2010 & 2005 were the hottest years on record. 2011 was the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including
2011, all eleven years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
http://planetsave.com/2012/01/20/2011-hottest-la-nina-year-on-record-eleventh-hottest-overall-noaa/

there’s still snow in a warmer world. in fact, there’s more precipitation in some places since there’s more moisture in the air (from the warming) — that translates into more snow when the temperature is right.

Out of curiosity how would you propose we as a society reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you think these are irrelevant technologies?

I apologize to anyone I may have offended. My comments were not my viewpoints and were to stimulate discussion.

Coal is no longer used as transportation fuel but is used to generate electricity. The plans are already in place to phase it out unless of course paid lobbyists.

Now oil is a different story. Its a transportation fuel and provides the source of many plastics, pharmaceutics etc. There is not enough land and water for biofuels to replace oil. One can build all the RE (electricity) but it won’t effect oil usage any without significant numbers of electric vehicles.

I have been developing solar and biomass for 30 years so my perspective is somewhat different than yours. The government was not interested in funding solar until the stimulus grants. One $2 billion dollar project is 20% equity, 30% government grant and 50% low interest loan. When the government funding was announced politically connected corporate interests using 30 year old designs received the funding. Innovated ideas (csp solar not pv) were not funded and went to China and India

Your claim that we couldn’t afford renewable energy is only that, though, a claim. Additionally, no one is saying to subsidize it up to that point. The subsidies have been great at getting some nascent industries going and helping to reduce costs tremendously in the process. This is their purpose.
You continue to ignore externalities. Yes, I’m aware of who the EIA is and that they do as well — but that doesn’t change the limitation of not including those.

The subsidies given to RE produce jobs, lower costs, and help to create a more secure and efficient future for millions or billions. The subsidies to fossil fuels serve no useful purpose.

Intent is important when evaluating something, not only numbers.

“According to an Energy Information Administration study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 a megawatt hour, $23.37 that year for wind, 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. If Renewable Energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.” That is the United States Energy Information Agency that is one of most reputable sources to cite.

Solar, geothermal, biomass and wind all produce electricity, oil is a transportation fuel and less than 1% is used in the US to generate electricity. The massive subsidies given to oil is IRRELEVANT in the context of this comparison. You can build a 1000 RE facilities (electricity) and it won’t affect oil usage one iota. Yet you counter with links citing graphs comparing Oil & Gas Industry without any sources of information identified or assumptions.

You can remove natural gas from above, which is used to generate electricity in this comparison so that nothing refers to O&G and it won’t change the result. If Renewable Energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels in producing electricity, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.

Second, I never mentioned the other ” lets distract them” talking point of (Climate Change) that distracts most Americans from solving the simple equation of concluding on what policies are the most rewarding for the return on our tax dollars from an long term perspective.

You apparently didn’t want to analyze the long term quantifiable benefits as oppose to the long term quantifiable damages. I don’t think one could honestly deny that when you extract coal and oil from the earth you are polluting the oceans and the air we breathe at that precise moment. Also would you rather breath the air that’s filled with the exhaust gases from a conventional fossil fuel powered automobile or breath in the air from an electric powered automobile, it’s just that simple no talking points included.

Furthermore, the EIA is not taking into account some of the biggest subsidies — those industries not internalizing health and long-term risk costs, and the govt not stepping in and doing its duty to correct for those externalities.

Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Biomass produce electricity. Oil is a transportation fuel and a fossil fuel but less than 1% is used in the states for power generation and not a valid comparison.

I don’t think much of either political party. But when you bring politics into private industry its only for two reasons, subsidies or move the project through regulatory hurtles.

You are foolish to believe a few wind or solar plants will prevent Climate Change. That requires a World Wide Consensus and Plan and neither exist, not even a sincere effort. A few more jet fighter aircraft in the air negates a solar plant. GHG rose 5.9% last year the highest rate since the industrial revolution began.

Finally all of my retirement is invested in wind and solar