Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?

The oil, coal and auto industries are not regulated? When did that happen?

Dishonest obfuscation. Do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines or actively spreading propaganda that makes them billions of dollars?

They have taken the same tact big tobacco used when they denied the link between smoking and cancer, using many of the same institutions and pseudo-scientists.

But according to right wing morons, their beloved polluters and cartels are just victims.

Dishonest obfuscation.

Do you honestly believe "their billion dollar industries are not regulated"?

Do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines or actively spreading propaganda that makes them billions of dollars?


Propaganda? Please explain further.
I believe that our government has so much power that any industry that wants to survive is forced to lobby and advertise in its own defense. Wasting money that would be better spent on research and development.

Do you want to eliminate the coal and oil industries? What about nuclear?
Or do you just want to make their products so expensive that nobody uses them?
Please explain what you believe.

 

[Saigon]

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

No one supports grafts and corruption, but I don't see they occur only in wind or in coal or in nuclear...realistically there can always be some corruption in the energy sector. I'm not defending grants that are made recklessly, but I am saying that not funding renewables does not mean an end to corruption.

All new industries require R&D, and if that R&D pays off, the return is made in jobs and export dollars.

Scotland is looking to close a sale to New Zealand of around 200 x $10 million for tidal turbines. Pus maintenance.

So that is $2,000,000,000 that is headed into Scotland's coffers and not into the US - and all because Scotland got into the field early and got it's research right.

And how effective are they?

The pilot showed that New Zealand could, in optimal conditions, produce 1.5 times its TOTAL electricity demand from the one project. (The opimtal is more statistical than practical - but you get the point)

So Todd doesn't want a bar of these silly industries....and Scotland says thank you America!

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Rather than just pretend you didn't see the 2 or 3 posts which told you about the money the US pours into the coal industry - why not be honest and admit that your initial point wasn't correct?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
.

How can you not know this?


Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011.[1] Utilities buy more than 90 percent of the coal mined in the United States.[2]

In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with the total nominal capacity of 338.732 GW[3] (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000).

Coal power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We use coal. That doesn't prove your earlier claim.
Obama wants to drive coal out of business.
He'd prefer to give money to uneconomical "green" energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?

How about a nuclear power station?

No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?

Jesus wept...

Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
Certainly Obama is doing no such thing.

I was wondering, Toadsterretard, just when were you declared officially braindead?

Government Funding and Loans for Coal Plants and Infrastructure
(excerpts)

A 2010 report by Synapse Energy Economics, "Phasing Out Federal Subsidies for Coal" found the U.S. federal government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for the coal industry. The report was written by Lucy Johnston (Synapse Energy Economics), Lisa Hamilton (Rockefeller Family Fund), Mark Kresowik (Sierra Club), Tom Sanzillo (TR Rose Associates), and David Schlissel (Schlissel Technical Consulting) and was released on April 13, 2010.

The report identifies four major areas where taxpayer money continues to fund the construction, expansion, and life extension of coal-fired power plants, thus acting as federal coal subsidies:

1) Financial support for the World Bank and other international financial institutions that finance fossil fuel use and extraction;
2) U.S. Treasury Department’s backing of tax exempt bonds and Build America Bonds for use in the electric sector;
3) U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provision of loans, loan guarantees and lien accommodations to power companies that are investing in new or existing coal plants;
4) Tax credits, loans and loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Energy

Loans? Loans that get repaid?
Doesn't sound like the government is giving them money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

No one supports grafts and corruption, but I don't see they occur only in wind or in coal or in nuclear...realistically there can always be some corruption in the energy sector. I'm not defending grants that are made recklessly, but I am saying that not funding renewables does not mean an end to corruption.

All new industries require R&D, and if that R&D pays off, the return is made in jobs and export dollars.

Scotland is looking to close a sale to New Zealand of around 200 x $10 million for tidal turbines. Pus maintenance.

So that is $2,000,000,000 that is headed into Scotland's coffers and not into the US - and all because Scotland got into the field early and got it's research right.

And how effective are they?

The pilot showed that New Zealand could, in optimal conditions, produce 1.5 times its TOTAL electricity demand from the one project. (The opimtal is more statistical than practical - but you get the point)

So Todd doesn't want a bar of these silly industries....and Scotland says thank you America!

Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.

 

[code1211]

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

No one supports grafts and corruption, but I don't see they occur only in wind or in coal or in nuclear...realistically there can always be some corruption in the energy sector. I'm not defending grants that are made recklessly, but I am saying that not funding renewables does not mean an end to corruption.

All new industries require R&D, and if that R&D pays off, the return is made in jobs and export dollars.

Scotland is looking to close a sale to New Zealand of around 200 x $10 million for tidal turbines. Pus maintenance.

So that is $2,000,000,000 that is headed into Scotland's coffers and not into the US - and all because Scotland got into the field early and got it's research right.

And how effective are they?

