Steve McIntyre seems to pour cold water on a study allegedly demonstrating global warming.
As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates.
Changing the dates of observations? Even macroeconometricians do not try that one.
I guess I should give a concrete prediction about when solar will actually start being cost-competitive with fossil fuels, without subsidies, in some locations for some customers. My prediction is: around 2020, or 7 years from now. 95% credible interval would be…um, let’s see…2014 to 2040. So that’s a fairly wide interval.
He mentions some promising technologies. What has to be stressed is that once solar power becomes cost-competitive, we will never go back. That is, solar power is going to continue to get cheaper at a faster rate than other technologies (barring some spectacular discovery of a new energy source or a dramatic development in nuclear energy).
Having said that, in 2005, I quoted the Department of Energy as predicting that solar power would be cost-competitive within 10 years, which at this point would be 2 years from now. So, relative to predictions made during the Bush Administration, solar power seems to have fallen short.
I strongly support funding research into solar technologies. I strongly oppose subsidizing deployment of uneconomical solar power, particularly by companies led by the President’s political cronies.
Along these lines, Timothy Taylor writes,
The fundamental problem, Everett argues, is that showing something is possible at high cost is one thing, but commercializing it at low costs is quite another….
after 40 years of watching the U.S. government try to force energy markets on to a different path, it’s time for an alternative approach. The U.S. government should stop subsidizing commercial energy firms, and instead put that money into a dramatic increase in energy research and development.