Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[Snarkhund]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601218/desk-size-turbine-could-power-a-town/

GE Global Research is testing a desk-size turbine that could power a small town of about 10,000 homes. The unit is driven by “supercritical carbon dioxide,” which is in a state that at very high pressure and up to 700 °C exists as neither a liquid nor a gas. After the carbon dioxide passes through the turbine, it's cooled and then repressurized before returning for another pass.

lol

I agree with the assertion that we will use the most efficient and abundant fuels available and that we will advance the technologies that allow those fuels to be utilized cleanly. Even coal will be utilized in some areas and gasification and other technologies will be applied.

The solar industry is dying. It is being killed off by public utilities who require a grid-tie connection and will not allow any storage devices. State governments are supporting the utilities by removing tax incentives. The federal government is sitting on its hands watching it happen but they are still too butt-hurt from the Solyndra debacle to touch any issue involving solar.

We have so much natural gas in North America that any suggestion that we aren't going to use it is ludicrous and simply fantasy.

People are catching on to the wind generation fraud as well. It is surprising that it has taken this long but regular folks have seen the ugly scarred landscapes and have begun to perceive the fact that it takes more energy to produce a full sized wind generator than it generates in its entire useful lifetime. Smaller home-sized wind generators actually produce more energy than is used to manufacture them but here the public utilities have again intervened to prohibit their wide-scale use. The future cost of dismantling defunct wind farms is also starting to look disastrous.

The utilities are in the pockets of the politicians (or the other way 'round if you prefer). Seems to be a common problem in America these days.

 

[Ricter]

The solar industry is dying.

LOL

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data

 

[Snarkhund]

LOL

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-solar-industry-is-dying-good-riddance.html

Hope you aren't invested in it lol.

There is this thing called profit and it can sometimes be regarded as the measure of success in a business or an entire industry.

 

[Ricter]

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-solar-industry-is-dying-good-riddance.html

Hope you aren't invested in it lol.

There is this thing called profit and it can sometimes be regarded as the measure of success in a business or an entire industry.

There is thing called tax incentives and they can sometimes be regarded as a measure of growing a new industry. Like... the internet.

 

[LacesOut]

LOL, you use C3 headlines and I use NASA and NOAA and you're accusing ME of using junk science? LOL Too funny.

Piezoe is a pHD and you are an HVAC salesman.
To Whom should we be listening??

 

[futurecurrents]

Only a complete idiot would say solar and wind are dying.

 

[Ricter]

Piezoe is a pHD and you are an HVAC salesman.
To Whom should we be listening??

There are a lot of PhDs in the climate study business. Piezoe is not one of them. To whom should we be listening?

 

[LacesOut]

There are a lot of PhDs in the climate study business. Piezoe is not one of them. To whom should we be listening?

You will listen to the one that satisfies your bias, that's for certain.

 

[futurecurrents]

There are a lot of PhDs in the climate study business. Piezoe is not one of them. To whom should we be listening?

Pick one......

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.


Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it.

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html

 

[LacesOut]

^ this entire load of shit has been debunked already....
Next