• 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!

Climate Scientist Judith Curry, has an interesting take on renewable energy policies

longview said:
Do you understand that a person offering a service to a business, is under no obligation
to change their opinion. From the risk assessment perspective, the companies who purchase
her assessments would want them to be as accurate as possible.
Also people who receive grants from companies or governments, are only obligated
to report the findings as spelled out in the RFP (request for proposals).
This idea that you have that the source of the grant money somehow taints the research is a joke.
Universities go to great measures to ensure ongoing funding, and part of this is producing unbiased results.
Click to expand...
If a person is being paid by a corporation and then produces work that is contra to the best interests of that corporation do you think they will continue that relationship? Not likely and your naivety is showing. The truth is we do not have 30 more years to dither while our use of fossil energy keeps increasing. Is that ideal? Far from it but we have dithered away our cushion and now is the time to act and it is already working..I suspect that is what is behind that fact free rant. Her masters are panicking because the growth of fossil energy is finally being tamed.

Thanks to record deployment of renewables and EVs, the CO2 intensity of the world’s energy supply is improving again after worsening in 2021 when the economy rebounded sharply​

Despite concerns about the effects of the current energy crisis, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion are expected to grow by just under 1% this year, only a small fraction of their increase last year, as a strong expansion of renewables and electric vehicles prevents a much sharper rise.

New IEA analysis of the latest data from around the world shows that these CO2 emissions are on course to increase by close to 300 million tonnes in 2022 to 33.8 billion tonnes – a far smaller rise than their jump of nearly 2 billion tonnes in 2021, which resulted from the rapid global recovery from the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic. This year’s increase is driven by power generation and by the aviation sector, as air travel rebounds from pandemic lows.

https://www.iea.org/news/defying-ex...y-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
If a person is being paid by a corporation and then produces work that is contra to the best interests of that corporation do you think they will continue that relationship?
Click to expand...
That's why she left working for the IPCC, and why they hate her.
iguanaman said:
Not likely and your naivety is showing. The truth is we do not have 30 more years to dither while our use of fossil energy keeps increasing. Is that ideal? Far from it but we have dithered away our cushion and now is the time to act and it is already working..I suspect that is what is behind that fact free rant.
Click to expand...
Who says we do? Her point is that we will still be using fossil fuels. She never claimed we wouldn't reduce their usage.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's why she left working for the IPCC, and why they hate her.

Who says we do? Her point is that we will still be using fossil fuels. She never claimed we wouldn't reduce their usage.
Click to expand...
She has a new master now and that is obvious. Her point is that we should not worry about reducing fossil fuel use and instead dither about it for another 3 decades and that is dead wrong. Hoping for a miracle is not a plan...
 
iguanaman said:
She has a new master now and that is obvious. Her point is that we should not worry about reducing fossil fuel use and instead dither about it for another 3 decades and that is dead wrong. Hoping for a miracle is not a plan...
Click to expand...
The writeup implies we aren't ready, until we get the supporting infrastructure in place.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The writeup implies we aren't ready, until we get the supporting infrastructure in place.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what the oil companies that pay her want to hear. Surely you can see that. If this was 1970 I could see her point but it is not. Time is up for the human race. What we are doing is working and we must not let up.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you stopped using oil products yet?

How is that going?
Click to expand...
No one has said we need to stop using oil products just stop burning them for energy. That is where the problem lies. What have you done to help in that way?
 
iguanaman said:
If a person is being paid by a corporation and then produces work that is contra to the best interests of that corporation do you think they will continue that relationship? Not likely and your naivety is showing. The truth is we do not have 30 more years to dither while our use of fossil energy keeps increasing. Is that ideal? Far from it but we have dithered away our cushion and now is the time to act and it is already working..I suspect that is what is behind that fact free rant. Her masters are panicking because the growth of fossil energy is finally being tamed.

