So adjustments on the scale of what the IPCC is warning us about aren't anything to worry about? Hokay....
For the last 18 years, it was well established by the pro-AGW crowd that 17 years was needed for a signal. We have 18 years - and no signal. Not to mention the pro-AGW side likes to ignore the Medieval warm period, or the little ice age (the former being as warm - or warmer - than now).
As far as Professor Easterbrook, that "Skeptical Science" site has about as much reliability as the old Enzyte site pushing penis pills. A lot of handwaving and ignoring of facts... His predictions from the late 1990s were spot-on. He correctly predicted the current pause, and calls for us to enter a period of cooling. Well, we've got the pause - now to see if we get the cooling.
Null hypothesis: Does human activity have no impact on the environment?
That's not the claim, however. The claim is that human activity impacts climate specifically, not just the environment (which can be as much as cutting your grass impacts the environment).
I usually ignore ACs, but your post is the standard rebuttal about "what subsidies?" and it's totally wrong...
1. Tax credit for paying foreign taxes. This is a "subsidy" as far as EVERY SINGLE COMPANY gets the same thing. If you pay $1 in income tax overseas, you do not have to pay that same $1 on the same income. It applies to profits earned overseas, and already taxed. ALL companies get this; if you want to call this an energy subsidy, then you can also call it a subsidy for renewables/solar/wind - because they get it as well (oh, and you can also say that every overseas US worker gets the subsidy because when they pay taxes on their overseas income, they get to deduct those paid taxes from the US taxes they owe).
2. Credit for alternative fuel production. Uhhh, you mean ALTERNATIVE energy credits? Yep - there's that dastardly Big Oil stealing the money from alternative energy to, uh, fund traditional oil/gas? Nope. It's for GREEN initiatives, like ethanol and the like. Fuels that would NOT be competitive on the market unless they are subsidized, fuels that are "green" and alternative. Why this is not included in the alternative energy subsidies I don't know - guess something had to stick somewhere?
3. Oil and gas exploration and expensing. I guess R&D for technology shouldn't be deductible. That land prep for farmers shouldn't be deductible. That planting new trees for tree farms shouldn't be deductible. That clearing land for solar and wind shouldn't be deductible. It's a standard business expense - R&D - that ALL BUSINESSES get to deduct.
Yep, some great list! Now, I wonder about those who shout about "Big Oil doesn't pay tax!" I wonder if they realize ExxonMobil paid over $31 BILLION in taxes last year, the most by any US company. Followed by Chevron? With Apple a distant 3rd?
Some temperature records are constantly adjusted in the past. Given that the history is constantly being revised - how do we know what the actual trends are?
The RSS data set is about the most accurate we have, given it has a constant reference background (deep space), and covers the entire globe equally with the same set of instruments, and has done so for the last 35 years. And that record shows no warming for nearly 18 years.
One scientist, Don Easterbrook got it right. His model - based upon the cycles of the oceans - appears to fit the current pause quite nicely as well as matches the past. Perhaps he's on to something, in that his model more accurately tracks historical records AND the current situation than the IPCC/CO2 driven models.
but the panels need to be replaced after about a decade.
You're using very old information. Current generation solar panels are guaranteed to produce 80% of original power after 25 years. The original 'modern' panel is still working 60 years later, and there are lots of evidence they last at least 30.
Though I agree on the nuclear power. I'd be building at least 300 new reactors if I could. It's just that in my original post I was saying that using solar electricity to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere is stupid, especially at those efficiencies. Note that I said 'Even in'; I didn't mean to say that it was the most efficient option.
And yes, synthetic hydrocarbons produced from nuclear power would be a welcome alternative, though I still hold hope for algae based biodiesel/fuel*.
*You can get oil and diesel out of the fats, ethanol or gasoline equivalent out of the carbohydrates.
The budget is driven by non-defense spending - entitlements - which consume nearly every dollar in Federal Revenue that DC receives.
When you say entitlement, it evokes a bunch of money-grubbing welfare queens who have more and more children to increase their federal benefit. The truth is that the largest portion of the budget (24%) is social security, which isn't a government handout - it is funded by working taxpayers who have paid into the system for their whole lives.
Actually, social security isn't what you think it is. You have no right to anything in the fund, and your deposits are simply another tax to provide a wealth transfer. The funds paid in - especially today - simply do not cover outgoing expenses. What you pay in today covers about 80% of the money for other people - and it's a dropping percentage.
So basically you're saying that now is the perfect time to be doing this research so that it can possibly reach useful levels by the time fossil fuels have been largely phased out within some jurisdictions?
Depends. I don't mind research, indeed I love it. But research isn't magic; there's a definite 'law of reducing returns' out there in general, especially when we're playing with energy. There are huge numbers of vastly different ways to reduce or sequester CO2.
As for the wolves, very interesting article. I don't think it'll work everywhere, but we can duplicate at least some of it.