• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Climate Treaty Will Cost $100 Trillion and Won't Work

I toss this out for comment... and contradiction, if my sense of previous enviornmental problems and their solutions is inaccurate. It seems to me that we have resolved or improved the following: acid rain in the northeast, the ozone hole problem, and smog in LA and elsewhere. This has been done with government action and through corporate response, the latter required or not. There were no doubt skeptics, whose arguments, when valid, affected for the better the rate and caliber of changes made.

In addition, my impression is that 190 or so countries agreed that there is a problem with climate change and we should take steps to do something about it. That presumably means that scientists in many of those countries advised them to do something. If this whole enterprise has been built on fraud or panic, it surely is one of the largest incidents of fraud or mass hysteria in history, rivalling Trump's three million illegal votes story as an epic catastrophe, so grand a illusion that oil companies, who acknowledge the problem, have themselves been taken in.

John McCain seemed to have the best take on this for skeptics: if human caused climate change is real, they we should do something about it, he said. If not,most of what's proposed is probably good anyway. I am told that the Pentagon, not know for hysteria, factors climate change a it's disruptive effects into its plans.

Finally, if this is all a mistake, wonderful! Then we liberals can get on to other issues, letting our socialist tentacles run wild in other fields. (I know, tentacles can't run). But the paranoia in some sectors on the right is laughable at times. I heard Limbaugh claim a few months ago that the reason scientists speculated that water on Mars could have come from melting polar ice caps came from their desire to advance the climate change agenda. Doesn't get weirder than that.

Once upon a time the educated understanding of the Sun and planets was based on the Ptolemaic system with Earth at the center. It took a long time for the observations and hypothesis of Copernicus to displace Ptolemy with newer, better science. There was no conspiracy, just entrenched belief of the comfortable "everybody knows" variety. Defense of the Ptolemaic system required increasingly elaborate addenda to its structure: epicycles, etc. Just so, AGW is today increasingly challenged by newer, better science (Svensmark, Shaviv, Kirkby, et al) and its defense requires ever more elaborate explanations of inconsistencies and inconvenient data. AGW is a product of 19th century science, and will pass from the scene soon enough, leaving its embarrassed former advocates to try to explain away their previous strident defense.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html




The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.
 
As explained in #45 it is different from your mischaracterization.

Looks the same to me. Maybe we need to let Lord explain himself. He's the one who brought up the idea of whale farming, after all.
 
The population grown of developed countries is falling therefore consumption is falling therefore productivity is falling.

I don't think it's a stretch to predict that climate change mitigation will fall by the wayside at some point.

It profoundly foolish to think we should burn every speck of fossil energy before we move to renewables. You do know they will run out eventually no matter how stupid we behave.
photo-thumb-500x376-57911.jpeg
 
Your claim in #32 was independent of any exchange with LoP.

Let's see...

Originally Posted by Jack Hays
Fossil fuels will dominate the energy sector for many decades (maybe centuries) to come.

That's what they said about whale oil and tallow.

You got me there. I don't know whether or not anyone expressed that idea at the time, but before kerosene, there was no reason to think that whale oil and tallow wouldn't fill our energy needs for decades to come.
 
Let's see...





You got me there. I don't know whether or not anyone expressed that idea at the time, but before kerosene, there was no reason to think that whale oil and tallow wouldn't fill our energy needs for decades to come.

Actually that's not true, as I already pointed out to you, and repeat here for your convenience.

The issue was quite a bit more complicated than that.

The "Whale Oil Myth" | PBS NewsHour

www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w/




Aug 20, 2008 - The fact is that kerosene did not simply replace whale oil. ... So I thanked Professor Kovarik, and copied the entire exchange to Lave, not only a ...
 
It profoundly foolish to think we should burn every speck of fossil energy before we move to renewables. You do know they will run out eventually no matter how stupid we behave.
I do not think we will ever run out of fossil fuels, we will stop using them for fuel.
They will be priced out of the fuel market, all on their own.
 
Actually that's not true, as I already pointed out to you, and repeat here for your convenience.

The issue was quite a bit more complicated than that.

The "Whale Oil Myth" | PBS NewsHour

www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/this-post-is-hopelessly-long-w/




Aug 20, 2008 - The fact is that kerosene did not simply replace whale oil. ... So I thanked Professor Kovarik, and copied the entire exchange to Lave, not only a ...

Yes, it does appear to be more complex than simply fossil fuels replacing more expensive and increasingly scarce whale oil.