​

Click to expand...
Let's consider the context and illogic of your opinion.
A company pays a risk analysis service for their exposure in future weather events.
You are implying that the company only wants to hear that there is no risk.
Why do they need to hire an outside company for this service?
What they are paying for is a science based risk assessment, not a sugar coated feel good prediction.
It will more likely than not be the oil companies who contribute the largest percentage of emission reductions in the future,
and it will have nothing to do with Government regulations.
Exxon Baytown is only one of the refineries preparing Sustainable fuels.
The future of lower-emission transportation fuels
Carbon capture combined with blue hydrogen will produce the first low emission jet fuel,
To make Jet A1 (C11 H22) from CH4, requires a source for extra carbon, roughly twice as much as in CH4.
Roughly half of the CO2 emitted from burning the jet fuel, would be carbon neutral.
If the hydrogen is sourced from water extracted with zero emission electricity, the fuel is 100% carbon neutral.
If we could cut global emissions from transport in half, we would be 25% of the way towards net zero CO2 emissions.
Market conditions will drive the cutover to man made fuels, it will come down to which fuel, is the most
profitable for the refinery to produce, one made from oil, or one made from water and atmospheric CO2?
 
longview said:
Let's consider the context and illogic of your opinion.
A company pays a risk analysis service for their exposure in future weather events.
You are implying that the company only wants to hear that there is no risk.
Why do they need to hire an outside company for this service?
What they are paying for is a science based risk assessment, not a sugar coated feel good prediction.
It will more likely than not be the oil companies who contribute the largest percentage of emission reductions in the future,
and it will have nothing to do with Government regulations.
Exxon Baytown is only one of the refineries preparing Sustainable fuels.
The future of lower-emission transportation fuels
Carbon capture combined with blue hydrogen will produce the first low emission jet fuel,
To make Jet A1 (C11 H22) from CH4, requires a source for extra carbon, roughly twice as much as in CH4.
Roughly half of the CO2 emitted from burning the jet fuel, would be carbon neutral.
If the hydrogen is sourced from water extracted with zero emission electricity, the fuel is 100% carbon neutral.
If we could cut global emissions from transport in half, we would be 25% of the way towards net zero CO2 emissions.
Market conditions will drive the cutover to man made fuels, it will come down to which fuel, is the most
profitable for the refinery to produce, one made from oil, or one made from water and atmospheric CO2?
Click to expand...
She comes out for reducing fossil fuels and her contracts dry up. Duh
 
longview said:
Let's consider the context and illogic of your opinion.
A company pays a risk analysis service for their exposure in future weather events.
You are implying that the company only wants to hear that there is no risk.
Why do they need to hire an outside company for this service?
What they are paying for is a science based risk assessment, not a sugar coated feel good prediction.
It will more likely than not be the oil companies who contribute the largest percentage of emission reductions in the future,
and it will have nothing to do with Government regulations.
Exxon Baytown is only one of the refineries preparing Sustainable fuels.
The future of lower-emission transportation fuels
Carbon capture combined with blue hydrogen will produce the first low emission jet fuel,
To make Jet A1 (C11 H22) from CH4, requires a source for extra carbon, roughly twice as much as in CH4.
Roughly half of the CO2 emitted from burning the jet fuel, would be carbon neutral.
If the hydrogen is sourced from water extracted with zero emission electricity, the fuel is 100% carbon neutral.
If we could cut global emissions from transport in half, we would be 25% of the way towards net zero CO2 emissions.
Market conditions will drive the cutover to man made fuels, it will come down to which fuel, is the most
profitable for the refinery to produce, one made from oil, or one made from water and atmospheric CO2?
Click to expand...
You keep acting like the energy needed to make synfuels is abundant and free for the taking like oil. It is not and we need ways to use the energy we make more efficient not less. Aviation contributes less than 2% to our global CO2 emissions it is a drop in the bucket. Once we stop using gasoline in our cars and fossil energy to make electricity we won't even need to worry about jets.
Lets look at Curry's situation logically. Would an oil company pay for the publicity of an opinion that we need to stop using their only product ASAP no matter what the costs? I do not think so.
 
longview said:
Why? Will the oil companies not still need weather based risk assessments?
Click to expand...
That is immaterial. The publicity that Curry provides them is not. Telling the world that we cannot reduce our dependence on Fossil fuels because the technology is not "ready yet" is exactly the type of publicity worth paying for. That goes right along with their corporate strategy that claims they are in the forefront of green energy research when in actuality they are purposely dragging their feet because let's face it, alternate energy is not in their best interests. Can you grasp that concept?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom