06-02-2016, 01:55 AM
|
#1501
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy
|
Laugh I was just digging that one up.
Mr Coffee, you misrepresent the intention and purpose of the EIA's reference case which states that fossil fuel use will grow. Your post is a bunch of bupkis.
In other news, look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...zons-1.3601400
Quote:
Canada's status as an "energy superpower" is under threat because the global dominance of fossil fuels could wane faster than previously believed, according to a draft report from a federal government think-tank obtained by CBC News.
"It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status," reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada.
|
Again, I stand by what I said and was lambasted for that we'll see the peak in global oil demand by 2030.
|
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 02:07 AM
|
#1502
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Even according to very reputable sources, such as the EIA, their latest reports indicate fossil fuels will comprise >70% of energy use by 2040. This was a downward adjustment from just 2 years ago that was over 80%.
|
Two points here. 1) The EIA's reference case is basically taking current 20 year trends in energy use and projecting them out like a flywheel. They don't incorporate recent trends well enough. The reference case is also not a prediction of what they think will happen, but a projection based on those trends. To wit:
The Reference case, which incorporates only existing laws and policies, is not intended to be a most likely prediction of the future. EIA's approach to addressing the inherent uncertainty surrounding the country's energy future is to develop multiple cases that reflect different sets of internally consistent assumptions about key sources of uncertainty such as future world oil prices, macroeconomic growth, energy resources, technology costs, and policies.
http://www.oilvoice.com/n/EIAs-Annua...661e8e3e4.aspx 2) I don't think you've smartly appraised the data. If the reference case only two years ago had 80% fossil fuel share and that share dropped 10 percentage points, I wouldn't take that as good news or that everything was going to be alright. To me that shows there's considerable fluidity and change taking place in the system and working against fossil fuel consumption.
Quote:
|
Regardless, oil and gas as an energy source will continue to grow... as a portion of overall human energy consumption, and, obviously, be a huge part of energy use into the future. I personally believe there will be a future with both increasing efficiency on energy use and achieving emission and global climate change targets. There is a balance that will be struck by humanity in my mind, and I think ultimately the technology and understanding will get to a point where the Earth can be bio-engineered to achieve some kind of equilibrium (or at least we think we will think we can, but there are, of course, so many other variables at play).
|
Very dubious to claim this so strongly. A number of fossil fuel majors are openly talking about peaking demand. The Financial Times even, probably the most conservative, investor focused paper had this editorial published last week.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/701c3...#axzz4APIBCnFM
Fossil fuel producers face a future of slow and steady decline
Rather than investing in potentially stranded oil and gas projects, or gambling on new technologies that they do not fully understand, the oil companies would do better to continue returning money to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.
The commitments made by Chevron, BP and most other groups to maintaining their dividends during the downturn, even if they have to borrow to do so, is an encouraging acknowledgment of that reality, even if the companies do not put it in those terms.
Instead of railing against climate policies, or paying them lip-service while quietly defying them with investment decisions, the oil companies will serve their investors and society better if they accept the limits they face, and embrace a future of long-term decline.
Quote:
|
I also think, related to my point above, that climate change is also a function of natural processes such as volcanoes, solar activity, regular natural changes in weather patterns like El Nino events, etc. These are all very frequently disregarded in favour of the more popular blame humans for everything campaigns by people largely trying to pat themselves on the back for being good people and claiming they know more than they actually do.
|
It's 2016. This denialist talking point is so wrong, dated, and unconvincing. Do you think that the thousands of peer reviewed articles and their reviewers just happened to collectively ignore the role of these natural processes? Seriously. Do you have any idea how climate science works? Evidently no, and therefore you point shall be treated with the same level of scrutiny.
Quote:
Like everything in life, as it goes with this debate, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle of what the two sides muse over.
Lastly, to edit here quick, I always like how George Carlin described all of this. To paraphrase he said, at the end of the day the Earth will be just fine. Oil and gas in fact comes from the Earth. Earth is great... it will always be great. It's the people that are ####ed. And we probably will be anyway from an asteroid one day, just like the dinosaurs.
|
Fallacy of the false middle.
Last edited by Tinordi; 06-02-2016 at 02:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 05:59 AM
|
#1503
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
It's 2016. This denialist talking point is so wrong, dated, and unconvincing. Do you think that the thousands of peer reviewed articles and their reviewers just happened to collectively ignore the role of these natural processes? Seriously. Do you have any idea how climate science works? Evidently no, and therefore you point shall be treated with the same level of scrutiny.
|
It's funny you say that with such certainty though. Take, for instance the new montioring of SO2.
Quote:
Volcano surprise "Initially, I think we maybe thought it wasn't working when we got these huge sources in the middle of the Pacific," McLinden recalled.
Those turned out to be volcanoes — the study found 75 of them emitting substantial amounts of sulphur dioxide, despite the fact that they were dormant and not erupting.
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/so...tion-1.3610537
So not only are they finding large industrial emitters that are unreported, they are also discovering dormant volcanoes aren't so dormant.
The absolute certainty you and others speak with does a disservice to the science. I'm not discounting what work has been done, but to pretend like we now have all the answers is wrongheaded.
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 08:46 AM
|
#1504
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Thanks for raising another logical fallacy: That we need absolute certainty before we act. Far be it that the science is essentially settled, the Earth is warming and we are the primary reason. Say there is a small chance that there are other factors that could be important contributors to global warming.
Does that mean that we should not do anything?
Couple of thoughts there:
1) We will never have absolute certainty. That is not how science works.
2) You engage in behaviours, costs, decisions all of the time without absolute certainty how it will work out. Does that preclude you from making those decisions?
3) What is the risk analysis of this paragon of certainty? What if that the small chance that we aren't the problem turns out to not be true? Do you insure your house for fire? If so why? You basically have certainty that it wont catch fire in a mirror to what you're arguing above.
4) How well will your excuse to your grandchildren who could be much worse off than you were at the same age go down when you say: "Well we didn't have ABSOLUTE certainty that things worked out the way they did. Sorry about that."
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 08:52 AM
|
#1505
|
|
Franchise Player
|
#3 is really all you need. A good risk analysis is sufficient justification for acting or not acting on the basis of just about any sort of evidence.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 09:30 AM
|
#1506
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
Didn't say any of that, I said it'd be beneficial if the argument wasn't presented with such certainty that there is no room for new facts. Most of the time when you actually read what the scientists say it includes this uncertainty, yet when people like you or other pundits do their little write up they make it seam like we know all their is to know.
The problem with that is when new discoveries are made, it discredits what has been said, and the general public is left saying, wait, last year you said this, now it's that? It's like the cellphone cancer thing, people just stopped caring after the 200th contradiction. You want people to take climate change seriously? Stop pretending everything is 100% certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 09:36 AM
|
#1507
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
I am always disappointed more research isn't done on the geo-engineering side. Its got real potential to let us get past the political problems associated with trying to restrict emissions and appears to be relatively cheap to do.
We should be testing out atmospheric seeding now to give us the room for battery tech and power generation to match the cost of fossil fuels (or the cost of fossil fuels going up high enough to match the cost of alternatives). Significant economic incentive is the only way to get people to change and the best source of that will be the increasing price of oil.
If we can delay global warming by 50 years the problem will solve itself.
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2016, 10:05 PM
|
#1508
|
|
damn onions
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Laugh I was just digging that one up.
Mr Coffee, you misrepresent the intention and purpose of the EIA's reference case which states that fossil fuel use will grow. Your post is a bunch of bupkis.
In other news, look at this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...zons-1.3601400
Again, I stand by what I said and was lambasted for that we'll see the peak in global oil demand by 2030. |
Tinordi the article you just posted addresses electricity and power which is only a portion of the energy mix. The article even addresses these points and more specifically actually speaks to what my post was actually about towards the bottom of the article- did you read the whole thing? I won't even touch the fact that it is possible for predictions to be wrong, but you already know that because you know everything.
You can't build roads, make plastic, make fertilizers or the myriad of products that are made from petrochemicals with wind, solar, hydro or nuclear energy sources. When I refer to an energy mix I refer to all of these things. Electricity and transportation are the two big facets of the energy mix that yes, will move to the renewable side of the equation faster but that doesn't mean oil and gas as an energy resource is merely dropped or that by 2040 we won't need it anymore which is how you come across- and why my position that the answer will lie somewhere in the middle is actually true. You can refer to things as a logical fallacy because you're used to seeing people on the internet make simplistic applications in thought process but what if I'm actually right- the answer truly is in the middle? Your arrogance and condescending nature leads you to assume that when you see simplistic statements it'd be fun to go grab an Internet meme and run around using what you think are fancy terms like "logical fallacies" but instead you turn people away from actually listening to your point of view because you come across as a jackass. Do you actually speak like this to people in real life? No because nobody would like you and you'd get punched in the face for being so presumptuous, smug and condescending in your brazen path to thinking you know everything. Your style on this site is similar to psycnet but the difference is he is occasionally funny.
I don't disagree with you or anyone that states that renewable energy sources will be a significant growth profile within the energy mix and I don't disagree that that growth in the energy mix will eclipse oil and gas as a portion of the mix. I think renewables will grow faster, but that oil and gas will also grow because overall energy demand will grow. We've got rising populations world-wide and we've got modernization of many 3rd world nations. While the article states that places like Africa will just skip the oil and gas energy mix as part of their modernization efforts, for some reason I'm skeptical that many of these modernizing places will simply bypass gasoline cars and go straight to Teslas. This is what I mean when I say the truth is in the middle so in summary I actually agree with you but we disagree on the timelines that this will occur within. Another example would be like how Mexico just phased out coal power plants for natural gas powered ones (Alberta has similar plans).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Two points here. 1) The EIA's reference case is basically taking current 20 year trends in energy use and projecting them out like a flywheel. They don't incorporate recent trends well enough. The reference case is also not a prediction of what they think will happen, but a projection based on those trends. To wit:
The Reference case, which incorporates only existing laws and policies, is not intended to be a most likely prediction of the future. EIA's approach to addressing the inherent uncertainty surrounding the country's energy future is to develop multiple cases that reflect different sets of internally consistent assumptions about key sources of uncertainty such as future world oil prices, macroeconomic growth, energy resources, technology costs, and policies.
http://www.oilvoice.com/n/EIAs-Annua...661e8e3e4.aspx 2) I don't think you've smartly appraised the data. If the reference case only two years ago had 80% fossil fuel share and that share dropped 10 percentage points, I wouldn't take that as good news or that everything was going to be alright. To me that shows there's considerable fluidity and change taking place in the system and working against fossil fuel consumption.
Very dubious to claim this so strongly. A number of fossil fuel majors are openly talking about peaking demand. The Financial Times even, probably the most conservative, investor focused paper had this editorial published last week.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/701c3...#axzz4APIBCnFM
Fossil fuel producers face a future of slow and steady decline
Rather than investing in potentially stranded oil and gas projects, or gambling on new technologies that they do not fully understand, the oil companies would do better to continue returning money to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.
The commitments made by Chevron, BP and most other groups to maintaining their dividends during the downturn, even if they have to borrow to do so, is an encouraging acknowledgment of that reality, even if the companies do not put it in those terms.
Instead of railing against climate policies, or paying them lip-service while quietly defying them with investment decisions, the oil companies will serve their investors and society better if they accept the limits they face, and embrace a future of long-term decline.
It's 2016. This denialist talking point is so wrong, dated, and unconvincing. Do you think that the thousands of peer reviewed articles and their reviewers just happened to collectively ignore the role of these natural processes? Seriously. Do you have any idea how climate science works? Evidently no, and therefore you point shall be treated with the same level of scrutiny.
Fallacy of the false middle. |
When you talk about smartly appraising the data I do agree with you, that is a big shift and that is something I recognize as a dramatic move that speaks to a world clearly moving fairly quickly off of oil and gas. But are we not currently still looking at over 70% being oil and gas? Do you think that's a big or small number? Do you think in 2 years that drops another 10 points?
Do you think it just goes away by 2040? I don't, and so I think the answer is a future energy mix where the energy mix is somewhere in the middle between renewables growing as a portion of the mix but oil and gas still having a very prominent role as well. Just like the EIA thing says and just like I said, the answer will be somewhere in the middle. This isn't Star Wars and these things don't happen overnight.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 06-02-2016 at 10:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-03-2016, 06:08 PM
|
#1510
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Meanwhile, a few Wildrose MLAs learned they really need to hire interns that can research historical context for them...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...616083?cmp=rss
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-03-2016, 07:21 PM
|
#1511
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
|
Paging Wild Rose voters. Explain yourselves!
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2016, 10:19 AM
|
#1512
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
|
Its like these people have lived in a whole other world their entire lives.
These things are not comparables and its not even close. In what way did they think this was going to be a good thing?
Its like the farthest they ever progressed during their education was Junior High Debate. "Say something crazy and shock them!"
Except now your a full-on Grownup in a position of authority and the batcrap crazy things you say have repercussions. 
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
|
|
|
|
06-04-2016, 10:34 AM
|
#1513
|
|
Norm!
|
so stupid. This whole party at a time when they should be outright crushing the NDP is doing and saying stupid things.
Its like every Alberta politician has taken a stupid pill.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2016, 10:36 AM
|
#1514
|
|
Norm!
|
so stupid. This whole party at a time when they should be outright crushing the NDP is doing and saying stupid things.
Its like every Alberta politician has taken a stupid pill.
Stop saying stupid stuff
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2016, 11:17 AM
|
#1515
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Maybe this stuff is just part and parcel with those kind of specific political leanings.
These sorts of things do seem pretty localized.
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2016, 09:20 PM
|
#1516
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Maybe this stuff is just part and parcel with those kind of specific political leanings.
These sorts of things do seem pretty localized.
|
I don't buy that at all, there was an article in the paper today about a member of the party pushing for more support for the LGBT alliances and members of the party are planning on joining the gay pride parade.
Every party has its share of idiots.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2016, 10:10 AM
|
#1517
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I don't buy that at all, there was an article in the paper today about a member of the party pushing for more support for the LGBT alliances and members of the party are planning on joining the gay pride parade.
Every party has its share of idiots.
|
Populist, anti status-quo parties tend to attract people who don't have much public service experience, and don't really understand how you need to talk and behave to be taken seriously in politics. We like to revile career politicians and the establishment, but a pretty significant proportion of 'average' people are idiots and kooks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-05-2016, 10:55 AM
|
#1518
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Populist, anti status-quo parties tend to attract people who don't have much public service experience, and don't really understand how you need to talk and behave to be taken seriously in politics. We like to revile career politicians and the establishment, but a pretty significant proportion of 'average' people are idiots and kooks.
|
So would you class the NDP in this whole debate then?
MLA's doing gay boy drawings.
Senior politicians saying that they need to hire people with a NDP world view?
Settle down?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2016, 12:12 PM
|
#1519
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
So would you class the NDP in this whole debate then?
|
Pretty much the same as the WR.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2016, 04:20 PM
|
#1520
|
|
Self Imposed Exile
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
So would you class the NDP in this whole debate then?
MLA's doing gay boy drawings.
Senior politicians saying that they need to hire people with a NDP world view?
Settle down?
|
Was this WR article not penned by multiple MLA's and not just one? Is that not a larger representative percentage of the party?
Last edited by Kavvy; 06-06-2016 at 10:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 AM.
|
|
