s a curious one as the EU (mostly German car manufacturers) runs a trade surplus with the UK. I’m sure that will go down well with Mercedes, BMW and VW.
The UK uses Common Law, Europe is subject to Napoleonic Law. It’s a poor fit. I’ll leave that to the lawyers here, but I wonder how Obama would like US Supreme Court rulings being over-ruled by (lets say Panama and Mexico) judges. UK courts are subservient to EU decisions. In short, Obama should keep his mouth shut and stick to what he’s best at: domestic health care reform
Now that I come to think of it … I’m not even sure that I’ve ever visited aTTP between the January 2015 “lame” comment (when I got there through here) and now. So, if I was banned, I cannot but repeat the quote from the classics – too funny
Interesting paper out of UWisc – http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html
The entropy of thread every technical discussion goes through stages.. it ends with food fights and then discussions of recipes
Steven Mosher,
🙂
.
I can’t help but laugh about the fact that you specifically suggested to be careful with the hammer, because it hurts like a bleep to smack your thumb. So what do I do?
‘Oh OK, sure Steven, thanks.’
Smack!
OWWWW!!! OWWWEEEE!!!
.
It’s just wrong. Dessert is a less painful subject.
I have observed that the climate models hold the unique distinction in the climate debate as attracting the most skepticism in general. Even people who think the UHI is not affecting the land station record, who don’t mind Karl (2015), or who believe most of the observed warming, is AGW, feel the models are unskilled.
.
Does anyone else concur?
.
If so, what would you correct if about the IPCC’s GCMs, (currently CMIP5,) and why? Would that include pro-forma rules for validation and continued standards to avoid invalidation?
Ron, My experience is that even the few who feel they must defend GCMs for climate such as Schmidt, Held, and Rice have few convincing answers. Rice’s last SkSer foray with Sou is quite bad relying on selective quotations of the literature while leaving our anything that doesn’t fit their thesis. When this is pointed out they just refuse to discuss it.
This Santer Douglas “cluster fuck” as Annan calls it exposes a lot of the silly stuff such as the Cawley criterion for model falsification that is of no practical use as far as I can see.
Lucias old post she linked above is the best I’ve seen on this issue
.
Well, let’s give the models their due.
.
At least as far as temperature trends, the models verify:
stratospheric cooling with a peak near the stratopause
zero trend near the tropopause
warming for most of the troposphere
a warming maxima for the Arctic
.
The models falsify:
the hot spot.
.
The main failings there may be the result of the usual suspects for model assassination:
sub gridscale parameterizations
and the chaotic solutions to the fluid flow equations.
.
Increasing compute power will help with the resolution of the parameterizations, but won’t matter to the chaotic solutions.
.
All that opined, I had an exchange with Mosher on Climate Etc, and reflected on the 1.5C to 4.5C ( or whatever it is these days ) range of IPCC estimates. That range does not reflect the uncertainty of the GCMs. Observations and the myriad of GCM runs indicate variability of about +/- 0.5C per century.
.
The uncertainty, being abused in my opinion, is of the emissions scenarios, which GCMs can’t help with.
It appears that we’re already behind the RCP scenarios for CO2 after just six years.
.
But, were a little ahead of the full GHG scenarios because of Methane.
.
Bean tax?
TE: “Well, let’s give the models their due.”
.
The problem I see is that emulation of known or expected atmospheric behavior is not validation because the models must be crafted to emulate observed data. Even if the claim that all code is directly from first principles, we know there must be tuning even if only to debug.
.
An example of true validation is the prediction of lens effect of the stars visible near the sun during a total eclipse as predicted by General Relativity. Here the prediction is novel, as not to be predicted from other effects, and is able to be observed reproducibly by impartial or skeptical experts.
.
In order to demonstrate skill a GCM should IMO need to predict at least one full ENSO cycle. Then you have a phenomena that is beyond the skill of prediction of the operator and thus cannot be transferred to the model via tuning.
.
And, if a GCM did make a successful first 10 years that would not protect it from invalidation if, for example, it way over-reacted to aerosols from a large volcano. Also, the criteria for success or failure in all conceivable events of affecting forcing should be set in advance just like calling the rules on a pick up game of basketball at the beginning, not during.
“That range does not reflect the uncertainty of the GCMs. ”
as hansen and others have suggested the models DO NOT constrain or inform our understanding.
1. Paleo; It necessarily includes all physics.. known and unknown
its weakness is uncertainty in Forcing and temperature.
2. Observational: the uncertainty in temperture is lower, but
may not include all physics.. the longer your series the better.
3. Models.. not very good
The models range from 2.2 to 4.4 They only show that these types of sensivity are consistent with observations. They are weak evidence for estimating sensivity
@Steve Mosher
1) Paleo: We are reasonably certain of large temperature variability on all time scales, most crucially in the last 1000 years under uniform GHG concentrations.
.
2) Observational: The record before the satellite era gains significant uncertainty with age, and after conflicts with satellite’s trend.
.
3) Models: We don’t even have an agreed method to determine if they are good. Anyone not vested in them seems to say their bad, but that’s a very poor measure in a political environment.
.
My point would be that with natural variability on ~ century frequency is poorly understood thus we have no way to assume how it’s influencing what we attribute to sensitivity, over or under.
Ron, TE, and Steve, There are plenty of a priori reasons to believe that GCM’s for climate are weak. This is known from past experience with CFD where we know that very coarse grids introduce a lot of dissipation. The problem here is that it is not even possible to apply commonly accepted tests from CFD to GCM’s.
1. Does the result converge in some sense as the grid gets finer?
2. Do the sub grid models truly operate in a grid insensitive manner?
3. Are there multiple solutions and/or singular points?
4. What is the sensitivity of model results to parameters other than the grid?
5. Does the method discretely conserve mass, momentum, and energy?
6. And how about the time truncation error? Is the result independent of the time step used?
In fact convincing work on these questions even in aeronautical CFD is still lacking as we discuss in our new paper. We know from 2D studies that 3D is expected to be challenged. We know from testing that there are initial conditions where even simple flows have bifurcation points. In 2D we have boundary layer methods that can find them. Navier-Stokes, not so much.
One virtue of simple models is that its possible to do some of these tests convincingly. You at least have a chance to get consistent results. But simple models don’t require massive funding and huge research groups. 🙂
“@Steve Mosher
1) Paleo: We are reasonably certain of large temperature variability on all time scales, most crucially in the last 1000 years under uniform GHG concentrations.”
read the LGM work
Steven, are you refuting my point or contributing? Is LGM last glacial maximum? I am thinking there could be significant non Milankovitch Cycle paleo variability in the last several 1000yrs since the Holocene Optimum.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147737),
.
.
Fine then. What’s your proposed rational solution to bring emissions to zero?
Brandon
I’m not sure why you are asking this. The question seems to have nothing to do with the criticism of your methodology for creating graph or using it to make projections. After all:
(a) tweaking the IPCC projections is not a “rational solution” to bringing emissions to zero.
(b) picking a target threshold is not a “rational solution” to bringing emissions to zero.
Neither of those things is any sort of solution. Policies to do things that reduce emissions are steps in the right directions. Creating projections does not reduce emissions in any way, picking a target “threshold temperature” also does not.
An actual policy to reduce emissions has been discussed above: Strongly encourage transition to nuclear energy.
If the problem to be solved is emissions that’s a much more rational thing to be discussing than how we can make better projections to estimate “time to X C”.
Ron Graf (Comment #147742),
.
.
One could say that. Yet Krakatau in 1883 had a noticeable effect in the instrumental record, as did Santa MarÃa in 1902, Novarupta in 1912, Agung in 1963, El Chichón in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — which was of special interest because attempts were made to model the global temperature effect.
.
.
I doubt they attributed all of it to increased volcanism. Doesn’t matter. What matters is the quantification itself. Then we’d need to figure out how to “bake in” that factor to forward-looking projections.
lucia (Comment #147774),
.
.
I’m not sure why you need to know why I’m asking the question. After all, an answer to a direct question should be quite independent who is asking or why.
.
.
Nor does it need to. After all, both you and Brandon S. quite clearly have your own thoughts on policy which quite reject my approach to it. Hence, my approach is moot.
.
.
That actually happening would be a good step, but it doesn’t bring emissions to zero.
Brandon
I want to know why you are asking for several reasons. Among the (a) to weigh whether it’s likely to be rhetorical and (b) to decide whether it’s worth answering. It seems to me whether or not it’s rhetorical, it’s not worth answering. But if it’s intended as rhetorical, please don’t ask rhetorical questions.
Of course it doesn’t bring them to zero. But it comes closer to bringing emissions to zero than picking temperature like “2C” which does nothing at all to reduce emissions.
Reduce emissions to zero. Hmm. Are we going to launch tactical airstrikes on China’s coal power plants? India’s?
My answers are: I don’t think we will and I don’t think we should.
Yet short of military action, IMO we (the U.S.) do not have it within our power to cause emissions to go to zero.
So, what difference does it make? Again IMO none. We ought to move towards reducing emissions in a safe and orderly way. Promote nuclear. Start looking at adaptation measures, since both 1. the rest of the world doesn’t look like they are going to stop burning anytime soon and 2. we don’t know ECS and it can be argued that we ought to be prepared.
“I doubt they attributed all of it to increased volcanism.”
McGregor (2015):
Krakatoa was by far the largest eruption you mentioned but it was only 1/3 the size in power and mass as Tambora.
Check the current discussion on ATTP for the graph on volcanic aerosols. I was commenting there but my computer can’t load Anders’ page any more.
Brandon R. Gates asks me:
I’m tempted to just say, “Read harder” like he said to me as nothing I’ve ever said suggests I think we should bring emissions to zero. I haven’t even said that about net emissions. Quite frankly, I think bringing emissions, net or otherwise, to zero would be a terrible idea for the foreseeable future. In fact, I think it is irrational to call for such a move if one holds certain commonly accepted values like reducing the harms of disease, poverty and various other things.
So… yeah. I don’t know why I’m being asked a question which is obviously built upon a premise many people wouldn’t accept, one which I definitely do not accept. Gates might as well have asked me, “What’s your proposed rational solution to how you should give me all your money?” The answer to both questions is, “I don’t have one as I think that’s a stupid idea.”
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147792),
.
.
I know you haven’t.
.
.
The response would have been equally as useful.
lucia (Comment #147789),
.
.
In a policy discussion, I’d think it would be worth answering a policy-relevant question.
.
.
“Strongly encourag[ing] transition to nuclear energy” doesn’t build the plants either. I already told you I thought *actually* doing so would be a good step, so you are arguing a point already mutually agreed upon.
.
What are your thoughts on how to get emissions to zero?
Ron Graf (Comment #147791),
.
.
Yup, stumbled on it earlier and made a general comment:
.
Brandon G
Perhaps. But it context it sounds like you are suggesting you’ve proposed a rational method to reach zero emissions and you have not. Alternatively that you think we can’t point out your notion of picking some temperature threshold is a rational method of reaching zero emissions unless we have one of our own.
Whether we have a rational proposal for reaching zero emissions is entirely irrelevant to the fact that your proposal isn’t a rational one for doing so.
I also agree with Brandon that it’s not clear that we need to reach zero emissions. But it seems to me it’s wise to work on reducing than to spend time on the nonesensical idea that we need to set a target temperature before we can create policies to reduce. And it’s certainly wiser to work on reducing by actual concrete steps than by trying to focus on something like “Let’s debate the target temperature!
Whether one wants to merely reduce or to reach zero emissions, zero emissions cannot be reached unless we reduce first. So: Nukes.
Brandon
Of course it doesn’t build them. I want programs implemented to get them built and operational. In contrast to picking a target temperature, built operational plans actually do start reducing emissions in a concrete way.
In contrast, picking a target temperature does absolutely nothing (unless one subsequently does something. Like building nukes, which we can do just as easily without the target temperature.).
As for the accusation that I am arguing a point we agree on: I am not “arguing” a point. You are asking for what peoples plans are for reducing emissions.
When you ask for a policy plan, I am simply reminding you that I have already given a plan. It appears you do remember that I have given a plan– as have many people here.
If you continue to ask people their plans, you will find they (or I ) will continue to remind you of the plan. That you agree it is a good one plan doesn’t mean we can’t remind you that it is the plan. It is simply reminding you that the answer for the policy has not changed even if you keep asking for us to tell you our policy over and over and over again.
mark bofill (Comment #147790),
.
.
All told, probably not the most cost-effective plan.
.
.
Doesn’t answer the question, but noted.
.
.
Not everything needs to be about force, you know.
.
.
I’d ask how it is you have confidence in this opinion, but it might be taken as a rhetorical question.
.
.
That really should not be a point of dispute. Here’s another thing which should not be a point of dispute: we should not continue haphazardly emitting in a potentially reckless manner.
.
.
Both are already being done and have been for some time now … the latter arguably for longer than the former.
.
.
Uncertainty is not our friend; it’s difficult to do contingency planning with so many unknowns. Here are two ways to reduce uncertainty to zero:
.
1) Wait until the problem is no longer a potential one.
.
2) Eliminate the source of problem before it’s no longer just a potential.
Brandon G,
Those appear to be ways to reduce uncertainty to zero. But I haven’t heard anyone propose that we need to reduce uncertainty to zero. Uncertainty isn’t our friend in daily life or on other political issues either. We don’t try to reduce uncertainty in those areas and we manage to and manage to deal with non-zero uncertainty. There’s nothing unique about climate in that regard. So while those might be ways to achieve that goal, I don’t see reducing uncertainty to zero as a valid goal in anything.
Brandon Gates, whereas civilization has limited resources, we simply try to manage for the optimal outcome for the most amount of people in the most just way. All flows from that, but individuals are going to have different ideas about what is best management. When there’s a major political divide there is usually stalemate. This is why we should look for the areas of true consensus, because the eliminates resistance to action. (I won’t elaborate on what falsely proclaiming a consensus does.)
.
If fusion energy, for example, can be agreed as an attractive solution by a consensus I think we could get there much quicker. For example, we went from learning of the nature of fission to creating an atomic bomb in a very short time because huge resources went into it. Diddo the Apollo space program.
.
Are you for political leaders announcing fusion as a target? Maybe we can even create a fusion race. Would you be for that, Brandon? Lucia?
lucia (Comment #147798),
.
.
You’ve rejected my approach to formulating a plan as irrational. Which is fine, so I’m asking you questions about yours.
.
.
I could, but I doubt it would gain me anything other than typing practice and a headache from the tedium.
.
.
I have a nasty habit of recalling what others have written, and I got it the first ten times it was said here that several think my approach to developing a plan is irrational. In the off-chance you missed it, earlier today I wrote: After all, both you and Brandon S. quite clearly have your own thoughts on policy which quite reject my approach to it. Hence, my approach is moot.
.
“Moot” means that I’ve abandoned my approach as a point of discussion. Continually banging away on that does not demonstrate to anyone that you yourself have a rational plan. Hence, I am asking you questions about it.
.
.
Here are your words: That said: On the balance I think continued warming will tend to be a bad thing.
.
At what level of emissions does the continued warming stop? Or if you like, at what level of emissions does the rate of continued warming cease to be a bad thing?
.
.
I’ve already clarified that I’m not beholden to any particular target temperature. You’re debating a strawman.
.
.
The sooner the better. Yesterday if possible. For the US, in 2011 Obama created a new program offering loan guarantees for a variety of alternative energy deployments, including nuclear power. Thus far I think three new plants are in the works, the first in 20 years. That’s encouraging, but it’s barely one plant per year. Inhofe, Booker, Whitehouse and Crapo have introduced a bi-partisan bill in the Senate, which among other things seeks to streamline the permitting process at the NRC. Which is also encouraging.
.
I’m of the mind that neither of these two developments ensure that more nuclear plants get built yesterday if possible. Penny for your thoughts on how we might do that.
Ron
Only if we have information to suggest it’s practical. I’m really not into “races” to promote development of new technologies.
Obvious, during actual wars countries to hurry to develop weapons. But fission already works. Under the circumstances, I don’t see any reason to throw huge amounts of money on fusion when fission works.
Brandon G,
I agree that uncertainty stinks. Yet things are not in my view as uncertain as they might be. For example, IMO there isn’t much uncertainty that the rest of the world (China and India in particular) are not about to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon.
.
I don’t point this out to be obnoxious, I do this because looking realistically at what other actors are likely to do or not to helps us prioritize between mitigation and adaptation.
.
If you agree with me that India and China are going to continue to burn substantial amounts of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, then perhaps we can agree that redoubling our efforts towards adaptation might be a good idea. If we can’t agree on that, maybe we should discuss why we don’t agree.
.
Now I don’t claim that what India and China do gives us free ‘license to burn’. I still think it’s in our best interest to quit contributing to the problem. The trouble is, we are going to have to adapt anyway to some extent, because China and India are going to continue emitting no matter what we do. Therefore while I think we should move towards zero emissions, I don’t see why we should break our necks doing so overnight – emissions are going to continue and we are going to have to adapt to it.
.
Thanks Brandon G.
Yeah, the idea of races is interesting. My impression is that it can be a useful way of harnessing nationalistic feelings to unify and motivate people behind a program.
[Edit: yuck. I don’t like my comment. Strike all above.]
That might could help actually.
Thanks Ron Graf, I like ideas that haven’t occurred to me.
Brandon G,
As far as I can tell, your approach is:
Develop a target temperature and time to reach it. Then bingo. Emissions reduce!
If there is more to your approach you need to reveal it. But as it’s stated, it’s not rational. Selecting a target temperature and a time to reach it does nothing to reduce emissions.
Otherwise: your approach — at least as far as you describe it– is irrational no matter what other approach anyone might have. The “bingo” never happens and your approach does nothing. At. All. to reduce emissions.
Yes. I gathered you were asking a question. I thought I answered it. Multiple times. I’ll answer again:
My approach is to develop programs to promote a shift to nuclear energy. It may not be a detailed fully fleshed out plan with a 3000 page write up by policy wonks, but it’s rational. If we being implementing a program to build nuclear energy and close down fossil fuel plants our emissions will begin to decline.
If that doesn’t answer your question, you will have to rephrase your question. So if I haven’t answered, could you clarify what you are asking? Perhaps reword your question? Not rhetorical.
I’m not debating a strawman. Because I didn’t say and, never did say, you were beholden to any particular target temperature. I am simply saying that picking any such temperature doesn’t reduce emissions. That in no way suggests I think you are beholden to any particular choice.
The issue here is: You at least seem to have suggested that the “rational plan” to reducing the emissions is to select one. I’m saying that the is really no “rational” reason to select any target tempearture if the goal is to reduce emissions.
If I misunderstood you and you don’t think the rational approach to reducing emissions is to pick a target temperature, say that you don’t think picking a target temperature is involved in “the rational approach”. After that misunderstanding is cleared up, we can move on from this silly idea of picking a target temperature or computing the time to reach it as being involved in a “rational plan” to reduce emissions.
Ron Graf (Comment #147802),
.
.
Which requires knowing what that optimal outcome is, or at the very least constraining it to some … reasonable … range. Despite already extant and long-running attempts to do so, my impressions are that we don’t have a well-constrained estimate. Put it this way, the uncertainty of the ecological and economic models (which extends partially from the ecology projections) is even more uncertain than the physical models upon which those estimates are obtained. Uncertainty propagates.
.
.
Totally understood. What keeps getting lost in this discussion is that I’m attempting to find the common ground upon which we can all reasonably agree. When the discussion turns to “my plan isn’t rational”, I do two things:
.
1) Point out that it doesn’t demonstrate that alternative plans are more rational.
.
2) Ask for elucidation of the alternative plans.
.
So long as I continue to get resistance on the latter, and/or Lucia et al. continue to harp on my approach to developing a plan I’m going to be left wondering if there is an alternative rational plan … or indeed if there’s really any interest in developing one.
.
.
No kidding. I think perhaps you should direct your comments at your own cohort. I already understand these principles inside and out.
.
.
Perhaps, but I’m loath to bank on it. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t step up research efforts along those lines, but I would stipulate that it shouldn’t be at the expense of aggressively pursuing fission power in the meantime. The Gen II+ reactors are cost-effective and less hazardous than coal irrespective of future concerns for CO2.
.
.
I’d chalk that up to fusion being far more difficult. The temperatures and pressures involved make containment and control are well in excess of the tolerances required for uranium reactors.
.
.
As one target, but ranked below nuclear, wind and solar where those work. Fission for “advanced” nations is my top priority. I’d put fusion below solving the liquid fuel problem for transport — EVs aren’t going to work in all applications, particularly commercial aviation and shipping.
Brandon G,
On this
I don’t know how to get anything built yesterday — not nuclear plants, not solar plants, not battery plants, not windmills. I don’t think research into time machines is likely to be fruitful.
In my mind, the plan forward out to be to keep pushing to accelerate building of nuclear plants.
I realize any policy I might propose can’t turn back time and cause itself to have been implemented 20 years ago.. That’s a feature that is shared with all policy plans: they can’t be implemented retroactively. No one can turn back the clock. Presumably that a plan can’t be implemented 10 years back isn’t any greater a flaw for one plan than another.
I’ve been for more nuclear for many years. I’m glad some rationality is finally manifesting itself.
I don’t know if I have an alternative rational plan. I thought we were talking about it. I am interested in developing one.
However, I’m becoming unclear on what our plan is supposed to do. Get us (meaning just the U.S.) to zero emissions? Get all emissions to zero? Come up with solutions to take care of the negative impacts we are worried about as a nation? Is our plan supposed to cover the planet?
.
None of these are intended to be rhetorical questions. Still, my answers are: Our plan ought to at least reduce U.S. emissions. If there is a way to get all emissions to zero then that would be important and significant. I don’t think we can, but if we could then that would change how I think we ought to proceed. Coming up with a solution that’s good for our country is my priority. I’ve got nothing against other nations, but it’s not clear to what extent I ought to worry about them.
Brandon G,
No one claimed that your plan isn’t rational means other plans are rational. But I would suggest there is no sane reason to do one irrational thing that does nothing to solve a problem merely because you haven’t yet thought of a rational thing that can solve the problem.
.
And alternate plans have been given you. Nukes.
Periodically, you say you agree with that plan. If so, it seems to me we have found the common ground.
Regarding nukes being common ground; I have never felt the nuclear waste or accident danger was unsolvable. My only reason for not promoting fission is that I perceive inflexibility by a politically empowered lobby. It might be a relatively small lobby but they seem to have the Democratic party support. This new bipartisan bill is good news though. Perhaps fission can be reconsidered after 40 years since the 3-Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, USA.
.
In addition to fission I support solar and to a lessor degree wind turbines. But, I think battery technology must advance significantly to make wind and solar feasible as primary grid sources or reliable backup systems. I freely acknowledge fusion’s extreme engineering difficulties. I am not deterred though. Again, I think with the right leadership we can accomplish anything we can dare decide to do (with support of the consensus.) I think the ball is in the liberal’s court on this one to persuade the members of their own coalitions to brand fusion differently than fission.
.
Liquid fuels are only necessary for aviation but they can be made synthetically from methane or alcohol feedstocks.
.
Civilization, to be successful in having enough energy for closing the recycling loop on every natural resource, must succeed in controlled fusion. The only question is how long we wait to do it.
mark bofill (Comment #147805),
.
.
We don’t need to — and I would argue should not — acquiesce to what we think China and India are likely to do.
.
.
Uncertainty. You don’t know what it is that we’ll need to adapt to.
.
.
Glad you made that clear.
.
.
Bearing in mind that I’m not a fortune-teller, I disagree about China. IIRC, they’ve made some rumblings or even a commitment to peak in 2030. Their incentive to do so is actually quite clear to their own interests; coal is choking their urban centers and thus putting a drag on their urban economies. I’m not aware that India has the same concerns … yet.
.
.
I repeat: Uncertainty. You don’t know what it is that we’ll need to adapt to.
.
(Comment #147811),
.
.
You and I are. You’re responding to a different conversation I’m having with Lucia.
.
.
Me too.
.
.
Zero across the board. First priority for me is the US. We’re the #2 emitter, we’re both citizens and therefore have some measure of policy influence that we don’t with other countries, and the technologies that we’d ostensibly develop to reduce emissions will all but surely be useful elsewhere. I think it’s in our best interests to lead in their development and reap the rewards of our investment later when the price point of deploying and operating them becomes more competitive in the global market.
.
.
That’s a secondary priority for me. There’s no need to adapt to something that does not happen.
.
.
Yes, eventually. AGW is a global problem.
.
.
It doesn’t matter to me; I don’t mind answering questions, rhetorical or not.
.
.
Mine as well. I’m already on record with that, as well as some of the points I reiterated above.
.
.
I can’t answer that one for you. For myself I have negative zero assurance that *IF* China and India continue accelerating their own emissions at the present rate — or worse, go exponential — that the US will be able to adapt come what may. I should be more clear. I don’t think we’d be totally wiped out. But because we cannot possibly know for sure what adaptation scenarios we’d be facing, or how much it will cost to deal with them, I don’t think it’s an acceptable risk to acquiesce to whatever you or anyone else thinks China and India are or are not going to do.
.
In essence, I think to do so is a poor negotiation strategy and the kind of non-diplomacy that will get our own interests walked on. Better is to lead the mitigation effort on our own if need be with the aim to make it worth China and India’s while to incorporate some or all the solutions we develop when those reach an attractive price point.
.
A secondary concern is those countries who would be ill-equipped to adapt.
lucia (Comment #147808),
.
.
So you’ve alluded several times already. See again: it’s moot what my plan is since you’ve rejected my approach to developing one as irrational.
.
.
Nope, I’m not required to do that at all, and would rather not since attempting to do so with you has proven about as effective as sailing dead to wind against the tide.
.
.
I got that the first ten times you said it.
.
.
I’ll stipulate that it’s NOT within the realm of a blog discussion to write 3,000 page action plans.
.
.
My response has not changed from the last time I wrote it: implementing nuclear power does not reduce emissions to zero.
.
.
I can think of several ways to do that:
.
1) Talk about it on the Internet.
.
2) Create incentives such that nuclear power is favored over alternatives.
.
3) Mandate a schedule and execute it.
.
That’s not intended to be an exhaustive list, and the details of how to implement them want some fleshing out. My thinking is that some combination of (2) and (3) is required.
Brandon Gate
Oh. Heavens. This appears to be a game of you insist we have a plan which we reveal while you reserve to yourself the right to not reveal yours. Meanwhile, you want to claim to be looking for common ground. For all we know your plan could be the common ground. But, you won’t reveal it. You just want to whine.
Yes. I’ve been saying I want them built. So: you seem to now be endorsing what I previously said I want to do. That is: it appears you endorse my plan: build nukes.
I’m not entire sure how “mandates” work. Economic incentives (and unburdening regulation ) could be sufficient.
But yes, we could be working on international or US plans to implement building of nuclear plans. Some budget for this could be taken from subsidies to things like Tesla “no-emissions cars” which cannot be “no emission” unless they are fueled by electricity that is no emission. That’s likely not enough, but other sources of revenue to shift misallocated funds could work.
So: We have common ground. We had it weeks ago. Nukes. I’m glad to see you are finally recognizing it and engaging instead of repeating questions about the plan. Nukes is the plan.
On this
Which is moot because as you’ve see above, reducing to zero is not common ground. (Mark Bofill’s stated view is it’s stupid.)
So if your rules is to not yammer on about plans or requirements that are moot because people have rejected them, then this is moot– just as moot as your plan for creating a target temperature and finding the time to reach it.
Let’s stick to discussing the common ground: nukes.
@Lucia
The active campaign to ridicule scientists and spread distrust of science isn’t going to help get any nuclear plants built. The populist appeal to distrust science means that no politician is going to want a plant built in his state.
This hasn’t been helped by the disasters over the years at nuclear plants. I was thinking that the public might be able to accept new, more reliable nuclear plants when Fukushima went into meltdown. Good luck getting any plants built in the next thirty years. That was a totally preventable event.
bugs
(a) No one said it would.
(b) I am certainly not involved in campaign to ridicule scientists nor am I suggesting anyone distrust science. Nor do I advocate any such campaign or distrust.
WRT To Fukishima: It is certainly the case we should not build plants in Tsunami prone locations. But the cores were contained.
That said: it does appear that you are among the group of people who would prefer to continue the current level of high emissions and risk the perils of AGW rather than build nukes.
Thanks Brandon G. I’m starting to feel like I understand your position a little better. It’s looking like another action packed Sunday around here, but I’ll respond when I get a chance over the next couple days.
Speaking of science and Nukes, there is a controversy going on right now regarding the linear model for risk from radiation exposure. There is a researcher who is digging out all the old data and the claim is the data supports a threshold model in which small doses have unmeasurable damage. There is also the charge that the guy largely responsible for the linear model was biased because of his anti-nuclear weapons political position.
http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/LNT-and-NAS-Environ.-Res.-1.pdf
To assert that pointing out the very big problems with scientific research will harm the case for nuclear power is just silly. The truth is what will help us make the right decisions.
“To assert that pointing out the very big problems with scientific research will harm the case for nuclear power is just silly. The truth is what will help us make the right decisions” was directed to bugs.
bugs (Comment #147826),
.
.
The facile response is: good luck deploying an alternative in the next thirty years. The very thing to realize about Fukushima is that it was preventable, and the IAEA and NRC noted the flawed placement of the backup generators well before the (inevitable) tsunami flooded them.
.
We need all options on the table. Doomsaying any of them may be counter-productive.
lucia (Comment #147822),
.
.
Appearances can be deceiving, especially with creative interpretation.
.
.
I appreciate being told my wants, Lucia. Thank you.
.
.
I would rather the latter, but we have differing ideas on what’s sufficient. I have a time schedule which you think is irrational; nevertheless, however the mandate worked would be designed to hit that target. For me, an acceptable mandate would be one which unburdened regulatory red tape, offered some form of protection against endless blocking lawsuits by NIMBYs and their allies, and guarantees/incentives designed to attract private capital.
.
.
I think it a smidge premature to be discussing whose subsidies to cut before having a rough idea of how much is required to do a nuke plan. I’ve been attempting to get a handle on those numbers myself; it’s slow going because Google doesn’t often have direct answers to my queries. It’s strangely familiar.
.
But I do agree with you that EVs don’t make sense if they’re powered by coal. I don’t have a problem with them being developed in parallel. The scope of what we’re dealing has too many moving parts for a rigid “first this then that” stepwise solution. I want the EV technology to be robust and market competitive ASAP so that as non-emitting power sources come online as much of the surface transport fleet is non-emitting as possible.
.
.
I never lost sight of that, Lucia. I’m telling you I don’t think it’s enough.
.
.
I’m all for finding common ground where and when I can. I do not constrain myself against challenging differences. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive in negotiations.
.
A sticking point right now is that nukes only does not reduce emissions to zero. I have asked, and you have not answered, at what point emissions become such that you think they no longer present a significant risk. My follow-on question is, of course, how you have arrived at that determination.
Brandon G
You’re welcome.
Now it’s time for dinner! 🙂
Brandon G,
.
I’d like to start here:
.
Respectfully, I disagree with you here. IMO some (many?) of the possible impacts or risks of climate change involve increased damages from events which sometimes naturally occur anyway. Storms, flooding, drought, extreme weather, and disease, in particular. Cost-benefit justified policies that reduce our risk or vunerabilities in these areas can be considered ‘no regrets’ policies that we ought to adopt regardless of the uncertainties involved in climate change. An example of this might include sorting out the incredible administrative agency mess and the policies encouraging waste of water during water plentiful times in California. Reducing vunerability to extreme weather events such as hurricanes may be another example. IMO we ought to identify and agree on any ‘no-regrets’ policies we can.
.
Furthermore, some of the impacts of climate change are already locked in. For example, the world could quit burning fossil fuels tomorrow and I’m told we will still enjoy continued SLR for a great many years to come. We are going to have to adapt to the impacts we can no longer avoid. Identifying these may simplify the equation by separating them and removing them from considerations we can still do something about.
.
I’ve come up with a brief list of broad categories of impact risks:
1. Water resource availability
2. Species extinction
3. Crop yields
4. Increase in heat related mortalities (note, probably very minor)
5. Change in disease vectors
6. Vunerability to extreme weather events
.
Do you agree to these? Can you think of any you’d like to add?
.
I think we have many other likely areas of disagreement to tackle, but this might serve as a starting point. Maybe this way we could start to get our heads around what we’re really talking about when we think of the possible impacts of climate change and use this to get a handle on the bounds of impact uncertainty in the U.S.
.
Thanks.
Lucia, PS:
.
Google did give me some useful answers last night, in the form of a 15-page summary of US nuclear issues prepared for Congress by the CRS. An excerpt:
.
.
My takeaways:
.
1) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) as described contains what I deem appropriate measures to accelerate the US nuclear power program.
.
2) That P.L. 109-58 “prompted announcements by late 2009 of up to 30 new nuclear power reactors in the United States” indicates is an encouraging sign of the *potential* efficacy of such legislation.
.
3) That of those 30 newly announced projects, only four are actually under construction due to falling natural gas prices is discouraging, and indicates that the legislation’s initial promise of market-competitive new nuclear construction is now mostly voided.
.
4) Not implicit in the above is that natural gas electrical power is overtaking coal as the cost-competitive solution. That’s an improvement to be sure, and one to which I’m not wholly opposed as a stopgap measure.
.
5) That there are 100 licensed and currently operating nuclear plants in the US is a first step in defining the scope of nuclear as part of a CO2 mitigation solution. From the US EIA we read the following breakdown of electrical power by source as of 2015:
.
Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%
.
Assuming no increase in demand (a bad assumption, but a decent one for a first approximation) replacing coal with nuclear would require on the order of 165 new nuclear plants, same to replace natural gas, for a total of 330 new plants. From that perspective, the 30 new plants announced in 2009 represented less than a tenth of what would be required for 100% replacement at *today’s* present demand.
.
6) Again from the EIA, the electrical power sector consumption in the US was ~39% of the total power consumed in 2015.
.
So, I want at least 330 plants built yesterday. Questions to you are: how many you want built? Since yesterday is impossible, how soon would you settle them for getting built?
mark bofill (Comment #147849),
.
.
I’ll stipulate that nothing in my broad sketches of ideas for planned solutions will reduce weather and climate risk to zero. I’ll further clarify that my intent is to reduce future risks, which are highly uncertain (i.e. more than bit unknown) by reducing emissions to zero. We don’t have to know a thing about what the actual risks are, or what climate sensitivity is to +/- 0.01 K/2xCO2 to know that zero emissions solves the problems before they have an opportunity to manifest themselves. Hence, there is no need to adapt to that which does not occur.
.
.
I’m familiar with the no regrets argument even though I rarely (if ever?) use it explicitly. Replacing coal with anything that doesn’t emit particulates is an example of me implicitly making that argument — the immediate health (and hence economic) benefits are abundantly clear to me irrespective of any present CO2-emission concerns for the future.
.
.
I’m fine with doing that with the caveat that my main focus is on energy policy because my main concerns are CO2 and particulate emissions. I’m hesitant to go beyond those two concerns because my feeling is that this conversation has already previously sprawled into everything but those two, and I’m not looking to repeat it.
.
.
Clearly. I appreciate your recognition of that.
.
.
Indeed, and there is no one answer about how much enjoyment we’d be due. They range from SLR already being “irreversible” on timescales on the order of centuries to potentially avoidable if we take aggressive action to bring emissions to zero.
.
.
I’ve already stated that adaptation research is and has been happening, and that I support it as a secondary priority. Frex, I support geoengineering schemes as a method of last resort. It would be unwise to discourage researching them now, but by the same token unwise to think of them as the primary solution. IMO, of course.
.
.
I agree with all. Again with the caveat that covering all of them in detail might tend to lead to sprawl:
.
7. Increased risk of armed conflict over competition for scarce resources
.
Everything in your list plausibly contributes something to that risk. How much? I answer my rhetorical question with another: Who knows? I answer again: we don’t need to know, and would do well to not find out empirically if at all possible.
.
.
Based on above, I think we at least agree on the risk categories. Our main difference looks to be that you’re hesitant to attempt resolving issues that you believe to be already locked in regardless of what we do.
.
.
With pre-apologies for appearing to be obstinate, obnoxious, uncooperative, stubborn, etc.; impact uncertainty is moot if we do what we know will mitigate the potential risks — replace CO2-emitting sources of energy with non-emitting ones. The upside is that less need to go through the brain-damage of attempting to constrain uncertainties in excess of what’s inherent in physical models themselves. To the extent that we fail to entirely eliminate those additional risks, they will gradually become more apparent with little additional effort but *hopefully* in time to be addressed with solutions already being studied.
.
As ever, my central argument is that mitigation/replacement efforts are the best primary focus for the present.
I honestly have no idea what to make of this. Brandon R. Gates says:
After asking me:
If Gates knows I haven’t ever said anything which suggests I think we should bring emissions to zero, why would he ask me what my “proposed rational solution to bring emissions to zero” is? Why would he ask me to propose a policy to do something I don’t think should be done?
I don’t get it. I’m also too tired to care. This is the first time I’ve been on a computer in two days because I’ve been stuck helping build a deck for a house. Maybe some of these comments I’m seeing will make more sense once I’ve slept. (I doubt it.)
Yes Brandon, But you ignore the remaining problems. Many of those problems are due to public ‘concern” about nuclear, stoked for many decades by the same green activist groups that now profess concern about carbon emissions. On this one, you and your fellow travelers need to change your attitude quickly and publicly. Just agree with Hansen for crying out loud. There is nothing complicated about this but you and the carbon concerned have not lifted a finger to change it except for Hansen.
My simple question to you is why are you not trying to persuade these far more powerful groups so that effective action an be taken? If not, your arguments here are very unconvincing.
Brandon G,
No, I undertand and appreciate that. But I feel like understanding the potential impacts and costs are important because we need to be able to weigh the relative costs and benefits of actions.
.
For example, perhaps there is a cost X associated with transitioning to nuclear instead of fossil fuel power production over 30 years. Perhaps the cost of transitioning over 10 years is K * x, it’s more expensive. Is it ‘worth it’? Well, we have to have some understanding of the potential costs of climate change over 10 years or 30 years to get a handle on this.
.
I think that if we spend some time looking at the impacts, we might be surprised to realize that it’s unlikely that the costs associated with climate change impacts are going to be huge in the short term. This is why I want to do it, I’ll say so openly. If there’s no reasonable way climate change is going to cost us Z over the next decade, I’m not going to endorse a plan that spends 10 * Z to mitigate.
.
So I get that you’d prefer to just talk about mitigation and getting emissions to zero, but I think the policy conversation needs to be a little more involved than that to get me (and likely others who think like me) on-board.
Brandon G,
If you’d like, I wouldn’t be adverse to considering these three (3) cases in trying to get a handle on costs: what seems cost effective in the U.S. at 1. sensitivity of 1.5C, 2. sensitivity of 3.0C, and 3. sensitivity of 4.5C.
mark bofill (Comment #147856),
.
.
It’s sufficient for me at present to know that we have the same basic list of potential future additional risks of continued warming. A main premise of my argument is that the future costs are highly uncertain. Our best efforts to slow down the warming now inherently reduces those largely unknown future risks without actually having to estimate them.
.
.
I’m having difficulty reconciling the above argument with this one from your previous post: Cost-benefit justified policies that reduce our risk or vunerabilities in these areas can be considered ‘no regrets’ policies that we ought to adopt regardless of the uncertainties involved in climate change.
.
.
Reasonable is a slippery term in the context of a high degree of uncertainty, Mark B. I’m back to noting that there are at least two ways to reduce risk uncertainty to zero:
.
1) Let the potential risks be realized.
.
2) Eliminate the source of the risk.
.
.
Way I see it, since you’re the one wanting a CBA as you have defined it, it’s up to you to do the legwork to proffer one fitting your own requirements.
.
Conversely, since I’m the one wanting to bring emissions to zero, it’s up to me to tell you how much the costs might be, and take a stab at any near-term so-called “co-benefits” I can scrounge together. I’m working on it. My comment #147851 to Luica is a first step toward doing that for nukes since that’s where we have the best agreement.
Brandon G,
This is fine, absolutely. I wasn’t assigning homework, I was letting you know that this was something I’d need to consider.
sure.
.
When we have our cases we can talk about where we agree about them and where we disagree together. Sounds good to me!
Oh, BTW
.
In order to figure out if a policy is a no regrets policy, we need to figure out what it costs. If it is unlikely to cost more than it benefits us in any event, it’s a no regrets. If not, .. I don’t know about you, but I regret pissing money away that I don’t have to spend.
.
It might be that this isn’t what ‘no regrets’ means,
I thought if it had to be justified from an economic perspective that that meant cost benefit analysis.
~shrug~
.
[Edit: But even if the term (no regrets) doesn’t mean what I think it means, I still want to estimate costs vrs benefits for policies I’m thinking about.]
mark bofill (Comment #147858),
.
.
I would like that as well. However, every time I’ve tried that approach here I’ve not been taken seriously. Latest word is that it’s irrational for me to think in terms of time to a given temperature threshold, and no alternative suggestions (save build nukes) have been forthcoming. So I’m doing it a different way: how quickly can we bring emissions to zero and not break the bank in the process.
.
I’m open to whatever moves the conversation forward, but as of now I’m pretty much out of other ideas.
Brandon G,
.
I’ll see what I can do then, great! Maybe a couple of days and I’ll put some something together to look at.
Brandon G,
.
.
FWIW, I’m not figuring out time to a given temperature. I’m getting a rough feel for what our cost benefit situation will look like given different possible sensitivities. It’s all speculative. It might get us no place, but I’m hoping that it might help us get some bounds on what makes sense, what’s a no-brainer, and what’s likely to be too expensive to make sense.
.
Anyway. Neither here nor there, just wanted to clarify what I was up to.
mark bofill (Comment #147862),
.
.
Ok good. We don’t need to rely on “official definitions” or even agree on one definition so long as we each understand what is meant. That all said, teh Goggle gives me this definition from TAR:
.
7.3.2 Consideration of No Regrets Options
.
No regrets options are by definition actions to reduce GHG emissions that have negative net costs. Net costs are negative because these options generate direct or indirect benefits, such as those resulting from reductions in market failures, double dividends through revenue recycling and ancillary benefits, large enough to offset the costs of implementing the options. The no regrets issue reflects specific assumptions about the working and the efficiency of the economy, especially the existence and stability of a social welfare function, based on a social cost concept:
.
* Reduction of existing market or institutional failures and other barriers that impede adoption of cost-effective emission reduction measures can lower private costs compared to current practice. This can also reduce private costs overall.
* A double dividend related to recycling of the revenue of carbon taxes in such a way that it offsets distortionary taxes.
* Ancillary benefits and costs (or ancillary impacts), which can be synergies or trade-offs in cases in which the reduction of GHG emissions has joint impacts on other environmental policies (i.e., relating to local air pollution, urban congestion, or land and natural resource degradation).
.
.
Subject to the ability to do a “reasonable” CBA. Reasonable is a slippery term in the context of highly uncertain future risks and their associated costs *IF* realized.
.
If I can make the argument without attempting calculations of uncertain future costs/benefits, then I’ll do so on that basis.
.
Or another way in the form of a picture worth 1,000 words:
.
http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/S/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg
Mark Bofill, you are basically right on what “no regret” policies are. The point of a no regrets policy is even if the perceived problem it addresses (in this case, global warming) turned out to be a non-issue, the policy would still be a good one because it has no either no downsides or benefits that outweigh the downsides for other reasons. So if adaptation which could potentially reduce the risk of AGW also reduces the risk of non-AGW caused dangers, it might be a “no regrets” policy (it’d depend on what the specfic costs/benefits are) in that it’d be a good policy regardless of AGW. There was nothing contradictory with what you said, and you seem to understand the phrase just fine.
Incidentally, nobody told Brandon R. Gates it was irrational to look at what would be cost effective at various climate sensitivities like he just told you. What people said is his approach of picking some single numerical value and requiring any chosen policy ensure we don’t reach it is irrational. The reality is any anount of temperature change over any given period of time carries risks and benefits. A rational cost benefit analysis examines what the benefits of reducing those risks are and weighs them against the policies that are proposed. It’s very different from what Gates said was “the rational approach.”
For instance, there is no single value for AGW that we must never breach. There are plenty of policies that cannot be justified regardless of what threshold Gates might wish to pick. We can determine that by doing actual cost benefit analyses for whatever value one might pick. (For instance, preventing us from reaching 2C could not possibly be justified if climate sensitivity is high enough as the dangers of that warming would pale in comparison to the damages reducing our emissions would cause.)
David Young (Comment #147855),
.
.
Thank you for preaching to the choir.
.
.
That is decidedly incorrect.
.
.
Powerful groups are unfortunately above my present paygrade. What have you been doing to persuade far more powerful groups so that effective action can be taken?
Thanks Brandon S.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147869) ,
.
.
Brandon R. Gates (Comment #147863)
.
.
Brandon R. Gates (Comment #147735)
May 14th, 2016 at 2:02 am
.
.
Same unsolicited advice still applies. Or perhaps read less tired. Whatever works best for you.
Brandon Gate
That number or more sounds fine. More would be ok too.
Like you, I’d like them built yesterday. Tomorrow would also do. How soon would you settle for them to be built?
“A double dividend related to recycling of the revenue of carbon taxes in such a way that it offsets distortionary taxes.”
Lovely phrasing.
“We will take money off you then give it back to you so you can buy those nasty CO2 products anyway?”
or
We are pretending to do something but not really doing it
No double dividend in there or possible really.
lucia (Comment #147874),
.
.
Excellent, thanks.
.
.
And we were doing so well. Some, certainly not me, might consider answering a direct question with the same question to be rhetorical. She whom is asked first has the honor of giving the first answer? (Honest question.)
Brandon G
And my answer is: You have it backwards. Unless it is a question of clarification, if you ask a question you get the honor of answering it first. So the honor of the right to answer your question first goes to you.
This is, by the way, one of the most idiotic cartoons evah
What the image communicates very succinctly is “greens are clueless”.
lucia (Comment #147877),
.
.
The ad hoc lawmaking is priceless. Wait a tick, I shouldn’t presume. I don’t find an obvious comment policy link on your blog, only a Privacy Policy Statement. It might help me not blunder into these sort of violations of the ground rules if I knew where they’d been written down. That would be a clarifying question, by the way.
.
In the meantime: I’m asking for your clarification on the latest date you’d settle for 330+ nuclear plants to be built in the United States, pretty pretty please with a cherry on top? (Honest question.)
.
.
Oh no, I insist — I’m not worthy of such an honor. Much too irrational and all that yadda.
.
.
Since “greens” represent a fairly significant voting bloc in the US, and many of them are staunchly opposed to nuclear power, it would *seem* that “they” are just as much your cross to bear as mine.
.
BTW, may I quote you about the idiotically clueless the next time someone lectures me about my “tone”? (Honest question.)
Brandon G.
I didn’t say there was a rule. There is no rule saying I must answer your question before you answer it and no rule that says you must answer it first. In fact: there is no rule that ways a question that is raised needs to be answered at all.
That said: I read your previous comment as suggesting that you were worried I’d feel you’d deprived me of the honor of answering first if you answered first instead. I would not be bothered if you answered it first. As you asked it, I suspect you have thought about your answer to your own question. In contrast, I may need to ponder it for sometime. My general thoughts are my answer is “as soon as practical”.
Now I’ve answered: I invite you to answer your own question. Then discussion about the acceptable speed and implementation we would each like can proceed.
But really, going forward: if you want to speed along conversations about things, I would prefer it if you volunteer your answers to questions rather than trying to prod conversations with questions. I find people who try to prod conversations along with questions tedious and at cocktail parties often excuse myself for snacks, and find someone willing to volunteer their opinions to talk to. Those people are more interesting than people whose conversations seems like an imitation of Perry Mason cross-examining a witness.
There’s no rule that says others can’t answer your questions nor that you need to answer it. But I’m afraid I find that conversational style wearisome. So, I’m likely to chat with people whose conversation I find more interesting.
So: Generally speaking, to facilitate cooperative conversational flow, if your question is not of a “clarification” type, but more of a “lets share our ideas on this” type, I encourage you to answer your own questions when you pose them. Or not. If they never get answered that’s also not a problem. There is no rule that says questions must be answered merely because they were asked.
My asking you to answer means I find the notion of discussing that topic somewhat interesting, but I would prefer to hear the thoughts of someone who’d thought of the question first. So: feel free to answer it. Or not.
I agree. Of course they are a cross to bear for everyone. I’m just pointing that cartoon shows how clueless greens are.
I accept this is meant as an honest question, but I”m not sure what you are asking permission to do. Are you asking me whether you can quote me saying the cartoon you linked succinctly demonstrates greens are clueless should someone tell you your tone is annoying? You could. You also could just say “Basingstoke”.
lucia (Comment #147880),
.
.
Thanks, I look forward to your response once you’ve had some time to think it over.
.
.
I put the US on the same schedule I’d want other nuclear-capable nations [1] of hitting: the entire electrical grid to zero emissions by about 2040. It doesn’t need to all be nuclear, it just needs to be as reliable as current fossil fuel plants are. I’d want the initial round of accelerated construction on that schedule to begin no later than January 2021, which gives two full decades to achieve the goal.
.
.
That means nailing down how much each plant might be expected to cost, and the estimates vary widely. Going by EIA LCOE numbers, nukes are on par with coal, but I cannot rule out that their figures are overly-optimistic. There are several plants under construction right now which are embarrassingly over budget and quite troubled. My view is to treat those as examples of what not to do, forensically determine what went wrong, and not do that again.
.
.
I volunteer plenty of answers to questions when I am asked, Lucia. It’s not entirely clear to me that I was the one dogging down forward progress after having answered them. Your perceptions may differ.
.
.
When I think I’m getting the run around, I cross examine. I don’t intend for it to be interesting or pleasant.
.
Asking questions is part of being a skeptical and critical thinker. That need not be unpleasant when answers are given in a forthright manner. “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer to such a question in my book. Ruling that a perfectly reasonable question is “rhetorical” or some other nonsense — and I do consider it nonsense — indicates to me that I might do well to go into cross-examination mode.
.
.
Of course not. I’m entirely content to tell someone, “screw you, I’m not answering that question, now sod off,” without having to rely on protecting myself with legislation. You can bet though that when the “conversation” has gotten to that point, whoever was asking the question of me is going to say, “Right, you won’t respond to the question because you don’t have an answer.”
.
Now you hopefully know a little more about how I work. Up to you how to deal with it.
.
———————
.
[1] I’ve provisionally defined these as the high-income OECD countries as classified by the World Bank, plus China. That works out to exactly 40 countries, representing most of the major emitters. India has a nuclear program, but I’m counting them out because I don’t have confidence in their ability to afford it, nor properly control it at scale.
lucia (Comment #147881)
.
.
I was lying my ass off, Lucia. That was nowhere near an honest question. It was a commentary about all the times I’ve been lectured about tone when I’ve “just pointed out” that folk *appear* to be telling Porkie-Pies.
PS: we could have a lot of fun casting Mad Margaret in this menagerie.
.
Or not. I’m with Mark B.: let’s talk about getting drunk and having dessert instead.
Brandon R. Gates writes:
While people are free to want what they want, as best I can tell this goal is completely impossible unless we allow for offsetting of emissions by pushing production out to other countries. Otherwise, we run into the problems that arise from nuclear power not being carbon neutral (no source of energy production is).
That said, the goal is also impossible because there’s no way the United States could (or would) transition its electrical production that quickly. Even if the country elected a dictator with unfettered authority, I doubt he or she would be able to implement such a transition. Economic reasons alone would make any such plan untenable.
.
The other countries which are ostensibly capable of doing such production are almost certainly on the same list as the ones I have slated for transitioning by 2040. So I’m implicitly assuming that each country on that list needs to get it done on the strength of their own domestic production. That doesn’t rule out international collaboration whereby some countries specialize in producing/assembling certain components for use by other trade partners.
.
.
Some people aren’t constrained to thinking in single-bit binary, Brandon S.
.
.
I look forward to reading your detailed proof of that assertion.
@Lucia
Nuclear could be a part of an appropriate selection of technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The technology has advanced over that created 60 years ago. It’s a shame that when you have a disaster they appear to be due to human error. You are always going to get that. Fukushima could have been prevented if better quality controls were in place and systems were upgraded over the years.
Brandon G,
To digress briefly onto this – the only time I find it productive to be deliberately unpleasant online is when my goal is to stop an exchange / dialog. There are occasionally times when that is precisely what I’m trying to do, for example when I feel that somebody is pretending to engage but really is only talking in order to be rude and offensive (not many, but every once in a blue moon).
Bottom line, trying to punishing people for choosing to talk with me hasn’t proven to be a winning strategy for me. YMMV.
Brandon Gates
Thanks you for answer. I can now see I didn’t understand your question. When I read “you’d settle for 330+ nuclear plants to be built in the United States” I understood your question to contain to planks:
1) When I’d settle as a limit and
2) When the plants would be completed not begun.
Your answer doesn’t tell us what you’d settle for but what you want and it doesn’t tell us when you want plants to be completed but initiated.
So my impression had been that if I’d given an answer like the one you gave you would have complained I hadn’t answered the correct question. I can now see I misunderstood your question. I can also see that we would have wasted a lot of time had I answered. So I”m glad I did not.
One of the many reasons I prefer you to answer your own question is to discover what you really meant to ask as I’ve often found you get grumpy if people don’t answer what you thought you meant to ask. Yet, here we see it appears your question was not entirely clear.
And yet in the past, you’ve exhibited a stupendous amount of grumpiness when I said I didn’t have a best estimate of ECS.
I don’t want to argue about the argument more today. But I think this episode shows quite clearly why it is better for you (in particular) to just answer your own questions as conversation will go more smoothly. Besides that, it gives you good practice in explaining your ideas, and I think it’s pretty clear you need that sort of practice. It seems to me you need practice exercising your critical thinking skills and communication skills more than most others here. So naturally, I act based on my notion about you.
To return to the topic of plants:
I think breaking ground by 2021 sounds like a good plan. I want that too. It’s of course not the same thing as what I’d settle for. But if you only asked me what I want, that’s in the neighborhood of what I want. (I still want yesterday, but that doesn’t sound remotely practical.)
So: see, we agree. Easy peasy.
Brandon G,
For what it’s worth:
I am happy to see that we are finding common ground. We both want nuclear, and we both want construction initiated as soon as possible. Both are things I previously said– even before you asked your question. But it’s clear we are both on the same page.
lucia (Comment #147890),
.
.
Read it again:
.
I put the US on the same schedule I’d want other nuclear-capable nations [1] of hitting: the entire electrical grid to zero emissions by about 2040. It doesn’t need to all be nuclear, it just needs to be as reliable as current fossil fuel plants are. I’d want the initial round of accelerated construction on that schedule to begin no later than January 2021, which gives two full decades to achieve the goal..
.
(Comment #147892)
.
.
We’re not on the same page if you can’t find my target completion date in the above quoted text. We’re really not on the same page if you can’t find it and don’t ask a clarifying question.
mark bofill (Comment #147889),
.
.
My mileage does vary: I consider it exceedingly rude and counterproductive to get the runaround. I hope you mean it that this is a brief digression only. If you’re looking to mediate again, you may want to check comment 147890 and tell me if you find any potential dialog-enders in there.
.
Or you may wish to stand aside and let me have that conversation on my lonesome whilst you and I continue on from where we had previously been making progress.
.
Or something else. It’s a free Internet.
By and large, these all appear to be false narratives.
1. Water resource availability
Water is an issue, of course, but not because of climate change In the ’90s I recall reading about human water use being 70% of the total of precipitation that falls over land ( because ground water extraction ). That percentage has likely risen, with the subsequent population increase. Commensurate with the increase in humidity, one would expect a global increase in precipitation with climate change but there’s no physical basis to imagine other changes.
.
2. Species extinction From global average temperature change? Get real. The fact that evolution has transcended numerous glacials and inter-glacials means species have evolved through much greater extremes. Evolution has imbued the survivors of theses changes with temperature tolerance. Intolerant species were selected out of the gene pool a long time ago.
.
3. Crop yieldsReally? Increased CO2 is pretty strongly associated with increase crop yields. The future of agriculture is probably indoors anyway, but until that time, warmer, wetter, CO2 enhanced atmosphere would appear to benefit crop yields.
.
4. Increase in heat related mortalities (note, probably very minor) Total human mortality is at a minimum during summer, and peaks in winter. Deaths from heat stress ( like deaths from cold exposure ) are not significant causes of death, at least in the US, so they’re not really significant discussion points, but at the very least, one would expect any heat death increase to be matched by cold exposure decrease ( if one was trying to be open minded, anyway ). In reality, when one examines heat stress literature, one finds that temperature acclimatization periods are about two weeks, which is why one can find humans in so many different climates on earth.
.
5. Change in disease vectors This is another illogical one. Anyone who’s been to Alaska knows mosquitos can be terrors there, just like the tropics – the fact that the climates of Alaska and the tropics are completely different doesn’t seem to matter. Malaria was rampant a (colder) century ago in most of the US ( across multiple climates ). It’s not present today because of sanitation and pesticides.
.
6. Vulnerability to extreme weather eventsVulnerability, or frequency? Probably neither are correct. Extreme weather events is non-specific. But in the US, strong tornadoes decrease, globally tropical cyclones exhibit no significant change in energy ( ACE), nor does drought exhibit any significant change for the satellite era. There is a case for some increase in flooding potential because of an increase in humidity. Even there, temperature is not the most significant factor to floods. The major floods in the US occur in every month with no significant increase in summer floods. If temperature, or even humidity was the main determinant, one would expect more floods in summer and fewer floods in winter.
.
The case for climate disaster is quite weak, but alluring, as the name climate porn suggests. It represents the worst of human irrationalities regarding risk assessments.
Brandon G,
I did. That’s not addressing either (a) what you would settle for nor (b) when you want all 330 proposed nuclear plants finished.
The part you bolded is: “It doesn’t need to all be nuclear, it just needs to be as reliable as current fossil fuel plants are.” The caveat that it doesn’t need to be all nuclear means you are not addressing when you want 330 nuclear plants to be finished, but when you want something that is zero emissions — which might be something other than the 330 nuclear plants. And you express the desire be as reliable as current fossil fuel plants are.
This is not an answer to the question you asked. It may be an answer to a question you want to answer. But not the one you asked. But I’m glad you answered, because your answer (a) permits further conversation and (b) showed the question you asked is likely not the question you meant to ask.
As for your proposal, I note it contains this
While that is a change of subject from when we want nuclear plants built, it’s worth engaging. I don’t feel any need for the final outcome to be zero emissions.
Your targeted completion date for a minimum of nuclear plants is not in the part you quoted. So of course I couldn’t find it when I first read it and I still can’t find it. Because it’s not there.
You quote contains target date for something else: A zero emissions grid which might not be all nuclear. It’s also not clear if your want (or would settle for) a system that contains at least 300 nuclear plants by 2040.
However, if what you mean is you wish to see a minimum of 330 nuclear plants built by 2040, we are in general agreement on that. If you mean something else, we aren’t. Do you mean you wish to see a minimum of 300 nuclear plants built by 2040?
TE,
.
In which case it shouldn’t cost very much to deal with these issues! 🙂
.
I’d like to spend a little time examining each one seriously, rather than dismissing them off the cuff. Why? Well, my impression is that there are a substantial number of people who believe that climate change will have expensive impacts. In order to evaluate the truth or falsehood of this proposition we must particularize; exactly how will climate change cause expensive impacts. I don’t think these people who believe that climate change will have expensive impacts will just take my word for it that it won’t. They’ll probably want details, and an examination of the claims, and reasons why the claims are false, and evidence, and stuff like that.
.
FWIW, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think we ought to approach the topic in a methodical way instead of just dismissing it off the cuff.
.
(I swiped this list from one of the AR’s. 4 or 5, WG II I think, SPM.)
.
Thanks!
lucia (Comment #147899),
.
.
Then ask a clarifying question and we can get back to being on the same page. Argumentative bullshit is not the way to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Well shit, I guess I should have read to the end of the three paragraphs of wheedling:
.
.
Yes, that is an accurate assessment of my intended meaning. What is your counter offer, if any?
And since we’re splitting hairs this morning, it’s 330+ by 2040, or an equivalent solution that achieves zero emissions on the grid at present day reliability.
.
I understand that you don’t feel that need. I have previously asked you what level of emissions you consider “safe” more or less, and you have not answered. That’s a friendly reminder only, it’s not salient to this portion of the discussion.
.
If you would care to review, the 330+ nuclear plants in the US is the figure I estimated would bring grid emissions to zero. So by signing on to that number of plants, we have agreed on the same goal.
.
And they need to be held to account.
.
Most impacts are gross exaggerations. Remember Chris Landsea resigning the IPCC, because Trenberth wanted to claim hurricane danger? Well, Landsea left, but the now unopposed myth of hurricane change persists.
.
The one significant change that does appear likely is sea level rise. But even there, impacts are distorted. A one meter rise in sea level occurring today would be catastrophic – flooding, loss of life and property. A one meter rise in sea level occurring over three centuries ( around the current rate ) would be irrelevant – people and properties do not last 300 years.
Brandon G,
I already wrote
So: now that you’ve clarifed that is what you mean, we are in general agreement. As I already said we would be if it turned out you meant that.
Since you used this the term “wheedling”: If you don’t want me to point out that you’re previous words did not provide the answer you claimed to provide then
(a) Don’t tell me to reread what you wrote to find that answer
(b) Don’t do so by writing “Read it again:” and
(c) Don’t make claims like “We’re not on the same page if you can’t find my target completion date in the above quoted text. ”
When your target completion date for nuclear power plants is not in the text where claim one can find that completion dates.
You can characterize as ‘wheedling’ my pointing out that you reading your words again would not result in my finding what you claimed there. But that information is still not in the text you wrote as is quite evident if one rereads what they actually say.
Brandon G
By signing on to that goal, we have agreed to a goal of building 330+ nuclear plants. We have not agreed to bring emissions to 0. And no: we have not agreed to that emissions goal even if you estimate 330 is what is required to achieve that goal. The goal we have agreed on is to build 330+ nuclear plants.
That’s the “same” goal provided we make sure we understand that is the goal and not something else.
Brandon G
No. It’s not a salient portion of this discussion.
Also: in my view setting a level of emissions that I consider safe is unimportant to establishing a goal. So from my view, that point is both moot and a distraction. I don’t want to chase that red herring.
lucia (Comment #147909),
.
.
Excellent. Unless you think otherwise, I believe the next logical step is to estimate costs.
.
.
I’m happy to tell you exactly what I would like. When you don’t understand something, ask me a clarifying question. One or two sentences should suffice. Three paragraphs leading up to the clarifying questions are simply not required to induce me to give you an honest answer to an honest question. It will save you typing, and save me from hunting through tons of text to get to the thing that you wish to have clarified.
.
For purposes of the electrical grid, we have already agreed to zero emissions by 2040. There are no zero emission fishies to chase for that goal.
.
You need to know that my ultimate goal is zero emissions across the board worldwide by no later than 2120. I am understandably curious how it is that you have concluded that there is some safe level of emissions, but it does seem best to table that question for a later date. As such, consider it dropped.
Brandon G
I think otherwise. I think the next logical step requires where we can get funding– what we might tax and so on. As you recall, I suggested we could transfer some funding from white elephants like funding electric vehicles or other pointless programs. Now is the time to discuss that.
Costs will certainly be very high, so I think we should certainly discuss funding first. I also think we should be willing be very open and creative during the brainstorming part of the discussion.
I will continue to both address your claims and instructions like “Read it again:†and ask clarifying questions.
I didn’t need any ‘clarifyication’ about your instruction I “read it again” because it was, in fact, quite clear that no amount of reading what you wrote again was going to magically infuse what you previously said with the information contained in it.
I will be happy to follow this up with questions requesting you clarify the point you didn’t not manage to make but which you insist you had made
If my addressing your long winded material that is chock full of instructions and lectures including statements like “read it again”, edit your material to eliminate those instructions and ridiculous claims.
Meanwhile: I think it’s quite clear we are at the point where we need to discuss where funds are to be obtained to cover the cost of building the 330 plants you and I both want to build. I propose we discuss that.
Brandon,
Yes. You’ve already told us this.
You are operating under a false premise. But I’m happy we agree to drop this red herring which merely prevents us from discussing how we can get funding to encourage building of nuclear power plants.
Brandon Gates,
I want to be clear that I disagree with this characterization:
No we did not agree to zero emissions by 2040. Not even “for purposes of electrical grid”.
We agreed to build nuclear power 330 + power plants.
These are very different agreements and it’s important to be very clear on that to avoid future misunderstandings. No provided you agree that we have only agreed on building nuclear power plants, I believe we can move on to finding funding to build them.
Funding. Well, apparently the costs of building a nuclear plant have soared in recent years, from something like $3 billion to something like $7.5 billion. Ballpark figure might be something around two trillion dollars for 330ish nuclear plants as things stand right now.
It’s a tidy sum. If you two can come up with a way to generate that sort of surplus… then for chrissakes don’t tell the secret here! Let’s hold it close and sell it to policy wonks. I’ll broker a deal for a modest percentage…
[Edit: meh, the price would come down. Still, we’d be looking at something in excess of a trillion I think.]
mark bofill,
WRT to nuclear, part (not all) of the problem is we’ve gotten ourselves in a “chicken and egg” situation. If we’d been building steadily, manufactures of key parts would not have declined precipitously. (Other costs are related to demand. But those affect all construction projects.)
For those things related to chcken/egg, there need to be some sort of active encouragement to get investors in place to put their own money in construction projects. For those things related to investors burned because of the regulatory enviroment we need to fix that.
So some funding will have to be found particularly for the first projects. Obviously it’s a lot of money. But we evidently spend 7.5 billion/year in tax subsidies for renewables. So the issue is where to find the money and in what way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
If we get those who understand action is required to recognize the nuclear is the path to fixing AGW, I suspect we can re-prioritize and shift some of the subsidies and tax credits for renewables to nukes. So that would be a chunk.
Mark bofill,
Also, we shouldn’t need to fully fund construction of each power plant. Consider:
We want 330 built between (2040-2017). That’s roughly 14 a year. Suppose 5% of the costs of building are subsidized. That’s 14*7.5/20 = 5.25 billion/year. Much of that could be transferred from various futile renewable projects. Perhaps just don’t give whatever was previously going to Elon Musk and slip it into promoting nuclear would work. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
Thanks Lucia. It is a complicated issue; it’s hard not to overlook potentially important angles.
.
Thanks for the Elon link.
Mark Bofill,
As long as we are willing to brain-storm, and suggest things to debate consider this possibility:
We create s “kick-start nuclear” tax that is paid whenever electricity not generated using nuclear power is sold to the grid. This would include electricity generated by gas, coal, oil, solar, wind: anything not nuclear. To ensure broad base it would include all on sales non-nuclear electricity to the grid– and I mean all. That would include solar energy sold to the grid by consumers who have installed panels on their roofs etc. Then that money can be used to kickstart construction of nuclear energy. (I know people who have solar panels could get around this by storing their energy in batteries or other ways. But that’s ok.)
The base being taxed would naturally decline over time as nuclear plants were built which is precisely what one wants.
Obviously, details of this tax would need to be fleshed out– especially making sure the money went to the target: construction of nuclear plants. And I know many won’t like any sort of tax. But it’s at least potentially revenue generating and it ensures baseload is created so its there to support both residential, commercial and industrial needs.
(I still like making sure anything going toward electric cars get moved to subsidizing nuclear electricity so those car have a chance of being nuclear powered, but that’s likely not enough money. But every little bit helps.)
Mark Bofill –
This is a more recent look at nuclear construction costs globally: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
In particular note the US cost jump post-TMI.
In terms of the cost of nuclear, I have several questions. I think it is reasonable to assume that there will be 3 successful terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants in the US in the next 50 years. (At the very least, it is reasonable to consider the costs of successful attacks)
….
My first question is if terrorists penetrated a nuclear power plant either by internal explosions or drones, for instance, what are the health and safety consequences of a successful terrorist attack. Second, what are the costs of remediating a successful terrorist attack. Third, is it possible to privately insure nuclear power plants from the costs of terrorists explosions? 4. If not, if a government insurance fund were to be created (similar to workers’ compensation funds) what would be the cost of funding it?
….
I think I mostly understand that it is difficult or impossible for nuclear power plants to explode like an atomic bomb. However, the power plants generate radioactive waste, and it the plants were attacked, the terrorists would try to disperse that dangerous waste.
JD
kch,
Thanks for the link. I see
I’ll have to read the details (to see if it confirms my pre-concieved notions about factors driving costs. 🙂 )
Lucia,
.
We start to touch on public opinion and support when we talk about stuff like this:
.
Obviously you and Brandon are both aware that at some point both political class support and public support for these measures will have to be addressed. I’ve always believed that focusing on commonly accepted notions of what is ‘impossible’ inhibits creativity during the brainstorming phase of problem solving. Still, I’ll go out on a limb here and say this: if we could solve for public and politician support, I think we could make the numbers work. [Edit: the reason I say this is I don’t want to bring the elephants back into the room before we’re ready to receive them. Conservatives don’t want taxes. Liberals don’t want nukes.] I might be wrong, but looks that way at a glance.
kch,
No such ting as TMI. Thank you.
Mark Bofill
Of course. My understanding is his goal is to find common ground between him and other people here. Obviously, that’s not the same as common ground with anyone outside this discussion.
Still: So far he and I have common ground on:
1) We want to build lots of nukes and do so quickly. But of us think 330+ in 40 years is good.
I’m not sure what else we have common ground on. We don’t have common ground on getting the emissions associated with electrical generation to 0 or the need to estimate safe emissions levels and so on. But neither of those were necessary to get common ground on the goal of building the nukes.
Going forward we can see if there is other common ground. With luck at least he and I can come to some agreement how to fund the nukes. It may be no one else here agrees, but for many reasons I think it’s worth figuring out how to shift money from other energy projects to this one which seems to be one Brandon G and I can both get behind.
JD Ohio
I don’t think there will be successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants. I think it’s plausible there would be attempts. But I think nuclear plants tend to be much more alert to potential dangers. So oddly they may be less vulnerable than things like a plant that generates ammonia or something.
I think ‘softer’ seeming targets are a larger threat. Jim was in NY last week….
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-subway-idUSKCN0Y02CX
That said: I do see why someone would be concerned about nuclear power plants being targeted. It’s not an irrational concern. I’m just not so much. (I could be wrong in my lack of concern.)
JD Ohio,
Not to ignore the other questions, but I don’t have specific answers. To evaluate them would require quite a bit of thinking about just how the attack might happen, what sort of release would be one might expect and so on.
For example: I don’t know what happens if someone crashes a jet airliner into a nuclear power plant.
Ron Graf,
Comparing the Manhattan Project to fusion power research is apples to cannonballs. Apples to oranges is too similar. They knew how to make a 235U bomb from the start. They never bothered to test that bomb. Building the calutrons (think production scale magnetic sector mass spectrometers) and the gaseous diffusion plant to produce highly enriched 235U were not very difficult engineering problems, relatively speaking, either. The same goes for producing 239Pu. The trick with plutonium was to compress the core to sufficiently high density that you have a critical mass, again largely engineering shaped charges, and creating a device to generate sufficient neutrons at the critical time to cause a chain reaction with 99+% certainty. They were reasonably certain they could do that too but not certain enough that they didn’t test an actual bomb.