From your link:

The bottom line of the whale oil myth is that change does not occur through market forces as often as we have come to believe. There are frequently other political or social forces at work.

among them at the time was the government subsidizing fossil fuels, and, perhaps more importantly, the civil war shutting down most of the whaling industry.

Fast forward to today, and we have increasingly expensive and less accessible oil ready to be replaced by something. Will it take a war once again, or will government subsidies switching from the old technology to the new be enough?
 
I do not think we will ever run out of fossil fuels, we will stop using them for fuel.
They will be priced out of the fuel market, all on their own.

That seems to be already happening, but, according to Jack Hays' posts, it may take a push from somewhere to get the job done.
 
Yes, it does appear to be more complex than simply fossil fuels replacing more expensive and increasingly scarce whale oil.

From your link:



among them at the time was the government subsidizing fossil fuels, and, perhaps more importantly, the civil war shutting down most of the whaling industry.

Fast forward to today, and we have increasingly expensive and less accessible oil ready to be replaced by something. Will it take a war once again, or will government subsidies switching from the old technology to the new be enough?

From the link:

By 1850 a consumer had a choice of:

  • Camphene or “burning fluid” — 50 cents/gallon (combinations of alcohol, turpentine and camphor oil – bright, sweet smelling)
    * whale oil — $1.30 to $2.50/gallon
    * lard oil — 90 cents (low quality, smelly)
    * coal oil — 50 cents (sooty, smelly, low quality) (the original “kerosene”)
    * kerosene from petroleum — 60 cents (introduced in early 1860s)
The amount of camphene on the market was far above 90 million and probably close to 200 million gallons per year. That’s about the same level as kerosene in 1870. Whale oil peaked at 18 million gallons in 1845, according to Starbuck’s whaling history of 1878. [NEITHER AHAB’S FIRST MATE NOR THE COFFEE CHAIN, BTW, BUT A GUY NAMED ALEXANDER STARBUCK.] By all accounts, camphene was by far the leading lamp fuel.
In 1862, a tax of $2.00 a gallon was imposed on beverage alcohol and camphene was forced off the market. Since the Pennsylvania oil fields were in the process of opening, the whales really had nothing to do with the emergence of the kerosene industry.
Thus, kerosene came into an already well established liquid fuel system with full scale production, distribution and end-use technology already well in place. In other words, kerosene replaced an array of lamp fuels of various qualities and prices; it did not suddenly emerge to light up a world quickly going dark as the supply of whales ran out.
 
I do not think we will ever run out of fossil fuels, we will stop using them for fuel.
They will be priced out of the fuel market, all on their own.

So when do you think the oil companies will stop pumping free money out of the ground voluntarily? Making energy from renewable resources will always cost more than just pumping it out of the ground already made.
 
That seems to be already happening, but, according to Jack Hays' posts, it may take a push from somewhere to get the job done.

So when do you think the oil companies will stop pumping free money out of the ground voluntarily? Making energy from renewable resources will always cost more than just pumping it out of the ground already made.

We are expecting our ninth grandchild this summer. I expect and hope all nine will have long, happy lives. I also expect fossil fuels will dominate the world's energy supply throughout those lives.
 
So when do you think the oil companies will stop pumping free money out of the ground voluntarily? Making energy from renewable resources will always cost more than just pumping it out of the ground already made.
Nothing is free! There is a very real costs associated with finding, extracting, and transporting oil to the refinery.
Keep in mind, the oil companies do not sell oil, they mostly sell finished fuel products. that happen to come from oil.
The refinery must still buy the oil, currently about $50 a barrel.
The technology for the refineries to make their own fuel from scratch is said to be 60 to 70% efficient.
A gallon of gasoline contains about 33 Kwh of energy, so it will take between 50 and 55 kwh of
electricity to make a gallon of gasoline.
At a wholesale rate of $.05 per Kwh, that is $2.75 per gallon, times the 35 gallon yield of a barrel=$96.25 per barrel equivalent.
If the process can be made at he high efficiency of 70%, and wholesale electricity at the $.03 per Kwh,
then that is $1.50 per gallon or a $52.50 a barrel equivalent.
When the refinery can make greater profit by making their own feedstock, they will be all over it.
 
We are expecting our ninth grandchild this summer. I expect and hope all nine will have long, happy lives. I also expect fossil fuels will dominate the world's energy supply throughout those lives.
You are ahead of me, I only have 4 grandchildren...so far.
I actually think we will phase out using oil for fuel before any of mine start to drive.
I do think they will still drive hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, it just will not come from oil.
 
Once upon a time the educated understanding of the Sun and planets was based on the Ptolemaic system with Earth at the center. It took a long time for the observations and hypothesis of Copernicus to displace Ptolemy with newer, better science. There was no conspiracy, just entrenched belief of the comfortable "everybody knows" variety. Defense of the Ptolemaic system required increasingly elaborate addenda to its structure: epicycles, etc. Just so, AGW is today increasingly challenged by newer, better science (Svensmark, Shaviv, Kirkby, et al) and its defense requires ever more elaborate explanations of inconsistencies and inconvenient data. AGW is a product of 19th century science, and will pass from the scene soon enough, leaving its embarrassed former advocates to try to explain away their previous strident defense.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.htmlj

Good answer and example... But my response to your last sentence might be: Ok, this belief, if false, may pass from the scene. Let it pass. In the meantime what is the problem with, say China reducing emissions from coal, more development of solar in Arizona, improving vehicle mileage standards in Detroit, etc? Presumably there is a chance that advocates might be right and skeptics wrong. Why not hedge your bet?
 
From the link:

By 1850 a consumer had a choice of:

  • Camphene or “burning fluid” — 50 cents/gallon (combinations of alcohol, turpentine and camphor oil – bright, sweet smelling)
    * whale oil — $1.30 to $2.50/gallon
    * lard oil — 90 cents (low quality, smelly)
    * coal oil — 50 cents (sooty, smelly, low quality) (the original “kerosene”)
    * kerosene from petroleum — 60 cents (introduced in early 1860s)
The amount of camphene on the market was far above 90 million and probably close to 200 million gallons per year. That’s about the same level as kerosene in 1870. Whale oil peaked at 18 million gallons in 1845, according to Starbuck’s whaling history of 1878. [NEITHER AHAB’S FIRST MATE NOR THE COFFEE CHAIN, BTW, BUT A GUY NAMED ALEXANDER STARBUCK.] By all accounts, camphene was by far the leading lamp fuel.
In 1862, a tax of $2.00 a gallon was imposed on beverage alcohol and camphene was forced off the market. Since the Pennsylvania oil fields were in the process of opening, the whales really had nothing to do with the emergence of the kerosene industry.
Thus, kerosene came into an already well established liquid fuel system with full scale production, distribution and end-use technology already well in place. In other words, kerosene replaced an array of lamp fuels of various qualities and prices; it did not suddenly emerge to light up a world quickly going dark as the supply of whales ran out.

Correct. It's much like modern day fossil fuels going out, gradually, to be replaced not by a single source but by wind, solar, nuclear, and probably some we haven't thought of yet.
 
We are expecting our ninth grandchild this summer. I expect and hope all nine will have long, happy lives. I also expect fossil fuels will dominate the world's energy supply throughout those lives.

I wish them well.

I think you'll prove to be wrong about fossil fuels, but there will be replacements that will be superior.
 
Once upon a time the educated understanding of the Sun and planets was based on the Ptolemaic system with Earth at the center. It took a long time for the observations and hypothesis of Copernicus to displace Ptolemy with newer, better science. There was no conspiracy, just entrenched belief of the comfortable "everybody knows" variety. Defense of the Ptolemaic system required increasingly elaborate addenda to its structure: epicycles, etc. Just so, AGW is today increasingly challenged by newer, better science (Svensmark, Shaviv, Kirkby, et al) and its defense requires ever more elaborate explanations of inconsistencies and inconvenient data. AGW is a product of 19th century science, and will pass from the scene soon enough, leaving its embarrassed former advocates to try to explain away their previous strident defense.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kuhn ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.htmlj

Good answer and example... But my response to your last sentence might be: Ok, this belief, if false, may pass from the scene. Let it pass. In the meantime what is the problem with, say China reducing emissions from coal, more development of solar in Arizona, improving vehicle mileage standards in Detroit, etc? Presumably there is a chance that advocates might be right and skeptics wrong. Why not hedge your bet?


The problem is the diversion of tremendously significant resources from worthy objectives to feckless ones.
 
Correct. It's much like modern day fossil fuels going out, gradually, to be replaced not by a single source but by wind, solar, nuclear, and probably some we haven't thought of yet.

I wish them well.

I think you'll prove to be wrong about fossil fuels, but there will be replacements that will be superior.

We shall see.
 
I want one of the "skeptics" angry about this to tell me the percentage of global GDP over 83 years that this represents.
 
And that's important because . . . . ?

Because you're trying to scare me with a big number on the price, and I want that number in proper perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom