this_course_helps_preserve_fossil_fuels

=This course helps preserve fossil fuels= discussion posted 16 days ago by [|ArthurD] Closed

FACT Proposals to subsidize the costs of renewable energy and increasing the costs of other energy will not help deal with global warming but only delay what is needed to do so for the benefit of special interests including fossil fuel industries because: 1) In all plausible emission scenarios the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions are expected to come from non-industrialized countries rapidly industrializing over the next century. 2) These countries are desperately poor and cannot and will not delay their modernization by not using the cheapest available energy sources. 3) Solar and wind energy is inherently intermittant and consequently requires backup from dispatchable energy and without cheap storage would remain inherently more expensive than dispatchable energy even if it was free. It is promoted by research funded by an alliance of renewable energy interests entirely dependent on government subsidies and the gas industry, using "conservationist" groups like the World Wildlife Fund as fronts. See for example: [] (funded by Australian Gas Association) 4) There is no plausible storage method or other new technology on the horizon that could make renewable energy competitive with fossil fuels and consequently no basis for hoping that poor countries will switch. 5) Consequently a massive global R&D program is required for fundamental technological breakthroughs to find solutions that are not on the horizon. Even if unsuccessful massively expanding fundamental R&D would at least accelerate productivity growth generally and consequently enable poor countries to afford more expensive energy earlier. If necessary it could also make climate engineering more viable as a stop gap. 6) Whereas measures promoting renewables have not even slowed the growth of fossil fuel industries, R&D to find a cheaper alternative could actually wipe them out, but is much harder for them to fight.

MYTH People concerned about global warming should support such measures as: These are typical of the measures proposed and in some countries that can afford it, actually adopted at great expense, thus arousing public hostility and wasting funds that should be used for fundamental R&D.
 * 1) Adding a surcharge to electrical bills to establish a fund to help make buildings more energy efficient and teach citizens how to reduce energy use.
 * 2) Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources.
 * 3) Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels.

FALLACY The basic fallacy is “Misrepresentation” by simply ignoring the facts. Proponents of such measures do not in fact present any serious arguments that their proposals could be adopted in countries where many live on less than $2 per day but simply announce that "the Science" requires reduction in emissions and imply that they speak for "the Science" in pretending that these proposals could actually reduce emissions in the future rather than just continuing to delay effective action as such proposals have done in the past. This course explicitly excludes discussion of solutions but used the exact wording above for pre- and post- course surveys testing whether support for such measures would be increased, without any supporting evidence whatever, by purely the “red herring” technique of distraction by lengthy lectures on climate change. Other techniques used include “Fake Experts” by implicitly claiming such proposals are results of “the Science” and supported by a “Magnified Minority” of “the Scientists”. Also “Cherry Picking” with obsessive focus on measure that could be adopted in industrialized countries (if only the public were more alarmed) while ignoring the actual problem in poor countries. There is also a “Conspiracy Theory” explaining that fossil fuel industries are behind rejection of their proposals and “Impossible Expectations” that because there is a problem there must be a solution on the horizon. Related to: [|Week 6 / Real life application of Denial101x]

11 responses > > Your 'facts' lack any actual support beyond your biased opinion. Your 'myths' are your own biased opinion, and your fallacies are fallacious. > > ArthurD, your above post reminds me of a Christopher Hitchens quote, which I believe to be applicable, here. > "//That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.//" >> 1) See actual details of IPCC emissions scenarios (SRES and RPCs). Look at break down beteen industrializing IND countries (OECD-99 and E European REF, or Kyoto Annex I) and others. Everyone in this course should have been taught this basic fact central to all climate modeling. >> 2) This is common knowledge. "Will not" has been clearly and publicly stated by governments of China and India at all relevant international conferences and is the reason for alarm at the continued "failure" of these conferences. "Cannot" is the obvious reason why they will not since they have no disagreement about climate science. People living on less than two dollars per day have much more pressing priorities. Obliviousness to this goes beyond ignorance to lack of empathy. For confirmation that greenie tales about a switch to renewables in China are pure misrepresentation simply take a look at the authoritative IEA statististics and projections, also relied on by IPCC. >> 3) Is common knowledge among anyone actually studying energy economics. Advocates of renewables are fully aware of it and draw the obvious conclusion that since there is no prospect of renewables becoming competitive it is necessary to subsidize renewables and impose taxes on fossil fuels. Advocating such subsidies while simultaneously pretending that the technology is actually cheaper merely confirms that as well as being mendacious liars they have actually given up on attempting to convince anybody but themselves. The link provides evidence that this advocacy is not only in the interests of, but actually funded by the gas industry. >> 4) Is again common knowledge among anyone seriously studying energy economics. The level of sheer ignorance about it among greenies is highlighted by the popularity of such obvious scams as using lithium-ion batteries for storage at \$350 per kWh [typo pointed out by comment below corrected - original had \$3500 instead of correct \$350]. Batteries are only relevant for transport, not for load leveling. >> 5) Is certainly an assertion of a conclusion that is not common knowledge nor easily looked up as a "fact". A good starting point for you would be the Ecomodernist Manifesto: >> [] >> 6) Is again common knowledge, and indeed the basis for alarm about the likely outcome. It is hard to believe you are ignorant about that too. If so take a look at the authoritative IEA statistics. It should be obvious that while merely pretending to have a cheaper alternative CANNOT slow their growth, ACTUALLY having one would rapidly reduce them to the same completely marginal role currently occupied by more expensive technologies such as nuclear, solar and wind. They would be in the same position of only be able to survive on subsidies. It should also be obvious to you that they have had no great difficulty mobilizing public opinion against your proposals. As for my claim that it would be much harder for them to fight proposals for massive R&D to find alternatives, we will need to actually try it to find out. >> posted 15 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> "such obvious scams as using lithium-ion batteries for storage at 3500 per kWh" >> I don't know where you are getting your information from. Tesla's recent announcement was for batteries that were costing (wholesale) 350 USD/kWh for the domestic version and 250 USD/kWh for the commercial scale unit. >> And that is cost per kWh of storage capacity. A battery can be charged /discharged 1000's of times. Tesla are offering a 10 year warranty and you can purchase a second 10 year warranty. So they seem pretty confident that they can get 15-20 year lives. >> At one charge/discharge cycle per day that is perhaps 7000 cycles so storing and releasing 7000 kWh of electricity has a wholesale price for the storage of 5 cents per kWh. >> posted 12 days ago by [|GlennTamblyn] Staff >> Actually the relevant unit for daily cycle operation is \$3000 for 7.5 kWh or \$400 so I understated the costs so as not differ from the impression created in their scam promotional literature. >> [] >> These facts are immportant. You should not need to be told as it is the reason why coal is expected to continue "business as usual" and why subsidies and taxes are advocated to avoid that. >> More later, no time now. >> posted 12 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> He is an indicative calculation, based on prices in Australia and in Australian Dollars. A typical Australian house uses 20-25 kWh/day. With continued improvements in energy efficiency, the lower limit is becoming more achievable. >> A middle of the road current retail costing of a 5 kW solar PV installation with inverter and grid connection is around 6,000. But that includes government subsidies of around 3,500 so unsubsidised that is 9,500. >> Typical warranty period is 25 years although panels are expected to last longer than that. However their efficiency drops slowly by around 0.5% per year. So every few years one might add an extra panel or two to restore full capacity to keep the system operating out to lets say 30 years. And maybe 1 replacement inverter in that time. So add perhaps 3,000 gives us 12,500. >> 6,250 over 15 years. >> This system will generate around 5kWh/day in Summer and around 3 kWh/day in winter so lets say average 4 kWh/day. >> Now, to allow this system to essentially fully power a house, add 2 Tesla 7 kWh batteries which include DC to DC charging. The inverter is already included in the solar panel installation. That is 4,900 USD wholesale. Convert to Aussie dollars and that is around 6,500 wholesale. Add retailer margin and installation and that would be closer to 9,000. Tesla are claiming at least 5,000 cycles for this battery so that is nearly 15 years. >> Put these together, 15,250 to supply essentially all power for a house for 15 years - a little over 1,000 per year. Add financing costs at mortgage interest rates to pay for it assuming 5% interest rates takes it to around 1100/yr. This supplies 20 kWh/day. >> 1100/(365 * 20) = 15 c/kWh. >> Contrast this with retail electricity charges. My most recent electricity bill was 55% at a high tariff of 32 c/kWh and 45% at low tariff of 14 c/kWh so an average tariff of 23.9 c/kWh. >> A Tesla system with 5 kW of solar panels today is 2/3rds the cost of power from the grid. And my home state of Victoria has relatively cheap power since we burn cheap but very dirty Brown Coal. >> And none of this is factoring in further price reductions in solar and batteries. PV panels have fallen 80% in price in the last 5 years, wind has dropped around half. Battery costs are down to a 3rd of what they were a decade ago and newer battery technologies are in the pipeline. >> You might also be interested in [|this system], storing energy as heat by compressing a gas in a Brayton cycle engine to heat it and storing the heat in gravel beds. They are claiming round trip efficiencies, AC power to AC power of 75% and costs of 140 US$/kWh of storage capacity with virtually unlimited cycles - the only degradation the system might see is if the gravel starts to break down due to the thermal cycling, otherwise it is just maintenance costs, mainly of the machines and valves. So daily cycling or even faster for several decades. At say 30 years of operation, daily full cycling, that is 140/(30*365) = 1.3 c/kWh for the cost of the storage. The round trip efficiency is the bigger factor. >> Tesla have already had pre-commitments for their batteries, within weeks of releasing them, that use all their production capacity out till the middle of next year. >> These numbers will vary from country to country but where in these calculations are the 'orders of magnitude' you talk about? Renewables plus storage are now cost competitive with existing coal in many contexts right now. Within 5-10 years they are likely to be cheaper. >> Last year 1/2 of all new generating capacity added in the world was renewables. In the USA in 2012 coal made up 21% of new generating capacity added. In 2013 it was 10%. In 2014, it was 0%. This year the US is likely to retire 7% of it's coal fleet and not replace them with any coal. >> posted 11 days ago by [|GlennTamblyn] Staff >> Certainly Tesla will sell significant quantities to greenies as that wall plate looks much more cool and prestigious than the much cheaper lead acid batteries it replaces in home solar and wind applications which haver been able to compete with grid power but rely on government subsidies that are being withdrawn. Somebody (else) will either soon or already have done correct calculations exposing the scam as it is popular enough to be worth the effort. If you can't find one yet on google try requesting one here as they used to regularly do such analyses: >> [] >> BTW I won't have time later either if you canot confirm that the forum will remain open for ongoing threads. The announcement that everything will remain accessible in archive mode from June 16 implies "read only" with no new postings unless somebody explicitly announces otherwise. >> Meanwhile VERY briefly: >> 1) If your conclusions were correct the problem of emissions from electricity generation would be solved and there would be little to worry about. Among the indicators would be a collapse in the fossil fuel industry preceding widespread adoption of this wonderful cheaper electricity. It is up to you to find out why that isn't happening and won't happen, not up to others to go through your calculations for you (although somebody will). Nevertheless some hints follow. >> 2) Wholesale grid power in Australia last year ranged from (AUD) \$49 to \$74 per MEGAWATT hour. >> The lowest is from Tasmania where unlike other states they do have cheap hydro resources. The highest is from South Australia where the gas and wind lobby promoted by greenies actually succeeded in getting lots of wind installed (accompanied of course by more expensive gas). >> Your battery related calculation of 15c per KILOWATT hour corresponds to 150 MW hour. This is double the highest wholesale rate in Australia, without even looking at how you claim to have got it so low. (BTW I have not seen any reference to a technical paper claiming 7000 cycles. The highest I have seen claimed is 2000 cycles, with more typical actual results being 800-1200 for Lithium-ion technologies. Also BTW it is notorious than lead acid are cheaper but still uneconomic - there has been no "breakthrough" - just the same less dense and clumsy but more expensive technology already used for portable electronics and electric vehicles). >> 3) See point 1) >> 4) Batteries designed for typical daily household power and solar power availability CANNOT provide power in periods when household demand happens to be higher in a particular household and when there are cloudy days, which can occur for several days in a row. So the house has to remain connected to the grid anyway, which delivers power almost ALL THE TIME by combining expensive peak energy (gas) with cheap baseload energy (coal) and providing load sharing across transmission and retail networks. >> 5) See point 1. >> 6) If you do want to understand how the electricity market actually works start here: >> [] >> For Australia in particular this may not be the best starting but it should have references leading you towards a good starting point. >> [] >> 7) See point 1. >> posted 10 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> I haven't looked at the video but have bookmarked this link for future reference as \$13 per MW for grid storage using heat could indeed be interesting: >> [|http://www.isentropic.co.uk/Technologies#ThermalStores] >> I gather it claims to triple the efficiency of existing heat storage techniques. This does not sound implausible like Telsa's scams. >> If true the implications would of course be an increase in carbon emissions as some of the daily shoulder load provided by gas could be shifted to stored base load from coal with about double the emissions. >> Presumably it is is not claimed that heat storage (as already demonstrated with molten salt for solar towers) could provide cheap storage over weeks and seasons as hydro does for the grid. Largest claim I am aware of was 17 hours. Heat dissipates. >> PPS After writing above and before submitting I couldn't resist a quick look at their two publications in case it did imply some further increase in emissions. >> No worries. >> The pdf on hybrids only claims an off-grid reduction in diesel costs which is just a normal small incremental reduction in mining costs with no significant emissions implications. >> The other has a useful discussion of storage power engineering which could help people understand how misleading the LCOE stats about renewables are for comparisons with dispatchable energy. >> They seem to be serious power engineers attempting the usual incremental improvements to help the grid cope with the intermittant energy foised on it by greenie inspired regulations. Not flakes suggesting such things are cheaper than fossil fuels or any kind of solution to global warming. >> posted 10 days ago by [|ArthurD] > > Important considerations and questions are raised here. There are minefields of logical fallacy many around the world on all sides of the issues fall into repeatedly on some of the false premises presented. > 1) The cell phone industry is the best model of energy development in less developed nations (LDCs): rapid acquisition of energy systems requires new grid designs, new approaches, and new renewable-centered generation compared to the way more industrialized nations developed starting over a century ago; passing obsolete technologies to new victims is not the way forward. We see Chinese Death Smogs have quelled the taste for coal in China, and though its coal is expanding still, China has committed to replace coal with renewable at the fastest rate feasible: []. In no plausible emission scenarios could the myth of an overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from non-industrialized countries rapidly industrializing over the next century. This false expectation relies on simple assertion, //Argumentum ad Ignoratio// and cherry-picked argument from authority citing scenarios that themselves jump to a conclusion. > 2) Overall, the cheapest forms of energy for most LDCs are renewable, according to the IEA; in no case does the monolithic model of over a century ago of supplanting wood, wind and animal power with fossil consumables make the most sense economically. It is far less expensive to have many rapidly-developed small renewable smart grid projects with low ongoing costs and little to no foreign dependencies, that subsequently support rollout of more like projects, than to invest in huge megaprojects that take longer to implement and back-load high and uncertain fuel costs dependent on geopolitics for their eventual pricing. The fallacy that fossil equals cheap energy ignores the economies of scale advantage of renewables over consumables: the more renewables are deployed, the lower their average cost; the more consumables are deployed, the higher their average cost. > 3) The principle base load renewables -- geothermal and small-medium scale hydroelectric/reserve co-management -- are not intermittent; indeed, pumped hydro is cheap, effective storage for negative load sources like solar and wind. All of these become less expensive as more are deployed due economies of scale and learning effects. What is necessary for renewables to succeed is for the 5.3 USD Trillion/year of subsidies to consumables to end. It is a mythstatement that the goal need be to artificially lower the price of renewables: consumable dumping into air is the culprit; pricing that dumping in and of itself to the highest level the Market will bear and returning those revenues equally to everyone with lungs for them to spend as they will unmediated by government is by far the Economic best case. > 4) Pumped hydro exists and is not only cheap, it has the side benefit of supporting water management. Using electric cars as grid storage exists, and at virtually no extra cost since cars can accept extra power when intermittent sources are high and demand low, and can reverse that when intermittent sources are low and demand high. As these two technologies are built out -- and only a tiny portion of grid capacity is needed for the intermittency issue to be completely resolved -- the net cost of energy drops. > 5) The best incentive for R&D is a fair playing field for innovators: remove the subsidy to consumables, send an accurate price signal of the true cost of consumables through the Market, and the Market of Ideas will respond. > 6) Fossil cannot be wiped out by strong competition alone. We've seen evidence that 13% of Americans act in denial on Climate Change, so can easily conclude some fraction of political decision-makers to extend that denial to denying that renewables are a better deal for their constituents than consumables. What is necessary to fix power is for those in denial to lose their political power. >> 1.1) Even in developed countries banks of lead acid batteries have long been used to provide the very low amounts of energy to keep telephones running when the grid is down. In areas with no grid it is of course entirely feasible to provide essential telecommunications using expensive intermittant off-grid power. This is also used for other essential services like refrigeration of vaccines etc at rural medical posts. The high cost of batteries and diesel generators is not optional wherever there is no grid and is also common in remote areas of developed countries like Australia with wind-solar-diesel-battery hybrid systems providing perfectly adequate EXPENSIVE power. >> Of course people who actually WANT to live "off-grid" can be found in prosperous suburbs of developed countries. But poor countries WILL NOT remain pre-industrial. >> 1.2) China is the largest manufacturer of solar panels, windmills and pretty well anything else other countries want to buy. They also produce lots of propaganda instead of reliable statistics. Take a look at the authoriative IEA statistics and projections of Chinese energy sources as relied on by the IPCC, not worthless "roadmaps". >> 2) Again, take a look at the ACTUAL IEA statistics and projections. >> 3) and 4) Again, pumped hydro and geothermal are cheaply available only in very limited amounts due to specific geographic requirements. >> Again, your views on what taxes poor countries SHOULD pay to internalize climate costs have no relevance to what they CAN and WILL pay for energy generation as demonstrated by the GW or so of coal plant that they are installing DAILY. >> 5) Your faith in market incentives goes far beyond anything plausible. Even conservatives recognize that only incremental improvements can be funded privately in the expectation of market returns. Fundamental R&D for technological breakthroughs that are not yet even on the horizon can only come from massive public funding - as in Cold War military R&D which people with your faith in "free enterprise" will naturally prefer should be contracted to private corporations but which NOBODY with a clue expects private corporations themselves to finance in the hope that they can obtain exclusive rights that are so OBVIOUSLY implausible for solutions to climate change. >> 6) "Denial" is a very minor issue mainly related to bizarre American politicking (where they also have "debates" about evolution etc). Governments like India and China do NOT deny the climate science. They simply CANNOT and WILL NOT pay what would be required to use the more expensive energy technologies currently promoted by ignorant western greenies. >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> posted 11 days ago by [|mlmartens] >> No. >> Privatization. >> Government programmes for R&D? >> No. >> Edison was a privately-funded invention machine. >> Microsoft, for all its flaws, a privately-funded invention machine. >> That guy with the reusable rockets, Elon Musk? >> A privately-funded invention machine. >> Private funding for R&D demonstrably increases as government obstacles are removed. >> Want to test drones for delivery of packages? >> You can't do it in the USA, because government red tape. Amazon is spending its R&D dollars in Canada. >> posted 11 days ago by [|RobVB] > > This seems to be the new direction for refusal to take action on climate change. Instead of arguing that it's not real, more and more difficult to pull off credibly, op ed writers are increasingly proposing justifications for why we shouldn't do anything--because it would be such an enormous burden yet ultimately so pointless, because we're not the problem in industrialized countries, because the cure is worse than the disease. In Canada, it's usually framed as "we only produce 2% of world wide emissions China India yadda yadda" Forget the corollary "we only have 0.05% of the world's population and we produce 2% of emissions, and if we go ahead with tar sands development (by mainly foreign investors) we'll up that figure" >> I agree it is being used as an argument for not doing anything (or perhaps implicitly to wait for somebody else to finance the R&D and climate engineering that will become necessary as a result of not doing anything). >> It should instead be used as an argument for developed countries who can afford it to jointly agree to contribute the funds required for R&D BECAUSE these op-eds happen to be CORRECT that the main emissions WILL continue from countries with per capita emissions that are negligible compared with the historical record of developed countries at the moment but WILL rapidly grow as they ARE rapidly industrializing. As stated in these op-eds they are too poor to spend desperately needed development funds on more expensive green energy. Therefore as they do say, it is quite pointless for developed countries to waste money on more expensive energy just to "do something" even though that "something will not significantly delay global warning. >> But therefore, as they DON'T say, it is entirely up to developed countries to find something that WILL actually make a significant difference by discovering new technologies that poor countries industrializing CAN afford or to help them afford current low emissions technology more quickly. >> The main obstacle at present is false claims from special interests in renewable energy "industries" that rely entirely on governent subsidies and the gas industry which provides the backup REQUIRED by intermittant wind and solar because greenie fantasies about renewable energy "really" being cheaper are pure bullshit. >> The only argument that can actually win results is not yet part of the mainstream debate. >> See: >> [] >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> It is true that we currently socialize the risk and privatise the rewards of research. The development of the internet is of course an example that springs to mind as we communicate here. I share with you the desire to see whether we can do anything to change this. However, you don't seem to see this as a problem anywhere but as applied to non-combustion technologies. You are aware that R&D as well as education of skilled technicians for all the natural resource extraction industries, including fossil fuels, is subsidized by public money? >> It is disingenuous to count externalities and level of subsidies (leaving entirely aside the question of correct figures) for one type of "competing" technology and not the other. >> posted 11 days ago by [|JudithShapiro] >> posted 11 days ago by [|mlmartens] >> As RobVB and JudithShapiro note, "ArthurD" presents material without any references or actual facts to back them up and he engages in handwaving to ignore the facts presented by RobVB and JudithShapiro. >> There's a strong likelihood that "ArthurD" is a pseudonym for one of the authors on ecomodernism. He's one of the 7%. >> ArthurD presents the myth that China and other developing countries are being hindered from developing by western countries and 'greenies' or 'alarmists'. >> That, of course, is a fallacy. China is leading the world in alternative energy development. Developing countries are being helped in developing their economies by being provided alternative energy sources, not hindered from developing. He is using both the false dichotomy and misrepresentation fallacies. >> posted 11 days ago by [|mlmartens] >> posted 11 days ago by [|BaerbelW] Staff >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> India and China pay the same world market prices for coal as everybody else and no subsidies because the inconvenient fact is that they ARE cheaper for most new power stations, which they are building DAILY. >> //Condescending ad hominem snipped. Arthur, it would do you well to not be so sneering condescending and stay on point. 6/19/15, Jagboy// >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> You continue, in your second sentence above, to refer to countries as monolithic entities that act, receive, benefit, lose ("India and China pay...."). Investment capital in our day and age operates across and fairly independently of nation-state borders. I see I haven't explained this well enough since you don't understand. If you like, I can try to find links to some basic texts, as you are interested in learning more about economic analysis. >> Thank you for posting the link to the document that you found inspiring. I can understand why you found it powerful; there are some compelling statements and the tone is sincere, even optimistic. I had a number of problems with the content, however. >> I have to confess that I rather quickly started to feel there was a strawman kind of setting up of "human" vs "nature". There was a concommitant positioning of "people who care about other people not just treehugging, i.e. us," vs "privileged people who reify nature, i.e. those other environmentalists." There is no acknowledgment of the environmental justice movement. How can a document like this ignore the environmental justice movement, unless it actually wants to caricature environmentalists? >> I pondered the choice to insist over and over that "plentiful access to modern energy is an essential prerequisite for human development" singling out only one of the standard factors that drive development on an individual and societal scale. >> I got stuck on the paragraph in which Bangladesh, of all places, is held up as the example of a country in which "climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority....Nor should they be." Nor should they be? Agreed, a Bangladeshi textile worker trying not to be assassinated tomorrow for trying to organize a union has pressing concerns, as does a peasant trying to eat. But people living in that country, which is 80% floodplain and which already has major food security issues from increasingly problematic drought/flood cycles, are among the most vulnerable in the world to the effects of climate change and rising sea levels. >> So what does the manifesto call for, beyond the coal-fired power plant for the Bangladeshi people in the example? For such a long document, it didn't seem to say much, ultimately, beyond we're the good guys and we're optimistic that humans will come up with technology to get us out of the fix we're in. That would be good. But the document contains no sense of the political sphere, and seems to feed all too easily into the "what, me worry?" strain of resistance to action, now, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that we know will exacerbate the global warming that is already with us. >> Finally, back to your comment: you say you're not interested in discussing tar sands? Well, yes, that was my initial point. This whole discourse seems to me to be about exactly that--not talking about what we need to do now to avoid increasing emissions and worsening climate change. One of the things we need to do is stop tar sands development. There's a well-funded and well-organized campaign to cut off that line of talk. I wish that you would take what is useful and inspiring from the manifesto, but take the rest with a grain of salt, and not join the forces denying the need for action to limit climate change. >> posted 11 days ago by [|JudithShapiro] >> He writes "I am not a participant and neither is Roger Pielke" >> All one has to do is go to the author list of ecomodernist.org and you will see a photo and bio of Roger Pielke [] 6 rows down on the right. >> Another inconvenient fact for ArthurD - China's consumption of coal declined last year and is continuing to decline. >> posted 11 days ago by [|mlmartens] >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> I am not particularly "inspired" by the manifesto as my primary concern is for rapid progress and development, with improved environment as a relatively minor side benefit quite secondary to the main point of helping billions escape from living on less than $2 per day in oppressive and backward societies. >> However I do strongly welcome its clear acceptance that modernization is the basis for solving problems such as climate change in direct contrast to most environmentalists. I will try to find time to respond more later, but as explained cannot guarantee to do so. >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> You seem to still be missing the point in terms of economic and political analysis of obstacles to action on climate change, you are talking about local decisionmaking. >> You say you don't want to talk about tar sands, you don't want to talk about heat storage, you don't want to look at the links people post for you... you don't respond to the specific evidence commenters post to contest your claims saying you don't have time while you seem to be spending a great deal of time re-posting what increasingly seems to be a limited and somewhat incoherent set of reasons not to move ahead on development of alternative energy sources. >> In the end you have not convinced me of anything, and slogging through the ecomodernist manifesto was excrutiating, but I have learned a lot from the information posted by RobVB and GlennTamblyn, so I have benefitted in that sense from reading this thread. >> posted 10 days ago by [|JudithShapiro] > > I appreciate that the recent responses by RobVB and Judith Shapiro deserve considered responses and could initiate a serious conversation on important issues (highly relevant to the actual debates and more important than arguments with people denying scientific evidence for climate change, and therefore important for improving next run of this course). > I have initiated a request for an announcement that the forum will be kept open after course ends on June 16. Please endorse: > [] > Unfortunately I have to catch up several other courses before and after an operation coincidentally on June 16 so I cannot take the time immediately but can guarantee to do so if the forum will remain open. > Meanwhile I will only attempt brief, off the cuff, responses as a token of good faith with promise for more active participation if forum continues. >> Your thread is bowever more suitable for a MOOC about solutions and not so much about climate science denial itself. So, I don't think that upcoming iterations of Denial101x will actually go there. >> posted 11 days ago by [|BaerbelW] Staff >> (//Once again, an extremely snarky and condescending ad homimem, against staff, has been snipped. Continue at your peril, ArthurD: much more and your removal from the for a will be recommended to edX and UQ staff.//) >> posted 11 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> posted 11 days ago by [|mlmartens] > > Fact, It takes more electricity to drive the average gasoline car 100 miles than it does to drive an electric car 100 miles. > [|http://solarchargeddriving.com/news/scd-editorials/831-surprise-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-than-evs.html#.VWu_MPGB5md.reddit] > > "Last month, six major oil and gas companies based in Europe, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell, wrote a letter officially endorsing an international price on carbon. “Climate change is a critical challenge for our world,” they declared. “The challenge is how to meet greater energy demand with less [carbon dioxide]. We stand ready to play our part.” In the short term, **these companies stand to benefit from carbon pricing, which would shift demand away from coal**. But even if their position is partially self-serving, it’s an important declaration, and one that deeply undercuts the climate change deniers’ arguments. Even oil companies, we can now say, believe climate change is real — and admit it’s something they are causing." > [] > via: [|https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/discussion/forum/i4x-UQx-Denial101x-course-2015_S1/threads/55805866a9a36e315a0000cc#] > More evidence of my points: > 1) that fossil fuel interests stand to gain from the advocacy of carbon taxes etc just like the renewables and nuclear lobbies both from their competition with coal and from delaying any actual solution that could wipe them out through massive R&D for cheaper energy. > 2) this course makes a special contribution by pretending the debate is about "denial" and teaching people how to lose agrguments by annoying people with arrogant accusations and psychologizing and not attempting to understand economic issues or respond to the actual debates. > PS Op postponed so I should have time for more than cut and paste soon. Still uncertain how long forum will remain open and still catching up other courses. >> As mentioned upthread, your post is at least borderline off topic for this MOOC and would be more suitable in a MOOC about solutions, so interest in discussing it further may be small or dwindling rapidly - as will most likely happen for discussions in this forum generally (if other MOOCs I was involved with are an indication). >> posted 6 days ago by [|BaerbelW] Staff >> Agree that forum is likely to dwindle rapidly now that course is closed. (Though it does vary among different MOOCs). So still desirable to state when the forum will actually close. (Again most MOOCs state in advance). >> Topic is why this MOOC that is not about solutions is actually harmful and so is entirely relevant to your specific request for feedback. >> posted 6 days ago by [|ArthurD] > > Point by point, as time permits. > Judith "Arthur, you ignore what the people you claim you want to help are saying themselves, as does the manifesto you cite." > Please provide link to your source showing that people in developing countries (as opposed to NGOs preaching at them) are more willing to pay higher prices for energy in response to climate change than people in developed countries. > Here's one confirming the well known fact that they have much more urgent problems and are much less aware of climate change at all: > [] >> Fact: Swanson's Law as a special case of the Law of Economies of Scale shows solar in particular drops 20% in price per doubling of installed capacity, while all renewable sources remain on the downward slope of the cost curve for capacity; all consumables are on the upward slope of the cost curve for capacity, worldwide, and have been so since the 1970's. >> Myth: What follows is an outright fabrication: people will have to pay more for energy to fight climate change. >> Fallacy: Argument by assertion, a sales campaign's successful result on the minds of consumable consumers, is the source of this error. We can see this whenever we examine sources of this claim. >> ArthurD, can you link to the information you use to claim higher prices for energy will result from defossilizing? >> Can you look deeper into the sources of that claim for actual factual evidence >> posted 6 days ago by [|RobVB] >> @AurthurD repeats a myth in his claim "people in developing countries... are more willing to pay higher prices for energy in response to climate change than people in developed countries." >> Among the multiple fallacies in his post, AuthruD engages in a petitio principii fallacy. As RobVB notes, AuthurD, without any proof, asserts his conclusion 'renewable energies are higher cost' and that people in developing countries are willing to pay those 'higher costs'. >> Pazheri, F. R., Othman, M. F., & Malik, N. H. (2014). A review on global renewable electricity scenario. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 835-845. >> posted 6 days ago by [|mlmartens] >> Note the subtle slander of "NGOs preaching", which we cannot mistake today as anything but an attack on the Papal Encyclical. >> Given that the single body most responsible for carbon consumable use through megaprojects in Africa is an NGO, and that this pattern is repeated in Less Developed Countries worldwide outside of China, which has a Communist government, it's hard to fathom the inversion of ArthurD's biased message. >> He somehow seems to think it's the capitalists that are to blame for the damage. >> posted 6 days ago by [|RobVB] > 5 > Point by point as time permits: > RobVB, apparantly Judith "learned a lot from the information posted by RobVB and GlennTamblyn". If she is your intended audience you are doing well. If you wish to engage me you will have to write in a way that I can understand well enough to explain my disagreement with. > I attempted a point by point answer to your 6 point post a week ago that began with "Important considerations and questions are raised here." > Your response to that 6 days ago beginning "Market incentives?" did not appear to me to be attempting to engage in further discussion by answering anything I had said but some sort of basically unintelligible sign off from the thread. I cannot respond to it because I have no idea what you were trying to say. > Although less incoherent I do not see anything meaningful I could respond to in your recent return to the thread either, except for one sentence: > "ArturD, can you link to the information you use to claim higher prices for energy will result from defossilizing?" >> And ad hominems like "fantasies claimed by flakes" (whoever you mean by that) also do not strengthen your case, they just show your rather big biases. >> posted 5 days ago by [|BaerbelW] Staff >> "Fact, research shows that current developments in renewable energy shows global electricity production could be supplied by renewable energy technologies with a significant reduction in costs and pollution compared to fossil fuels (Pazheri, Othman, & Malik, 2014)." >> Here's what the abstract ACTUALLY says: >> "The analysis shows that if the current developments in renewable industry continue, then a major share of global electricity production in the future could be supplied by renewable energy technologies. The analysis further shows that a significant amount of fuel cost and pollutants emission can be reduced by the increased use of RES based electrical power production technologies." >> [] >> Can you spot the difference? >> The paper says "fuel costs and pollution". The (//direct insult snipped, 6/19/15, Jagboy//) quotes it as saying "costs and pollution". Everybody knows that renewables have essentially zero fuel costs, and less pollution and SHOULD know that because of storage costs the actual cost of meeting energy needs ends up larger. But (//direct insult snipped, 6/19/15, Jagboy//) simply LIE with authoritative sounding "citations". >> posted 5 days ago by [|ArthurD] >> It appears we're watching the "Anger" phase of Kubler-Ross denial here in ad hom posts and lashing out. That's something beyond the Internet to help anyone with. >> (//You, complaining about ad homs? Continue doing this at your posting peril. 6/19/15, Jagboy//) >> Solar and wind are not the only renewables -- geothermal and hydro have better uptime than consumables; and, there are reasons for grid energy storage besides solar and wind, even on fossil grids. The form of electric car battery storage, for example, is because it's essentially free as a side effect of a large enough fleet of electric vehicles; pumped hydro is an excellent measure of water management, a blessing as drought and flood become more commonplace due climate change from fossils. Some level of grid storage is valuable to deal with downtime of any generators, since all machines break down and require maintenance. So the myth blaming intermittency of renewables for the cost of storage is clearly cherry picking. >> .1. I'm a serious side of the economic debate, with a degree in economics and in science: renewables demonstrably cost less than consumables, and I nor the World Bank, nor [] nor [] nor Swanson's Law nor [] nor the IEA do not tacitly or otherwise agree to the myth of cheap consumables; it's a bald misrepresentation to suggest consumables are cheaper. >> [] is, as was originally pointed out, funded by the Australian Gas Association, and is representative only of coal-addicted Australia, not the larger world, thus would be a cherry pick. However, let's stroll through the 177 pages that you call an adequate example, and try to find something in it that supports the baldly wrong assertions of cheaper consumables. >> Nope. Section 2.2, pages 18-20, clearly demonstrate that there is an infrastructure bias in Australia subsidizing coal and penalizing renewables; once that bias is removed, renewables appear more favourable. >> .2. Hey, I'm an advocate for a carbon tax on consumables, given that consumables consume my private stock of the share of the carbon cycle that disposes of CO2 and I want to be paid for what is taken from me. That's simple capitalism. It is a false dichotomy to claim advocacy for paying the full price of the resources one uses is evidence that stealing is right. Regulations, though I'm loathe to support needless government schemes to pick winners and losers, likewise may have other excuses for existing than to jack up prices. >> .3. [] - This switch? >> The concern isn't the rate of renewable adoption; the concern is the rate of continued bad public spending on demonstrably more expensive consumables by brainwashed government victims of fossil promotion. >> That decade of coal includes China, which in the same decade has come to experience Chinese Death Smogs on such a scale as to turn back the tide of its coal plan; China spends some 50 times as much on R&D in renewables as the USA and Europe combined, now. >> It's not energy costs that are at odds with tackling global warming. It's the fossil promoters with a special interest in selling their inferior goods at luxury prices. >> posted 5 days ago by [|RobVB] >> posted 5 days ago by [|mlmartens] > > Point by point as time permits. > BaerbelW: > "Arthur, as long as you are not providing credible references, you are just sharing your opinion. Wording like "This well known fact" just doesn't cut it." > You were clearly responding to the following exchange between RobVB and me: > "ArturD, can you link to the information you use to claim higher prices for energy will result from defossilizing?" > 1) **This well known fact** is tacitly agreed by all sides of the serious debate. The only link in my original post starting this thread provides an adequate example. **Instead of asking for a link why not read the one provided?**" > Frankly I have no reason to believe you bothered to read the report at the link provided but simply repeated your mantra about "credible references" because you wish to show your solidarity but are not actally able to attempt to seriously contribute to the discussion as Glenn Tamblyn did as you do not actually have anything to say. But if you did or now do read it, please explain why you believe the report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund was not a "credible reference" for the purposes of this course: > "Clean Energy Future Group > AEPCA is the Australasian Energy Performance Contracting Association. Its members are formed from energy service companies, state government departments and private companies interested in the performance contracting process. Energy performance contracting is a smart, affordable and increasingly common way to make building improvements that save energy and money. Its mission is to act as the Peak Body to support the commercial growth of members and their market through education, industry promotion, self-regulation and industry standards. www.aepca.asn.au > The Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) represents the interests of the broader sustainable energy industry including, renewables energy, cogeneration, gas-fired generation, waste-to-energy and energy efficiency industry. It has more than 250 organisations as members. It formed in September 2002 through the merger of the Australian EcoGeneration Association and the Sustainable Energy Industry Association. www.bcse.org.au > The Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA)'s vision is for a robust Australian Wind Community that makes a significant contribution to safe, reliable, economically and environmentally sustainable energy supply in Australia. AusWEA’s mission is to represent the Australian Wind Energy Community and promote the sensitive and appropriate uptake of wind energy. www.auswea.com.au > Bioenergy Australia was established in 1997 as a government-industry forum to foster and facilitate the development of biomass for energy, liquid fuels, and other value added bio-based products. Bioenergy Australia is concerned with all aspects of biomass and bioenergy, from production through to utilisation, and its work embraces technical, commercial, economic, societal, environmental, policy and market issues. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of all individual Bioenergy Australia members. www.bioenergyaustralia.org > The Renewable Energy Generators of Australia (REGA) was formed in 1999 as an industry association with a common purpose of supporting the development of generation of electricity from truly renewable resources. REGA represents all sectors of the renewable energy industry; members represent 95% of the existing renewable energy generation capacity, and include equipment suppliers, developers and industry specialists. www.rega.com.au > WWF Australia is part of the WWF International Network - the world's largest independent conservation organisation. With the help of more than 50,000 supporters across Australia, we're helping to protect and conserve our most biologically outstanding land, freshwater and marine habitats and reduce the causes and impacts of climate change. www.wwf.org.au > Authors > Dr Hugh Saddler – Energy Strategies www.enerstrat.com.au > Hugh is the Managing Director of Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, a consultancy business focussing on energy and environment policy and economics, which regularly provides consultancy services for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He has been fully engaged in the analysis of major national energy policy issues in the UK and Australia, as an academic, government employee and consultant, since 1973 (the year of the first oil shock), and is the author of numerous publications and policy studies on energy policy. > Dr Mark Diesendorf – Sustainability Centre www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au > Mark is Director of Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd, an interdisciplinary research, consulting and training organisation that is committed to ecologically sustainable and socially just development. > He is also an Adjunct Professor at Sydney and Murdoch Universities and Vice-President of the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics. > Richard Denniss – The Australia Institute www.tai.org.au > Richard is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australia Institute, a Canberra based public interest think tank. Prior to taking up his current position he was Chief of Staff to the then Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. He also lectured in economics at The University of Newcastle for 5 years. He has published widely on the impact of policy on economic efficiency and the environment. > Peer Review > Alan Pears > Director, Sustainable Solutions Pty Ltd and Adjunct Professor, RMIT University > //(Entire off-topic, unnecessary, and and unhelpful ad hominem removed.// 6/15/19, Jagboy*) >> And here we see the subtle distinction: the name of the course is "Denial 101x", not "Deniers 101x". The course is about a specifically identifiable, readily apparent set of characteristics of behaviour and the sociology of that denial. That one from the observed Kubler-Ross denial behaviours thence identifies deniers -- noting that we've learned that a person who may be a denier about one idea might readily embrace some other ideas without a hint of denial (nor in most cases skepticism or critical thought, it can be observed) -- does not make the course ad hominem in nature, nor does it as has been falsely claimed encourage abusive personal attacks. Though use of psychology hardly seems much of a vice. The fallacy leading to this vindictive and wrathful accusation appears to be mere malice. >> In the meantime, we see another erring attempt to prop up the credibility of a link that actually says the opposite of what the poster claims. Fine. The link that says the opposite of what is claimed comes from good people. That they are good people, too, is an ad hominem in the positive sense: not valid, but irrelevant. This fallacy is the red herring to cover the misrepresentation of fact. >> We can't really make forward progress here, and it seems this has become a private pit for venting spleen, not a conduit for educational purposes. >> I'm all for closing this thread; it's run its course and has become inane. >> posted 5 days ago by [|RobVB] > > Due to excessive off-topic attacks on students and staff, by ArthurD, this thread is now closed. 6/19/15, Jagboy >> posted 4 days ago by [|mlmartens]
 * 1) [|mlmartens]
 * 1) [|JagBoy] Staff
 * JagBoy, the fact that you are simply unaware of these facts indicates the sheer irrelevance of what you are teaching. If you were in fact trying to scientifically understand why so many people reject your proposals you would be at least aware of the arguments against and attempting to answer such arguments rather than pretend the only problem you have to deal with is "denial of the science". Evidence for each point is easily accessible to anyone interested in facts rather than myths:
 * ArthurD
 * Glenn, 10 kwH for \$3500 is indeed \$350 per kWh, sorry for my typo. I stated the correct figure in other posts pointing out that it is much more expensive than lead acid batteries which are prohibitively expensive compared to grid power which is priced in dollars per MEGAWATT hour, not hundreds of dollars per kWh. 7000 cycles is not consistent with any known Lithiumm-ion technology, but if even if it was correct that would still be orders of magnitude more expensive for dispatchable solar or wind power as opposed to grid power (even if solar or wind energy were themselves zero cost and even ignoring seasonal as opposed to daily variations and long cloudy periods especially in countries with monsoon seasons but also frequent elsewhere).
 * ArthurD
 * Glenn, I honestly don't have time at the moment.
 * PS As we were discussing batteries, not heat storage I will not even briefly respond to the video.
 * 1) [|RobVB]
 * Briefly for now:
 * Another fact free post by ArthurD.
 * Market incentives?
 * 1) [|JudithShapiro]
 * Yes, I don't think it is very recent, but this is certainly the main direction of the actual debates already and can be expected to completely dominate in the near future - rendering this course even more irrelevant.
 * Arthur, you are off track first of all in your continuing refererences to countries as economic winners/losers or even players. That's not how modern economies or nation-states work. Tar sands development costs the average Canadian citizen through direct and indirect subsidies as well as enormous externalities affecting health and environment; current but especially future planned development benefits mainly foreign capital based in -- drumroll -- China! as well as the Koch brothers in the US et al. And yes, Canadians as well, and there most of the wealth generated seems to be fleeing to offshore tax havens so it's not contributing through taxes or reinvestment to Canada the nation-state.
 * It is an ironic twist that China is now externalizing its pollution in Canada as a method for developing its economy. After decades of having western countries externalize costs in China, the pattern is being reversed.
 * "ecomodernism.org" has all of the markers of an astroturf organization. With Roger Pielke and other industry funded climate change deniers on the roster, it's clear that it's a denier website.
 * Eric Holthaus wrote about [|ecomodernism] in Slate recently. ATTP (..and then there's physics) also has [|an article on his blog] and the comments are worth reading as well to give this some persperctive.
 * Thanks for the links to commentaries on ecomodernism from mainstream environmentalists, which both confirm that it is well worth reading and considering and likely to start a serious debate. BTW I am not a participant and neither is Roger Pielke (//ad hominem snipped//--6/19/215, Jagboy).
 * Judith, I made NO reference to countries as winners, losers or players. Nor am I interested in discussing tar sands.
 * Arthur, that is the point I raised: here's another example of an emerging smoke-and-mirrors technique to avoid taking necessary action on climate change. This technique kind of quickly mumbles its way past okay maybe it's real, then rushes on to trumpet all kinds of great justifications why "we" shouldn't act now to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
 * Both links provided by Baerbel are consistent with my comment. Ecomodernist.org has the hallmarks of an astroturf. The Slate article also notes the involvement of Roger Pielke with that 'organization'. So, as usual, ArthurD, ignores facts that contradict his claims.
 * I did go to the authors list, specifically to look for the name Pielke, assuming it would not be there (//ad hominem snipped, 6/19/15, Jagboy//)and even claimed in the same post that I was also an author (under some other name). Sadly I did miss it and have to confirm that Pielke is listed, and indeed "6 rows down on the right" as claimed. I should remember that preconceptions often lead to mistakes and that even notoriously habitual liars sometimes state facts correctly.
 * Judith, I did misunderstand your comment about winners, losers and players but would not have misunderstood if you had merely said "countries as monolithic entities". I agree that choice of generators is a usually a local, not national decision with local fuel and transport costs and other geographic factors (eg presence of local limited hydro and geothermal resources) generally resulting in a mix to satisfy different aspects of dispatchable baseload, shoulder and peak demands and keep transmission costs down even in a singe national or continental grid. eg parts of south china have a transport bottleneck with inadequate rail infrastrucure from ports and coal trucks on high ways causing very long traffic jams (days or weeks). This results in some additional nuclear in the mix.
 * Arthur, you ignore what the people you claim you want to help are saying themselves, as does the manifesto you cite. You use them as a justification for what seems increasingly to be the same old defense of we don't need to take action to limit emissions now, wearing new clothes.
 * 1) [|ArthurD]
 * Arthur - as mentioned in many responses already in the forum, they will stay open even after June 16 for everybody enrolled in the course.
 * Thanks, sorry I did not have time to check and misunderstood announcement of "course ends" date (sometimes courses leave all old materials accessible for enrolled student but closed for new posts in ongoing discussions. I look forward to resuming participation in this thread shortly.
 * Once again, ArthurD resorts to insults.
 * 1) [|mlmartens]
 * 1) [|ArthurD]
 * The fact that the course ended yesterday and that you can still post should answer your question, Arthur.
 * I'll take that a positive answer, forum remains open despite course being closed, though I still don't know for how long. It would have been better to directly respond to the specific question in the thread specifically on this issue when I asked for clarification about "archived" since it usually means "read only".
 * 1) [|ArthurD]
 * Arthur
 * Fact, research shows that current developments in renewable energy shows global electricity production could be supplied by renewable energy technologies with a significant reduction in costs and pollution compared to fossil fuels (Pazheri, Othman, & Malik, 2014).
 * Well, there's more to it than just that.
 * 1) [|ArthurD]
 * This well known fact is tacitly agreed by all sides of the serious debate. The only link in my original post starting this thread provides an adequate example. Instead of asking for a link why not read the one provided?
 * Advocates for a carbon tax take it for granted. There would be no point in a carbon tax if non-fossil based energy was cheaper or the same cost as fossil based energy. Likewise for advocates of regulations requiring a certain percentage of renewable energy to be purchased by power companies. They would buy 100% renewable without compulsion if it were cheaper.
 * Again there would simply be no cause for concern as the world would be switching rapidly to renewables if the fantasies claimed by flakes had any basis in reality. The concern is real because the world is not switching. Over the decade to last year additional energy added from coal was 4 times more than from renewables (and 1.5 times more than from the main beneficiary of greenie fantasies, the gas industry). This is the REASON for the concern about a "business as usual" resulting in serious problems before the end of the century. People who don't understand that much simply aren't serious.
 * Arthur, as long as you are not providing credible references, you are just sharing your opinion. Wording like "This well known fact" just doesn't cut it.
 * PS To help you understand how (//direct insult snipped, 6/19/15, Jagboy//) operate, here's a "fact" cited by mlmarten with a reference but no link to a(pay walled) paper from yet another journal peddling renewable and sustainable energy.
 * ArthurD
 * If ArthurD read the actual paper and not just the abstract, he'd discover that, once again, he's wrong in his unsupported assertions. It's a very common pattern for deniers to comment on research they haven't read and then whine about 'paywalls' as an excuse for not actually reading the paper.
 * 1) [|ArthurD]
 * About the 'misunderstanding' of ad hominem; the idiomatic phrase has a specific meaning in argument, and a general meaning in Latin. As Latin is a dead language, the idiomatic usage is implied.
 * 1) [|JagBoy] Staff
 * I think you missed a step in that process.