We don’t really have a clue how to build a working fusion powered electricity generating power plant. The Tokomak concept, i.e. ITER, may or may not work at all. I’m betting not. Every time they have scaled up the system, new extremely difficult problems have cropped up. Throwing more money and manpower at the project at this stage would not help because we don’t know what to spend it on.
mark bofill
Yes. That’s generally true. Nevertheless we do have taxes. And if Liberals can be made to accept nukes as the path to avoid the risk of catastrophic AGW, then it could be possible negotiate something that isn’t economy destroying and still addresses the fears of those who want emissions down to the teensiest-beensiest levels. Some creativity will be required in finding the funding sources.
We know nuclear plants are very expensive. That said: so are green technologies. Elon Musk alone has reaped lots of money from solar.
Lucia “For example: I don’t know what happens if someone crashes a jet airliner into a nuclear power plant.”
….
Nuclear advocates need to be able to answer that question, and others, if they hope to build several hundred more plants in the U.S. However you would characterize or imagine a successful nuclear terrorist attack occurring, one has to have a rough idea what the damage would be and what the cost of clean up would be if there was a serious successful attack.
JD
Lucia, Mark Bofill –
You might also want to look at this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/aps-argues-to-extend-lifespan-of-nuclear-reactors-to-80-years
Current planning gives nuclear plants a 40 year lifespan. Even extending this to 60 or 80 years means a continuing construction program beyond the initial one you are talking about. It might be best to propose building, say, 16 a year indefinitely. Surely with a steady construction rate like that costs would decline.
JD Ohio,
I agree. So I’ll have to look into that question. I suspect it’s been addressed, but I haven’t looked.
Having worked near Hanford, I know most the obvious dramatic questions do get looked at. In addition to a host of tiny picayune questions you cannot even begin to imagine. But it is also the case that you are correct and I will need to look into that.
Just in case there is some other specific threat you envision– do you have one in mind? You mentioned a drone– would the “airplane crashed into a power plant” cover that? or is there something specific you are thinking of?
I ask so I can keep it in mind when I try to find the “air plane crashes into a nuclear reactor” problem (which I will do eventually.)
I will make my modest proposal to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide again:
Ban electric hand dryers unless they’re 100% powered by wind and/or solar. Most of them are nearly useless anyway. Stop recycling paper in any way shape or form. Bury it untouched in sealed landfills or convert it to charcoal and then bury it. Charcoal would be more stable, but less efficient but you would have the volatiles from the pyrolysis, which can be valuable. Make new paper from young, fast growing trees like loblolly pines or eucalyptus grown in tree farms. Voila, low tech carbon removal and sequestration.
Lucia,
There are four types of attacks I can envision: 1. Bombs or explosives from drones. 2. Physical attacks by outside terrorists using powerful explosives. 3. Internal attacks by employee/terrorists who infiltrate a power plant over time. 4. Crashing airplanes or jets into nuclear power plants.
JD
JD Ohio, Lucia-
In the US, at least, reactor containment vessels have always been designed to be capable of dealing with impacts of whatever commercial plane was largest at the time. In most cases this was a loaded 747. So not really something to worry about, IMO.
See: https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-an-airliner-hits-a-working-nuclear-power-plan
KCH: Your link is very helpful. At least with respect to 747s and less, I don’t think an airplane crash is a serious problem with respect to US nukes. In reading the article, it does seem that a very serious problem is the loss of power and meltdown of the reactor core.
JD
@mark bofill,
I’m pretty sure that kch was referring to the Three Mile Island incident, no too much information. That’s my guess.
JD Ohio-
I suspect that the reactor core meltdown scenario is far more likely with an internal sabotage/armed assault scenario. That would be my top worry. The plane scenario would certainly take the reactor off line, but I believe the safeguards to prevent catastrophe in such an event are generally in place.
At least for the US, and probably Canada, France, and other first world countries, who were/are wealthy enough to spend the extra to meet high standards. I certainly wouldn’t trust China, India and the like to hit the same safety and construction standards. Same goes, but moreso, for the old Soviet infrastructure. It’s worth noting that Chernobyl was such a major problem because it had no containment dome.
lucia,
You make an interesting point:
” And if Liberals can be made to accept nukes as the path to avoid the risk of catastrophic AGW, then it could be possible negotiate something that isn’t economy destroying and still addresses the fears of those who want emissions down to the teensiest-beensiest levels.”
Many climate true believers, when pressed about the catastrophic part of AGW, deny that they ever claimed they predicted a catastrophe in the climate. So they are able to maintain the sublime balance of being against nukes and pose as sincere climate faithful. This also makes having a rational discussion more problematic.
JD Ohio
http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-Releases/Analysis-of-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Shows-Aircraft-Cr
From 2002:
I haven’t read any further than that. But I did know that this is the sort of thing people worry about, so it does get looked into. I’ll be reading the report a bit later on. I doubt if I’ll be able to read it deeply enough to give an assessment of whether I can vouch for it’s finding, but I can see if anything strikes me as obviously screwy.
hunter
Obviously, if someone thinks there is no risk of catastrophe due to GHG in the atmosphere or that the risk is not sufficiently high to act, then they aren’t going to see the need for replacing our current baseload capacity with a low-CO2 emissions capacity. That goes for both greens and skeptics. But in that case, the consistent view is that we don’t need to reduce fossil fuel use unless they see some non-AGW reason to do so.
One non-AGW concerns with fuels could be air quality– but that can be addressed with thing like scrubbers. Otherwise, those who don’t like a particular technology others do find useful and want to take advantage of can suggest what other non-AGW concern they have. Then one can address that too. Obviously one can’t address a concern that unless the person who has the concern states the concern.
Dewitt Payne: “Comparing the Manhattan Project to fusion power research is apples to cannonballs. “
.
If it was so easy why didn’t the Germans and Japanese do it, or the Soviets until after the war with the help of Klaus Fuchs and other spies? The answer: everything’s easy once you do it. Fusion will too as mind-boggling as that may seem. Remember the unthinkability of heavier than air flight, space travel viewing exo-planets. Heck we didn’t even know what they were called because we had no way to observe their existence.
.
I would not call what was done so far on fusion a Manahattan; a side interest maybe. We put more money into particle physics colliders. Fusion is the energy that civilization must acquire or perish — that is unless you think we can advance for the next 1000 years on solar and wind.
.
Carbon sequestering paper is a lame idea. The greenies are getting to you. But I’m glad to see that, like me, you are not afraid to have dumb ideas. 🙂
Earle,
TMI != Too much information, TMI == Three mile island…
.
Thank you. I’d have actually read the link sometime within the next few hours and figured out my mistake. I’d like to believe that anyway.. 🙂
.
Still, TY for pointing it out.
Ron,
There’s speculation that Heisenberg sidetracked the German effort. He insisted on D2O as a moderator when graphite and light water were almost as good. The allies destroyed the German heavy water plant in 1943. He also thought that it would take tons of 235U to make a critical mass. Given the extreme hierarchical nature of German science, it was unlikely that a maverick like Leo Szilard would be able to do what he did in the US to get the Manhattan project started. The concept of a nuclear fission chain reaction was patented by Szilard in 1933. Many of Germany’s best scientists, like Szilard and Einstein, left Germany in the 1930’s because they were Jews. And finally, nobody was bombing Oak Ridge and Los Alamos.
The Soviets invented a deliverable thermonuclear fusion weapon before we did without the help of spies. Spies in general are less useful than they are made out to be in fiction. Since lies are their stock in trade, it becomes hard for them and their handlers to know what is valuable and what is not. The Soviets, apparently, were much better than anyone else at managing spies.
There is, as yet, no equivalent of Szilard for thermonuclear fusion powered generators. Building a bomb was much simpler.
Dewitt
Or Hanford. 🙂
The early bomb research, like building the first nuclear reactor in Chicago, was cheap. The big money didn’t start to get spent until they had to build Oak Ridge and Hanford. It’s the same way in industrial research. The lab work is cheap, a pilot plant is more expensive, but semi-works and full plants are the big ticket items.
What would you do for fusion, build ten ITER’s instead of one? I don’t think so. ITER is either going to be a step forward or not. There’s no point in spending a lot more money until we know the result. That won’t be for years yet.
lucia,
Well, there were those Japanese balloon bombs. But I don’t think they would have made it over the mountains to Hanford.
Brandon R. Gates:
In which case it is, by definition, impossible to make the nuclear power plants used for the electrical grid carbon neutral. Nuclear power is, by itself, not carbon neutral. The only way to make nuclear power carbon neutral is to offset its carbon footprint. That is also true of every other form of electrical production currently being used.
lucia:
From a perspective of risk assessment, there are far better targets for terrorists than nuclear power plants. The only way I could see it being a viable choice is if they could somehow get enough people into the plant to take it over and maintain control while they manually went through the actions to cause a meltdown. It’s incredibly difficult to imagine how that’d be done though, and the damage it would cause could well not be that great.
At least, not given where plants are currently located. If we start building a ton more, it may turn out some get placed in less ideal locations. And even if the raw damage of the attack wasn’t that great, the fear it induced could justify it to the terrorists. Still, there are way “juicier” targets.
kch:
This would be a far better plan, though the rate you’d have to produce the plants at would almost certainly vary a bit (probably declining after so many years). If you make nuclear power plants at a relatively fixed rate, the companies involved will have steady demand for their services. It won’t be a case where you need a ton of new companies jumping in only for many of them to run out of work a decade down the road.
It’s especially important for manufacturing. Ramping up nuclear power plant production as much as has been proposed here would require new/overhauled factories to handle the demand for parts. The rate at which the plants are produced would determine how many of these would be needed. If plants are built at a regular rate rather than in fits and bursts, it will be far easier on the companies responsible for the manufacturing. That would help reduce costs and avoid bottlenecks where there simply aren’t enough of certain parts.
Plus you have to take into consideration supplies for running the plants and waste produced by them. And you have to account for taking other power plants off the grid and likely de-commissioning many. None of these things would work out well with a firm deadline of “carbon neutral” (which nuclear power isn’t) by 2040. They would work far better with a rate of X power plants per year that could be reconsidered/adjusted in view of developments.
Brandon Gates, Lucia, et al-
Thanks for the interesting thread, it’s gotten me to think about some aspects of nuclear power as a “no regrets†option (which has always been my position). I have some observations, for what they’re worth…I’ll start with construction numbers.
.
(Oh, and if I’ve made errors in these calculations, try not get too harsh – I’m a chef, not a mathematician…)
.
1) If your wish is to replace primary electric generation with nuclear in the US, you will need more than 330 plants. Peak load is in July, at just above 400,000 gw/h. If you build 1.5gw plants (there are two that size in France, so doable), and assume 95% reliability and retention of the current hydro (about 5% of current peak production, so a reasonable buffer), it looks to me like you’d want to build about 385 in your given time frame. (Not far above your figure, admittedly – so still doable.)
.
2) That covers primary power, but that is only around 40% of the US energy consumption – household heating, cooking, etc make up another 10% or so – so add another 95 plants if you want to replace those.
.
3) Transportation takes up another 30% – 280 more plants.
.
4) Due to specific needs, the industrial 20% is probably unsuited to complete switchover to the grid, but if even half is possible, add another 95 plants.
.
Totalling that, I make it that we would need to build in the range of 855 1.5gw plants, or about 37-38 a year. That’s a lot of nukes. It still would be doable (and possibly should be – I’m certainly in favor of trying), but definitely would require a lot of government and public buy-in to the idea. It also would not entirely eliminate co2 emissions, as building that many plants would require a lot of steel and cement, not to mention the uranium mining and refining necessary. It would greatly reduce it, however.
.
I can see downsides – some serious – to this program, though.
Even if the cost is brought down to $3B per plant through reduced/streamlined regulation, economies of scaled-up component production and standardized designs and construction methods, it’s still about $110B per year. That’s only about 3% of the US budget, though, so I guess that’s workable.
.
More importantly to me is the notion of putting all our eggs in the one big basket of a grid. If everything is on the grid and it goes down, people in the north freeze (kind of important to Canadians like me) and transportation grinds to a halt, at which point you risk food shortages, poor emergency responses, etc.
.
Additionally, there is the problem of powering heavy equipment – transport trucks, snow plows, construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment. All of which are necessary, but I haven’t seen suggested battery systems that can keep them going for the type of usage they get. Not to mention airplanes.
Oh, and because nobody has seemed to point this out so far, while Brandon R. Gates says things like:
And lucia agrees:
The reality is these numbers are way off. Without concern for varying energy production levels, different plant types or the potential for use of breeder reactors (which I think any plan to ramp up nuclear power should give some focus to), this goal is way off because the numbers Gates uses are power reactors not power plants.
There are not “100 licensed and currently operating nuclear plants in the US.” There are 61. Of those 61 plants, 35 have two or more nuclear reactors. That gives a total of 99 reactors spread across 61 plants. The difference is significant as building larger plants with multiple reactors can be far more efficient. If you account for that possibility and the difference in energy production rates between reactors, it is quite possible shifting (nearly) all of the United States electricity production to nuclear would require fewer than 100 new nuclear power plants.
Which is still something that could never happen by 2040, but at least it is something based on real numbers or information.
kch:
The largest plant in the United States (Palo Verde) is said to produce 3.9GW in the summer, or an average of 3.3GW for the years. Some difference in those numbers might be because of using different sources. I’m just pointing it out so people can get a more sane estimate of how many power plants would be needed. Incidentally:
I don’t think there are even 855 reasonable locations for nuclear power plants in the United States. I think the range is actually only 200-300, though I wouldn’t know where to check offhand to verify my memory. There are just too many limiting factors like population densities, water availability and seismic activity.
That said, there are plans for nuclear power plants with 10GW of productions or more. We likely wouldn’t even need 200 new plants to fit your numbers.
Brandon Shollenberger –
Palo Verde has 3 reactors, so about 1.3gw each. I suppose I should have specified reactors throughout, rather than plants. Sorry about that.
I took the 1.5gw figure as that is the current largest, but you’re right, scaling up to 10gw or more would considerably reduce the total needed. Multiple reactors at each site would reduce the site numbers as well. Together, those two things should also help to reduce costs.
[Whoops, read too fast. When you say “nuclear power plants with 10GW of production†are you talking plants with multiple reactors, or single reactor? Is there a size limit to fission reactors? (Genuine question – I have no clue.)]
Lucia,
.
I am encouraged by the other discussions you and others here are having about our nuclear power deal. I especially appreciate that you are fostering an environment of creative brainstorming to address what are significant hurdles to getting it done. As you alluded, because US nuclear plant construction has been stalled for on the order of two decades, we do not have anything close to resembling a production-line industry of the required key components, and that would need to in development prior to breaking ground on the first plants in Jan. 2020, or about 3.5 years from today. Realistically, it is more like 2-2.5 years, because it will likely take that amount of time to get any required legislation passed — and here I think I’m being supremely optimistic.
.
In the spirit of creative brainstorming, I have some thoughts on how to maximize the chances of not missing the starting date. The plants breaking ground within the first five or so years should all be the exact same design. I mean exact, right down to every knob and dial in the control room. We want the one that has the “best” track record in terms of cost and performance, which may be tricky to evaluate. Larger reactors in theory have the better price/performance characteristics, but I am concerned that size and complexity of large plants present higher risks in terms of … call it completion success. Thus I think I’d prefer small to medium designs. Whatever the case, it needs to be a design which has been built in quantity and successfully operated for a profit, NOT a newer Gen III design. There should be a Gen II or II+ design which is suitable.
.
330 plants in 20 years is 16.5 plants/yr that need to break ground. I think that may be too ambitious a beginning, so I propose to treat the first five years or so as a “pilot” program with something on the order of 5 reactors/year. Note that I wrote “reactors” not “plants”. To keep complexity to a minimum, I propose limiting the first several years of construction to eight or so sites, with multiple reactors slated to be built incrementally.
.
What I’m trying to go for here is not having all eggs in one basket, yet at the same time not having a lot of baskets. That’s about the extent of my brainstorming for now. I’ll catch up with other comments later.
JD, Bob Cringely wrote after Fukushima that Three Mile Island was a stronger containment because they were avoiding being hit by an airliner.
His prediction of further disaster with Japanese nukes did not pan out.
http://www.cringely.com/2009/03/31/three-mile-island-memories/
kch (Comment #147957),
.
.
I’m gratified that you are interested. I can’t speak for others; for myself it was hard-fought getting to this point. Much credit is due to Lucia and Mark B. in particular for sticking with it despite my often not-stellar behavior.
.
I have not absorbed your full comments yet; however, I see them as a worthy contribution — especially for the quantification and maths. When I’ve had some time to digest them more fully I would like to take a few points up with you. Cheers.
Re: terrorist attacks on nuclear plants. The way I have approached this in the past is to question that the risk of an attack scales with the number of plants in existence. [edit: yet, supply of fissile materials is something else to think about] IOW, terrorism is more a function of motivation, not opportunity.
All who might care –
In my longer comment above, where I said “plantâ€, please read “reactorâ€. Apologies for any confusion caused, and may I suggest that everyone follow that usage?
And now it’s my bedtime (damn golfers always want breakfast early…). So if you wish to comment on my thoughts, don’t get upset if I don’t respond before tomorrow. I will be back…
kch:
It’s alright, but there is a huge difference between the two. Building one power plant with four reactors can be way simpler than building four different power plants with one reactor each. Plus, some currently existing plants can have more reactors added to them. For instance, Gates mentioned only four of the thirty announced projects he referred to have actually been started. Two of those are new reactors being added to the Vogtle plant in Georgia (which will make it the largest producer in the country). Adding those two reactors is way easier than building two entirely new plants would have been.
I believe the plans I saw called for eight reactors. I know they’ve made seven reactor plants before. I think they can’t get quite as much power out of the individual reactors as a single reactor plant could, but it’s well worth the benefit of getting 5+ GW of production with only a few square miles of land needed. And you’re still looking at something like 1.2-1.3 GW per reactor.
As for the size of reactors, I don’t know what the largest could be if single reactor plants are used. ~1.3 is the largest I know of for multiple reactor plants though, and if you’re wanting to add a ton of nuclear power production, you’re going to need multiple reactor plants. Single reactor plants are better in some areas due to levels of demand, but if this were going to be a major national plan, the possibility of expanding them in the future should be considered to avoid having to build entirely new plants.
Plus I think a lot of factors could change with developments in breeder plant technology. I don’t know as much about them though. My knowledge of nuclear power mostly comes from looking at/into risk assessments for natural disasters and terrorist attacks. That involves learning about things like baseloads, downtimes and spin up periods to understand recovery plans and necessary precautions, but beyond that, I don’t know much about nuclear power.
Seriously, what is this?
Now that I’ve pointed out nuclear plants and nuclear reactors aren’t the same thing, Brandon R. Gates distinguishes between them for how many should be built in another case “5 reactors/year” yet doesn’t in other cases “330 plants in 20 years is 16.5 plants/yr” and geos out of his way to stess the two are different. I cannot tell what people are thinking when they write like this and then say:
Is Gates worried about the size of the reactors themselves? If so, why did he refer to the “size and complexity of large plants”? Having multiple reactors will make a plant significantly larger and more complex, and that is a real concern. But why would the size of a single reactor be a factor? The variance in size of reactors doesn’t have anywhere near as much impact on the size of the final plant as tons of other factors. (I believe the difference in reactor size is ~10 feet. Does anyone know if that’s right?)
Or was he conflating reactors and plants again, in a comment where he specifically distinguished between them in another paragraph? I think that would make this text make more sense, but maybe there’s some other interpretation I’m missing? I honestly don’t know. Then again:
It’s actually a terrible idea to go so far as to make “every knob and dial in the control room” exactly the same, but I just checked, and there are 104 different designs for Generation II nuclear reactors in the United States.* Generation III reactors are far more standardized than Generation II ever were. It seems an odd dichotomy to insist on an extreme level of standardization while moving back in model design to a less standardized era.
I don’t get it. Why would we insist companies only build one specific Generation II/II+ reactor rather than just further encourage the standardization that has been developing for the last few decades? Is one company going to run every plant, or is every company going to be required to build and use the exact same plant based off what is, quite frankly, probably an outdated model? I mean, there are no plans to build any more Generation II reactors for a reason. Even if we picked a Generation II+ model, why require companies use the exact same one no matter what?
There are so many more questions, but I think that last train of thought is the most baffling. According to Gates, we should make almost all the electricity production in the United States so tightly controlled practically every plant must meet the exact same specific guidelines in every minuscule way. I think that speaks for itself.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #147968),
.
.
Because they are different, and you are correct to point that out. There may be US nuclear plants producing power with only one reactor per site, however it’s my understanding that most “plants” are comprised of several fully independent reactors operating on the same site.
.
I screwed up that calculation, btw, by not accounting for completion time. To pull an easy number out of a hat, let’s assume best-case completion from groundbreaking to operation 5 years, so it’s 330 plants in 15 years, or 22 plants/yr assuming a constant rate of completion.
.
.
Simple answer is yes. I’m raising a question whether it is better to more smaller reactors or fewer larger reactors. Here I do mean reactors, not plants. I don’t know the answer to the question.
.
.
Again with the caveat that I don’t know all the answers, larger plant sites (i.e., multiple reactors on one site) tend to reduce logistical complexity by providing unexpected downtime redundancy, and scheduled maintenance/refuelling redundancy. Surely there are other pros/cons.
.
.
Good heavens, why? I’m looking for a Henry Ford solution to nuclear power, and you’re talking about building custom sports cars. Nuclear plants are not like real plants, biodiversity need not apply. Imagine if all 767s in the world had one-off custom-designed cockpits — it would be a frigging logistical nightmare, and quite possibly unsafe to boot. In point of fact:
.
Boeing 767-400ER Receives Common Type Rating from FAA
.
The Boeing 767-400ER (extended range) jetliner has received flight-crew qualification endorsement from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. This endorsement means that the 767-400ER shares the same type rating with existing 767-200 and 767-300 airplanes, and a common type rating with the 757-200 and 757-300.
.
Pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 767-200, 767-300, 757-200 and 757-300 are now qualified – with minimal instruction – to fly the Boeing 767-400ER. The Boeing 757 and 767 were the first, and still are, the only airplanes to share a common type rating. The common type rating is due, in part, to airplane systems that are designed such that a common set of flight crew operating procedures can be used.
.
Airlines that operate both the Boeing 757 and 767 have greater flexibility in assigning flight crews and adapting to changing markets. They also benefit from similar maintenance procedures, manuals and inspection requirements and reduced spares inventories. More than 26 airlines around the world operate both 757s and 767s.
.
Incidentally, this has more or less been the French approach to nuclear power:
.
All French units (the first two derived from US Westinghouse types) are now PWRs of three standard types designed by Framatome (now AREVA): three-loop 900 MWe (34), four-loop 1300 MWe P4 type (20) and finally four-loop 1450 MWe N4 type (4). This is a higher degree of standardisation than anywhere else in the world. (There have been two fast reactors – Phenix which ran for over 30 years, and Super Phenix, which was commissioned but then closed for political reasons.) French development of the four-loop 1300 MWe design flowed back to later US plants, and the 1450 MWe N4 design evolved from it.
.
They’re having some issues with their Gen III EPR, and there have been financial issues. As well, they’re projected to drop from 75% nuclear generation now to 50% by 2025. So all is not rosy with nukes, but we could stand to take some notes on what I believe has been an overall successful model by the French.
.
.
That there are multiple Gen II and II+ designs built in a nonstandard way does not mean that they cannot be standardized, Brandon S. The issue I have with Gen III reactors is that they are not yet proven. I’m not opposed to them being part of this mix eventually, but if we’re to start delivering new nuclear plants by 2025, I don’t believe we’re going to get there using bleeding edge technologies which have not yet had all the kinks worked out.
.
.
Then ask clarifying questions, please. I’m unclear on what the a priori issue with standardization is here, perhaps you could further elucidate that for me. Thanks.
Lucia, “The computer analyses, which cost more than $1 million…”
….
I have no problem with computer analysis per se, but $1,000,000 is pennies compared to what we are talking about here. Also, the fact that it is being promoted by an industry trade association, does not give it what I would call presumptive validity. It would have to be vetted closely by others to have credibility in my mind.
,,,,
Also, thanks to MikeN for Cringely article. (which I had read a long time ago). Didn’t realize that Chernobyl didn’t have a containment building. I would assume that 98% of the American public is equally uninformed on this matter as I was.
JD
DeWitt Payne: “There is, as yet, no equivalent of Szilard for thermonuclear fusion powered generators.”
.
DeWitt, one more interesting to add to your admittedly considerable knowledge on Szilard is that when the Blitzkreig on 9-1-39 happened he wrote his letter to Einstein of the bomb only after writing Charles Lindbergh, who was under Gen. Hap Arnold’s command in charge of experimental military research. When Szilard heard Lindbergh on the radio speech attacking England and France he realized his terrible mistake. He never got a response from Lindbergh at it can only be fate that the letter stayed out of German hands.
.
Lindbergh was also in charge of Robert Goddard’s research. After the war Lindbergh was recruited to round up Von Braun and all the other scientists for operation Paper Clip. Von Braun credited the V2 to Goddard’s work, saying without Goddard’s patents he never could have done it. Lindbergh’s personal lawyer was the one handling them.
lucia (Comment #147922),
.
.
I was thinking 10%, including R&D, administrative oversight, site planning, lawsuits … who knows what else. I’m hoping that subsidies would be minimal to non-existant, with loan/lawsuit guarantees being the bulk of the budget. IF things go well, that budgeted money doesn’t get spent. Tracking down the figures is tough. I should note however that in my readings some of this stuff is already on the books, my sense is that it’s been underutilized. So perhaps a guesstimation method is to look at what’s already law and scale it as a first approximation. I’ll get to it when I can, may be a few days.
.
.
Right, so the punchline is:
.
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
.
Annoyingly the article doesn’t make it easy to figure out what the annualized amount is, or where exactly it’s going. At this point, I’m just going to state it isn’t five billion bux per year going to electric vehicles, batteries or solar. It’s not at all clear to me that any of those technologies are “futile”. For urban transportation, EVs make quite a bit of sense to me and I’d think are going to be more viable sooner than bio-fuel powered vehicles. As previously stated, my position is that building out nuclear plants to 2040, and then and only then making electric cars works isn’t optimal — best if done in parallel.
.
Bearing in mind that nuclear is an uphill swim for many on the left, funding nuclear power at the expense of subsidizing the “true” renewable energy technologies is a political dog even less likely to hunt than it already is. One or both of two things might sweeten a deal with the left:
.
1) A carbon tax.
.
2) Re-directing fossil fuel subsidies.
.
Good luck figuring out how much per year (2) is, this document from the US Treasury accounts for $4.7 bn/yr of them. I don’t think that’s all of them. Some of them I might want to keep. There is other Federal funding for strategic reserves and exploration that I might not want to causally cast aside on partisan principle either. But — and this is key — I’m not all partisans.
.
So. Let me break down what (1) would look like. $10.5 bn/yr, which I’ll call the worst case taxpayer cost of building out nukes, divided by 119.3 million working stiffs is $84/yr, or $7/mo. A single-income family of four would be on the hook for $28/month. [edit: well that’s probably not the right calculation, but go with it, I’m too tired to figure out the real calc.] A carbon tax isn’t the most progressive taxation scheme around, so there could be some revenue-neutrality worked into it.
.
We might could do some horse-trading, or a one-for-one fat-trimming from subsidies.
.
Let’s not forget the upsides: the plants will not design, build or operate themselves.
My head is killing me so I’m not going to go into much detail. I just saw this paragraph in an RSS update and had to say something:
Why in the world are you still talking about “330 plants in” any number of years? As I pointed out above:
That means if one, for some reason, assumed we’d build all new power plants as having the same average production rate of the ones currently existing in the United States (a very strange idea), the calculations you’re using would be ~200 plants by 2040. If we instead allow for multiple reactors and improved production over old ones, the number could easily drop to 100.
There is no reason to talk about 330 plants being needed. That number has no basis at all. As is:
I don’t think saying not every nuclear power plant should be exactly the same is not actually comparable to “building custom cars,” but let’s roll with it. France has far less variance in circumstances, requires less electricity production and consequently has fewer companies involved in its nuclear power production. Despite that, as your own source notes, they still have three different models for nuclear power reactors in use (and have had more in the past).
Additionally, if you look at what goes into a model for a power reactor, you’ll find plants built using the same models don’t have to be exactly the same like you call for. Not only do models allow for some (relatively) small differences in the reactor systems themselves, the power plants built around them can have all sorts of differences. Since you specifically mentioned the control room, the reality is the control rooms of different power plants using the same model for their reactors can be different for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is how many reactors the plant has. A two unit plant will not have the same control room as a four unit plant even though the same model may be used for all six reactors.
But when it comes down to plant designs, each one does need to be designed individually to account for differences in circumstance. Ground type, climatic factors, seismic activity, water systems, power grid connectivity, reactor count and probably a thousand other factors I’m not even aware of cause each nuclear power plant to be different.
Using standardized plans for nuclear reactors is good, but that is a far cry from saying each of however many plants you’re referring to “should all be the exact same design. I mean exact, right down to every knob and dial in the control room.”
Yet you specifically referred to being worried about “the size and complexity of large plants” as they “present higher risks in terms of … call it completion success” when the size and complexity of a nuclear power plant is largely not determined by the size of a reactor being used. A number of nuclear power plants are larger and more complex than others despite using smaller reactors. I don’t understand that. If your concern is about the size and complexity of a nuclear power plant, why not focus on the factors which most greatly determine its size and complexity?
While I’ve been discussing specific issues, it might be useful to take a step back and point out this idea would be economically devastating. Brandon R. Gates writes:
Leaving aside that fossil fuel subsidies aren’t really that much of a thing, I feel this remark is a good time for us all to take a moment to remember this plan would completely destroy much of the current electricity generation systems currently in place. Thousands of companies would be put of business. Leaving aside the harm that would cause to individuals, the tax base of many states would be severely damaged. There is no way you could ever get this sort of plan pushed through the United States’s legislative or executive branch. Heck, I don’t even think the judicial branch would allow it.
Mandating the forced shutdown of entire industries with practically no legal basis so as to create what is basically an entirely new industry under strict governmental control is not the sort of thing you can count on courts being okay with. Even if you could though, you would face massive resistance from state governors, state legislatures and most Congressmen/Senators as they’d realize a plan like this would have tons of negative impacts on their constituents.
Getting “330 plants [built] in 15 years” may sound wonderful and all if you can’t be bothered to understand the difference between a plant and a reactor, but anyone who thinks a plan to get it done could work in the United States is a fool. And that is as kind as I can phrase this.
Brandon Shollenberger –
Comment #147966 – Nothing I disagree with in my limited knowledge. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page on that aspect.
.
Comment #147974 – Bugger, more to think about…but you make some good points. I do think, just offhand, that the economic disruption could be minimized by working through the existing power network in some fashion (maybe by not subsidizing or constructing directly, but offering a fixed annual number of fixed amount of low-cost loans to companies proposing to build?)
Overall, I see the biggest obstacle to this kind of plan is that to make it work it requires a generational commitment, while our society currently has difficulty committing to watching an entire movie without distraction. In addition, trying for too much too fast is likely to scare the voters/politicians away entirely.
Bradon G
The real uphill swim is getting those who think AGW is not a danger or think we should wait for more proof is, any tax burden attached to energy production should fall equally on renewables. Those who understand the problem is AGW– should understand the way forward is nuclear and be willing to assume this shift.
That’s why I think the tax must be on all non-nuclear electricity sold to the grid. Those who have private windmills, private panels, or burn directly without interacting with the grid wouldn’t pay. So they would be fine for now.
As for the issue of whether all new reactors need exactly the same design: I have no opinion. There may be reasons having to do with location where that might be impractical. Cooling is required and it might not make much sense to have the same cooling designs in well watered Illinois vs. a dry climate.
Brandon S.
1. Are you saying there is no way we could ever redirect fossil fuel subsidies to another purpose? I doubt that.
2. Are you saying there is no way a carbon tax would ever pass?
If this is what you are saying, maybe. I certainly wouldn’t cry myself to sleep at night if it proved impossible to pass a carbon tax. I do tend to worry about the economy a heck of a lot more than I worry about global warming, I think most polls of voters show the same thing. So I guess I agree with your point that this would be pretty hard to do.
There was a time I’d have told you I didn’t think a federal healthcare system like Obamacare would pass either. I don’t know. Get Madam President into the White House, get her SCOTUS nominee through. All that remains is to flip Congress and all the lights would be green for the greens, seems to me.
.
Sort of disturbing, now that I think of it.
[Edit: well, mostly the lights would be green. States would still fight, as you point out. But with the SCOTUS against them I think they’d lose.]
Brandon G: Let me break down what (1) would look like. $10.5 bn/yr, which I’ll call the worst case taxpayer cost of building out nukes, divided by 119.3 million working stiffs is $84/yr, or $7/mo. A single-income family of four would be on the hook for $28/month. [edit: well that’s probably not the right calculation, but go with it, I’m too tired to figure out the real calc.]
.
If that’s [edit: the same as] your “3.2 Big Macs” calc, which I believe in my case was off by a factor of 25 (or something close?) I’d be looking at around $700/month or a $8,400/year. That’s, ah – a bit steep, IMO.
mark,
The states can bypass the Federal Government entirely. It’s called a Convention of the States. The Constitution can be amended and the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court have no say other then how the amendments are ratified if two thirds of the state legislatures petition Congress to hold a Convention of the States. Six states so far have submitted petitions.
Note that it says shall call a convention, not may.
Thanks DeWitt.
Mark Bofill:
No. I’m talking about Brandon R. Gates’s plan to replace practically all of the United States electricity production with nuclear or other “carbon neutral” options (even though none of these are actually carbon neutral, a point he has studiously ignored).
Obamacare passed because Obama spent pretty much all of his political capital to push through an agreement which still required him basically bribe many states to sign on. Even then, Obamacare has been a stupendous failure in many ways because it doesn’t have that high a level of support. And it doesn’t even attempt to accomplish a number of the aims Obama wanted it to accomplish.
It would be like if someone decided to adopt Gates’s plan and managed to get a few new plants built and running with a few other partially funded but receiving too much pushback to get opened, all while 80% of the plants didn’t even get designed. And that’s without even looking at how much more ridiculously difficult it would be to switch completely over to “carbon neutral” electricity production (which again, isn’t actually carbon neutral) than to implement Obamacare.
Just as an example, shutting down oil and natural gas power plants would involve closing down something like 7000 power plants.* The economic impact of that could hardly be overstated. Getting this plan implemented would require destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are a number of states whose economy would be so hurt they’d go bankrupt for not being able to generate enough taxes. I’m probably being too tame when I say endorsing this plan would be economic suicide. It’d certainly be political suicide for anyone who pushed it.
*Shutting them all down wouldn’t actually be possible for various reasons related to things like reliability, but I’m trying to stick to the fantasy world this plan was drafted for.
DeWitt Payne:
Where do you get the number six from? Almost every state has applied for an Article V Convention. I think only Alaska and Hawaii haven’t.
Brandon S.,
.
1. BTW, I blush to admit that I don’t understand your point about nuclear not being carbon neutral. Surely, relative to fossil fuels we could call nuclear carbon neutral?
2. I agree with you that suddenly shutting down all fossil fuel plants would be catastrophic. Do you think it would be equally unworkable to impose some sort of scheme that provided a gradual and slowly increasing incentive to switch to nuclear? Maybe a tax that increases a little bit every year, with the increase schedule published in advance and rigidly adhered to, something like that.
Thanks.
Brandon S.
http://www.cosaction.com/indiana
The state legislatures all have to pass the same petition. That wasn’t the case with earlier attempts.
kch:
I wholeheartedly approve of pushing for more nuclear power. Simply reducing unnecessary obstacles that have been placed in front of it and reducing the public pushback against it would go a long way. If instead of constantly driving up the difficulty of using nuclear power the United States were to instead reduce the difficulty, we would see nuclear power become more common. I think that’s good.
But anyone who understands the basics of how a “free market” like the United States has should understand you cannot mandate a total switchover of nuclear power. You can’t make a plan that amounts to, “These 7,000 power plants must shut down and be replaced with ‘330’ new ones of a different type.” I’ve been quite tame in my descriptions of this plan because I can’t figure out just how to put into words how absurd it is. If I were anyone involved in policy making and someone proposed this to me, I’d laugh in their face and walk away because it’d be too silly for me to do anything else.
If you really want to push for nuclear power, the best thing to do is to look at what areas would most benefit from new power plants in the near future (either due to demand or plans to decomission existing plants). Then, if those areas could support a nuclear power plant, push for the construction of one there. Keep repeating the process over time, looking to replace existing plants with nuclear ones whenever possible. It wouldn’t get you to all “carbon neutral” electricity production by 2040 like Gates wants, but his plan wouldn’t either because, well, to be blunt… it’s completely insane.
As a side note, pushing for a plan like I the one I mention allows for another benefit. While so far people have only been talking about larger nuclear reactors producing 1+GW, there are also small nuclear reactors which produce about a third of that amount. Building nuclear power plants which use those (at least as an initial unit) to bridge the transition fo nuclear in an area would allow for the gradual introduction of nuclear power to areas so as to avoid any massive disruptions. Those plants could then be scaled up as demand in the area increased/other plants closed down rather than building new fossil fuel powered generators.
The government could do a lot to push for plans like that. The most obvious point is subsidizing plants designed to be scaled up like that so companies don’t have to worry so much about the initial investment being wasted (if circumstances turned out that they wouldn’t be able to scale up) would let them make much longer-term investments in nuclear power. That’s hugely important because right now one of the biggest obstacles with building nuclear power is the long history of plans for nuclear power falling through (often due to societal pushback or demand not being as high as expected).
DeWitt Payne:
The petitions don’t actually have to be the same, just calling for a convention on the same subject. I don’t know if that matters to your point or not, but we’ve had a couple cases where we were only a couple states short of having an Article V Convention. One was even for a balanced budget amendment. And the group you refer to has had seven states sign on, not just six (my old state of Oklahoma signed on just a couple months ago).
Mark Bofill:
I could count myself the king of infinite space if I wanted, but that wouldn’t mean i deserve to wear a crown. Carbon neutrality is a target used by many people, groups and even industries. It means, quite literally, no net emissions. It doesn’t mean, “A lesser amount of emissions.” There has even been a great deal of effort put into examining how one can offset any emissions that might happen for a particular case so the net amount is still zero. Ignoring all that and redefining the phrase to mean something else is…
Well, we can redefine words and phrases if we want, calling elephants houses and dogs celestial beings of great magnificance, but we should at least take the time to state what we mean by them so people don’t get confused when they’re told you live inside an elephant. Communication doesn’t tend to work very well if you change the meanings of the words you use without telling anyone.
I don’t think such a plan would be unworkable. I do, however, think taxing industries one dislikes to make other industries take their place is a bad idea if those other industries aren’t already expanding. A better solution would be to help companies make new nuclear power plant by removing obstacles in their way, combating public pressures to combat nuclear power and providing direct assistance in the form of financial aid/help in land acquisition/etc.
After a period of time where that’s been done, it may turn out nuclear power has expanded but not as much as one might have hoped. At that point, taxing competitors to make nuclear power more advantaged might be a practical way to encourage its further expansion. That’d be far more practical as taxing coal and natural gas power plants isn’t going to remove many of the obstacles currently preventing nuclear power from being viable. Trying to combat obstacles companies you want to help face by placing obstacles in front of their competitors isn’t as effective as just removing the obstacles from in front of the companies you want to help.
Brandon S.,
.
Thank you sir, I think I understand a little more clearly now.
[Edit: My dog is a being of great magnificence though. I got your point, but. :p]
Brandon S.,
.
Bad idea? I hate just about every part of this. I loathe the idea of taxing industries out of existence for the record. Do we believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 is driving up global temperatures? Is that OK? My answers are a tentative yes and a tentative no.
.
Furthermore, I think that I could make an argument that :
1. based on the fact that temperature is expected to increase logarithmicly as a function of atmospheric CO2 and
2. and the fact that nobody else is actually going to stop burning anytime soon, and
3. and the fact that it’s all the same atmosphere,
.
given all this I could argue that game theory suggests I adapt my response to what other countries do. I read that the best strategy for iterative prisoner’s dilemma depends on what other nations do. A lot depends on this cost benefit analysis that I haven’t done any real work on yet and on how sensitive our climate is to CO2.
.
Why am I saying this? I don’t want anybody to get the impression that I think this is simple and swell. I don’t think that. I’m not sure any of this is a good idea.
.
Thanks.
Mark Bofill:
When I call it a bad idea, I mean it is a bad idea for accomplishing the stated goal, regardless of whether or not that goal is a good idea. I think this entire discussions is silly both because the plan Brandon R. Gates proposed is compeltely impossible and he doesn’t know much of anything aout this isue, but if you do want to encourage a strong transition to nuclear power for electricity production, the best plan you’ll be able to find is something along the lines of what I described above as it is the most viable plan. Simply trying to tax industries into oblivion or mandate their destruction will never work.
I don’t think anyone here wants me to discuss my thoughts on the issue of cost benefit analyses for global warming. That includes me. As far as I’ve seen, pretty much nobody cares about doing any sort of real cost benefit analysis. So much of what is written on the subject is terrible, and you have both sides relying on obvious dreck to make their arguments. The most fascinating thing to me is somehow both “skeptics” and “warmists” have adopted Richard Tol’s meta-analyses as authoritative even though his work is utter dreck, of lower quality than even Michael Mann’s.
And again, I’ll point out is this is the sort of thing that convinces me not to care about global warming. If global warming is a serious enough threat to justify ideas like that Brandon R. Gates supports, the work being done to demonstrate that is a disgrace to the cause. I can find far better and far more detailed work on the risks of building a specific nuclear power plant in X location than there is on the dangers of global warming.
Brandon S
I’m for removing obstacles. But I think in the short term at least, investors need something to show that an administration really does mean to promote nuclear as the solution.
In that vein:
US electrical production is, evidently 4e12 kw-hrs a year.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
I would think a 0.1 cent/kw-hr tax applied when electricity is sold would not kill electricity production. A back of the envelop estimate would but revenue generated at (4e12 kw-hrs a year. )* 1e-3 = $4e9/ year or 4 billion. That a sizable chunk to create a program to encourage plants– either by giving help in regulatory compliance, paying interest in early stages and so on.
A 1 cent kw-hr would raise 40 billion a year but represents ~10% increase in electricity prices when passed on to consumers, so that might be pushing things. Still, I don’t think that would be enough to drive things out of business, but it might be higher than we want to push. (I’m pretty sure you are going to think it too high.)
The way I see it: even at $0.001 per KW-hr fossil fuel plants will only go out of business when competitors are online providing electricity on the market. This is because demand for electricity is fairly inelastic.
But for such a tax effective at achieving the stated goal: building nuclear plant, I think the tax must be applied to all non-nuclear energy producers including renewables. And it would be necessary that none of the funds be wasted on renewables.
Otherwise, if electrical producers using renewables are exempt from the tax or worse– can draw from the fund, the tax would never achieve the goal of encouraging nuclear. Building the nuclear plants will require investors. Investors will remain skittish as long as it looks like a project whose goal isn’t to encourage nuclear but can, instead, be used to encourage solar, wind or energy generation from cowdung.
Beyond that: if the program looks like a “promote renewables” program in disguise with some PR pro-nuclear language as window dressing, those who do not support any response to AGW will certainly be against the program. They will (likely correctly) perceive the program as not being aimed toward building nuclear baseload capacity that happens to be low emission but toward something else. I could be wrong, but I suspect it is not possible to create a coalition to promote nuclear unless the program actually promotes nuclear.
I do think we need to build and maintain baseload. A not-too large tax makes sense to me. Industry killing? No. But I don’t think it needs to be industry killing.
:>
This makes me LOL because you’ve got me there Brandon. You want to know the first thought that occurred to me to get a handle on how to even start my CBA for mitigation vrs. adaptation in the U.S.?
here.
I don’t share your contempt for Dr. Tol’s work, though I’ve yet to seriously investigate it. I know that you’ve blogged about it. Still, /silly: Heuristic guidance suggests that nobody who irritates Anders the way Tol does can be all wrong. /endsilly
While the small tax on all power production would be useful if applied to developing nuke power, the chances of that happening in the current world is, to be generous, small.
lucia:
Are you saying you want to tax all electricity producers, including nuclear, solar and wind utilities? That seems a strange way to encourage growth of “carbon neutral” technologies, and it seems to contradict what you say here:
But it is what your numbers require.
Why do you think failing to tax renewables would mean you couldn’t encourage nuclear power? Renewables aren’t particularly competitive without lucrative subsidies. And if they were, that’d seem to be a good thing. Wasting money subsidizing renewables may be bad, but not taxing them extra seems like it could only further the goal of becoming “carbon neutral.”
If I were going to design a tax for the purpose of reducing emissions, I’d take a different route. I’d remove wasteful subsidies for renewables that artificially inflate their competitiveness and levy a tax against all electrical producers based on their production chain’s GHG production. That way, companies which are more “green” would be penalized less than ones who take no steps to reduce emissions. And renewable technology, insofar as it worked economically, would be encouraged to flourish. If that were considered too complex, I’d say just tax fossil fuel fueled power plants, exempt renewables and subsidize nuclear power.
I don’t like either idea though. There are a lot of obstacles nuclear power faces right now that generally makes it non-viable in the United States, and I don’t see taxing competitors as being particularly helpful in addressing them. It might be that taxing competitors in addition to removing the unnecessary obstacles could be helpful, but right now it feels like the idea amounts to little more than, “Take money from X group and give it to Y and we’ll succeed!”
Mark Bofill:
You should take a look at it. It’s creepy how many similarities can be drawn between what he did and what Cook et al (2016) did. Though I don’t think even they would be willing to go so far as to change a published manuscript without leaving any note anywhere in order to cover up a mistake their critics pointed out.
brandon
I want a program designed to encourage nuclear to tax all but nuclear. I want to encourage growth of nuclear because it combines lower emission and baseload.
I don’t see how taxing all non-nuclear contradicts what I said here:
I’m saying the tax on all non-nuclear must be applied to all non-nuclear. Renewables are non-nuclear and I think they should be taxed too. The goal is to encourage nuclear out of the pit we’ve dug for it over the past few decades.
Because investors– who we need– would likely see this as evidence that we weren’t serious about promoting nuclear very specifically.
I’m willing to remove subsidies for renewables too.
Actually, since it’s a sales tax, it’s “take money from consumers and use it to support capital investment in the electricity production method that addresses two major concerns: (a) baseload (b) emissions”.
The other methods fail on at least one score and so we tax them some to discourage them. It’s true part of the purpose of the tax is to discourage those. But I think it’s also set at a level that doesn’t kill production methods that are commercially viable on their own.
lucia:
The problem I pointed out arises from how you said the United States produces “evidently 4e12 kw-hrs a year” and used that number in your calculations involving tax rates. The source you cite says nuclear sources provide 20% of the 4e12 kw-hrs in question, or 8e11 of the 4e12 kw-hrs.
If you use 4e12 kw-hrs in your calculations of taxes, you’re including nuclear in the taxation. You would need to use 3.2e12 kw-hrs in your calculations if you wanted to only look at taxing non-nuclear sources of electricity.
Is it? I don’t know just what you and Brandon R. Gates have agreed to, but my understanding was his goal was to make the United States electricity production “carbon neutral” via the promotion of nuclear power and comparable technology. That was the goal I had in mind when I wrote my comment. If your goal is merely to create however many nuclear power plants, that will likely conflict with the goal I had in mind in several ways.
Indicating you disapprove of one industry and favor another with monetary redistribution seems clear enough to me even if there is another industry you don’t favor or disfavor. Of course, we’re at the point of the conflict I mentioned above. Promoting nuclear power at the cost of renewables might be good for the nuclear industry and getting it to build more power plants, but it could also be bad for the goal of reducing emissions. In that case, one has to pick which goal to go with.
Brandon S,
Please. Show some charity towards simpletons such as myself. If you are going to suggest that building nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel plants is going to be bad for the goal of reducing emissions, explain so guys like me can follow you. It’s a little counter-intuitive.
.
Thanks so much,
[Edit: do you mean that renewables produce less carbon than nuclear? If so, could you elaborate and explain why.]
Mark Bofill, if you increase taxes on renewables, you may reduce the amount of renewable technology put into place. That would reduce the amount of carbon emission reduction caused by renewable technologies.
Using those taxes to try to produce new nuclear power plants might offset that change, but it might not. It would depend on how much you hurt renewables and how much you expand nuclear power. Suppose X windmills reduce emissions by as much as 1 new nuclear power plant. If the taxes on renewables prevent 2*X windmills from being built while only allowing one new nuclear power plant to be built, the result would be the tax hurt the cause of reducing emissions.
The issue could be rather complicated to judge. Remember, renewables are a growing industry. That growth has been leading to improved technology and reduced cost. Slowing that growth via taxing the industries could in turn slow the improvements in the technology and keep its costs from dropping as much as it would. This could compound the direct effect I mention above. At the same time, investing more in nuclear power might drive developments for it and make it better/most cost efficient.
Someone who is more knowledgeable on the economics of energy production might be able to give some insight as to what such a tax might do. I don’t know. I just know it is a potential issue that would need to be considered when weighing the various goals.
Brandon S
If you read above you will see I specifically pointed out that I have not agreed to zero emissions. See for example
lucia (Comment #147917)
That was my response when Brandon G said we’d agreed to zero emissions. I said otherwise quite clearly– and I did so twice above.
Zero emissions is Brandon G’s goal. I want lowered emissions while maintaining baseload. I think the only sane method of lowered emissions that is not economy killing is nuclear and I want a program that recognizes that.
I see your issue with the numbers. It is true I did not subtract out nuclear when doing the back of the envelope calculation. It makes a difference, but I’m only going for order or magnitude right now to talk about — roughly– the sorts of bites I’m talking about. The number of plants (330) is only an estimate anyway. It’s the number Brandon G said he wants, and I’m willing. That there is imprecision there doesn’t bother me.
TerryMN (Comment #147979),
.
.
It’s not precisely the same calculation because here I was talking about a single-wage household of four. In reality, as of 2012 the middle quintile US household is 1.32 wage earners/household with a median household income of $51,200/yr. A $336/yr carbon tax on that level of income works out to 0.7%, which is not trivial. However, recall that this is a worst-case scenario from a percentage I plucked out of a hat. It could be higher, it could be lower, I don’t know. Lucia’s estimate was half mine, so divide everything above by two.
.
Other thing to keep in mind is that the proposed incentives and subsides are designed to attract private capital. The returns will be lower than a non-guaranteed loan would be, but they would also be lower risk.
.
As well, infrastructure investments tend to give returns well beyond the original capital investment. I don’t know what the break-even point would be, but I would expect a bump to GDP growth as construction scaled throughout the life of the project. Construction and engineering jobs are well-paying, meaning that even without fiddling with marginal income tax rates, revenues would plausibly be expected to rise thus potentially closing the Federal budget deficit.
.
Cost-consciousness is good — we don’t want to overpay for benefits or returns. Let’s just not forget that there are benefits and returns. One of those big benefits is that 20 years of active nuclear plant construction would revitalize the industry, potentially allowing it to continue growing without as much subsidy to handle further increased domestic demand. We would also have potential to export cleaner power to our neighbors (like France already does) at a competitive cost, as well as a greater ability to export technology internationally at far more competitive rates than at present. Which represents a significant growth opportunity for us.
.
The Chinese are already planning to do just that. Because they are smart. To our credit, we’re already doing it as well … I’m suggesting we give ourselves a leg up.
Bill Gates’ favorite analyst Vaclav Smil has often talked about how energy transitions of the past have typically taken decades.
TerryMN,
.
PS: I still haven’t seen your invoice for double the nationwide average Big Mac Carbon Taxâ„¢ share I promised you ere those many weeks ago. I don’t like having outstanding debts. I’m sure Lucia will be happy to send you my e-mail address.
Brandon: It’s not precisely the same calculation because here I was talking about a single-wage household of four. In reality, as of 2012 the middle quintile US household is 1.32 wage earners/household with a median household income of $51,200/yr. A $336/yr carbon tax on that level of income works out to 0.7%, which is not trivial. However, recall that this is a worst-case scenario from a percentage I plucked out of a hat. It could be higher, it could be lower, I don’t know. Lucia’s estimate was half mine, so divide everything above by two.
.
Hi Brandon,
.
If it wasn’t the same, no bigs – I just recognized the 1.xxM working stiffs so thought it might be. Mine is a family of 5 with 1 income, so I don’t know where that puts the end number on yours or Lucia’s calc, but either is a decent number, I think. In any case, it doesn’t have a prayer of being enacted, so I’m not really worried about it. Was just showing the difference between the spin of the flat tax numbers you created, vs. reality of our progressive tax system.
.
The point was to hopefully make you realize that you can’t honestly “sell” tax increase collections with a flat tax calculation when you’re also most likely adamantly against a flat tax for tax
collectionson income. If you’re for a flat tax and you want that on the table first, I can heartily agree with that..
I’m also not interested in your erroneous 3.2 Big Mac $10 or whatever it was; it was April 15th at the time of that conversation, and so easy to work the math wrt my particular return that differed remarkably from your calc ($10 != $250).
RB (Comment #148007),
.
Nuclear power is already over six decades old, it’s just been stalled for the past two.
.
In the 1970s, the US increased electrical generation from *all* sources at an average rate of 74 billion kWh/yr. [1] 2.3 times that rate over 2025-2040 is what it would take to replace current coal and gas fired plants with nuclear power, 336 new plants at a delivery rate of 21/yr. That’s 170 billion kWh/yr. In 2010, we added 163 billion kWh.
.
So not out of the realm of possibility; yet, difficult to be sure. Failure to hit the target delivery rate does not mean total failure of the effort in my book.
.
——————
.
[1] Source: US EIA.
lucia:
Ah, sorry for the confusion then. I’m afraid I didn’t follow your exchanges with him that closely given how… pointless much of the discussion was. I must have missed that part.
I suspected as much, but I wanted to make sure.
>.<
Can people please stop referring to 330 plants? Please, guys? There is absolutely no reason we'd want, much less need, 330 new nuclear power plants. Brandon R. Gates used numbers for nuclear reactors, not plants, and the difference is huge. The actual number of plants needed for his plan should be no more than 200, and it could quite possibly be as low as 100. It could possibly go even lower.
Brandon Shollenberger –
Hmmm…I see there’s been a lot of conversation since I last checked, so I’ve probably missed something, but here goes…
(from comment #147986)
“But anyone who understands the basics of how a “free market†like the United States has should understand you cannot mandate a total switchover of nuclear power. You can’t make a plan that amounts to, “These 7,000 power plants must shut down and be replaced with ‘330’ new ones of a different type.â€
.
I completely agree. I’ve been treating this discussion as – more or less – a thought experiment to examine my own barely formed notions, so I suppose I might have come across as supporting the Brandon Gates approach. My own ideas are rather different. As currently formed, my thinking goes something like the following:
Nuclear and hydro are the two large-scale primary generation sources I would like to see encouraged,as being the (probably) safest, most cost effective, least polluting and low co2 emitting of the large scale grid power systems. I do, however, accept that in some circumstances/regions other power sources might be optimal. So yes, lets go for nuclear and hydro, but I reject the notion that it must be all of one thing, or that the ultimate goal be carbon free primary generation. (As I earlier mentioned and you strongly point out, carbon free is not possible.)
.
Still, this only covers 40% of the US energy requirement. Putting much of the rest of it (transportation, residential, commercial, industrial) on the grid is currently a pipe dream (show me the batteries that will get a 767 from LAX to JFK!), and probably a really, really bad idea (too many eggs in one basket).
.
So, as a thought experiment only, I’m thinking of how I would approach a nuclear ramp-up in the US, not accepting Brandon Gates premise. To this end, I’m willing to think about the process needed to build, say, 450 1.2gw – 1.4gw reactors by 2040. I personally at this point feel it’s not unworkable and not unaffordable if approached right.
.
First of course is getting regulation to cease to be part of the problem. In this category I would count any requirement for ultra-standardization as being inherently anti-innovation. Set the goals and let industry sort out how to best get there. [I generally prefer goal-oriented standards to process-oriented standards. Goal oriented standards are the approach Temple Grandin took to the cattle industry, and proved better than the previous govermental process-oriented standards.]
.
The next set of problems is all about the economics: how to encourage nuclear construction without the economic dislocation you speak of. Developing government policy is not my forte, but perhaps if it followed this path it might work:
1) Set a fixed number of reactors per year to be assisted. (Lets say 20.)
2) Set a fixed amount of money per reactor to be granted as a repayable loan (at base Fed rate over a 40 year period) to utilities wanting to build. (Say $2,000/kw capacity, or approximately $2 billion per reactor. This would probably not cover the entire cost, but should be attractive enough to draw applications.)
3) Grant those loans to utilities in areas that will require replacement of current power infrastructure, so as to not waste useful infrastructure.
4) Put in place disincentives towards polluting and high co2 generation sources, uneconomic will die by itself if left alone. (Probably carbon taxes, but I think such taxes should be part of the general revenue, not earmarked for anything specific.)
.
The above program would run to about $40B/year. Seems like a lot, but it’s really down around 1% of the total US budget and becomes an asset rather than a straight out lay. IMO, should be paid out of the general revenue.
.
So there you go – a rough outline of my ideas, and probably not very clear, but at least not my interpretation of someone else’s ideas. Not very detailed, but I really don’t know enough about it as yet. I would welcome your (or anyone else’s) comments on it. As I said, I’m still thinking about this, and so far this thread has lead me to revise a good deal of what I thought possible/optimal. I suspect more change will come…
Brandon Gates,
Perhaps, but it has been stalled because the economics of nuclear power is unfavorable, and particularly in recent times, compared to natural gas. Estimates I recall reading put regulatory burden (I don’t know how much of it is not well-deserved but I believe regulation for this industry is necessary) at somewhere near 15%. I understand the case for nuclear power as a base load source and the difficulty of storage for renewables, but a transition to nuclear+renewables is quite likely several decades away, for economic reasons (and Obama’s team seems to be on board for nuclear power).
Per Smil:
TerryMN (Comment #148009),
.
.
Understood. I had that figure handy so I used it with some other stuff I looked at, attempting a refinement of sorts. I’m on a steep learning curve here, and don’t anticipate becoming an expert by any means, so everything is rough and very back of envelope. I’m always open and welcoming of constructive input and critiques from others who demonstrate greater familiarity.
.
.
Well I’m not religious. I may need to reconsider if your prayers are answered. 🙂
.
.
And you were correct to do that. One reason I’m higballing my estimates right now is an attempt to … front-end … the sticker shock and then back into paring it down.
.
.
Here’s where I would start: a carbon consumption tax with no further redistribution. I realize that what’s in vogue right now are revenue-neutral carbon taxes made progressive by redistributing proceeds to folk in lower income brackets. I don’t love this idea because I’m looking to actively fund the nuclear program, so I want revenue. If that sounds like a flat tax plan to you, then yes, let’s talk about it in those terms.
.
Before we do, I’ve been putting this off too long … I don’t think energy use scales linearly with income, so let’s have a look.
.
First hit is not what I’m looking for, but interesting, EIA estimates of % home energy use by income has declined nearly 2% since the peak of 4.25% in 1980. Also says this:
.
Additional data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2012 show that spending on household energy is the eighth largest category of expenditures (see chart below). Shelter, transportation, and food represent nearly half of all consumer expenditures. However, the percentage of expenditures for home energy varies across income levels. For households in the lowest 20% of income (before taxes), energy bills average 6% of total expenditures, while for those in the highest 20% of income (before taxes), energy bills average only 3% of total expenditures.
.
So a flat carbon tax stands a good chance of actually being regressive, and yes, progressives would likely want to make even a revenue-bearing carbon tax progressive.
.
That said, again keep in mind that putting capital to work in the economy has a multiplier. The tax goes toward attracting private capital to be put to use as domestic labor. That might offset some of the pain brought by a revenue-yielding flat carbon tax. Or maybe I should say, that would be one of my goals here.
Indeed.
This is an apparently incontrovertible point that is mostly ignored. Vision statements like reducing carbon emissions by X% by 20YY are just that, visions. Without a practicable plan it’s pie in the sky.
RB (Comment #148015),
.
.
On a levelized cost basis, electricity from natural gas is hands-down the cheapest, *except* for geothermal, which I’d like to see more of — however at best it looks like it could only scale to about 20% of power on the present grid. The US numbers are ($/MWh):
.
47.8 Geothermal
72.6 NG [A] : Advanced Combined Cycle
73.6 Wind onshore
75.2 NG [A] : Conventional Combined Cycle
83.5 Hydro
95.1 Conventional Coal
95.2 Advanced Nuclear
100.2 NG [A] : Advanced CC with CCS
100.5 Biomass
113.5 NG [A] : Advanced Combustion Turbine
115.7 IGCC (Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle)
125.3 Solar PV
141.5 NG [A] : Conventional Combustion Turbine
144.4 IGCC with CCS
196.9 Wind offshore
239.7 Solar Thermal
.
Onshore wind is also cheap, and that shows up in its popularity relative to solar PV, but it’s intermittent. Note that conventional coal and advanced nukes are at parity. For the first phase of this program, I’m not talking about advanced nuclear, I’m talking about Gen II+ plants which may or may not be cheaper.
.
.
Whatever the number is, the NRC is working on lowering fees and simplifying the permitting process. Recalling that I’m not calling for construction to start until 2020, that’s 4.5 years to work on reviewing regulatory requirements. One reason why I’m pushing for a Gen II or II+ “one-design” in the initial stage is that part of the selection process would be to look at which reactor designs have had the best regulatory and construction experiences in addition to safety and reliability. With a high degree of standardization in both design and construction practices could come efficiency gains in terms of project review, approvals, and thus regulatory burdens.
.
The amount of upfront capital and long construction times are an argument against nuclear power, as is the risk of default due to failed projects. That’s why I think publicly funded loan guarantees need to be part of this to make nuclear projects attractive to private capital. I don’t think there’s another way to do it.
.
.
He is. He also doesn’t think we have decades to wait for the transitions. Neither do I.
Brandon G – thanks, I’ll re-read and chew on that for a bit.
Brandon R. Gates (Comment #148019)
” On a levelized cost basis, electricity from natural gas is hands-down the cheapest, The US numbers are ($/MWh):
47.8 Geothermal” etc
Where is tidal energy? unlisted, unwanted but possibly a fantastic future reliable source for 5% of power needs and at a very cheap price.
kch (Comment #148014),
.
.
Now’s a good time as ever to quantify this. Here’s one estimate:
.
According to Sovacool’s analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. “A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms,” Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.
.
So we’re talking about an order of magnitude reduction in lifetime CO2 emissions per unit power delivered. I’ll take it.
.
I’ve been saying 5 years for nuclear plant construction, twice now I’ve seen 10 years so I stand corrected.
.
.
Yes, I’ve already stipulated that several times.
.
.
1) I’m coming up with 21 reactors/year at 1,000 MWe capacity for a total of 336 reactors, but that was assuming a five-year completion cycle.
2) Per the estimate above it’s $3 bil per reactor, so you’re funding 66% of the cost as a loan. That’s rather generous, I’m not opposed.
3) I had been thinking that decommissioned coal plant sites might be ideal nuclear sites.
4) I would not have a problem with a revenue carbon tax going into general funds.
.
.
By my numbers I’m coming up with $63 bn/yr total cost, or about 0.35% of total GDP, and 1.66% of the Federal budget. I have been talking about public funds covering up to 10% of cost, with the bulk of the funding coming from private capital. The majority of that total I would expect to be in the form of payouts for loan defaults, cost overruns, lawsuit insurance, etc. That need not be funded up front, it could come out of general funds or borrowed as needed.
.
.
My requirement for strict standardization was intended only to apply to the initial phase of the project. Let’s call it 20-25% of the total additional capacity under the plan. Programs are already on the books for R&D for new designs, and I would encourage them to be worked in down the line. The hope of standardization is to reduce regulatory burden and make investors less nervous about funding never before tried custom projects. Having that requirement in the very beginning is intended to ensure a high success rate, thus hopefully attracting more interest as the program progresses. Hence, I’m not assuming 21 plants/yr until completion, but rather 5 plants/yr ramping up gradually as the project progresses.
.
I would still want future designs built under this program to use standardized designs. That doesn’t mean I would insist on every single plant built between now and 2040 to strictly adhere to those standards, only the ones built under this specific program. In fact, one way I see to drive innovation under more or less existing programs is that a successfully built new design could be submitted as a candidate for future construction under this program.
angech (Comment #148022),
.
.
Those figures are for new construction scheduled to come online in 2020. I don’t know of any serious plans to do commercial utility-scale tidal energy in the US on that timeframe. It has many of the same environmental concerns as traditional hydro, with the added complications of salt water corrosion and marine fouling of plumbing and moving parts.
.
I’m interested in OTEC myself. Retrofitting existing offshore oil rigs might have some promise. The working fluids might be a problem. Ammonia is toxic and corrosive, small-chain hydrocarbons are flammable, and a lot of proposed refrigerants are ozone-damaging. As well, the best returns are likely further south, and especially at or near a continental shelf, which can be rather far offshore, presenting power delivery problems. Still, might just could be a good solution for large coastal cities toward the tropics.
.
I really think we should be trying harder for geothermal in the western US where the crust is thinner and/or faulting brings up more heat from the mantle. Problem is, wells only go for about 30 years, but could be extended — ironically enough — by hydraulic fracturing.
Brandon R. Gates –
Re: CO2 emissions – a huge reduction is great, and just what we’re looking for with this thought exercise. I agree with Brandon Shollenberger, though, that talking as if we can achieve zero emissions is misleading and unproductive. Just helps cloud the whole discussion.
Re: costs – I just noticed a stupid math error on my part – reactors at an average of 1.25gw would get a loan of $2.5 billion if the loan was set at $2,000/kw. So the annual loan for 20 reactors would be about $50B, or around 1.25% of the current federal budget. [Maybe it could be partly paid for by reallocating the money currently being loaned to special snowflakes taking degrees in special snowflakiness.]
You say that’s generous, but I think it’s less so than your plan. I would not *give* anyone money, just loan it with the full expectation of repayment. I really dislike the thought of picking winners and losers through grants. Much better to make it cheap loans and available to anyone meeting openly available criteria.
In general, thanks for the reply. More to think about…
Brandon G
I would. I have a problem with it being a carbon tax. I have an even bigger problem with it going into general funds.
I think it should be a tax on electrical power sold into the grid and limited to the level to promote nuclear. The only permissible supported project should be promoting building of nuclear generating capacity.
Other solutions have much to great a risk that the tax would be passed and the money diverted to other uses. That would not achieve the goal of creating necessary baseload which is essential to offset economic harm that tends to be caused by taxes in the first place. Tax and spend on the wrong thing is a certain road to disaster and I would not support a program that risks spending money raised with changing our electrical generating capacity in a way to reduce the risks of AGW if that program organized to permit spending the money on something other than building out nuclear capacity.
Brandon G
The arguments against strict standardization appear to apply in equal force to initial phases as any later stages. It sounds like requirement that is both unnecessary and likely counterproductive.
The priority in the initial stages is to get construction initiated rapidly. This extra burden of strict standardization sounds like something that could only delay things.
I think the idea that it would reduce regulatory burden is likely wrong. Strict standardization is more likely to increase regulatory burdens because one still need to show the plant meets needs at a specific location– which means that part will be individualized. Meanwhile, the designers are handcuffed by not having flexibility to meet local needs. (Dry areas will be cooled differently from wet. Soil mechanics differ and so on.)
If we want to reduce regulatory burden, we need to not have strict standardization.
The requirement at the beginning would do the opposite of ensuring a high success rate and is more likely to ensure a high failure rate.
So: if we want to ensure the goals of high success rate at the beginning we should not have any requirement of strict standardization. (BTW: strict standardization as a requirement is by definition increasing regulations, and so increasing regulatory burdents.)
Lucia –
“I think it should be a tax on electrical power sold into the grid and limited to the level to promote nuclear. The only permissible supported project should be promoting building of nuclear generating capacity.”
.
I will have to respectfully disagree. I’m uncertain of the utility of a carbon tax in the first place, but if one is to be imposed it should be a true Pigovian tax. Not revenue-neutral and not paid to support something else, but a tax that actually hurts. That seems to me to be the best method of ensuring change. As well, that any tax for any stated purpose will be diverted into non-stated purposes is, to me, a given. I believe it might as well be treated as general revenue from the start, because that’s where it will end up.
kch,
I don’t see any advantage to the tax that “ax levied on any market activity that generates negative externalities”. The reason I don’t is the purpose of the tax is not to address “negative externalities” but to create revenue to use to support building nuclear plants.
Building of nuclear plants is the common ground Brandon and agreed on. So I see absolutely no advantage to having the tax do something that does something to advance a goal that is not in the common ground.
The goal is not to “ensure change”. The goal is to generate revenue to build nuclear plants.
First: even if that is true, it doesn’t mean anyone needs to create one that is already diverted at the outset. Second: some taxes do remain targetted to their purpose for a long time. (Our local taxes to support schools is one example. Those for the forest preserves is another. We have many taxes targeted to support specific things and they go on doing so.)
If properly set up, we can maximize that time which is better for achieving the goal of building plants. That is a much saner path than designing a plan of taxation that is already diverted from day 1.
I think that’s silly.
Lucia –
OK, so it appears we have different purposes for imposing a carbon tax. Mine is to discourage high CO2 emission generation (which should encourage low CO2 emission generation), yours is for specifically funding nuclear power. Given those different purposes in mind, I really don’t see that we have much basis for argument.
On the other hand, I do (mildly) object to the characterization of “silly”. What I said is pretty much what eventually happens to all good-intentioned taxes, at least up here in Canada.
As well, my approach might be silly for your plan, but your plan is not what I’m proposing. My plan does *not* divert from *your* purpose, because your purpose is not what I am talking about. I do think your tax approach does make sense for what I see as your development plan, but will defend my tax approach as making sense for my development plan.
Then again, I could be wrong. Been so before…
.
Well, CO2 emissions are lower than peak for a large number of countries ( notably 5 of the top 6 emitting nations ), not because they achieved this, but because of increased efficiency and falling and aging populations – economic trends that had nothing to do with policy. Fortunately, those trends: efficiency and demographics, are at work pretty much world wide.
.
Since uptake rates are about 2.5ppm per year, net zero emissions would be equal to this.
kch
Bradon G proposed on an agreed on order to first find common ground and then work on a way to achieve it. The common ground is to build the nukes. At this point, the question is how to achieve it.
I recognize that some different people have different goals that are not in the common are of agreement. But I’m not going to agree to taxes that achieve ends I don’t support. While I recognize your desire to have these other goals, they aren’t common. The common ground is nuclear. I’m not going to support a tax whose goal simultaneously:
(1) is poorly designed to reach the common goal of building nukes and
(2) is specifically designed to compromise the achievability of the stated common goal in order to achieve a goal that we have expressesly stated is not the common goal.
You will see numerous people above do not share your stated goal. I see no reason to tune the taxing method to that goal especially not while thwarting the one that we claim to be advancing as the “common” one.
I don’t think it’s silly to recognize taxes are often diverted to other uses. But I hink it’s silly to design a tax that does not achieve it’s stated goals even in it’s first implementation. That fact that it might be perverted to other goals later doesn’t mean we have to pervert the tax from the get go. That’s just silly reasoning.
Beyond that: we can resolve to do our best to prevent the tax from being perverted. I don’t know what’s happened in Canada, but in the US we have actually succeeded quite well in the US with many local taxes for schools, sewers, forest preserves, supporting police and so on. If you guys can’t manage to keep some taxes focused, perhaps you could study those cases that have worked here in the US.
My intention is to set up the tax in the focused ways that historically have succeeded in not being perverted to other uses.
Yes. Your tax is not designed to achieve the common goal of building nuclear plants. It is designed for different purpose– which numerous people above have said they don’t share. But I agree your tax is designed to achieve that goal.
I disfavor your plan and to a large extent do so because it is not designed to achieve the common goal discussed above in this thread.
I assume many others on this thread will disfavor it for the same reason.
That goal is: get nuclear plants built and pretty much that only. The rest is not the “common goal”.
TE,
You keep saying this, but it is wrong. Unless we get net emissions close to 0, atmospheric concentrations will continue to rise.
kch
By the way, if it turns out that what we have identified as a “common goal” is not a common goal, then that has to be revisited. I agree with the common goal: build the nukes. I’m working to find a way to do that.
.
Are you denying that the CO2 uptake rate is 2.5ppm?
.
If not, why do you believe the uptake rate would suddenly fall?
TE,
No, of course not. That is roughly the current uptake rate.
Why don’t we do this the other way around. You’re claiming that emissions of 2.5ppm (or ~5 GtC) would not increase atmospheric CO2. Where’s your evidence for this?
Hollo Anders. What are your views on nuclear power?
Once again, ATTP is doing a really good Sir Robin.
Hunter,
Sir Robin is fine. Robin’s good. If Anders turns into the Rabbit of CaerBannog, that’d be a different matter.
.
~look at the bones!~
[Edit. :>]
mark, hunter and TE,
ATTP is correct and you’re wrong. I’ve done the calculations. I cut the emission rate in half in 2005 and atmospheric concentration continued to increase, but at about half the previous rate, which assumed constant emissions starting in 2005.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91578766/Atmospheric%20CO2.png
To put it another way. If emissions ceased completely, the uptake rate would not continue to be 2.5ppmv/year. It would decay more or less exponentially, except that the last 20% or so of the excess atmospheric CO2 would take at least a hundred thousand years to return to the pre-industrial baseline.
DeWitt – I say thank you alot, when I’m dismissing somebody.
I’m not doing that now. Thank you. Not sure you’re right, but. I’ll spend a few minutes.
[Edit: BTW – my point wasn’t disagreement with Anders. Absurdity and civility, and they don’t really relate well. But we can laugh about monty python, and laughter is something we like. Go figure. THIS was more along the lines of what I was saying.]
Whatever. If people don’t get that I think talking with people who have opposing views are important by now, then there’s no reaching those people.
mark,
David Archer, who put up the web based MODTRAN calculator has a number of other models on line. For this discussion, the GEOCARB model is relevant: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/geocarb/
DeWitt Payne: ” If emissions ceased completely, the uptake rate would not continue to be 2.5ppmv/year. It would decay more or less exponentially, except that the last 20% or so of the excess atmospheric CO2 would take at least a hundred thousand years to return to the pre-industrial baseline.”
.
First, if human technology is not able to have controlled nudges of climate through geo-engineering by 2200 we don’t deserve to be called intelligent life. Second, the uptake rate is highly dependent upon GMST. Third, we are going to need 400ppm CO2 for some time to prevent the ice age trigger in the event of an interruption in the AMOC, asteroid strike, super volcano or nuclear exchange.
kch (Comment #148039),
.
.
I should have been precise from the beginning about the potential CO2 emissions reductions. Mea culpa.
.
.
1 GW/reactor isn’t a terrible assumption based on the present plants in operation now. Newer reactors do have larger nameplate capacity, but I like the round number for sake of discussion. To be hyper accurate we really should be talking about power delivered per annum, taking into account capacity factor (which is ~93% for nukes ATM). But we’re making so many other ballpark assumptions here, it hasn’t seemed worth the brain-damage to go there. Anyway, I think the modified numbers I gave you in the previous post of $3,000/kw is better, albeit still somewhat low when project failure rates are factored in. We’re not really going to know those until they happen. As such, I’m inclined to also work up a worst-case estimate as part of the planning, and if that’s still palatable, we pull the decision trigger on the “yea” side.
.
Your $50B/yr seems a good candidate for a worst-case scenario, with the caveat that I’m talking about starting slow and ramping at a more or less constant rate by the end of the project. I was thinking that by the end of the project, annual deliveries would be about double the rate at the beginning of the project. So what’s the math … 30 bil to start, we end up at 60 bil, the average is 50 bil, yes?
.
.
Yup. Or the Feds could “borrow” the money by printing more T-Bills and lend it out at a higher rate. Pretty standard practice, innit? Might not have to raise taxes at all, might actually generate some revenues if the rate at which the loans go bad is low enough.
.
.
Again, I think it’s an attractive idea. I caution however that 100% recovery probably isn’t feasible. I just don’t think we can guarantee that there won’t be project failures. So if the gummint is providing 2/3rds of the total construction amount as a loan, I would want the money to be lent out at a higher rate than the cost of the Fed printing the money in the first place. There would still be uncertainty about what the total recovery would be, but it’s more direct than my initial proposal, which was for public funds to be spent covering loan guarantees, with private capital doing the bulk of the lending. Expense of the loan guarantees to come either from an additional revenue tax, and/or by virtue of the construction and private lending activities generating tax revenues by way already established tax codes.
.
Despite the less-direct recovery mechanism, I like my plan better for a number of reasons. It reduces the Fed’s overall outlays. It potentially avoids the scenario of “crowding out” private investment which might make the plan more attractive to private lenders (or equity partners [1]) who have lobby influence in the Hallowed Halls of Congress. It spreads out the due-diligence process of vetting the projects, potentially relieving the Feds from having to do the bulk of the up-front work and continued fiscal oversight as projects progress. Etc.
.
The only think I’m actually picky about as far as funding goes is that it doesn’t come at the expense of other viable carbon-reduction programs, like efficiency, biofeuls research/subsidization, incentives for wind and solar programs, etc. Not only do I think those are important to reduce emissions in addition to having a robust nuclear program, diminishing from them is going to cost political capital that will surely be needed to get this nuclear program past resistance on the left — some of whom are going to oppose it no matter what.
.
Clearly some compromises and horse-trades need to happen here, but I do have a few sacred cows. I have chips I’m willing to trade first if that gets a deal done, but I’d require big concessions from your side to make hamburger out of my free-range grass-fed Kobe beef if you catch my drift.
.
.
I don’t see a major fundamental difference between those two concepts other than the words to describe them. In practice, if the Feds “grant” 10% of total costs to a given project, what that really means is that they assume 10% of the risk of all projects. I’m essentially assuming that 1 out of 10 projects will fail, and the Feds will have to *eventually* pay out the full amount of the loan principle outstanding on whichever one of those ten projects has failed. It could be a lump sum payoff to save interest, or the payments could be doled out according to the terms of the original loan. Either way, they’re on the hook for on the order of $3 billion for one failed project.
.
Your way, if I’m understanding it correctly, puts about 2/3rds of the total amount on the Feds as the up-front capital leaving the remaining 1/3rd ostensibly to private funding. When a project fails, the Feds and the private lender essentially have to eat whatever principle balance remained at the time the project bellied up. In my view, that gives the Feds less flexibility, and also potentially makes the other 1/3 of the loan less attractive to the private sector.
.
So on second thought, maybe there is a fundamental difference here.
.
Regardless, I’m not suggesting that either the gummint or private lenders throw billions of greenbacks at a utility or energy conglomerate to do a nuke program without meeting well-defined publicly-available criteria. Nor does my (sketch of a) plan preclude any entity from availing themselves of the opportunity to participate if they demonstrably conform to those criteria.
.
.
Same for me. I’m enjoying our exchanges because they’re helping me think through various angles as well. Thank you.
.
———————
.
[1] Here I don’t mean just traditional investment banking concerns, venture capitalists, etc., but large corporations in the “traditional” energy business. Shale gas is already putting a serious dent in coal, and was even before Obama declared war on it. This program has potential to put a dent in the natural gas market, as well as petroleum. Exxon and BP are good examples of large energy conglomerates who are already diversifying. Public/private utilities haven’t previously been their thing to my knowledge, but I’d wager they’d recognize a good buck to be made when they see one. Rather than beat them into submission, I want to make it attractive for the fossil fuel industry to invest in developing/deploying alternatives. All but guaranteed returns on investment means something to people whose fiduciary duty it is to maximize shareholder value. From that perspective, it might not be such a strange play for a Big Oil company to take an equity stake in a growth utility industry. I’d like to encourage that; if not, I certainly don’t wish to discourage it either.
.
You know, the summer of 1969 was an ok year, how ’bout we stop there, instead?
.
Yes, uptake rate should ( in theory ) decay as concentration declines, but that’s not strictly what was mentioned above.
.
If uptake is a function of concentration, and emissions fall not to zero, but to that uptake rate, then the effective net zero emissions level is equal to the uptake rate, because concentrations would remain about constant.
“Third, we are going to need 400ppm CO2 for some time to prevent the ice age trigger in the event of an interruption in the AMOC, asteroid strike, super volcano or nuclear exchange.’
silly.
if you are worried about the risk of cold: chlorofluorocarbon
or try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorotributylamine
ron stop with the lame arguments
The uptake in 2014 was 2.5 ppm.
Were emissions in 2014 also at 2.5 ppm, the net atmospheric increase would have been what?
Brandon G
I hope you are joking. If not, common ground is far, far away.
We don’t need to diminish existing renewables. We just treat them like other existing electricity generating projects. That is: reduce the currently generous subsidies and tax them like other electricity generating projects.
So we should reduce incentives for solar– and good heavens– certianly biofuels! Reducing those will communicate that we really have realized that those solutions can’t do much to solve AGW– which is the truth. That is why we are promoting nuclear. Throwing money at things like biofuel is a waste and shouldn’t be done.
As for the far left greens who are going to oppose nukes no matter what: We can’t win them over, so we certainly shouldn’t try to tune the program to win them over. Just realize that the “Greenpeace” and “anti-gmo” camp aren’t going to support this.
Reducing wasteful “feel good” programs would get buy in from people who currently oppose those programs. And it would get political buy in from especially those who only want to take “no regrets” optoins to responding.
There is no need for special sweeteners for those on the left who already are for responding to AGW particularly if those sweeteners represent bitter herbs for those who will prefer to just do nothing. Because this program already gives them what they claim they want: reduced CO2.
Without sweeteners for the right will be difficult to get the program past the real resistance which is on the right.
TE,
Why don’t you read DeWitt’s comment and play around a bit with the Geocarb model. Set the transition CO2 spike to 300GtC and then set the simulation degassing rate to 188 x 10^{12}mol/yr (which I think is 2.5GtC/yr) and see what happens. You could also read this paper and look at Figure 1.
TE, I think we need better definitions. Perhaps I’ll try.
.
1) Fossil fuel emission: Just fossil fuel
2) Anthro-emissions: Fossil fuel, cattle CH4, other anthro
3) Organic-emissions: Veg decay, volcanic, other non-anthro
4) Gross emission: Organic + Anthro
.
Question 1
What happens with zero fossil fuel emissions but all else business as usual?
.
Question 2
Should we be working as much on carbon and methane fixing as on fossil fuel combustion? Should we be sealing paper towels in special sarcophagus landfills?
.
Evidently, not so much.
.
The uptake rate in 1960 was 0.5 ppm per year.
The uptake rate in 2014 was 2.5 ppm per year.
.
That’s a 500% increase while GMST has ostensibly increased.
.
Uptake is likely more a function of concentration ( consistent with the exponential decrease as DeWitt mentions ).
.
Henry’s law isn’t invalidated, it’s just that photosynthesis, the moving ocean, and the propensity of the polar regions to form near freezing waters also apply.
.
GEOCARB does not address the question at hand.
GEOCARB takes as input a spike, not continued emissions.
.
Increase = emissions – uptake
.
When emissions = uptake, then the increase is ZERO.
Brandon G/kch,
I’ll be out dancing tonight. (Salsa, Cha Cha Merengue night at the Willowbrook).
It’s fine for you two and others discuss how to fund the zero emissions program of your dreams. But it looks like the conversation on how to fund a program that matches the common ground Brandon G and I previously found has been dropped– or at least you two are not participating it it. Your proposals for funding and requirements appear to be insisting on achieving zero carbon emissions. That is a requirement that many here, including me, stated we did not buy into long ago– and many times. So it is not a criteria that should be used to design the funding program– or at least not the one that meets the commonly agreed need to build nuclear capacity.
As far as I am concerned any expenses or broad economic disincentives to fossil fuels used in ways having nothing to do with electricity generation required to meet your other goals but not required to meet the goal of building the agreed on number of nuclear plants don’t fit the common ground. So with respect participating, I’m going to wait until we return to the discussion of how to fund the nukes in a cost effective way without larding it up with requirements that I and many others here have rejected.
Discussion is permitted, so anyone who wants to join you is welcome. But I’ll be waiting until we return to the “common ground” topics. Until then “Cha, Cha, Cha”!
TE,
You keep saying this, but it is wrong. Unless we continually reduce emissions, the atmospheric concentration will continue to rise. It may be true that if we instantaneously halved our emissions, that the increase would be close to zero in the first year after we did so. After that, however, it would continue to rise if we kept emissions at that level of half what it is today. You can check this post. If you want atmospheric concentrations to flatline, you need to continually reduce emissions.
TE,
When I did that calculation, I had data on total carbon emissions, fossil, cement and land use, through 2005. That’s the source of that date. But the results would have been the same for any date. The uptake rate depends on the carbon emission history, not just the concentration difference between the baseline and now. And the baseline moves up over time with increased emissions.
If, say in year X, carbon emissions were Y GtC and the uptake rate was, in round numbers, 0.5Y, then if emissions were reduced to 0.5Y in year X+1 and following years, the uptake rate for year X+1 would not be equal to the uptake rate in year X, it would be less. The next year it would be less than that, etc.
But I suspect this discussion is pointless as you appear to have already made up your mind.
I’ve also discussed this with TE before and it had little effect, so – yes – I suspect it is pointless.
.
If you have a physical basis for that statement, I’d like to hear it.
.
Processes which take up CO2 don’t keep an invoice as to when the molecules first became available – they respond to the concentration.
Here’s a plot of the change in atmospheric CO2 in ppmv after a reduction in emissions of 50% at an initial concentration of 379ppmv (2005).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91578766/Delta%20pCO2.png
Note that it’s never zero or negative. How I did the calculation is described here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/where-has-all-the-carbon-gone/
TE,
When emissions = uptake, then the increase is ZERO.
You keep saying this, but it is wrong. Unless we continually reduce emissions, the atmospheric concentration will continue to rise. It may be true that if we instantaneously halved our emissions, that the increase would be close to zero in the first year after we did so.
.
No.
.
If uptake is a function of concentration, then uptake will remain constant as concentration remains constant.
TE,
Apparently you’ve never had to solve the diffusion equation if you don’t think previous history makes a difference. In electrochemistry, the rate of change of potential at the electrode surface makes a big difference unless you carefully arrange things.
TE,
And that’s your problem. The uptake rate is not simply directly proportional to concentration. If you hold concentration constant, the uptake rate decreases with time. That’s how diffusion works when the sink does not have infinite capacity and is not perfectly mixed.
.
You have not displayed any evidence or reason to support your contention. That statement assumes that uptake declines.
.
You and DeWitt rightly note the decline in uptake as the result of a pulse. The uptake rate declines as concentration declines because there is less CO2 to take up!.
.
But, consistent with that, and GeoCarb, is that uptake is a function of concentration. As such, if concentration were to remain constant, we would expect uptake to remain constant also. So, if emissions = uptake, no change in concentration would occur, and ( within unknowns ) neither would there be change in uptake.
.
Now, there’s noise an uncertainty. And the potential capacity for uptake is not infinite, but then neither is terrestrial carbon. And given the continued increase in the rate of uptake, there’s no indication we’ve reached any limit.
.
Perhaps we’ll get to put this to the test.
.
What we can say from the evidence is that uptake has increased fivefold in half a century and continues to increase without indication of saturation.
kch, your resposne to me seems mostly reasonable, though there’s really no way we’d get 450 new 1.2GW reactors built by 2040. Getting 100 built by them would be quite an accomplishment. Of course, if you got 100 of them built by them, you could have also laid the groundwork for expansion of the project (and even individual sites) so it’d be easier to make more in the future. And really, if you build small reactors (again, ~350GW) as stopgaps in a number of locations the transition could be managed in a much more smooth manner.
RB, just as a warning, it’s impossible to do a strict assessment of costs on regulations to the nuclear industry. The biggest problem of regulations isn’t some financial cost, but that they make building/expanding nuclear power plants impossible in some areas. Some states flat out ban it, and other states make it clear they’ll use taxation/zoning to make any such plan fail. There have been projects where even with the straight regulatory costs, a project could have been viable but wasn’t pursued because a state government would have just stopped it.
Anyway, I think I might excuse myself from this discussion. I can only read things like this:
So many times before I’m forced to conclude people don’t know the slightest thing about what they’re talking about. It’s an unfortunate conclusion, and it may well be wrong, but… come on! How many times can people here talk about a supposed need to build ~330 nuclear power plants before everyone acknowledges that is stupid? As kch wrote:
I don’t know if Brandon R. Gates knew from the start nuclear technology could not result in “zero emissions” and just chose to claim it would for some reason. I don’t know if he actually understands the difference between a requirement for nuclear power plants and a requirement for nuclear reactors yet chooses to repeatedly make comments conflating them.
What I do know is any plan like those being proposed would require looking at all sorts of not-simple issues, including the ever fun one of deregulation. And if people can’t even figure out the difference between a power plant and reactor or accurately describe the effect of their plans on carbon emissions, I can’t see a reason to expect them to be able to figure out the not mind-numbingly simple aspects of the topic.
lucia (Comment #148040),
.
.
I’m agnostic to whether the funds are earmarked or go into general funds. So long as funds for the nuke program have guaranteed availability to meet target deliveries, it does not matter to me how the Treasury does its accounting.
.
.
Indeed. Let’s also review something I’ve previously pointed out:
.
Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases less than 1%
.
Total is greater than 100.3% but skip it. Nuclear is 20%, so non-nuclear is 80%. Of that 80%, fossil fuel sources are ~83%, so for every dollar of non-nuke electricity tax, 83 cents of it is effectively a carbon tax. The attractive thing about your proposal is, in theory, as nukes gain penetration, the effective tax rate on unit power sold goes down.
.
A potential problem with your proposal is that the levelized cost of nuclear power is more expensive in absolute terms of per-unit power than either wind or natural gas by about 25%:
.
($/MWh)
47.8 Geothermal
72.6 NG [A] : Advanced Combined Cycle
73.6 Wind onshore
75.2 NG [A] : Conventional Combined Cycle
83.5 Hydro
95.1 Conventional Coal
95.2 Advanced Nuclear
100.2 NG [A] : Advanced CC with CCS
100.5 Biomass
113.5 NG [A] : Advanced Combustion Turbine
115.7 IGCC (Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle)
125.3 Solar PV
141.5 NG [A] : Conventional Combustion Turbine
144.4 IGCC with CCS
196.9 Wind offshore
239.7 Solar Thermal
.
Consumers don’t see LCOE of course, they see the market rate of the blend plus the utility’s markup. I can guesstimate the weighted average LCOE using the above figures:
.
85.00 Fossil-fuels
82.86 Renewables
———
84.65 Non-nuclear
———
95.20 Nuclear
====
87.01 Total ($/MWh)
.
Keeping in mind that the LCOE figures I’m using are for new construction coming online in 2020 and NOT the actual LCOE of plants currently producing, the target price of electricity if pegged to nuclear is $95.20/MWh plus the utilities’ markup. That implies a tax of 12.0% on FF-generated power, and 14.9% on renewables at the current mix to bring their prices to parity, which is ultimately what a “traditional” carbon tax is designed to do. A revenue carbon tax is most likely regressive, which Democrat pols aren’t going to love. Considering that many of them aren’t going to love nukes, there’s another problem. Considering that most Dems are going to hate the idea of taxing renewables to fund nukes, I’m thinking this dog isn’t going to hunt.
.
What I’ve taken to calling a hybrid carbon tax — some of it revenue-yielding, some of it revenue-neutral — might fly. Times I’ve brought it up on my side of the aisle it hasn’t garnered a response, however.
.
Other than that, my own scribblings to date don’t fully address the expense problem of nukes relative to other sources. In general I know what needs to happen is that we need to find a way to bring nuclear costs down and raise the costs of natural gas in particular. My preference is to emphasize cost reduction for nuclear because effectively setting price floors on a commodity by taxation doesn’t make a lot of economic sense to me — save for the fact that coal is undoubtedly more expensive because of externalities than its LCOE might suggest. It’s not clear to me that the case is the same for natural gas relative to nukes. Still, the political reality is that Democrat pols are likely to have that perception — and I don’t think we can ignore that in our calculus here.
.
It’s also worth noting that coal is already on the way out because even without factoring in external costs, natural gas is so cheap due to the shale boom that market forces are already driving investment away from coal-fired plants toward gas-fired ones.
.
.
Ideally, I don’t disagree. Pragmatically, the political process isn’t about finding optimal solutions, but ones which can be sold to the majority of both legislative houses and the executive branch. Let’s not forget state and local gummint bodies either. That’s always going to be a sausage factory, including no small amount of pork. As I see it, we basically need to find a sausage that we’re both willing to eat.
.
.
I’m generally concerned with risks that funds required to stay on schedule won’t be available in a timely fashion as needed. So the risk you propose is something I must consider.
.
On the flip side, what happens *when* the incoming revenues don’t meet demand for funds because, say, more than the expected amount of project troubles happen over the course of a given fiscal year?
.
I answer my own question: the Congrisscritters raid general funds and/or have The Fed print money. However the Treasury does its accounting and sourcing, my major requirement here is that by law they be required to honor Congressional oversight and administration and pay out what is needed to keep construction projects on track as much as is reasonably possible. Project either ends in 2040 on time and hopefully on budget, or goes as long as necessary to build out the predetermined additional capacity of ~330 new plants.
.
Every major Federal program more or less works this way as part of the annual budget process, from military spending to entitlement programs, subject to periodic review outside the budget process in many cases. Why this one should be any different is not clear to me. Changing how the Feds normally do business is a bit beyond the scope of what I was thinking we’d need to tackle.
.
.
That there looks to be a fundamental difference in how you and I look at taxes. This conversation will likely get pear-shaped in a hurry if we try to have that debate.
.
.
Your planned tax on electricity is already an increase in taxes we don’t have. That you would tax renewables doesn’t serve the goal of reducing AGW risks — even though windmills and solar panels don’t supply baseload power, they do supply power with far less total lifetime emissions than natural gas or coal.
.
So. One approach is what kch has been suggesting, The Fed debt-finances it with the understanding that whatever portion of a project they fund comes back 100% plus interest. Problem with that is that it doesn’t inherently take care of the issues of making nukes more cost-competitive.
.
Please keep in mind; I don’t really care how it gets done, though I would prefer a revenue tax to offset the Federal outlays. My main negotiating point in that case is that the tax isn’t applied to renewables directly or indirectly.
Brandon G.
The fund raised should not exceed the needs for getting the nuclear programas built. So, it’s best they be earmarked.
That’s not a problem. Wind is fossil– and we do wish to reduce emissions. Wind isn’t baseload.
Yes. I criticized your funding choice on the basis that it can’t be sold to the majority in legislative houses.
Of course it’s an increase in taxes. The tax one renewable serves the stated goal: follow the path of using nuclear to reduce AGW risks. In my view, having baseload is essential too. But mainly: my understanding agreed to nuclear as the common approach. Not other paths.
If other electricity generation happens to exist, that’s fine with me. But there is no need to promote something that cannot also act as baseload.
Are you open to eliminating incentives for renewables?
By the way, this idea:
May be my breaking point. Please, nobody ever repeat this idea.
Or maybe you should. I think I could make a drinking game out of the crazy things that get said in this discussions.
TE,
Where do you get a five fold increase in uptake in 50 years? My calculations show, using a linear fit to year over year monthly ppmv CO2 increases at Muana Loa to smooth the noise, that Δppmv/year was 0.75 with total emissions of 3.62GtC in 1956 while in 2005 it was 2.04 and 9.44. That’s an uptake rate of 2.0GtC/year in 1956 and 5.1GtC/year in 2005. That ratio is not going to change much if you took 1966-2015 data.
lucia (Comment #148068)
.
.
I am not joking. It’s one way central banks (attempt to) control money supply.
.
.
Noted. See again, I’m mostly agnostic to how the funding happens, so long as it happens and is guaranteed by law. In a brainstorming session, I’m going to toss ideas into the mix for discussion.
.
.
Taxing their electricity output would tend to do that, Lucia. So would pulling their subsidies.
.
.
I don’t agree. Adding that as a rider to this deal will tend to get us away from common ground.
.
.
I see it that way, but I’m not most partisans.
.
.
Strictly talking about nukes, the main resistance is on the left. That’s by the numbers looking at public opinion polls. I know this plan is going to require some sugar (not saccharine) for the right, thus far your proposals have been at the expense of things the left isn’t going to love — indeed, things that *I* don’t love. So I would suggest thinking about something else.
.
What would work for me, but might not work for others on the left, is brokering a deal to end the investigations against Exxon et al. along the lines of “they knew about AGW in 1981 and lied to the public about it”. Something which has gone missed here and other places on your side everytime I talk about that is I don’t think it sets a good precedent, and don’t seeing anyone “winning” in the end.
.
Another one I’ve talked about with those on my side of the aisle is making it worth Big Oil’s while to transition to renewable liquid fuels sooner than later. So pulling R&D monies and incentives away from biofuels [1] is counterproductive to that. In my mind, so was blocking Keystone XL — I think that could have instead been used as a bargaining chit. Instead, it spent political capital in the near term which only purchased a delay in oil sand production in Canada until the point that it becomes market competitive without the pipeline.
.
I’m about at my wit’s end with short-sighted winner-takes-all politics in Washington. That hopefully gets better if we citizens stop playing the same game.
.
———————
.
[1] Just so there’s no misunderstanding, let me again repeat for the record that intoxicating the surface fleet with moonshine from corn mash is NOT what I mean by biofuels. I’ve not mentioned before, but neither is biodiesel from soybeans. The technology which holds the best promise in my view is fuels derived from cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) or similar critters. We’re presently a long way off from those fuels becoming competitive, I believe we’re closer to parity with nuclear, so putting an emphasis on nuclear *deployment* now until 2040 makes the most sense to me. That buys time for R&D on emerging and promising, but not currently competitive, alternative energy sources for which nukes are NOT an easy drop-in solution.
Brandon Gates,
Biomass as a source of energy is always going to be marginal, IMO. Photosynthesis is just too inefficient. In the tropics, sugar cane based ethanol may be economic, but it won’t be enough. Cyanobacteria probably won’t change that either. Up until the late nineteenth century, biomass, like wood and whale oil was about all we had. We nearly exterminated whales and deforested vast swathes of land. And the population was a lot lower then.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #148091),
.
.
With all the gene-tinkering we’ve developed in the past two decades, I’m not so pessimistic. The main thing I’m interested in getting cyanobacteria to do is produce more lipids per unit solar energy consumed than they’ve already naturally evolved to do. That research is presently ongoing, some of it funded by private venture capital. Yes, that’s going to be more expensive than oil extracted from the ground for the foreseeable future, but that stuff in the ground came from photosynthesis as well.
.
The upside to oils extracted from cultured algae is that they can be fed to existing refineries with little change to infrastructure or current processes, yielding up functionally equivalent products for internal combustion in both surface and airborne transport. We also don’t need to wait millions of years for the heat and pressure deep in the planet’s crust to do their thing. And the feedstock itself doesn’t contain the attendant contaminants like sulfur, or carcinogenic compounds like many of the aromatic hydrocarbons are.
.
.
Cane ethanol works great for Brazil … at the expense of its rainforests. Algae bioreactors have a smaller land footprint, are more efficient about water use … they’re expensive to build and maintain. However, economies of scale can do wonders. Automobiles used to be out of reach of the average US consumer as well. One hand really did wash the other in that respect — isn’t it true that what we now call gasoline was somewhat a waste product initially because the heavier oils were the most-demanded products? I answer my rhetorical question: yes, I believe that was the case.
.
.
Sure. And as those resources became more scarce, the price went up. Thus crude oil extraction and processing became economically viable. The nice thing about cynanobacteria is that they can be grown year round, and have a much shorter growth cycle. They don’t compete with human food supply like corn, sugar beets, sugar cane and soybeans for fuel do. And they make suitable feedstoks for meat and dairy animals.
.
One thing I do know for sure: newer, (hopefully) kinder technologies don’t get developed so long as everyone is saying it’s impossible to make them work.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148087),
.
.
I thought it was obvious that “printing money” indicated a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek. The Fed doesn’t actually print cash of course, but it does buy or sell gummint securites like T-Bills on a *daily* basis according to the guidelines of the current monetary policy set eight times a year by its directors. [1]
.
Basically, whenever the US markets are trading, you should be drinking. It might improve your outlook — the real world still won’t work like you want it to, but it may not bug you as much.
.
———————
.
[1] They say they do this anonymously, but on Wall St., “anonymous” really means “shit that small investors don’t know about”. I’m not without my own paranoias donchaknow.
Lucia –
(Sorry for the delay in reply, been a crazy day)
.
Comment #148047
Points taken, especially on my not being on the accepted common ground. I’ll try not to sidetrack as much…
Still, I personally am not convinced that your tax-and-subsidize is a viable approach. The directed taxes you mention as examples are by and large at the local or state level. Much more direct public participation to keep them on course. My impression is that at a federal level directed taxes are much more likely to founder. YMMV.
My overall goal is the same as yours: build more nukes. I want a robust building program for reasons other than just CO2 reduction. While generally disliking taxes and big government, I’m willing to co-opt the greens to help with this push. Aside from this specific purpose, I’d oppose carbon taxes.
.
Comment #148073
Please. I am definitely *not* talking about zero emissions. I thought I had been clear on that, but if not: I do not believe that zero emissions is in any way possible, nor do I think is is desirable. Great reduction, yes, zero? No way. (OTOH, coatracking on to other’s concerns about such to get my goals (more nukes) in place is fair game, I believe…)
.
[And by the way, your cha cha sounds like a whole lot more fun than my day…I hope you took full advantage and enjoyed it. 🙂 ]
Brandon Shollenberger-
Comment #148084
“…mostly reasonable…” Well, that’s better than I expected, so I’ll take what I get. 🙂
Yes, it is almost certainly too much to look for 450 reactors by 2040, but I was trying to see what was needed to get to what I understood to be Brandon G’s target. More of a thought exercise than a reality, but useful (to me) for framing the problem.
.
In relation to the issue of regulation, I had a conversation today with a friend of my son who spent the summer two years ago as an engineering intern at New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Plant. He told me that when it opened in the 1980’s it required an operating staff of 200. It now requires an operating staff of 800, with the increase being almost completely in the administrative end dealing with the ever-expanding paperwork related to ever-expanding regulations. Anecdotal, I know, but does seem to fall in the range of what most of us here are assuming.
.
Comment #148087
I knew I should have put a smiley face after my part of that…
Brandon R. Gates-
Comment #148064
“…the Feds could “borrow†the money by printing more T-Bills and lend it out at a higher rate. Pretty standard practice, innit? Might not have to raise taxes at all, might actually generate some revenues if the rate at which the loans go bad is low enough.”
I really hope this wasn’t serious. If so, I’ll be joining Brandon S. and Lucia in expressing horror at the thought.
.
As for the rest of the post, I’ll have to sleep on a reply – definitely past my bed time now…
lucia (Comment #148086),
.
.
I’m ok with earmarking funds … that’s what I mean by *guaranteeing* payouts as required to stay on the production schedule. If you want revenue collection to exactly match outlays, it’s going to require near-constant tweaking of the tax rate on at least an annual if not quarterly basis. Demand for funds is going to fluctuate. If tax rates are held constant, so will the revenue stream.
.
.
Whaaaaaat?
.
* Based on the studies examined, wind energy emits an average of 34.11 grams of CO2 per kWh over its lifetime, with a low estimate of 0.4 grams and a high estimate of 364.8 grams. The mean value for solar PV is 49.91 grams of CO2 per kWh, with a low estimate of 1 gram and a high estimate of 218 grams. The large ranges in the estimates were due to factors such as resource inputs, technology, location, sizing and capacity and longevity, as well different calculation methods used by source studies.
.
* The sources of energy used to manufacture components can be critical: “The same manufacturing process in Germany would result in less than half of the total emissions that such a process would entail in China. This was primarily due to China’s significantly greater dependence on black coal for electricity production in comparison with Germany’s much greater reliance on natural gas and nuclear power.†(The same issue plays into the lifetime emissions of electric cars.)
.
* The “material cultivation and fabrication stage†of renewable-energy facilities was responsible for the greatest proportion of emissions — just over 71% for both solar PV and wind. Facility construction and related transportation were responsible for 24% of wind’s lifetime CO2 emissions and 19% for solar PV, while operation contributed 19.4% of wind farms’ lifetime emissions and 13% for solar.
.
Converting these estimates to g/kWh:
.
939 Bituminous
980 Subbituminous
984 Lignite
553 Natural gas
744 Distillate oil (No. 2)
798 Residual oil (No. 6)
.
So even the high-end estimates for wind and solar PV stack up well against the lowest emitter, natural gas.
.
.
So I’ve noted many times. I’m sort of prevailing on folk to figure out that for every windmill generating power at any given moment, there’s a gas-fired load-following plant somewhere not running at full capacity. Same goes for solar, with the additional quirk of solar that its peak production often coincides with peak summer demand due to air conditioning. Sucks in the winter time in a lot of places. It’s really good year-round in others.
.
.
And I’ve said several times that I’m *mostly* agnostic to how it gets funded, only that it does.
.
.
Which is a no-sale for at least two reasons:
.
1) Congressional Dems are less likely to go for it because their constituents would pitch a shit-fit.
.
2) Wind and solar reduce AGW risks.
.
.
No argument here, that’s one of my central reasons for supporting nukes in the first place — wind/solar with storage is not a mature technology, and likely to be more expensive than mature nuclear technologies which are shovel-ready.
.
.
I understand. Early on I suggested that other things could be part of the mix, but I have not said they must be. So if additional funds raised by a tax can only go to nuclear power under our deal, I agree to that stipulation.
.
.
Good to know.
.
.
I don’t think that’s the case, see above. I’ll tack onto that that the deployment cycle for wind and solar projects is more rapid, and much freer of regulatory requirements than nukes. In essence, it’s easier to attract private capital to them because the risk of failure is much lower. Intermittence becomes a problem when penetration reaches about 20% of total grid capacity. Much more than that, and storage and/or major modifications to the grid to allow for faster load balancing becomes an issue. I don’t want to go there any time in the near future, and if nukes are providing the baseload, I see little reason to. We keep the newer gas plants around to handle load following and redundancy after 2040, and perhaps “mothball” some of the others in case something terrible happens to a large nuclear installation or a big wind/solar farm, etc.
.
Anywho, continuing to ramp wind and solar is one of my selling points to the left. As it stands now, we’re not talking about breaking ground on nukes in volume until 2020. It will be 2030 until the first round of those starts comes online. The left aren’t going to be content to put off aggressive mitigation efforts for 14 years.
.
.
I’d be open to *reducing* subsides for things IF you are willing to give me 1 for 1 reductions in fossil fuel subsidies. So, ramping down a wind subsidy and a FF subsidy one-for-one would be a no-brainer. By ramp-down, I mean something like phasing out to zero by 2020, at which point those funds go toward the nuke program. There might be enough money in that trade that we wouldn’t need to raise taxes, at least not in the first stages of the nuke program. EVs and batteries would probably be the next one I’d be willing to dial back. Solar would be a difficult concession for me, and biofuels — by which I mean non-corn/soybean fuels — I won’t give up.
Sorry, meant gas is fossil. Wind is not baseload. Not sure how words got left out.
By the way: it’s pointless to repeat the mantra “X reduce AGW risks”. That’s not sufficient for me to support them. We spent time discussing the common ground. We have one: nukes.
Attempts at scope-creep or goal-creep when we’ve discussing raising funds and getting a budget is counter productive. If you’ve realized that you are unhappy with the negotiated common ground want to step back and return to finding common ground, we can step away from discussing budget and raising revenue and go back to discussing whether or not we’ve found common ground.
It sounds like you are advancing an awful lot of arguments that relate to what the common ground should be. I’m not going to address those now that we’ve supposedly moved onto budget. Either we have common ground or we don’t. If we do we don’t need to discuss the goal. If we don’t have a common ground goal, we shouldn’t be discussing how to raise funds to achieve the goal.
Hansen.
.
By that data,
From 1956 to 2005, the uptake rate increased by 250%.
From 1960 to 2014, the uptake rate increased by 500%.
.
Both indicate increases, and the two are not inconsistent, though the smoothed data from Columbia are less volatile.
.
BTW, 2015 was an El Nino, and just like El Ninos past, the uptake appears to have decreased. There doesn’t seem to be a good understanding of why CO2 increases more in El Ninos, but the 1987 and 1997 events ( and others ) appear to be consistent. But La Nina is on the way.
kch (Comment #148097),
.
.
The “printing money” component was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Other than that, not so much. When you say that you’d be willing to have the Feds loan out on the order of 66 percent of construction costs, The Fed is ultimately going to cover that outlay by selling a government security on the open market. The advantage is that a reserve member bank is surely going to be able to make that loan at a lower rate than a private commercial bank would. Some would argue that money gets “printed” as it winds its way through the fractional reserve system as a normal course of business anyway. Unless I’ve misunderstood, what you’re proposing is skipping a step or two.
.
For some perspective, $50 billion is 1.2% of securities The Fed holds outright. We’re talking about a 20 year plan with 40 year loans yes? So ignoring inflation, at peak the outlays would be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion, just under a quarter of the $4.2 trillion of the Fed’s securities owned outright. Assuming 10% of projects go bad, that’s 2.5% for a worst-case scenario.
.
Doesn’t sound like a disaster to me, but I imagine that *additionally* exposing a central bank to that kind of loss might cause some beancounters’ hearts to skip a few beats.
.
Maybe doing something like a Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae thing makes sense. The debts under this program get securitized and sold in public exchanges. Then anyone who wants to can buy that paper, including small fry like me, and that allows private capital to make the nuclear play in a big way without having to do the due diligence or otherwise service a bunch of loans.
lucia (Comment #148099),
.
.
lol, ok that makes more sense. I was beginning to think you’d had one too many margaritas with your salsa and cha cha.
.
Hope you had fun, btw. I can only tap dance.
.
.
In a similar vein, it’s pointless to repeat that wind and solar are intermittent power sources — that’s not sufficient to get me to NOT support them. Nukes IS our common ground, the only reason I’m talking to *you* about wind, solar, EVs and biofuels is because you want to shift funds away from them to fund nukes. Drop that bargaining chit from the mix between you and I and I’m quite happy to not talk about them with you.
.
.
Agreed. See above: take ending subsidies for other renewables off the table, and I’m done discussing them with you.
.
.
I’m fine with the common ground of building nukes, I’m not fine with all your suggestions for how to pay for it. Context-shifting my words is not a productive negotiation technique.
.
.
It sounds like to me that you’re not reading what I’m saying. So. Read my lips; no new taxes or funding diversion for wind, solar, EVs, batteries, biofuels or anything else non-nuclear under the terms of this deal.
.
I reserve the right to talk about the “forbidden” technologies with others IF they bring them up with me. That has no bearing on the deal I’m attempting to reach with you. Thanks.
Brandon R. Gates:
Just to be clear, my reaction was because you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. This entire discussion has always made me think of listening to a bunch of stoners talk about quantum mechanics, but that particularly remark of yours just made me think of what it’s been like to talk to Donald Trump supporters.
That… isn’t true.
Neither is this. Well, this is actually kind of close to true if we interpret your phrasing literally, but I’d like to think nobody here is actually foolish enough to take the “securities the Fed holds outright” as being a remotely relevant value. It isn’t. And the actual value that would be relevant doesn’t get you close to 1.2%.
I’m not sure if my liver is going to kill me tonight or my head is going to kill me tomorrow. Either way, the laughter you are causing me is well worth it. Please don’t stop. I thought the numbers behind your claim we’d need 330 new nuclear power plants were bad enough, but these ones take the cake.
kch:
Thought experiments are fine, but remember, Brandon R. Gates is advocating for a plan of action. To him, this isn’t just some idle discussion of hypotheticals. When you respond to him, it’s going to be easy for people to think you’re responding on the same level.
I’m afraid he was serious. I suspect he has little idea what that’d mean. My suspicion is encouraged by the numbers he gives, which aren’t close to being the right ones. Seemingly ever.
Anyway, to try to contribute a little bit, here’s a fun hypothetical to consider. Where would you recommend placing the first reactors under these plans? I’m not talking about exact locations (though we could probably pick out a couple). Just a general idea of what portion of what state(s) do you think should be the first choices?
That’s a topic I’d enjoy discussing. And if you want a plan like this to be taken seriously, it’s one you need to have a firm grasp on. Especially if you’re going to insist the initial sites be hyper standardized.
Brandon R Gates –
Comment #148101
“…The Fed is ultimately going to cover that outlay by selling a government security on the open market. The advantage is that a reserve member bank is surely going to be able to make that loan at a lower rate than a private commercial bank would. Some would argue that money gets “printed†as it winds its way through the fractional reserve system as a normal course of business anyway. Unless I’ve misunderstood, what you’re proposing is skipping a step or two.”
Hmmm…yes, I did something different in mind. I’d propose to make the funds available directly from general revenue, not through any sort of debt-based financing. A little more pain up front, but that way the government builds an asset, not a liability. It’s why I keep coming back to the 40-50 billion as a very small percentage of the annual budget. (Aside: In general, I am *very* opposed to deficit financing on the part of government.)
Then again, I’m not an economist, so probably have it all wrong anyway. *shrug*
Brandon G
OK. So it appears to me we need to revisit what is common ground. My approach is to reduce the emissions with nukes. By that I meant we reduce emissions with nukes. I thought we had decided this as common ground.
But your understanding appears to be something else. Perhaps if we had cleared that up before moving on to budget we wouldn’t be where we are. So I think we need to go back to discussing what is common ground.
Brandon Shollenberger –
“When you respond to him, it’s going to be easy for people to think you’re responding on the same level.”
Point taken. I do, however, find the discussion is helping me, and I don’t think he’s winning converts to his plan of action. So still a positive – for me, anyway. (In particular the slagging I got from Lucia has made me re-examine some ideas as to practicality of implementing a nuclear push program. Short answer: nice to talk/think about, isn’t gonna happen til we’re hip deep in the ocean.)
.
“…here’s a fun hypothetical to consider. Where would you recommend placing the first reactors under these plans?”
Damned if I know – as of now – where I’d put them. I would *like* them to go to places needing replacement of aging plants, as that kind of on-going replacement makes more sense to me than wasting already useful infrastructure. I’m generally a free-market guy, so what I’d prefer is to put up a number of low cost loans per year, combined with disincentives for constructing high CO2-emission power sources and let the market and utilities sort out the best locations and sizes/designs. Pretty nebulous, I admit, but this isn’t my field, and this is just a first step toward formulating a policy. As with the funding, I fully expect to go wrong at this level of thinking (and am actually looking for correction for the stupider ideas).
.
“Especially if you’re going to insist the initial sites be hyper standardized.”
Um, no. That’s Brandon Gates. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do believe that cost pressures should lead to some level of standardization, and that it should be encouraged (the more standardized the proposal, the more points on a competition to win a load? I don’t know…) I also firmly believe that hyper-standardization slows innovation, not to mention smacking of governmental central planning, which I abhor. I do however think that off-the-shelf is usually a better policy than bleeding edge.
kch:
Deficit financing of a long-term project is stupid. There are no other words for it. I know Brandon R. Gates says your scenario means the “Fed is ultimately going to cover that outlay by selling a government security on the open market,” but not only is that not true as a rule, it’s also not true on a practical level. You’d never be able to get Congress to sign onto this sort of plan if you required it all be financed through deficit spending.
I’m not worried he might win any converts (I can’t imagine how he would), but much of this discussion has left me wondering if anyone participating in it has the slightest idea what they’re talking about. And this is coming from a person who will freely admit to knowing only the basics of the subject. It’s great if it helps you guys learn, but I hope you are all aware there is an enormous gulf between any discussion going on here and any actual plan or policy. And by “enormous gulf,” I mean this discussion might as well be taking place on a different planet for all the practical purpose these plans could serve..
I agree this is a useful approach, though more broadly, one should also look at what areas will have demand levels that could support new plants. Those demand levels could come from older plants/reactors going offline or a natural growth in demand. And “demand” can be misleading as really, it’s not about what is needed, but what is economical. There are areas that don’t need more power but could get power cheaper if it were generated in a location closer by.
The point of my question is to try to get some attention drawn to the actual practicalities of a policy like this. Even if you don’t know much about the specifics, you should understand how the pieces of a policy like this would fit together. If you don’t, you’ll come up with a great sounding plan that could solve everything if only the world would change to fit how you think it should work.
Brandon S: ” Just a general idea of what portion of what state(s) do you think should be the first choices?”
I would put them close to the neighborhoods where Obama, Gina McCarthy, Shukla, Michael Mann, the Clintons and the New York Attorney General live.
JD
TE,
The Hansen graph ignores emission from land use/land cover changes, which are not trivial. His uptake rate and emissions in 1960 are therefore too low by a lot. According to his graph, emissions in 1960 were ~1.2ppmv/year * 2.13GtC/ppmv or ~2.6GtC total emitted. That’s correct for only fossil fuel. But total carbon emissions for 1960 were ~4GtC because land use/land cover contributed 1.4GtC.
The data you reference are incomplete so a 500% increase in uptake rate is also wrong. What you’re seeing is that an apparently faster increase in uptake rate is caused by fossil carbon emissions increasing as a percentage of the total. Land use/land cover emissions aren’t increasing. Fossil carbon in 1960 was ~65% of total carbon emissions. In 2005, it was ~85% of the total.
This has been pointed out to TE before.
ATTP,
Thanks. I officially give up now.
DeWitt,
In case you’re interested, it happened here.
Including the RCP land use estimates doesn’t change the relationship very much – the increasing trend of CO2 uptake is about the same either way, especially since 1960.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/data/20THCENTURY_EMISSIONS.DAT
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/data/20THCENTURY_MIDYEAR_CONCENTRATIONS.DAT
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
lucia (Comment #148107),
.
.
Read it again:
.
Read my lips; no new taxes or funding diversion for wind, solar, EVs, batteries, biofuels or anything else non-nuclear under the terms of this deal.
Brandon G,
I read what you told me to read a gain. And based on that
There is nothing about those other things that constitutes “building nukes”. But you have added the extra requirement that we must protect their current incentives. That is not the common ground we thought we had built. The common ground is to build the nukes.
If you are going to put hurdles in the way of raising funds to build those and ruling out options for raising funds. So: it turns out “build nukes” is not common ground. You have extra requirements.
We can go back to trying to find common ground. Or realize we don’t have it because I want to address the need by building nukes, and to prioritize that. I want to make finding funding for those the priority. You have other priorities that you don’t want to drop to build the nukes.
kch (Comment #148108),
.
.
We agree.
.
.
Ditto.
.
I understand that my initial proposal for sameness right down to every knob and dial sounds like hyper-standardization; however, that might be a hyper-extension of what I was suggesting. My intent was NOT to limit innovation, but rather insure that each round of mass deployments run with as low a failure/delay rate than might otherwise be possible if every plant built had an historical degree of customization.
.
Four of the five reactors under construction in the US at present are a bleeding-edge Gen III+ Westinghouse design called the AP1000:
.
.
From the same article, a few interesting notes about these projects:
.
.
I think there’s much to love here. The fabrication delay hiccups are to be expected for a first execution of a particular design. I’m imagining the potential benefits for cost savings and quality control if fabricators were awarded contracts to produce a set number of components on a defined delivery schedule.
.
Going with this particular design for the initial phase of the 330 project might be the better option than my original calls for a Gen II or II+ design.
lucia (Comment #148121),
.
.
They. Are. Off. The. Table.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148110),
.
.
I’m completely ok raising funds by way of a taxation scheme. I also suggested opening it up to more efficient private funding by way of securitizing construction loans on the open market so that both large and small investors could contribute the actual capital. All that need be funded at that point are the outlays to honor things like loan defaults and lawsuit insurance.
kch (Comment #148106),
.
.
Unless tax revenues are increased or some other budget item is decreased, debt funding would be the default option. I thought debt funding is what you were talking about because you made it abundantly clear that outlays would be expected to be paid back in full. Under that scheme, we’d need to decide how to handle loan defaults for failed projects.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148103),
.
.
Thus we see a potential motive for reserving wisdom. Note the indefinite article in the previous sentence.
Brandon Gates
Then, as I said, we need to go back to finding common ground. You previously seemed to be of the opinion we should not discuss funding until we’d found common ground. If you do believe we need to find common ground before discussing funding, this funding discussion is premature.
I’m happy to wait until we go back to identifying whether there is common ground before resuming the funding discussion. Meanwhile, I will continue to support projects to concentrate on building nukes. You may, of course, pursue other proposals which I may oppose because they prioritize these other things over building of nuclear plants.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt
.
.
We might have fun haggling over whether a statutory 330 nukes plan would be treated as an on-budget or off-budget deficit item.
lucia (Comment #148129),
.
.
Nukes are not off the table.
I didn’t say nukes were off the table.
But it’s clear you refuse to prioritize nukes over other things and are sacrificing nukes to these other priorities of yours. In fact, it looks like you wish to hold funding for nukes hostage to your getting or maintaining funding for these other things. That is not the common ground.
So: We need to visit common ground to discuss whether nukes are a priority over other things. If the situation is you will only tolerate nukes if these other things you prioritize get funded, then we don’t have common ground.
lucia (Comment #148132),
.
.
Clearly. That is our common ground.
.
.
See my previous comment #148098 in response to you. I wouldn’t support near term deployment of intermittent renewable power sources exceeding 20% of capacity under any plan. That leaves up to 80% devoted to nuclear power. The 330+ nuke plants I’m calling for would provide 86% of present capacity according to these figures:
.
Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases less than 1%
.
I fail to understand how proposing ~80% capacity by nukes constitutes a “sacrifice” to other priorities.
You said quite a few other things too. Like
(Comment #148120)
and
Are you saying you would agree to either “new taxes or funding diversion for wind, solar, EV, batteries, biofuels to fund the nukes”? Or are you saying you would not agree to said taxes or diversions?
Because if you would not, then you are prioritizing these other things over nuclear. “6+1.6+.6+4.7+7” already puts renewables at 20% which means we don’t need continued incentives to create these. So insisting that we can’t reduce the incentives for renewables means you would hold nuclear hostage to funding things that — supposedly– you don’t intend to grow. The funds spent on those would not be availale to nuke and so would impede deployment of nuclear for things that are not nuclear.
And worse: those things– which are already at the 20% percent level you seem to suggest is the level you want– are not even “the common ground”.
If taxing them or removing incentives to grow renewables is of your table that means you are refusing to spend that money on the technology which is the common ground: nukes.
That means we need to go back and figure out if there is common ground. Because if you wan’t shift some of the money from them nuclear is not your priority; these other things are.
I want to build the nukes. I don’t want the nukes to be held hostage for these other projects. But if you want to hold them hostage– say so. Then we just recognize we don’t have common ground.
lucia (Comment #148134),
.
.
I’m saying that the only deal I’m attempting to strike with you is for nuclear power because that is our common ground. That means that nothing else gets funded under the nuclear deal. My goal for doing this deal is to have nuclear power replace what is currently being generated by natural gas and coal by 2040, which at present works out to 86% of total capacity. Thus, nuclear energy is my overall primary priority.
.
.
I’m not required to agree to all proposals in a negotiation, Lucia. I’ve already counter-offered that one: I’m willing to ramp down wind subsidies by 2020 in exchange for a dollar for dollar ramp down of fossil energy subsidies on the same schedule, the proceeds to go toward funding the nuclear program.
.
Your options are to take it, leave it or propose something different.
I can’t tell if Brandon R. Gates is intentionally trolling me at this point or if he really doesn’t get what’s wrong with the things he says.
Brandon G
No one said you need to accept all proposals.
But you only say “wind” above. There is money is money in renewables and wind is not the only renewable. Are you willing to ramp down funding for ‘solar, EV, batteries, biofuels’?
As you know, taxing fossil fuels was in my proposed plan. But money has to come from some place and I’m for taxing everything non-nuclear. Because those things are not nuclear and the plan is to promote nuclear.
I already have proposed something different. For now, I’m still proposing
(a) greatly reducing incentives for renewables to shift to building of nuclear.
(b) taxing all non-nuclear electricity generation– this hits fossil fuels heavily.
(c) earmarking funds from the tax to build out nuclear.
(d) work on reducing regulations.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148136)
.
.
Since that comment was directed at Lucia, it’s a fair bet that my intentions have nothing to do with you.
lucia (Comment #148137),
.
.
Nobody but you said I’m holding the nuclear deal hostage either.
.
.
Because, as I previously explained, it’s already at parity with natural gas.
.
.
I’m willing to ramp down subsides and quotas for corn ethanol fuel additives/replacements and soybean biodiesel. The others not so much for reasons I have already explained in comments #148098 and #147972.
.
.
Yes, I remember.
.
.
Only between 5 and 10% of the upfront capital costs, the rest is intended to come from private investment. That’s what, between 2.5 and 5 billion dollars per year. Here’s one estimate of fossil fuel subsidies:
.
In total, the United States government has identified eleven Federal fossil fuel production tax provisions, as shown below. Combined, these provisions total USD 4.7 billion in annual revenue cost (nominal annual average figure based on the 10-year revenue estimate).
.
The wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is good for about 2 billion per year.
.
So at most I would need to come up with another $500 million/yr. Shouldn’t be that hard for me to dig it out of a biofuel crop subsidy/incentive I do NOT care about. OTOH, since the PTC is based on power produced by definition, and because wind power is already projected to nearly double by 2020 and almost quadruple by 2030, I probably don’t need to give it up entirely much less raid other programs to fund the nuclear goal.
.
.
As a way of reducing CO2 emissions. As I’ve already explained, the nuclear program would be more saleable to the left if its funding didn’t come at the expense of other programs designed to also reduce emissions, thus giving it a better chance of succeeding.
This thread is beginning to make me question the judgement of John C. Reilly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju5CFKnmEIY
angech (Comment #147885)
Pushing all the buttons trying to get banned so you can boast how brave you are.
Such a shame.
Half intelligent.
But totally bent.
You would get so much better and intelligent conversation here if you wished to try.
Brandon S might agree with me this is the right thread now
Earle, I’d say try not to assume nefariousness when incompetence is an alternative possibility, but Brandon R. Gates has openly admitted to behaving in a nefarious manner. At that point, is it worse to attribute his nonsensical remarks to being an idiot or to behaving in a… less than honest manner? I don’t know. I know I’d rather be viewed as a liar than an idiot, but I think others might feel differently. And just to review:
At least we can confirm he has no idea what he’s talking about. Or at least, he has no ability to discuss it in a competent manner. You can only make the same mistakes so many times before all you deserve is scorn and mockery.
angech, he does seem to like to paint himself in a heroic light, standing up to all sorts of malicious behavior. That’s not a good sign. Even if people did all the horrible things he accuses them of (they don’t), painting this sort of thing as a crusade seems unhealthy. But then, persecution complexes seem fairly common amongst people who rail against “skeptics.” And amongst “skeptics.” There’s probably some insight one could draw from that.
Brandon G.
And you accused me of using discussion of finding funding as a “bargaining chit” and did so earlier which amounts to the same thing. And you did so a good deal earlier.
So if you perceive this sort of language as suggesting pressure to force the other to accept your proposal, then you’ve been doing it.
I still favor my program. It’s cleaner and simpler. Beyond that: I know what it is. And as far as I can tell it addresses:
1) raising the money which is the main thing.
2) is earmarked to nuclear.
3) hits fossil in the pocket much more than renewables. That would seem to address your need for hitting things equally dollar for dollar.
It also happens to raise money from electrical generation for electrical generation. I find that a useful feature. The program is direct,accountable and simple.
Pointless subsidies programs should be eliminated whether or not we build a nuclear program. Here’s the beginning of wikipedia’s synopsis on fuel subsidies
The do address so of the other “estimates” and comment However, many of the “subsidies” available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above).
I really doubt you are going to get rid of the “foreign tax credit”, which is merely a credit for taxes to other countries. People rarely consider writing off their state taxes on their federal tax form a “subsidy”. Inflating the estimate of “fossil fuel” subsidises by calling that one isn’t going to help us find money to pay for the nuclear plants because we aren’t going to suddenly revise the tax code to take away that tax — which is available not only to businesses, but to people who happen to live or invest abroad.
My tax is simpler and spreads the burden.
By the way, people may have noticed some time back I said, “Leaving aside that fossil fuel subsidies aren’t really that much of a thing.” I phrased it that way because at the time it didn’t seem worth spending time on, but I wanted to point out people constantly say all sorts of nonsense about this topic. Now, since Brandon R. Gates has provided a specific link with specific figures, I’d like to take a moment to show what I’m talking about. He wrote:
The third largest item identified as a “fossil fuel subsis[y]” is given as, “Domestic manufacturing deduction for fossil fuels.” In the column titled, “Fossil Fuel Targeted,” Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Lagnite and Oil Shale are listed. However, the description of this “fossil fuel subsid[y]” explicitly says:
The Analysis column clearly explains:
This deduction makes up $1.25 billion of the $4.7 billion “fossil fuel subsidies” quoted by Brandon R. Gates. As the document he cites makes clear, it is a deduction available to all sorts of industries, not one targeted at fossil fuels (even though it also specifically says fossil fuels are targeted). Despite that, it gets included in the budget for “fossil fuel subsidies.”
That sort of accounting trick is rampant in discussions of fossil fuel subsidies. So are others. This is just the simplest and easier to spot. You can find “credible estimates” placing fossil fuel subsidies as high as $52 billion a year because they use all sorts of BS to inflate the numbers. Incidentally, while Gates writes:
As a matter of information, there isn’t a “wind Production Tax Credit,” but rather, Production Tax Credits for something like a dozen different renewables (with differing rates depending on the technology). If you’re going to bring up PTCs for one technology as a potential place to make cuts, it’d seem worth looking at the other PTCs as well.
However, it’s pretty lame target for finding money as PTCs are slated to end in 2019. 2016 is the last year to get them for some technologies, and it is the last year to get them at full value for wind power (2019 being the last year to get any PTCs). It is possible the program will be extended again, so it isn’t completely unreasonable to look at this as a target for cuts. It’s just lame to take a program on the chopping block and say it could be the source of your funding. Sure, it could be done, but it’s not like you’re making a sacrifice by giving up a program already slated to end.
There are all sorts of federal programs slated to end in the next few years. If instead of making budget cuts with them, we just keep spending the same amount of money but on a different plan, we can “come up” with funding for any program we want. You just have to be willing to be completely disingenuous about things and hope nobody notices.
By the way, I am not trying to highlight all the problems with the plans Brandon R. Gates comes up with. I’d likely get an aneurysm if I tried. I should point out one colossal error in his entire approach though. He says things like:
And:
Portraying the matter as being as simple as, “These subsidies are worth 2.5 billion and 2 billion, therefore if we get rid of them, we’ll have 4.5 billion more in taxes to spend.” That’s not how it works. Leaving aside that the numbers he gives are questionable at best (and that he’s in some cases talking about subsidies that apply to many industries, not just fossil fuel ones), this isn’t how tax deductions work.
When you create tax deductions, you reduce the amount of taxes that have to be paid under the applicable circumstances. This is intended to encourage businesses and people to join the market of the area. If those deductions go away, not all the businesses and people will stay within that market. The ones who leave will stop paying taxes. The result is the monetary value of a deduction is practically never the same as the amount in taxes you could generate if the deduction did not exist.
In the case of wind power, the industry has benefited greatly from tax credits (and other subsidies, which I won’t discuss here). Without those credits, far less wind power would have been made. That means even if the value of the deductions claimed on filings was $2 billion, the government is actually out far less than $2 billion because of them. Not having those credits would have resulted in a far smaller wind industry, one which might have only generated $200 million in taxes that met the requirements for that deduction. It could have been even lower.
The entire approach of looking at the amount deducted on returns to determine how much money could be saved by eliminating a tax credit is terrible. In an industry which relies on subsidies as much as some renewables do, the approach is completely useless. The money Gates claims to be able to save is really just bad accounting.
Anyway, I just felt like I should contribute a bit of information and insight to this discussion since I keep commenting on how bad it is.
Oh, and just as warning, I believe one of the two values Brandon R. Gates cites, the one for fossil fuel subsidies, actually estimates revenue lost. The other one, for Production Tax Credits, definitely doesn’t though. I looked at the underlying source of what Gates used for the oil subsidies, and as I read it, the estimated effect on revenues of these PTCs (not just wind ones) is under $100 million. And if you update the oil subsidy results for the latest report, the value drops from ~$4.7 billion to ~$3.9 billion.*
So yeah, it looks like that particular error I mentioned only applies to one of the two values he gave. It appears he’s provided values based on different approaches to judging the value of these tax credits. I didn’t catch that difference at first because, to be blunt, the nonsense of calling subsidies available to any industry “fossil fuel subsidies” was enough I didn’t bother looking further at that particular result.
In fact, that topic is so grating I want to take a minute more to discuss it further. Remember that category I mentioned? Yeah, not only does the source Gates cites explicitly state the “deduction is widely available and not targeted at fossil fuel industries,” it’s actually worse if you look at the details more closely. I’ll quote his source for simplicity:
Yes, you’re reading that right. Not only fossil fuel companies not receiving preferential treatment as this subsidy is widely available, it is widely available at a higher rate (9%) than the fossil fuel companies are allowed to use. The deduction rate they’re allowed is only 6%, 3% less than the typical 9%.
An oil company using this deduction gets to save less money than a different company would, and people present that as the oil company getting “fossil fuel subsidies.” People like Gates actually go so far as to present oil companies getting smaller discounts as them receiving preferential treatment.
I’m going try to to stop talking now. I could go on a rant about each and every item in that document, but I don’t see a point. Everything I’ve been pointing out on this topic is the sort of thing even the slightest bit of research would bring up. At the point I have to explain being forced to pay extra is not receiving preferential treatment, I just want to curl up in a ball and cry.
Lucia — If you’re doing a comprehensive plan to encourage a switchover to nuclear, you might also consider how to stop construction being shut down by lawsuits. If I were investing in new construction, that is the part that would scare me.
At least part of the Green movement is resolutely antinuclear and they do have lawyers. If suit is filed and the judge is in late 40’s, 50’s, or 60’s (as many are) he was young during the antinuclear scare of the 70’s, and I haven’t seen the media or the culture “unteaching” the popular ideas of that time since then (e.g., that nuclear plants could easily be made to explode like bombs).
The judicial system is independent of the other branches, so neither Congress nor the President could simply order judges to deny preliminary injunctions or speed up the cases.
A possible vehicle is congressional control over jurisdiction. Whether or not this is a good reading of the Constitution, Congress has long held the power to take jurisdiction in entire classes of case away from the state courts (the main areas I know are labor law and ERISA) and make them exclusively federal; they can also limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts themselves. So maybe you could design legislation to ensure that, if the builders are complying with NRC regulations, they aren’t going to be delayed for years by a lawsuit or a string of lawsuits.
I don’t know the law in this area or what protections already exist — I simply wanted to point out that this is a risk not to be ignored.
JosephW,
I’d be open to that. I’d also be open to permitting a portion of the money raised through the electricity tax to pay for attorneys to defend against the lawsuits.
Electricity generation for sale into the grid strikes me as interstate commerce. 🙂
Legal question: Could we also require plaintiffs to pay defendants legal costs in the event of a favorable outcome for defendants? Including reimbursing the fund for nuclear development? It there are legal means to do that, I’d be open to that.
Lucia, yes, there are many “fee shifting” statutes out there. (SLAPP statutes, which we have sometimes discussed in these pages, are examples; the D.C. statute gives the judge discretion in awarding fees to a successful defense, but I believe some of them require it.)
In general, the American system of “each side pays its own costs” strongly encourages settlement and compromise. That’s a good thing in many kinds of cases, but not in all.
(P.S. – Did you ever see Three Little Words? I ask because every time I see this thread, I want to hum….”Ban Bing Too Long, how long it gonna go on?”)
A project manager I once worked for had a rule of thumb regarding costs and cost over runs that I believe is applicable to the anti-science fanatic strategy regarding nuke power: Change orders and delays can cost a capital project as much or more to finish the last 10% of a project as the completed 90%, due to the time cost of funds, penalties, legal fees, loss of revenues from the project, etc.
I believe this has been demonstrated by the anti-science activists who killed the nuclear power industry in the US.
Whenever a so-called “climate concerned” person starts waxing on about the evil of “fossil fuel subsidies” it is a clear signal that person has run out of honest points to make.
So. What’s the next step?
Joseph W,
I haven’t seen it.
mark bofill,
I don’t know. I have a general proposal for how to raise money to build nuclear plants. It spreads the pain for raising the money over causes that affect both left wing and right wing constituencies– both anti=AGW and pro-AGW camp It takes more from fossil fuel than renewable– so I would think it should be “better” than the notion of trying to “cut subsidize” dollar for dollar. So far it’s the one I back.
thanks lucia.
What do you think Brandon G?
Brandon G, Lucia, –
I’d like to discuss how to build support for nuclear because I’m not sure how to get past this actually. I don’t think people oppose nuclear for rational reasons. How should advocates for nuclear tackle this? I could use suggestions, advice, and / or any off the cuff ideas that may cross anyone’s mind.
Well…. if we go by the theories of climate communicators, it’s to get people those who oppose nuclear trust to explain that nuclear is a good option. Since most of those who oppose nuclear are on the left that should mean getting the left to go explain that nuclear is a good option.
I”m not entirely sure that climate communication theory is correct. But if it is, it means people like Brandon G others at places like SkS need to make their support for Nuclear very visible. Like perhaps running articles in support of it on their site and explaining why they think nuclear needs to be promoted.
Of course they aren’t required to promote my preferred strategy for funding– but those who want to us to implement responses to AGW need to at least make their support of nuclear visible. And then need to do it in venues other than those the view as “skeptic”. They need to do it at “true believer” sites.
Thank you Lucia for your response. I don’t know how anybody could conclude that that would possibly hurt anyways. I thought your argument pretty persuasive given all the unknowns regarding people.
.
What do you think Brandon G?
How about you Anders?
At some point, we have to quit screwing around and take a side.
On the how to make enemies and not influence people front, the IRS is STILL targeting conservative groups and the AG of the Virgin Islands has filed a subpoena for a fishing expedition against the Heritage Foundation wrt climate change d3ni@l.
Can’t have it both ways gents.
Mark and Lucia, Yes, its the political left that needs to change/be convinced. It is natural that people like Ken Rice, Brandon, and James Hansen are the best ones to do that communicating. Except for Hansen (who may not really be politically left wing), my guess is that lefty communicators find it more emotionally satisfying to engage in extremely long discussions with skeptics because the inevitable conflict reinforces their natural view that conservatives are not good people. If they tried to change left leaning people and met irrational resistance, it would challenge their world view and that’s not fun anymore. Even climate communicators are not really interested in strategies that offer no emotional payoff for them personally.
David,
.
Would the [R]ight come to the table if the [L]eft did?
.
Might be we should do some convincing as well. Of course, lukewarmers have been, but.
.
For my part, I haven’t been ringing alarm bells over climate change. Do I doubt the basic core science? No, no way. I worry about priorities.
.
Couldn’t we — I dunno. Couldn’t we sort out our entitlements, healthcare, and military spending maybe before we do this? I mean, I get it. A trillion or two dollars is chump change to us, but… We’re almost 20 trillion in the hole. Couldn’t we maybe sort out some of our other junk first? Are we paying 200 billion in interest on our debt right now, does that sound like alot to anybody else?
.
Nah, guess not. The question of who gets to urinate in what restroom is far more compelling.
200 billion a year, that wasn’t a typo.
mark,
$2E11 is only about a 1% interest rate on $2E13 in debt. No wonder the Fed is pushing a zero interest rate policy.
Mark, I’ve been interested in the nuclear power controversy since I heard a debate on it in graduate school in the 1970’s and have never understood the Green/Left aversion to it except perhaps for the soft connection to nuclear weapons, which in an earlier era were the Left’s “oh my God we are going to die” cause. I don’t think many Conservatives care too much about it, but might be open to the “cleaner than coal” arguments.
Earle (Comment #148140),
.
.
I’m not. But then again, of course I wouldn’t.
.
.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148142),
.
.
Admission implies a sense of reluctance incompatible with openness. I have openly *volunteered* that I don’t always act in good faith.
lucia (Comment #148143),
.
.
Negotiators bargain.
.
.
I see little need to justify that which is your right to do. However, since you call my previous statements into question, I reserve the right to call out a bargaining chit’s potential impediment toward a stated common goal.
.
.
According to your prior statements, one motivation to deploy nuclear power is to “do something” about the potential risks of AGW by reducing CO2 emissions.
.
.
I don’t mind talking about them. I think that brings us back to ladies first.
.
.
I perceive it as a negotiation tactic. In a negotiation, I will of course use negotiating tactics.
.
.
To be clear, your plan to raise the money is to tax non-nuclear power on the grid. That does have the benefit of making nuclear power more competitive, and the simplicity does have its merits. Perhaps I’ve interpreted wrongly, by my impression was that you’d tax all non-nuke generation at a flat rate. If my interpretation is correct, I’m loath to accept that deal. [Reading further down this post, I don’t think I’m off the mark.]
.
Aside from that, what would happen is that as nuclear power gained more penetration, unless the marginal tax rate on non-nuke generation is ramped accordingly, the revenues will decrease thus leaving less funding available for deploying the nukes. That might be a problem, so this is a concern quite independent of whether the tax applies to coal and gas only or flat rate across the board applying to solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
.
.
I of course agree in principle. The conflict here is over which subsidies are pointless. Here are two examples of when I think subsidies are NOT pointless:
.
1) They encourage development of new technologies (and/or product) which have potential to be more beneficial and/or less harmful than equivalent mature ones.
.
2) They stabilize the market for a mature technology (and/or product) for which there is no mature (or viable) alternative AND which is considered essential and/or strategic.
.
So, I’d be hesitant to simplistically slash subsidies/incentives for any energy source or technology providing either or both function, and that includes petroleum especially because there is no sensible near-term drop-in replacement for liquid fuels that I can tell. My desire for aggressive acceleration of *all* low-carbon electricity generation is partially motivated by that fact in addition to the existence of more viable and mature alternatives — nukes being the prime one for baseload generation, wind being the most viable intermittent source. Geothermal looks to have some promise as a baseload source, as such it’s a high priority on my list. Like nukes, its upfront capital costs are high, as well as failure rates — drilling the wells is a major expense, and they don’t all pan out. OTOH, once in operation, they have much lower operating costs than nukes and aren’t subject to the same regulatory burdens. Solar PV has great promise in sunny southern states where it also has the advantage of being able to supply peak summer demand for air-conditioning.
.
My previously stated arguments stand: pulling subsidies/incentives from those technologies is counter-productive to reducing emissions, and if done so with the intent to fund an aggressive nuclear deployment/development program, makes that uphill fight even steeper — especially on the Democrat side of the aisle.
.
.
Good, I’ve been reading the same article.
.
.
Yup, nukes get the short end of the stick according to these figures, renewables the highest. Thing is, I think all those numbers underestimate the sum total of available subsidies/incentives/credits because they don’t include sums available from various agencies. The next block down from those figures indicates that the DOE alone was projected to spend an additional $3.4 billion.
.
Getting a straight accounting from the Feds is difficult because shit is so spread out, and often gets “hidden” in places not easy to tease apart.
.
What I do know is that the production tax credit (PTC) for wind is easily worth 50% of the estimated nuke program annual outlay by 2020 with room to spare. So my offer stands, I’ll pull “my half” of the funding from there. [1] I’m not inclined to accept a counter-offer from you that draws from other renewable energy or energy efficiency programs save for anything related to biofuels coming from corn or soybeans. [2]
.
.
As is anything which reduces the cost of electricity and/or stabilizes its market price, which btw, is another ancillary goal for my part. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the market itself already gives a substantial price break to commercial and industry entities for electric rates simply by virtue that businesses tend to have better credit ratings than residential consumers AND are higher volume consumers.
.
.
I agree. The only reason I can presently think of that I’d want to is to stimulate domestic production, and I don’t think that’s an especially terrible idea. I’m all about reducing foreign entanglements for strategic energy resources and promoting domestic business opportunities. But now I run far afield of the main focus of this discussion. My main point is that I’m not especially concerned with killing domestic oil production for the foreseeable future because in my view we’re going to be quite dependent on it for several more decades at best.
.
.
I find no reason to believe that my previous citation from the US Treasury of 4.7 billion/yr inflated any fossil fuel subsidies. Foreign tax credits are not mentioned anywhere in that document. Domestic shale gas and oil production make up some portion of those billions, it’s not clear how much because they’re not broken out. I’m not inclined to believe that those credits are strictly necessary to ensure supply.
.
.
My turn to invoke Einstein on simplicity. One ostensible purpose of tax code complexity is to encourage development of specific economic activities, or protect vulnerable ones which are deemed beneficial. In practice, we know that many (if not most) major industries lobby for concessions to improve their competitive market advantage, very likely with more thought to their own interests and less to the common interest. I see it as our duty to ourselves as voting, taxpaying citizens to try and ferret out the difference.
.
I think spreading the burden for the nuke program, or any program, is a good idea. I’ve made several suggestions how we might do that. kch suggested using general funds, which is pretty much the ultimate way of spreading out the burden. You rejected that, which is fine. I happen to disagree with some of the industries to which you wish to apply a burden. You have my offer on three: wind, shale gas and shale oil.
.
———————
.
[1] As I understand it, the PTC isn’t the only incentive for wind. One alternative incentive is a grant for 5% of the estimated construction costs of a wind project, so I’d have to lose that one as well. As part of yanking all or part of the PTC, I’d probably want to “grandfather” the PTC for projects which have not yet recouped 5% of their up front capital costs over the course of their operations.
.
[2] The bulk of those programs died in 2013 I believe, but word on the street is that they slipped back in under the radar by way of the EPA’s clean energy program the following year. I haven’t been able to come up with how much they’re worth. Yet.
Brandon Gates
Your interpretation is correct.
As you pointed out, I don’t have to take your deal. You don’t have to take mine.
Brandon G.
It’s called rent-seeking. The more control the government has over the economy, the more lucrative it is to seek a competitive advantage by government fiat rather than innovation or increased productivity.
Raising the minimum wage will also, for example, raise wages for many unionized employees whose wages are indexed to the minimum wage. Other contracts call for automatic renegotiation in the event of an increased minimum wage rate. Elon Musk is, IMO, the preeminent rent-seeker.
mark bofill (Comment #148162),
.
.
That getting grid emissions to as near zero as possible by 2040 by any means is in our best interests as a nation. My read is that nukes are one of the most promising ways of doing it from an economic and technological standpoint. I also think that 80% of the grid being nuclear by 2040 hasn’t a prayer of a chance of happening unless people of influence push for it in a bigger way than they’re already doing. By “push” I don’t just mean lobbying, I mean cutting deals to get it done. Which in all likelihood means making concessions to opposing parties on both sides of the left-right political spectrum AND vested business interests. [1]
.
.
I’m pretty sure you and I both understand that I already have.
.
———————
.
[1] I assume that most vested interests main ideology is making money for themselves and their investors. Which is not something I have a problem with by default. I like making money.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #148179),
.
.
Yank subsides from any major industry and you can bet that K Street denizens will be working overtime to get the rent back while at the same time PR flacks will be spamming the MSM with press releases complaining that Congrisscritters and/or the Executive Branch are taking away their ability to be competitive and/or innovate.
.
See also: revolving door and regulatory capture.
.
.
We partisans do have our favorites, don’t we. I don’t suppose you have any citations demonstrating that he’s the number-one beneficiary of pork barrel politicking in the US.
Brandon G.
Well, there’s this: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
There are probably industries in general and corporations in particular that get more from the government, but I would say he’s at or near the top for an individual.
DeWitt, PS;
.
I didn’t intend to ignore the minimum wage/union wage comment. I’ve long argued that labor unions in private manufacturing sectors may have priced themselves out of the global market, but that’s probably too narrow a characterization of the full extent of market forces in play there. Public sector unions are a different animal entirely.
.
The US BLS tells us:
.
In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.
.
So that’s just shy of 4% of hourly workers, and what, about 1.6% of all wage-earners. Annoyingly, that document doesn’t tell us (that I can find) what percentage of the economy those 1.6% represent, but I can guess it’s on the order of 0.5% of GDP. Let’s see $53,042 per capita GDP / $14,500 per year minimum wage earner * 1.6% of workforce = 0.42% of GDP goes toward minimum wage earners. I’ve no idea how much union labor is tied to Federal minimum wage.
.
The document does list Federal minimum wage over time since 1979, but it’s not inflation adjusted so, ah, using the CPI adjustment method:
.
1979 $2.90 $9.47
1980 $3.10 $8.92
1981 $3.35 $8.73
1990 $3.80 $6.89
1991 $4.25 $7.40
1996 $4.75 $7.18
1997 $5.15 $7.61
2007 $5.85 $6.69
2008 $6.55 $7.21
2009 $7.25 $8.01
2015 $7.25 $7.25
.
First column is the nominal wage, second column in constant 2015 dollars. The simple average of the inflation-adjusted amount is $7.76/hour. I’m far too lazy right now to expand that list out year by year and do a proper average. Point is, bumping minimum wage to $8.50-$9.00 or so in today’s dollars probably won’t wreck the economy.
.
An aside: I remember making $3.35/hr back in the good old days. I thought I was the shit when I landed a job for five bux an hour in that era.
.
If I were you, I’d be more worried about these time series plots.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #148182),
.
Saw the LA Times article on Musk already, Lucia posted it upthread recently, comment #147922. Let’s see, neighborhood of #147972 was where I got around to responding to it.
.
.
Oh. Then what did you mean by calling Musk the “preeminent rent-seeker”?
lucia (Comment #148178),
.
.
I think Hell may have just frozen over. I blame CO2.
.
.
Good to know we can agree on *something* other than building nukes as a way to reduce emissions is a good idea.
You might want to scroll to “Other Issues” here.
(The article overall suggests that you are largely correct, but the quotes under “Other Issues” suggest there’s something more there.)
lucia writes:
This is misleading as it gives the impression foreign tax credits are included in the listed tax breaks. They are not. Foreign tax credits were excluded from the numbers lucia provides as they are not specifically targeted at a an energy industry. In fact, the list lucia provides excludes subsidies that were created for the energy industry as a whole, only considering subsidies that were targets at a particular segment of the energy industry.
Brandon R. Gates provides the baffling response:
His thought here is wrong. The Congressional Budget Office is well aware of how spread out sources of budgeting are, and it is quite good at keeping track of these things. Additionally, while Gates says he thinks the numbers “underestimate the sum total of available subsidies/incentives/credits, the list is explicitly described as being for “federal energy tax subsidies.”
By definition, “federal energy tax subsidies” do not include things like direct grants. Gates offers the $3.4 billion figure from the next list as supporting his idea “various agencies” are sources of subsidies/incentives/credits not included in the list, specifically mentioning how it refers to money coming from the Department of Energy, but in reality, that list is for money given in the form of funding given via grants, not tax credits.
On another issue, Brandon R. Gates writes:
But this simply isn’t true unless one resorts to semantic tricks. Production Tax Credits used by the wind industry can only be estimated this high if you look at the amounts deducted on tax returns, not if you look at the actual revenue the nation would obtain if they were removed. Additionally, Production Tax Credits are slated to end this year, with a partial extension of three years (with their value progressively dropping until 2019, at which point they end entirely).
Gates isn’t coming up with any money under this plan. All he’s doing is using bogus numbers for a program that is slated to end in a few years and claiming they can provide the investment he needs. Also, his footnote is strange:
Leaving aside the new issue he brings up here, it seems clear Gates is unaware Production Tax Credits are slated to end in 2016 for any non-wind industry, as well as Production Tax Credits for wind being slated to ramp down until through, after which they are slated to end as well. I’ve pointed this out to him before. Perhaps he’ll notice this time.
lucia writes:
This is misleading as it gives the impression foreign tax credits are included in the listed tax breaks. They are not. Foreign tax credits were excluded from the numbers lucia provides as they are not specifically targeted at a an energy industry. In fact, the list lucia provides excludes subsidies that were created for the energy industry as a whole, only considering subsidies that were targets at a particular segment of the energy industry.
Brandon R. Gates provides the baffling response:
His thought here is wrong. The Congressional Budget Office is well aware of how spread out sources of budgeting are, and it is quite good at keeping track of these things. Additionally, while Gates says he thinks the numbers “underestimate the sum total of available subsidies/incentives/credits, the list is explicitly described as being for “federal energy tax subsidies.”
By definition, “federal energy tax subsidies” do not include things like direct grants. Gates offers the $3.4 billion figure from the next list as supporting his idea “various agencies” are sources of subsidies/incentives/credits not included in the list, specifically mentioning how it refers to money coming from the Department of Energy, but in reality, that list is for money given in the form of funding given via grants, not tax credits.
On another issue, Brandon R. Gates writes:
But this simply isn’t true unless one resorts to semantic tricks. Production Tax Credits used by the wind industry can only be estimated this high if you look at the amounts deducted on tax returns, not if you look at the actual revenue the nation would obtain if they were removed. Additionally, Production Tax Credits are slated to end this year, with a partial extension of three years (with their value progressively dropping until 2019, at which point they end entirely).
Gates isn’t coming up with any money under this plan. All he’s doing is using bogus numbers for a program that is slated to end in a few years and claiming they can provide the investment he needs. Also, his footnote is strange:
Leaving aside the new issue he brings up here, it seems clear Gates is unaware Production Tax Credits are slated to end in 2016 for any non-wind industry, as well as Production Tax Credits for wind being slated to ramp down until through, after which they are slated to end as well. I’ve pointed this out to him before. Perhaps he’ll notice this time.
I have no idea how I’m still managing to double comment, and I’m not being presented an Edit/Delete button anymore, so I can’t do anything about it. Sorry for the trouble lucia.
Anyway, while I’m not sure anyone cares, I want to establish something for the record. I was able to confirm I was wrong to think any of Brandon R. Gates’s values provided for subsidies account for what would happen to tax revenue if subsidies were removed and people adjusted their business decisions to account for the change in price. Apparently not even the Congressional Budget Office includes that factor when producing reports on this topic.
That means every subsidy value discussed so far in terms of where to find funding is given under the assumption, “If we stop giving these subsidies, businesses will do nothing to adjust.” The result is the potential tax revenue one could find from any of these subsidies has been overstated in every single case.
Make of that what you will. I think I’ve made my view on things clear enough.
I have no idea how I’m still managing to double comment, and I’m not being presented an Edit/Delete button anymore, so I can’t do anything about it. Sorry for the trouble lucia.
Anyway, while I’m not sure anyone cares, I want to establish something for the record. I was able to confirm I was wrong to think any of Brandon R. Gates’s values provided for subsidies account for what would happen to tax revenue if subsidies were removed and people adjusted their business decisions to account for the change in price. Apparently not even the Congressional Budget Office includes that factor when producing reports on this topic.
That means every subsidy value discussed so far in terms of where to find funding is given under the assumption, “If we stop giving these subsidies, businesses will do nothing to adjust.” The result is the potential tax revenue one could find from any of these subsidies has been overstated in every single case.
Make of that what you will. I think I’ve made my view on things clear enough.
Joseph W. (Comment #148186),
.
Courtesy of the Grauniad (not exactly the most right-leaning rag on the planet):
.
Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.
.
Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.
.
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.
.
Had I been the editor, I would have stomped all over “everyone agrees”, but the balance of it tends to crap all over the notion that enviros have a universal and deep-seated loathing for the comforts and conveniences of industrialized society. Which is not to say that I don’t think Greenpeace doesn’t need their heads checked on the promise to never disavow their strident and long-standing opposition to fission power.
.
An aside; it’s interesting that Hansen put his name to this tidbit: The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step […] I’m thinking Emanuel, Caldeira and/or Wigley outvoted him.
.
Point is, let’s make sure that not all “greens” are seen as monolithically opposed to reasoned support of modern technology. Or putting all our eggs in one basket.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148187),
.
.
Not always so good about providing summary information with as much detail as one might wish.
.
.
So tack on grants to subsidies/incentives/credits. Problem solved.
.
.
Which matters not a whit to me because, for purposes of my discussion with Lucia, money leaving the Treasury not as a loan to be paid back or otherwise directly recouped is money spent. I also supported my “idea” that those numbers don’t reflect the full amounts benefiting fossil fuel interests because this previously cited document courtesy of the Treasury department lists $4.7 billion per year in what they call “production tax provisions”. Maybe the $1.3 billion difference [edit: make that $1.0-1.5 billion depending on whether we include the $0.5 bil DOE grants in the FY 2013 budget per the Wikipedia article] is the change from FY 2013 to FY 2014, but who knows. Tracing down where the Feds stash budget items for certain categories is an art, and a time-consuming one at that. Pardonne-moi s’il vous plaît if I miss a penny somewhere.
.
.
Um. A tax credit not given is tax revenue not lost.
.
.
So says this Congress. Thing is, they killed the wind PTC in what was it, end of FY 2013 and resurrected it beginning of FY 2014.
.
.
It was Lucia’s idea to transfer funds from “various futile renewable projects”. Here’s the setup in comment #147915:
.
.
A structural problem with this approach is that *any* subsidy cut off as a condition of making this deal can be restored after the thing is signed into law. I don’t have any other options with her that I can think of; she’s rejected direct loans and doing it out of general funds. The only other thing on the table she’s suggested as an option is a revenue-yielding tax on electricity generated by non-nuclear sources. I’ve already attempted to essplain to her why that might not work.
.
TL; DR: you’re complaining to the wrong negotiator here.
.
.
You’ve already explained to her that going after other renewable programs for money doesn’t make sense because one of the primary motivations for funding a nuclear program is to reduce CO2 emissions. I may have missed it if that one got resolved to your satisfaction.
But if you want to understand the overwhelming Green opposition to nuclear energy going back to the 1970’s — which is what David Young was talking about, and what I was responding to — then the quotes I pointed to will be most helpful. They suggest that “concerns over reactor safety” are not all there is to it, and that some part of that movement was then and still is now opposed to any large-scale energy production by humans.
I would love to hear that a major Green organization had adopted Hansen’s stance (and would be genuinely grateful if you could tell me of any). I think Lucia has just suggested that men like the authors of the article you link to, in publications like that one, are just the ones to try to get major Green groups (such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club) to reverse their longstanding, and overwhelming, opposition to nuclear energy. May they succeed speedily.
Joseph W. (Comment #148193),
.
.
I don’t agree. It’s real easy to pick out five loonies from millions and call them representative of an entire movement. And I wouldn’t call the first one on the list (Russell E. Train, ex EPA director under *Nixon* fer cryin’ out loud) a lunatic comment. Erlich’s quote is the most batshit crazy of the bunch, and he was/is an inveterate Malthusian catastrophist more or less. The rest, well yes, they’re swimming against an economic tide or thumping the nukes are too unsafe meme like it’s going out of style. Which it was until Fukushima. Here’s the partisan breakdown from the same poll. Pretty clear partisan bias, but not so wide as the noise from opposite poles of the political spectrum might suggest, and you will also note that by far the largest percentage drop in support from 2015 to 2016 was in the Republican bucket.
.
Here’s a blurb from the writeup:
.
Gas prices have been relatively low over the past year, likely because of the sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices and the apparent glut of oil around the world. This seems to have lessened Americans’ perceptions that energy sources such as nuclear power are needed. The increased opposition to nuclear power does not seem to result from a fear of it, as there have been no major nuclear disasters anywhere in the world since 2011.
Nuclear power plants are expensive to build, often costing billions upfront, although they require relatively low maintenance costs once they are running. And nuclear energy has lower greenhouse gas emissions than other power sources, especially coal, so it is considered a clean provider of electricity. Still, nuclear energy is a bet that the cost over time of coal or natural gas to power an electric plant will be higher than the upfront cost of building a nuclear reactor. And at a time when oil prices are low, it seems Americans are not in favor of making that bet.
.
In short, “Greens” aren’t an overwhelmingly insurmountable problem so far as I can tell. I’m inclined to believe that present economic conditions (or perceptions of conditions) combined with drastically low oil and gas prices relative to the past five years really is a significant factor.
.
.
The Wikipedia list of prominent environmentalists supporting nuclear power impresses me. The Union of Concerned Scientists say a lot of stuff like this: Nuclear power offers great promise as an energy solution—but safety and cost concerns are significant barriers. Not opposed, not against. Waffle a lot. Regulatory hawks, and have a fairly long history of doing it. The are anything but opposed to other forms of low-emissions energy sources a la Erlich and don’t generally seem to suffer from that level of stupid. I’d like to think they’re teetering on the edge of taking a stronger pro-nuclear stance.
.
There is a group called Greens for Nukes or something like that, but I wouldn’t call them major. Their message is more or less the same as Hansen, et al. I’d say give it time, but I don’t think we have much time …
.
.
That is my hope as well. As such, I do what I can in my own little way.
Brandon R. Gates:
That has nothing to do with anything I said, but okay. Make mistakes because you don’t give a whit enough to understand what you are quoting.
The difference between what these sources discuss should be obvious if you take a moment to read what they say, but even if you didn’t bother to, I’ve already pointed it out.
I know. I know because I actually took a little time to read what these sources say they’re discussing. I then spent even more time commenting about what they say they’re discussing so other people could know without needing to look for themselves.
You didn’t miss a penny; you got everything completely wrong because you couldn’t bother to read what the sources you cited said they were discussing/referring to. It wouldn’t have been difficult to get things right. All you had to do was read what the sources you cited said. Or even just read the comments I wrote explaining it all, comments you’ve chosen to ignore for whatever reason.
It should be common sense, but I’ve already explained why this isn’t true, multiple times. I’ll do it again. Tax credits are designed to encourage new activity. When determining how much money could have been saved by not giving the tax credits, one cannot assume the level of activity would have been the same without the credits.
You can only transfer funds from a project that has funds. Claiming you can take funds from a project which has been slated to no longer receive funds is not coming up with funding.
No. lucia said funds should be transferred from other projects with the common sense assumption those other projects actually had funds which could be transferred. I’ve taken no issue with that. The issue I raised is you are trying to raid funds that don’t exist under current plans. Nothing about that needs to be tacken up with lucia.
Brandon R. Gates –
Comment #148127
“Unless tax revenues are increased or some other budget item is decreased, debt funding would be the default option. I thought debt funding is what you were talking about because you made it abundantly clear that outlays would be expected to be paid back in full. Under that scheme, we’d need to decide how to handle loan defaults for failed projects.”
.
I’d avoid debt financing if at all possible. My idea was that funds raised would go to general revenue, and funds paid out would come from general revenue. I believe the US government generally self-insures (maybe? could be wrong…), so loan default is an issue, but as the funds would not be debt-financed, is should be less of an issue than otherwise. Is is workable? No idea, but if there is an economist handy to weigh in it might help.
.
Given the way this discussion has gone the last two days (damn life for keeping me away…), my approach might have at least the advantage of simplicity in accounting.
.
Mark Bofill –
Comment # 148156
“So. What’s the next step?”
.
My two cents, fwiw…
Look at this thread – everyone seems to be in agreement that nuclear power should be greatly expanded, but thats about as far as it goes. There is no consensus on how much expansion, where to expand, why it’s necessity, and most importantly, how to fund any expansion.
.
So I think your later comment about building support for nuclear power is probably the best starting approach. Without that support, the rest is kind of meaningless. With it, the rest can get sorted out (and by people far more informed than I). Lucia’s response at #148161 seems like a good place to start.
Brandon G
Um. Anything as in absolutely anything can be eliminated or restored after anything is signed into law. That’s “structural problem” affects any and all solutions anyone might negotiate during a deal.
Heck, Arizona just amended their constitution to change the previous “deal” about public pensions.
So it’s pretty pitiful to criticize any aspect of a deal as having the “structural problem” of being subject to change by the legislature (and or amendment process) later on. Everything is.
And your essplanations have been not-convincing. And mostly focused on how the tax doesn’t achieve other goals that do not fall inside the common ground.
Brandon G to Brandon S:
Yes. I think if you scroll back, he pointed that out when he thought that I was looking for a program that would also build or maintain these other projects you like. I told him I had specifically said I was not and that resolved what he saw as a logical inconsistency. So he doesn’t seem to have any gripe with me and that’s why he’s arguing with you.
As for his points about tax credits: He is correct. While I stayed with generalities about transferring from futile projects — which I am for in principle and in practice– you are trying to bean count. And when actually bean counting, you need to do it right. So you are subject to correction on the bean counting errors you make. Suggesting that the general principle of transferring is mine doesn’t give you cover for your bean counting errors. Either defend them as correct, or just go on being wrong. No skin off my nose. But if you are wrong, you’ll still be wrong.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148195),
.
.
Consider the possibility that I don’t find your semantics interesting or useful.
.
.
One class of mistakes I make is that I don’t know enough to ask the right questions.
.
.
I just love how you alternate between Capt. Obvious and Professor Puzzled. What I’m hearing is that there’s a difference between a grant and a subsidy, which tells me zippo when the question I’m trying to answer is how to rob Peter to pay Paul.
.
Skipping over more of the same “you’re wrong Gates because you don’t care enough to read as much as I do” bullshit …
.
.
And subsidies are designed to stabilize existing activity? Does it matter when what I’m mainly doing is scrounging around for cash because the negotiating point I’m trying to hit is revenue neutrality?
.
The second question is rhetorical, so by law I must answer: no, it does not matter to me for purposes of the present conversation.
.
.
When you can tell me how much I’m off, you may gain my rapt attention. Until then, since everything else about this discussion is ballpark back of napkin chicken scratch, I’m really not up for counting every last grain of sand in the hourglass, or the dandruff flakes dropping from the hairs you’re splitting. Getting my drift yet?
.
.
As I explained to you last post, Rufus: a project getting defunded is a pen stroke away. Hence, I think the entire idea of horse-trading tax concessions to fund the nuclear project was, and is, ill-advised. Which is exactly why I have long since gone to some lengths to discuss other funding proposals. Guess who is the one who rejected them. Hint: not me.
.
.
lol. Common sense. I’m sorry, I’m having trouble typing. [whew]
.
Ahem. Ok. We are talking about a nuclear power plant construction project which is *optimistically* (some might say fantastically) scheduled to last two decades. These other programs we’re talking about looting are “funded” annually in the budget process, or any old time Congress gets a wild hair up its collective bunghole and decides to add/subtract from any, all and sundry. It’s not as if I can reach into the till for the next 20 years of Project X and write someone a check for the full amount, neh?
.
.
Here’s what I wrote:
.
You’ve already explained to her that going after other renewable programs for money doesn’t make sense because one of the primary motivations for funding a nuclear program is to reduce CO2 emissions. I may have missed it if that one got resolved to your satisfaction.
.
Here’s your post I was thinking about when I wrote that:
.
.
Last line in particular.
.
.
Wriggle wriggle wriggle. Here is my argument: levying a new tax to an industry is functionally the same thing as removing an existing tax concession from the industry’s point of view. Deal with it or not.
lucia (Comment #148197),
.
.
Hence, making a deal to fund project A by ending subsidy B makes no sense when subsidy B could be restored next fiscal year and project A is slated to run for 20 years.
lucia (Comment #148197),
.
.
[facepalm] So every fiscal year, we get to haggle over the definition of futility. Quite fitting in a way.
Brandon G
Erhmm…. every year, Congress passes a budget. That’s called “democracy”. So yes, with respect to budgeting individual projects every year everything is on the table.
As for your [facepalm] preface: If you are so ignorant of this that the idea it happens seems foreign to you– such that you think a snide [facepalm] will make someone think they said the stupid thing. Well… it’s not my fault you don’t have a clue about how our system of government works.
One way to have a program last is to try to ensure it has broad support, which often (not always) means it makes some sense to do. Otherways exist too… not going to say they don’t.
Were you around in the 70’s? Paul Ehrlich was one of the main faces of the Green movement back then; Amory Lovins, at least in some places, was the same. (When Jerry Brown ran for President in 1992 and the candidates were asked about major advisors they would pick, he gave the most forthright answer: “Amory Lovins.” In fact, if I remember, he was the only candidate who named an actual name, without hesitation.)
They weren’t flushed out of the movement or widely denounced when they said these things, suggesting that their weltanschauung wasn’t wholly repugnant to the rest, and their status was such that they were not seen as “loonies” by the Green movement itself.
No time for more now…
I’m working on the deck again so this will be brief (and from my phone). On the topic of how budgets are done, it is not true the issue would need to be readdressed every year. That is usually avoided by assigning funding to programs for several years at a time. Then, as long as nothing changes that affects the need for the funding (including things like public opinion), it can just be passed through forthe next few years.
But that only works with actual funding. If you try to trade the removal of a tax credit for distribution of funds, then you have to estimate how much money removing the tax credit will produce in taxes and revisit that assumption every year to make sure the trade is on track. It’s far more of a pain, and generally, you don’t do it when the tax credits are for a volatile industry due to the difficulty of making accurate estimates.
And that remains true even if Brandon R. Gates doesn’t care about making such estimates. It remains true even if he feels there is absolutely no need for him to even try to make such an estimate, suggesting anyone who points out he isn’t making an estimate needs to make one of their own before he’ll even look at the matter.
lucia actually provided numbers that could be used in determining how much money would be available for the funding of a nuclear project. Gates provided numbers that aren’t even useful in determining how much money would be available for the funding of a nuclear project. Only, he provided them as though they were the same as available money, going so far as to directly claim they were equitable.
Brandon S
I principle everything is up for renegotiation every year. That goes for taxes and credits or distribution of funds. But in practice having a project funded by a program with a specific target are generally much safer for a number of reasons. One is that that form of funding requires agreement that the specific target is the thing being funded. Another is that people who come in later to “renegotiate” it develop the reputation of having negotiated in bad faith. So they find it difficult to get agreements later on.
In contrast, a program that is funded under a larger “umbrella” project that funds many things is at risk every year. The “umbrella” project can decide that a sub-project is not going forward.
I think in that regard, the taxing and funding program I suggested has features that make it more stable that taking funding out of other more general pockets. The targeted tax- on electrical utilities for utilities– which states it’s precise purpose, if implemented has a very clear goal: build nuclear electrical capacity. It’s harder to suddenly shunt it over to some other AGW goal that someone else might have.
To help ensure the nuclear plants are built, it’s also very important the funds not go into the ‘general’ coffers. While some (kch) might argue that, in the end, all targetted funds end up in the general coffer, that’s actually not true in the US. And even if there is a tendency for that to happen, that’s hardly an argument for the program to start out that way. Designing it that way from the get-go is a sure fire method to ensure that people will be “renegotiating” who gets the money each year. And the reason that would happen is that putting the money in the general coffer means the program was designed to act that way.
I do not want a program designed that way.
Would I accept shifting funding in a general program from those renewable projects that are useless? Sure. But that’s not my main method of funding. My main one is the targeted tax.
I’m not saying my method is perfect. But it seems to me it’s the best one if we want
1) To use actual honest to goodness revenue to build nuclear plants. (As opposed to using federal debt and printing money later.)
2) We want the revenue generated to be dedicated to building the plants over the long term (as opposed to revenue going into general coffers that are subject to routine renegotiation every year. General coffers means it could be used to save banks, or funding the military or anything you like.)
3) Take much more money from fossil fuel than renewables. (It’s about $3 from fossil to $1 from renewables, and was for before Brandon G suggested that he’s ok with taking money from renewable support as long as we remove funding from fossils dollar for dollar. Hey man: my plan takes more from fossil.)
4) The tax is pretty simple to explain and fairly transparent.
5) The tax is related to the utility we want to modify: A tax on electrical generation to transition the methods of generating electricity.
And finally: It would reduce green house gas generation– provided the nuclear plants got built.
Joseph, Thanks for the link. Interesting quotes from leaders of the anti-nuclear movement show I think that scarcity is the goal of many.
lucia:
Yup. Congress could actually change the funding of any project at any time it wants. They’re not usually going to though. That’s why it’s pointless to point out things like the budget gets redetermined every year. It’s true that it does, but members of Congress are still able to make multi-year projects work all the time.
Yup. The most successful plans follow pretty much that exact path. And even if things aren’t stated in the legal documents themselves, the people who negotiate the deals to get things funded do keep track of what the terms they negotiated are. The more detailed and precise, the less likely things are to deviate from the intended course of action.
Even if money goes in the general coffer, it can still be specifically slated to a particular project. This happens all the time when more taxes are collected than are needed to fund something (Social Security is a great example). That extra money is put into the general coffers, but IOUs are given for it to ensure the proper amount of funding can go to the intended project.
lucia:
Yup. Congress could actually change the funding of any project at any time it wants. They’re not usually going to though. That’s why it’s pointless to point out things like the budget gets redetermined every year. It’s true that it does, but members of Congress are still able to make multi-year projects work all the time.
Yup. The most successful plans follow pretty much that exact path. And even if things aren’t stated in the legal documents themselves, the people who negotiate the deals to get things funded do keep track of what the terms they negotiated are. The more detailed and precise, the less likely things are to deviate from the intended course of action.
Even if money goes in the general coffer, it can still be specifically slated to a particular project. This happens all the time when more taxes are collected than are needed to fund something (Social Security is a great example). That extra money is put into the general coffers, but IOUs are given for it to ensure the proper amount of funding can go to the intended project.
Brandon R. Gates:
That may be true, but given you’ve frequently misused words and phrases on this page in ways that alter the meaning of what you say, I’d consider it a bad thing to not care when people point out your misuses.
That isn’t what I said. I mean, yes, there is “a difference between a grant and a subsidy” as grants are but one type of a subsidy, but that has very little, if anything, to do with the errors and misunderstandings of yours I pointed out.
.
This is a non-sequitur, but the answer to the first question is no. Even if it were yes though, it wouldn’t affect the point I made.
The differences we’re talking about are enormous. That you choose to hand-wave them away by claiming pointing them out is hair-splitting without any evidenciary or analytical basis is both poor form and strongly indicative you have no idea what the actual differences in tax revenue would be if various subsidies were cut.
That Congress could choose to refund a project it has currently slated to be canceled in no way indicates people are making a sacrifice by giving up funding for the project.
If this is a real question, the only answer I can provide is, “You’re an idiot who knows nothing about how to get things funded.” All you are doing is pointing out obvious difficulties that are routinely dealt with when trying to get programs funded as though they are obstacles nobody could possibly find a way to address.
I have dealt with it by directly explaining how it is wrong. That you choose to routinely ignore things I say and then conclude I’ve said things I haven’t said doesn’t mean your imagination is an accurate assessment of anything.
kch:
There is no consensus on any of that as there is little meaningful discussion of any of it. On many of the points, nobody here save me seems to know anything about the matter, and I’m not much of a supporter of these ideas. So… make of that what you will.
Joseph W. (Comment #148203),
.
.
All but about 6.5 months of it. Berkeley is the first city I remember living in. Cincinnati is where I mostly lived, after a brief stint in Provo. You might say my formative years exposed me to a wide cross-section of belief systems and political ideologies.
.
.
I get it, you don’t like stereotypical “Greens”. You don’t have to for purposes of working with those of us who share common goals. For my part, I’m content to ram nuclear down protesters’ throats no matter on which side of the left-right political spectrum they happen to fall. It just so happens that conservatives, Republicans and leaners have the numbers I know are required to make what I want happen. So here I am.
Lucia –
I guess, in the end, I’m just a lot more pessimistic about the nature of government than you are. I actually hope you’re the one who’s right on that, I just fear it isn’t so.
lucia (Comment #148201),
.
.
I know. I was reading it last night.
.
.
And yet you want to negotiate subsidies with me instead of focusing how a nuclear build-out plan might work. You wanted to do this before we even had a rough guesstimate of what it would cost.
.
.
I could care less about your tender feelings with regard to my “tone”, Lucia. Or your stupid double standards. I care about getting nuclear power plants built. When you’re ready to talk about how we might get that done again, do please let me know.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148204),
.
.
We agree on this, which has been why I have previously lobbied for funding the nuke program out of a more predictable revenue stream, e.g. a carbon tax or general funds.
.
.
Excuse me for being rather unmotivated to go through the brain damage of calculations for a scheme I didn’t propose and have been for some time now saying I don’t think will work.
Joseph W. (Comment #148186),
Yes, opposition to nuclear power has always been a back-door means to restrict material wealth. The broad consensus among green organizations to strenuously oppose construction of nuclear power plants parallels their opposition to fossil fuels, hydroelectric power, or any other power source which will support increasing material wealth. Many of these same greens actively support drastic reductions in human population as well. Ever since the ‘Club of Rome’ pronouncements in the 1970’s, it has been obvious the green movement mostly wants many fewer people and much reduced material wealth. IMO, it is a fantasy to think green organizations will ever change; they do not value humanity much, and want only to minimize human impacts on Earth, by any means available. Today that is via ‘global warming’ hysteria, but if global warming were zero, greens would still want to reduce material wealth, and would be raging about other projections of doom.
Brandon G
Huh?
(1)I didn’t say before. I suggested the subjects be discussed in parallel as they are linked.
(2) The fact that funds are negotiated every year doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with discussing funding now. It’s fair to either be fore the other, but I think in parallel is wisest.
I didn’t say anything about your “tone”. I certainly didn’t say anything about me feelings about your tone. I was suggesting that your [facepalm] comment suggest you are ignorant– which it does. (Note: saying you sound like a stoopnogle is not a complaint about your “tone” nor saying that you are hurting my feelings.)
Once gain, Huh? Snide remarks may seem useful to you, but they only make you look like a stoopnogle.
We need funds. We need to get programs passed. We need to modify regulations to facilitate getting things built. I’ve discussed steps to do all of these things. You can insinuate that somehow I’m the one not willing to discuss these these things all you want. That doesn’t make it so.