The pilot showed that New Zealand could, in optimal conditions, produce 1.5 times its TOTAL electricity demand from the one project. (The opimtal is more statistical than practical - but you get the point)

So Todd doesn't want a bar of these silly industries....and Scotland says thank you America!

Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.

As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.

 

[Trakar]

Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

 

[Trakar]

Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.

As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

 

[Big Fitz]

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

No one supports grafts and corruption, but I don't see they occur only in wind or in coal or in nuclear...realistically there can always be some corruption in the energy sector. I'm not defending grants that are made recklessly, but I am saying that not funding renewables does not mean an end to corruption.

All new industries require R&D, and if that R&D pays off, the return is made in jobs and export dollars.

Scotland is looking to close a sale to New Zealand of around 200 x $10 million for tidal turbines. Pus maintenance.

So that is $2,000,000,000 that is headed into Scotland's coffers and not into the US - and all because Scotland got into the field early and got it's research right.

And how effective are they?

The pilot showed that New Zealand could, in optimal conditions, produce 1.5 times its TOTAL electricity demand from the one project. (The opimtal is more statistical than practical - but you get the point)

So Todd doesn't want a bar of these silly industries....and Scotland says thank you America!

You gonna answer my question, or continue to run away, Sir Robin?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.

 

[Big Fitz]

Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.

Or stay in business.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.

OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?

How about a nuclear power station?

No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?

Jesus wept...

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

BULLSHIT! The coal industry has OWNED local, county and state judges for generations. Where do you think the term 'company town' came from?

The relative freedom of the West Virginia miners was quickly overshadowed as industries began to exhibit more and more control over the region. Soon company towns dominated the coalfields, and miners had no choice but to live in them. Every aspect of a miner’s life was controlled by what existed for him in the operator-owned town. Only paid in company script, miners had no choice but to shop at the company store, which greatly inflated prices in order to compensate for wage increases. Towns were unsanitary and lacked any kind of central political structure. Important information on voting and politics were withheld from miners, and the company post-master routinely scrutinized thier mail. Operators controlled every aspect of the town and ruled unjustly and often times violently. When population and discontent began to rise in company towns, operators installed private police-like guards who patrolled the streets and instituted their own brand of martial law.

 

[code1211]

Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.

As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

The fact of the government is that if any agency is given an 8% increase in funds, that agency will double in size in 10 years. This is what has happened to the EPA and virtually all of the agencies in DC.

It's insanity. That many motivated do-gooders are sure to create mischief as they strive to assure that a snail darter or a desert lizard is not adversely affected by people trying to make a living.


EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark? | RedState

Weekly Standard: Protect Lizards And Endanger Jobs : NPR

 

[code1211]

OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm?

How about a nuclear power station?

No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?

Jesus wept...

If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.

BULLSHIT! The coal industry has OWNED local, county and state judges for generations. Where do you think the term 'company town' came from?

The relative freedom of the West Virginia miners was quickly overshadowed as industries began to exhibit more and more control over the region. Soon company towns dominated the coalfields, and miners had no choice but to live in them. Every aspect of a miner’s life was controlled by what existed for him in the operator-owned town. Only paid in company script, miners had no choice but to shop at the company store, which greatly inflated prices in order to compensate for wage increases. Towns were unsanitary and lacked any kind of central political structure. Important information on voting and politics were withheld from miners, and the company post-master routinely scrutinized thier mail. Operators controlled every aspect of the town and ruled unjustly and often times violently. When population and discontent began to rise in company towns, operators installed private police-like guards who patrolled the streets and instituted their own brand of martial law.

Is this a story of the good ol' days or is this happening right now?

 

[Trakar]

Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.

The panels were profittable, they merely were not able to compete with the fully subsidized Chinese industry in the international market place during the current global economic doldrums. Additionally, the leadership of Solyndra apparently made several poor business decisions, but none of this reflects on the basic technologies or alternative power concepts, it merely speaks to timing issues in the financial cycle and the business accumen of the company's administrators.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process.

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance.

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.

Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.

The panels were profittable, they merely were not able to compete with the fully subsidized Chinese industry in the international market place during the current global economic doldrums. Additionally, the leadership of Solyndra apparently made several poor business decisions, but none of this reflects on the basic technologies or alternative power concepts, it merely speaks to timing issues in the financial cycle and the business accumen of the company's administrators.

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

 

[Trakar]

Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.

As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

The fact of the government is that if any agency is given an 8% increase in funds, that agency will double in size in 10 years. This is what has happened to the EPA and virtually all of the agencies in DC.

It's insanity. That many motivated do-gooders are sure to create mischief as they strive to assure that a snail darter or a desert lizard is not adversely affected by people trying to make a living.


EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark? | RedState

Weekly Standard: Protect Lizards And Endanger Jobs : NPR

A rather entertaining dance, but it doesn't address the questions posed. Please support your previous assertion and answer the questions asked:

Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).

 

[RollingThunder]

Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.

My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.

Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.

Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.

 

[Trakar]

The panels were profittable,

Obviously they were not.

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).