If you want to discuss them,
(a) pick up on the threads discussing them rather than ignoring them or
(b) start discussing them.
Or don’t. But don’t expect anyone here to think that you ignoring those thread discussing how to get the program started and also not expressing your own ideas of how to do so means that anyone other than you is reluctant to discuss that topic.
kch (Comment #148196),
.
.
That generally means either increasing revenues and/or defunding something else. The problem is nobody really knows ahead of time how much a given project is going to cost, and certainly not whether it will be successful or not. And I do mean *nobody*. Here’s what the CBO had to say back in 2011:
.
Default rates and recovery rates are likely to vary considerably, both across projects and over the lifetime of a given project. CBO does not have enough information to independently estimate an average recovery rate for nuclear construction loans. However, assigning a similar expected recovery rate as a starting point for all projects—which is DOE’s current practice—does not appear to make full use of the information available to DOE through its detailed project assessment process. For example, when sponsors of stand-alone projects cannot pass on construction costs to ratepayers, very low recoveries may result if bankruptcy occurs during the construction phase. By contrast, recovery rates may be considerably higher once projects become operational.
.
This is one reason why I have been dubious of funding schemes proposing to cover costs with a dedicated revenue stream. I’m open to it, so long as there is an understanding that if obligated outlays exceed incoming revenues that the shortfall will need to be met with other funds.
.
I did like your earlier proposal of direct government financing because the Feds can borrow at a much lower rate, which means they could reasonably lend out borrowed funds at a higher rate than they’d borrowed it, but a lower rate than private commercial banks. I’ve also suggested that we could take it one step further by having the Feds securitize the debt and sell it in the public market. That would mean that private lenders who had been crowded out by the low-interest direct Federal loans could still participate without the burden of servicing the loans themselves.
.
.
Especially given the inherent unpredictability of required outlays, I think that’s a sensible plan.
.
.
In the case of the Feds offering loan guarantees for private commercial banks — which has been my main proposal all along — they are the insurance.
lucia (Comment #148218),
.
.
You wrote this note after we agreed on number of plants and a target completion date, but *before* you and I had made any attempt to estimate cost implications of that schedule.
.
lucia (Comment #147915)
May 16th, 2016 at 11:31 am
Brandon G
Excellent. Unless you think otherwise, I believe the next logical step is to estimate costs.
I think otherwise. I think the next logical step requires where we can get funding– what we might tax and so on. As you recall, I suggested we could transfer some funding from white elephants like funding electric vehicles or other pointless programs. Now is the time to discuss that.
.
.
First things I’m going to ask someone coming to me for funding are: why they want it, how much they’re looking for, on what kind of schedule and what I get out of giving it to them.
.
All hunting white elephants requires is an elephant, a big bucket of whitewash and a large caliber rifle.
True on both counts.
I wish you every success.
SteveF — I see things as you do; but would love to see my views on this point proven either (1) wrong or (2) obsolete.
Brandon G,
There is not and never has been any prohibition on discussing costs of building. I have never declared that we need any order at all– I merely expressed my preference and then did what one should do when wishing to discuss a topic: I discussed the topic I want to discuss. My response to you was never meant to suggest you couldn’t also discuss costs. We generally don’t have “rules” saying that topics need to be discussed in any particular order and we aren’t going to make that the general rule even if you, a visitor, suggest you want to do things in some sort of order.
If you want to discuss other costs. Discuss them. Better yet: Join the already ongoing discussions. IF you read carefully, engaging a couple of brain cells as you do so, you’ll notice that costs have been being discussed for at least 6 days now.
For example: I discussed costs in lucia (Comment #147922) That was May 16th, 2016 at 1:19 pm.
Joseph W and I discussed getting legal hurdles surmounted– and kch pointed out that legal hurdles are a major cost driver. So that conversation has to do with costs. Brandon S discussed regulations. Kch posted notes on history of cost escalations and how many of the costs are driven by those. Mark B discussed how to get Greens to accept nukes and so on — since they are the ones who mount the legal hurdles, that affects costs.
Brandon S discussed how your estimate of 330+ plants can’t be used to get any remotely decent estimate costs because “plants” doesn’t tell us anything about what you want to build. (One reactor? Two reactors? etc.) He discussed the cost issue of mini-plants v. large one. Hid various posts on those topic seemed to grumpify you not because of the point about costs, but because he was criticizing your lack of precision about what you mean by the word 330+ plants which has many imprecise aspects including figuring out costs. But wrt to your being grumpified by lack of discussion of costs: Brandon S did discuss how that interlaces with costs.
So this makes lots of people discussing costs.
If you really want to discuss costs it would be more constructive if you just joined those conversations rather than stooopidly whining based on your misperception that we aren’t discussing those.
(To ward off you a repetation of you complaining that I am lecturing you on tone or discussing my “feelings”: do not take my pointing out that your behavior is stupid as any sort of admonition on ‘tone’. Whining is allowed even though it is stoooooopid. My suggestion is simply an invitation to join any discussions on costs rather than wasting time lecturing those of us who have been discussing costs that we should be discussing costs. And do not take my pointing out that your whining is stoooopid as a complaining about my feelings. I am merely pointing out that you are entirely unobservant about what is being discussed and you couldparticipate in the ongoing discussions of costs if you so desired. Your whining is allowed, but we are also allowed to note that it is just dumb and suggests you really aren’t reading the thread.)
Costs are being discussed in the thread. Go ahead and join those discussions. Meanwhile, we can and almost certainly will continue to discuss funding in parallel with the discussion of costs. As we have been.
Brandon R. Gates –
Comment #148219
“That generally means either increasing revenues and/or defunding something else.”
.
Of course. That’s why I’d go for a carbon tax that is not revenue neutral, and make it stiff enough to both pay for the nuclear program and discourage major co2 emitting alternatives. I’d also love to remove direct subsidies for power generation that would compete with nuclear (where it makes sense to do so).
My only difference with kch is that I want the tax to be focused on electricity generators– so as to discourage generating electricity by non-nuclear means. And I’d remove direct subsidies for power that would compete with nuclear– also where it makes sense to do so.
I think it’s pretty clear that everyone understands that funding without taking on debt means increasing revenues of transferring funding from elsewhere. That’s understanding is reflected in the various suggestions for how to fund.
I can’t remember if I mentioned this previously but there is a controversy going on currently on an issue that directly impacts nuclear power and its regulation. The currently accepted model for radiation exposure hazards is the linear model that postulates that harm to humans is linear in the exposure with even very small exposures resulting in harm. Apparently, this model may be wrong and been the work of biased scientists.
http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/LNT-and-NAS-Environ.-Res.-1.pdf
I would be interested if anyone else has more information on this issue as it directly impacts the scientific basis of all kinds of regulations and directly effects the cost of nuclear power plants.
kch (Comment #148226),
.
.
That makes sense to me not least because I think it would be more palatable to carbon tax advocates who are hesitant to embrace nuclear, but not fully opposed. The bind I’ve been in, understandably so, is that it doesn’t appeal to pro-nukes who are anti-carbon tax. Another bind I’ve been in is that revenue neutral carbon taxes are in vogue. While I think the proposal is an improvement over cap and trade schemes, I’m dubious that that they can be made to work as intended. In brief, I think it’s better for a carbon tax to be priced to an estimate of the cost of its replacement as an energy source rather than the so-called social cost of continuing to hydrocarbons. If some additional tax is collected for purposes of revenue neutrality to those who can least afford their energy bills to rise, so be it — I think that’s a fair enough argument.
.
.
I agree. I have been making the additional argument that tax considerations should be phased out when they no longer make sense irrespective and independent of a condition for funding a nuclear program. As ever, that conversation comes down to differences on what makes sense.
.
Here’s what makes sense to me. Ramp down production tax credits for oil and gas while simultaneously ramping incentives for advanced biofuels production. Allocate a generous portion of a revenue carbon tax for biofuel production facility construction similar to what we’re proposing for nukes. Let there also be carrots instead of just sticks for the traditional fossil fuel energy providers.
lucia (Comment #148227),
.
.
Again, I don’t think that works — at least not as a sole source of required funds. As a method for discouraging new coal and gas plants, yes. I think to fund a nuke program it’s best to spread the costs across as wide a tax base as possible. As I pointed out to kch in comment #148219, the CBO doesn’t know how to reliably estimate the taxpayer cost of a loan guarantee program, so that’s another issue. It follows that nobody will be able to predict when outlays will be required because projects don’t fail on a predictable schedule.
.
.
From my perspective, killing white elephants doesn’t make sense when the elephant’s natural color is green. That doesn’t mean I think any or all conceivable green elephants shouldn’t be painted white and terminated with extreme prejudice. But solar PV isn’t on my subsidy chopping block for sure. For darn sure, taxing wind energy and/or solar PV to encourage nukes is a non-starter. Not only would that be contrary to our other common goal of reducing emissions, a nuke funding program with taxes for those kind of renewable sources has less chance of flying past Congressional Democrats than a winged pig.
Brandon R. Gates –
Comment #148233
“If some additional tax is collected for purposes of revenue neutrality to those who can least afford their energy bills to rise, so be it — I think that’s a fair enough argument.”
.
I think that’s called mission creep. To me the point of a carbon tax is to change behaviour. If it fails in that (and revenue neutrality is one mode of failure) then it misses the point and merely becomes another tax grab with government skimming from the top. I would not support it in that case. (I also wouldn’t support a carbon tax if it were not part of a larger plan to sort out the co2-through-energy-generation problem, ie “let’s build nukes.”)
.
“Here’s what makes sense to me. Ramp down production tax credits for oil and gas while simultaneously ramping incentives for advanced biofuels production. Allocate a generous portion of a revenue carbon tax for biofuel production facility construction similar to what we’re proposing for nukes.”
.
Uh, no. Just no. The thought of subsidizing food-into-fuel makes me break into hives. If we don’t need the land to produce food, let it go back to nature, as we might need it later.
.
I’m also not sure about the ramping down of tax credits for oil and gas, if only because I, at least, am talking about hitting consumers with a carbon tax. Looking around, it also seems as though some of the tax credits make sense (for example, Texas halves the production tax for EOR operations). I’d need more information before I’d agree.
Um, also…would someone mind telling me the secret of block quotes. I so rarely comment anywhere it’s never mattered before, but it’s getting embarrassing being the only one here not doing them.
lucia (Comment #148224),
.
.
Which was killing white elephants, i.e., getting rid of “futile” non-nuclear energy subsidies.
.
.
No if about it. I do want to discuss the costs associated with an accelerated nuclear program. And I have been with the very folks you listed.
.
.
lol. You agreed to that number *before* the other B raised that point, see comment #147874. Comment #147851 is where I laid out the maths for the 330 plant target. I suppose I’m somewhat remiss for not having converted that into nameplate capacity when I wrote that post. However, somewhere upthread I think I pointed out that the average currently operating plant in the US is rated at 1,000 MWe.
.
We can talk costs on dollars per unit nameplate capacity, or dollars per plant based on an assumed capacity per plant.
.
.
IIRC, his argument was that he didn’t think larger reactors (I do mean reactors) presented any additional complexity which might risk project success, but rather that larger plants (I do mean plants) might. I think he got that backward. I dunno if he’s had anything further to say on the matter.
.
.
Encouraging me to do something I have been doing all along strikes me as faintly ridiculous, Lucia. Especially when I said from the get-go that I thought it was the most logical next step to discuss with *you*.
kch,
.
[blockquote]Quoted Text[/blockquote]
.
Use angle brackets instead of square ones. (I’m not smart enough to post HTML without it being interpreted as HTML.)
The secret is to put the word ‘blockquote’ between two angled brackets: . Then you paste the quote, and you put ‘/blockquote’ between two more angled brackets. WordPress does the rest.
Brandon R. Gates, SteveF –
Thanks.
kch:
You use the HTML blockquote tag, meaning you type “blockquote” and “/blockquote” around the text you want to quote, replacing the quotation marks with less than and greater than signs. I’d show you a practical example, but I can’t recall offhand how you use those signs on WordPress without it interpreting them as HTML tags. (Does anyone remember the strings you write for that?)
Huh, funny timing. 30+ minutes from kch asking before anyone responded, and then, within ten minutes, three people did.
Brandon R. Gates:
Lol. You still haven’t acknowledged that number is a completely inappropriate goal.
Not only did I not say this, I explicitly contradicted this. You seem to have a poor recollection of what people say, perhaps encouraged by a poor understanding in the first place. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is it is hilarious for you to say:
To claim you didn’t propose cutting tax credits in order to fund your proposed program even though that’s exactly what you did on more than one occasion. For instance, you called for it in Comment #148139:
And even more explicitly in Comment #148177:
You directly stated you’d generate a quantified amount of funding by ending the “wind Production Tax Credits” (which had already been slated to end). It was your proposal for coming up with “your half” of the funding. When I repeatedly criticized your proposal this be the source of “your half” of the funding, you defended it – as recently as Comment #148198 when you responded to me pointing our your quantification of your source of funding was nonsense by saying:
I have no idea how you’ve convinced yourself this is a “scheme [you] didn’t propose” much less that you’ve been “saying [you] don’t think [it] will work” for some time now. What I do know is your memory and/or understanding of what people, including yourself, say is terrible.
<blockquote>stuff to quote </blockquote>
Brandon G
You appear to be trying to make a point, but I don’t know what it might be.
The slash in lucia’s comment is wrong. It needs to be a forward slash, not a backslash.
I wonder if anyone calls it a foreslash. They should.
Through the magic of admin permissions.. slash fixed…
kch (Comment #148235),
.
.
I call it avoiding regressive taxation if at all possible, which might have the tendency to keep the mission grounded.
.
.
A purely revenue neutral carbon tax, yes. A revenue carbon tax, also yes but with the twist that funds gathered are intended to be used to actively promote the replacement either by reducing barriers to market entry and/or levelling the playing field in terms of market price per unit product delivered.
.
The main selling points for a revenue neutral carbon tax are that it’s progressive, and it lets the market decide how to respond. Here’s my prediction for the electrical power industry: a carbon tax would favor natural gas over nuclear for sure because it would basically price new coal plants out of the market than they already are with respect to gas. Wind might compete without further incentives, solar PV would not. Therefore, a revenue neutral carbon tax won’t work without debt financing nukes and renewables, or raising revenues by way of some other tax hike.
.
So, if carbon tax, I think it should generate revenue. Since household energy consumption as a percentage of income is greater for lower income brackets, I also think there needs to be some form of revenue neutrality to offset that.
.
.
By *advanced* biofuels, I did not mean corn liquor for cars or soybean oil for trucks. I probably shouldn’t use “advanced biofuels” because the EPA’s definition of that includes certain ways of processing food crops for fuel that I don’t wish to encourage. What I’m mainly talking about is algae grown for oils to be refined into gasoline, kerosene and diesel equivalents. That doesn’t require cropland, and in a closed bioreactor, is quite a bit more water and land-area efficient. Algaes make good feedstocks for meat and dairy animals as well.
.
I’m ok with turning corn stover and woodchips into alcohols or used vegetable oils from deep friers into biodiesel. That all seems like sensible “waste” product usage to me.
.
.
Somewhere upthread I gave Lucia my reasoning for what constituted tax considerations that aren’t pointless … let’s see … ah, comment #148177:
.
1) They encourage development of new technologies (and/or product) which have potential to be more beneficial and/or less harmful than equivalent mature ones.
.
2) They stabilize the market for a mature technology (and/or product) for which there is no mature (or viable) alternative AND which is considered essential and/or strategic.
.
So, I’d be hesitant to simplistically slash subsidies/incentives for any energy source or technology providing either or both function, and that includes petroleum especially because there is no sensible near-term drop-in replacement for liquid fuels that I can tell.
.
.
Yup, that one arguably makes sense. Keep in mind the main reason I’m talking about those to begin with is because I was looking for a horse-trade with Lucia. Between you and me, it does make some sense to not double-dip by applying a carbon tax AND yanking a fossil fuel subsidy.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148243),
.
.
lol, I’m not the only party in this discussion who has accepted that goal.
.
.
Comment #147958:
.
There are not “100 licensed and currently operating nuclear plants in the US.†There are 61. Of those 61 plants, 35 have two or more nuclear reactors. That gives a total of 99 reactors spread across 61 plants. The difference is significant as building larger plants with multiple reactors can be far more efficient. If you account for that possibility and the difference in energy production rates between reactors, it is quite possible shifting (nearly) all of the United States electricity production to nuclear would require fewer than 100 new nuclear power plants.
.
Comment #147968:
.
Is Gates worried about the size of the reactors themselves? If so, why did he refer to the “size and complexity of large plants� Having multiple reactors will make a plant significantly larger and more complex, and that is a real concern. But why would the size of a single reactor be a factor? The variance in size of reactors doesn’t have anywhere near as much impact on the size of the final plant as tons of other factors. (I believe the difference in reactor size is ~10 feet. Does anyone know if that’s right?)
.
The second comment is the one I recall reading.
.
.
Lucia is the one who brought up killing white elephants, Brandon S.
.
.
Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down.
.
.
What else is new.
lucia (Comment #148245),
.
.
Thinking has been shown to generate knowledge.
Brandon R. Gates:
If you think it says what you thought you remembered I had said, then you’re terrible at reading. Because it doesn’t.
This is not an effective way to advocate for a cause or to have anything resembling a useful discussion. You can go on about how your behavior is your glorious method of standing up to dastardly bullies or whatever your normal excuse/narrative is, but the reality is you’re just an ignorant hack who knows depressingly little about the cause he advocates for and gets flustered and upset when that gets demonstrated.
If you want anybody to hold any other opinion than that, I suggest you try engaging the points people make in a direct and constructive manner. If you don’t, I suggest everyone start ignoring you as you’re not even attempting to have a real discussion anymore. It’s not clear you ever were.
Go figure. After explaining how to use blockquote tags, my next attempt at using them fails.
Brandon S.
I think I fixed the blockquote. I think you just missed the final closing one.
Till tomorrow. A demain. whatetever.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148252),
.
.
Yet another useless comment. Shocker.
.
Here’s my original argument:
.
330 plants in 20 years is 16.5 plants/yr that need to break ground. I think that may be too ambitious a beginning, so I propose to treat the first five years or so as a “pilot†program with something on the order of 5 reactors/year. Note that I wrote “reactors†not “plantsâ€. To keep complexity to a minimum, I propose limiting the first several years of construction to eight or so sites, with multiple reactors slated to be built incrementally.
.
We want the one that has the “best†track record in terms of cost and performance, which may be tricky to evaluate. Larger reactors in theory have the better price/performance characteristics, but I am concerned that size and complexity of large plants present higher risks in terms of … call it completion success.
.
Here’s you patting yourself on the back for being so smart in response:
.
Now that I’ve pointed out nuclear plants and nuclear reactors aren’t the same thing, Brandon R. Gates distinguishes between them for how many should be built in another case “5 reactors/year†yet doesn’t in other cases “330 plants in 20 years is 16.5 plants/yr†and geos out of his way to stess the two are different.
.
Is Gates worried about the size of the reactors themselves? If so, why did he refer to the “size and complexity of large plants� Having multiple reactors will make a plant significantly larger and more complex, and that is a real concern. But why would the size of a single reactor be a factor? The variance in size of reactors doesn’t have anywhere near as much impact on the size of the final plant as tons of other factors. (I believe the difference in reactor size is ~10 feet. Does anyone know if that’s right?)
.
Same message, here’s you being “confused” again: I cannot tell what people are thinking when they write like this […]
.
Here’s a thought: try asking clarifying questions. It might engender some actual conversation, and not overtax your brain with speculation: Or was he conflating reactors and plants again, in a comment where he specifically distinguished between them in another paragraph?
.
Gosh, I don’t know, B. Here’s a freaking clue: Note that I wrote “reactors†not “plantsâ€.
.
*I’m* terrible at reading? Pull my other one.
.
Now see if you can wrap your poor widdle pedantic brain around this concept: to the extent that any of us here can reasonably estimate costs of building up nuclear power *capacity* in the United States dollars per unit *capacity* really ought to be able to get us in the ballpark. Assuming 1,000 MWe/*reactor* isn’t such a terrible assumption, which means 330 *reactors* would fit the bill for replacing current coal- and gas-fired *capacity*. *When* someone (e.g., me) slips up and says 330 *plants* let’s all be bright enough to properly interpret what was meant by that without undue fuss. Ok? Ok.
.
.
Yeah, like you give two squats about my causes. Now if you’ll pardon me, I need to get this fried irony meter outside before the whole durn house goes up in smoke.
lucia, thanks, but I actually forgot to close another tag too. The first line of the second quote ends with a tag that’s missing it’s greater than sign.
Brandon R. Gates, it appears you are genuinely terrible at reading. That, or you are doing things like selectively quoting text to pretend what people say is silly when not intentionally distorting their comments via selective quotation would show their remarks are perfectly sensible. I kind of suspect the latter given you have now fully dived into your childish approach to discussions and must know fully well you were completely full of it when you said:
To be blunt, I think your behavior here is nothing more than you being too much of a baby to acknowledge your mistakes. That’s the best explanation I have for you making wildly untrue claims, even going so far as to insist you’ve been arguing against a plan others proposed when in reality you were the only person to advocate for the plan.
Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know. What I do know is me continuing to point out your pathetic and seemingly dishonest behavior won’t do any good at this point. I’m not going to influence anyone’s opinion any further than I have, and no matter how many times I correct mistakes you make, I cannot cause this a discussion with you to become informed or accurate.
If others want to discuss the idea of pushing for a strong transition to nuclear power, I think we could have an interesting discussion about it and how it could be done. I don’t think such is possible with you though. Your personal whatevers are just too important to you to actually make a real effort at advocating for the cause you say you care so much about. I think that’s sad. I also think that’s the last I have to say about it.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #148256) ,
.
.
To be blunt, you shouldn’t be so hard on yourself. Nearly two months it’s been, and you still haven’t copped to the errors I pointed out in that article.
.
And maybe you should read this post again.
.
Yeah, that Gates guy, he’s got issues recognizing and owning mistakes.
.
By all means, please continue pretending to be better than me at coming clean about errors. Oooh, and especially keep nitpicking me for flubbing the plant/reactor distinction — It tells me a lot about how much you have to offer about the real, and welcome, discussions I’m having with others here [1] about how we might accelerate a nuclear power program in this country.
.
———————
.
[1] Since you frequently have trouble understanding things — I’m talking about the intelligent folks here who had zero problem understanding from the get-go that my goal was to replace presently installed coal- and gas-generating *capacity* with an equivalent amount of nuclear-generating *capacity*.
Brandon R. Gates –
.
.
Grounded in what? This smacks of pandering to the progressive left just to obtain their support for a nuclear program. Not my cup of tea…
.
.
These three paragraphs don’t make a lot of sense to me. First, we seem to have a very different view of what a “revenue neutral carbon tax” would accomplish. You think it will change behaviour, but I’m pretty certain it will just redistribute wealth.
.
Second, I can’t see how a revenue neutral carbon tax gives the market more power to decide how to respond than a revenue positive carbon tax would. You’ll have to explain that.
.
Third, I do not follow your logic for gas over nuclear because it eliminates coal. Seems to be a non-sequitur, so you might want to explain that as well.
.
Fourth, yes, I agree that a revenue neutral carbon tax will necessitate debt financing for the nuke program. This is why I have consistently held the position of any carbon tax *not* being revenue neutral.
.
.
Ah, OK. Still not in favour of subsidies for this, but at least it’s not food-into-fuel.
.
(Quick aside – I’m trying to get nuclear power expanded and am willing to coatrack on the – imho – unjustified environmental fears of the progressive left to get what I want, but it’s starting to look to me as though you are really trying to get the goals of the progressive left expanded and are coatracking on my desire to expand nuclear to get what you want. Amusing but pointless if that’s the case. Let me know if that’s the case and we’ll end this conversation before the rancor sets in.)
kch,
“You think it will change behaviour, but I’m pretty certain it will just redistribute wealth.”
.
I’m pretty sure it would do some of both, which is why the ‘progressive left’ would support it. Unfortunately, the changes in behavior would likely not be only those which are ‘desired’. Lots of unintended consequences (and behaviors) are almost inevitable.
Steve F-
True enough. Part of my wariness of (and go-slow approach to) governmental intervention on anything is the inevitability of the unintended consequences. Wealth redistribution as an intended goal, though, is a complete non-starter for me.
kch,
I suspect the progressive left will never support even something as sensible as nuclear power if it doesn’t include a wealth transfer provision….. you know, make despicable rich people pay more for energy, but protect virtuous poor people from increased energy costs.
.
WRT unintended consequences: This is my greatest concern. We need look no further than the corn-to-ethanol boondoggle to see just how badly intervention in the energy marketplace can turn out… and how trying to fix even a grotesque mistake like corn-to-ethanol becomes politically impossible once the rent seekers and their lobbyists get into the consumer’s pocket book.
.
One might imagine the ‘progressive left’ would learn from a horrible outcome like corn-to-ethanol (and many more!), and be more cautious about political intervention in the marketplace. But my experience is that they are mainly unable to learn from bad outcomes…. it’s always claimed things will turn out better the next time. They want ‘progress’, at any cost, 24/7.
kch (Comment #148258),
.
.
“Died in committee” I think is the phrase.
.
.
It’s a mixture of political calculus and my own personal beliefs. Typically the only time something this big gets done is with bipartisan support. One sure way to wreck a deal where bipartisan cooperation is required is to start slinging the p-word around. That we’ve forgotten how to do functional politics in this country isn’t exactly my cuppa either.
.
.
Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear. Without being a very steep tax, I don’t think a completely revenue neutral carbon tax would do much more than wealth redistribution because demand for energy is relatively insensitive to price.
.
.
Keeping in mind this isn’t my favorite scheme — the revenue neutral tax is intended to price carbon to reflect the total social costs of fossil fuel use. The market is then supposed to respond by figuring out for itself which alternatives work best as replacements. See my above comment on price elasticity of demand as for why I’m dubious of that kind of tax’s efficacy.
.
.
At present, natural gas-fired plants are the cheapest providers of electricity on a levelized cost basis that can also provide baseload power. Wind (onshore) is about at parity with gas. Coal and nukes are more expensive, but also at about parity with each other. Final relevant bit is that natural gas doesn’t emit nearly as much CO2 per unit energy as coal.
.
So, slap a revenue neutral carbon tax across the board, and you can easily price coal out of the market. You’d really have to jack the tax to bring natural gas to parity with nuclear. Since this is a revenue neutral scenario I’m talking about, I think all that would happen is that more windmills and gas plants would be built, nukes would still stagnate, and some unnecessary upward inflation pressure would happen.
.
.
You and I absolutely agree on that. I don’t know what else to call what I’m proposing other than a “hybrid” carbon tax.
.
.
Well, you can eat algae you know, it just isn’t very tasty. The edibility isn’t the salient argument, it’s the resource use to grow them. They’re ridiculously more efficient than corn or soybeans.
.
.
I make no bones about being a liberal and having a liberal agenda. If you want to ask me questions about what I think needs to be done with respect to AGW, I’ll tell you right up front that I want to get emissions to as close to zero as quickly as possible without wrecking the economy. Further, if that’s going to be met with suspicion that I’m trying to sneak something past you in bad faith, you might want to ask yourself what kind of position that might tempt me into as a negotiator.
.
With Lucia, I’ve attempted to keep the conversation to nukes as much as possible because that’s as much as she’s expressed willingness to negotiate as a emissions-reduction scheme. I’ve been freer with you because until this post you’ve expressed willingness to meet me on things like carbon taxes which she opposes.
SteveF –
I suspect you’re right. Kind of sad, but as I don’t feel that AGW is an existential threat to humanity I’m actually OK with advocating for a “do nothing” approach until they come to their senses. If ever that happens…
Hence the rise of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al. It’s not that they can’t learn from history, it’s that they won’t.
Not going to happen. They are like children playing a sym nation game. Doesn’t have anything to do with reality, but try taking their toys away from them and they will hate you forever.
The adults are going to have to take the toys away.
Andrew
Brandon S.
I don’t think anyone responded to your question about how to insert HTML special characters, so here goes:
The code is enclosed between an ampersand and a semicolon. There are many lists of codes on the net. Here are a few:
http://www.utexas.edu/learn/html/spchar.html
http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/entities/symbols.html
http://www.unicode.org/charts/
http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php
The unicode charts have everything, but, as a result, it’s often hard to find what you want.
For less than and greater than it’s < which gives <.
For greater than, it’s > which gives >.
By the way, if you edit your post, you have to replace the characters with the HTML code again.
Brandon R. Gates-
.
Whoops, sorry, not trying to state or imply any bad faith here – this has all been too useful for me to screw it up that way. I’m just trying to express (badly, I guess) that we might have reached the limits of agreement on a nuclear agenda, based on the apppearance of our differing political agendas.
.
.
This, plus your following paragraph, makes some sense. Except that I’ve developed a healthy wariness for the whole “levelized cost basis” exercise, based on the slagging of the various numbers I’ve seen elsewhere. Something to explore more, I guess. Time for google…
.
.
Nori for sushi, Hijiki salad – both are in fact very tasty. (Sorry, can’t help myself – I am a chef, after all. There’s not much I won’t eat and enjoy.)
.
[Again, a general note: I’m enjoying the fact that we seem to be able to disagree and negotiate without rancor. I’d like to keep it that way. There are, however some things on which I will not compromise. I’m assuming you are the same, and my comment was more about recognizing these limits than anything else.]
Andrew_KY-
Can’t agree. Won’t ever agree. Citizens have the absolute right to make bad decisions, and any mechanism to circumvent that just leads to tyranny. I don’t care which side does it, it’s a bad thing.
Fair enough, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that if you are waiting for progs to come to their senses, they aint gonna. However it specifically plays out regarding that, I do not know. It’s likely not going to be pleasant, if you know any history.
Andrew
Brandon G.
On liquid fuels from algae, I’ll take the press release type hype on the web site you linked more seriously when there is actual large scale production data for an extended period, including processing cost to isolate a usable product. Until then, if something sounds too good to be true, like 25,000 gal/acre/year, it probably isn’t.
Brandon G,
I was never under the impression I was negotiating anything. I am merely expressing my opinion on proposals, proposing my own. FWIW: I never agreed I would negotiate, that we should negotaite here in comments or that ‘negotation’ in comments at a blog is a remotely useful thing to do. I just prefer to discuss approaches I think make sense.
It seems to me if you think “negotiation” or “horse-trading” is going on, you are going to frequently see them “breaking down” or perhaps thinking they are done in bad faith. If so consider the possibility that others never imagined that you thought this conversation was a “negotiation”.
kch (Comment #148267),
.
.
Appreciated, and accepted, thanks. No worries.
.
.
I completely expect there to be mutual suspicions across party lines in the AGW debate … it’s well known here that I pack more than a few of my own.
.
.
The Wiki article for cost of electricity by source is where I started. The US table leads to a DOE document. Not going to say they’re the only reliable estimates, but for discussions such as this I know of none better. I’m too tired to give links, but if you scroll up you can probably find a post where I do a proper citation.
.
.
Ah yes I forgot you are a chef. I dunno, every time I see a beaker full of algae I start thinking about Soylent Green ….
.
.
We are on exactly the same page, sir.
lucia (Comment #148271),
.
.
More proof that I’m not a mind reader. Or maybe it’s more proof that there’s no point too teeny for you to dispute.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #148270),
.
.
Oddly enough, both those things would get me to take it a lot more seriously too. I don’t know how many times I’ve said on this thread that I don’t think a sensible liquid fuel technolgy is going to be viable any time soon.
.
.
Not exactly the most rigorous proof ever, DeWitt. Growth rates for algae in natural environments are much studied. Try literature not tied to industry and see what kind of numbers you come up with for tonnes of biomass production per unit time and volume of water.
Hi David (#148228), re: Calabrese’s paper
I know little about the issue, but some googling found this response from Ralph Ciccerone, current president of the NAS, to one of Calabrese’s other publications on same subject. He’s not impressed : “It distresses us to see this article’s accusations, with no actual supporting evidence, in a serious scientific journal.”
DeWitt Payne, thanks. I hadn’t realized you could use unicode codes like that too. I knew about the nbsp and codes like those, but I can never remember those (and wasn’t sure just how to search for them). Being able to use unicode codes should make it a lot easier. I can remember numbers way better than specific character strings.
< blockquote > testing < /blockquote >
DeWitt Payne, thanks. I hadn’t realized you could use unicode codes like that too. I knew about the nbsp and codes like those, but I can never remember those (and wasn’t sure just how to search for them). Being able to use unicode codes should make it a lot easier. I can remember numbers way better than specific character strings.
< blockquote > testing < /blockquote >
Oops, missed a semicolon on the second one there. Otherwise it worked as I wanted. Awesome!
Brandon Gates
As usual…. and odd response from you. You told kch the only reason you are talking about something is because you are trying to horsetrade with me.
I’m not involved in any horsetrading with you. And it sounds like you are telling kch that you are knowingly suggesting steps even you think are sub-optimal ideas and doing so because you– for some reason– think that’s useful in getting a “horsetrade” with me. Under the circumstances, I you might want to know that I am not involved in the horsetrade. So you can probably do whatever trading or discussing more efficiently and effectively by not suggesting things even you think suboptimal in order to do a “horsetrade” with me.
Say Brandon Gates, not bad. I leave the blog alone for a few days, come back and lo! you’re doing fine. Starts to make me believe my comments were the source of the problem all along.
Heh. I know. Preposterous! :p
I’ll shut up for maybe another week and see where that gets us. All this time, all I needed to do to solve problems everywhere… huh.
lucia (Comment #148280),
.
.
No sounds like about it, that’s what I was saying.
.
.
Well sure. Hunting white elephants doesn’t require horsetrading. One might say that would be futile.
.
.
I could jump through your hoops until the cows come home and only convince you that I’m your trained monkey.
.
As usual, you will next claim my response is odd or otherwise makes no sense.
mark bofill (Comment #148281),
.
.
Here I was thinking I’d run you off permanently. That’s what I get for thinking.
.
.
That gave me a chuckle.
.
.
Not for the first time, I’m not entirely sure where we’re supposed to be going.
Brandon G,
Other than don’t argue by rhetorical question, I’ve put no hoops in front of you.
Well… yes. Your next response was odd. It makes no sense to complain about “all the hoops” when the only thing remotely resembling a metaphorical hoop is the rule about rhetorical questions which applies to everyone.
But carry on.
Lucia,
.
.
No? Let me answer my rhetorical question:
.
So you can probably do whatever trading or discussing more efficiently and effectively by not suggesting things even you think suboptimal in order to do a “horsetrade†with me.
.
Now allow me to translate: If only I would do things that I’ve already been doing, I might more efficiently and effectively do something you’ve never been doing.
.
I don’t know, maybe a better metaphor is “three-ring circus”, white elephants and all.
.
We could probably have a more efficient and productive discussion trying to determine who the clown is.
.
.
One of my favorite tunes. The lyrics are weirdly apropos to this … whatever it is you insist on calling it today.
Brandon G,
(a) What you quoted is not a hoop you are required or even asked to jump through. It isn’t even a hoop. It is an observation about your behavior.
(b) You are not doing what you think you are doing.
But do carry on.
lucia (Comment #148288),
.
.
Funny, I thought the topic was supposed to be nuclear power. I really should stop thinking, it gets in the way of you making sense.
.
.
Jedi Mindtricks only work on the feeble-minded, Lucia. And you’re no Jedi.
.
.
Beware your permissions.
No, but she likes cats. And some cats have been powerful Sith…
.
She wasn’t saying that though.
Brandon
If you thought you bringing up your notion about jumping through hoops was related to the topic of nuclear power that explains why your comments are often odd, fragmentary and don’t make much sense.