Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dave -
Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change.
Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.
And since you've proven you're not interested in conflicting views, you're not interested in serious discussion, either.Well, that's an arrogant way of saying "I have no idea, and I'm afraid to look it up".Todd -
If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.
But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.
It's a way of saying that neither Todd nor Frank have any interest in this topic at all, and will NEVER make the mistake of being sucked into a serious discussion about it.
I don't see a great deal of value in answering a question for someone who is praying he doesn't get one.
their cars weren't economically viable.
EXACTLY!!
When GM got a bailout it meant THEIR cars were not viable - not cars in general.
So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.
So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.
their cars weren't economically viable.
EXACTLY!!
When GM got a bailout it meant THEIR cars were not viable - not cars in general.
So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.
So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.
Nail, meet hammer.Dave -
Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change.
Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.
You claimed:
Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.When in reality, the study I posted confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers believe man May have SOME impact on climate change -- but that it poses from a zero to moderate threat to humanity.
And you perfectly illustrate the problem with AGW proponents: You see what you want to see.
Are you beging dishonest, or are you simply illiterate?
It is telling when you start to see things like 65% still considered ‘consensus’ and the word moderate being substituted with extreme or catastrophic.
Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .
The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy
You have to laugh, don't you?
With the best will in the world, BriPat, you are never going to understand this topic. You just aren't.
Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes.
It's called capitalism and free enterprise - something Germany now does while the US sits on its hands pretending that this capitalism is really somehow communist.
One example - tidal turbines go for around $10 million a piece. One Scottish company just got an order for 200.
Those are jobs that you didn't want. And you think this means you are winning?
Surely even you, as blind and blinkered as you are, must realise that this is a game you lost long, long ago. The only question really is how much it will cost you to catch up when your existing infrastructure starts to backfire.
their cars weren't economically viable.
EXACTLY!!
When GM got a bailout it meant THEIR cars were not viable - not cars in general.
So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.
So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.
So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.
They're trapped in Al Gore's delusions because they feel they somehow owe him for raising so much green stuff for them. The money kind, that is. Green is green, after all!The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to. Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.
The crux of Dessler's message was:
If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing, it is PROBABLY correct. It is not proven correct. We cannot say it is KNOWN to be correct. But it PROBABLY is correct.
The harm that will be done should those 97% be correct and yet ignored is immense. For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. The lifetime of CO2 and methane in an overheated world is many hundreds of years at the very least. If we do not stop it now, we will not be able to stop it in the future.
The harm that will be done should those 97% be incorrect and yet measures are taken is small. It is small for several reasons:
1) There are numerous co-benefits to moving away from fossil fuels
a) Reduce air pollution
b) Get an early start on the new energy and transport infrastructure that WILL be required at some point
c) It is REVERSIBLE. If we eventually discover that we can safely burn coal and oil, they will still be here. We can quite easily return to a fossil fuel economy and burn the shit out of that stuff.
Any thoughts on any of THAT?
First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
Which is a bald faced lie. Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit. More importantly, if you take the statistical analysis at it face value, you notice that the 2 questions that are asked NEVER allude to the third point. Again, this is ANOTHER core element to the argument that the video makes.
- the earth is warming
- Humans are very likely the cause
- Future warming may be severe
IOW, the entire premise of the video that you are upset that no one is watching is based upon a complete fabrication. This alone is sufficient to disregard the asinine argument that he makes but we can go even FURTHER. The next step is to analyze the proposed solutions that are being suggested and ask how much of an impact that they are going to make. In the video, he makes ANOTHER assumption that is incorrect, that the impacts of climate regulation are going to be small. That is absolutely false. All of the small changes that are brought up have one thing in common small impacts. Impacts that, when really looked at, amount to less than 1 percent of actual change. Is that going to do anything? Not according to ANYONE that believes AGW is going to be disastrous. Considering that, in order for the results to be disastrous in the first place, a feedback loop is required it is unthinkable that any of these changes amount to squat. In order to make real changes, we are going to have to completely remodel our economy and that is going to result in DRASTIC results. Lastly, he makes another MONUMENTAL asinine claim that any changes occurring from AGW are completely irreversible. That is buffoonery. There was a time when people thought that the moon was impossible to reach or that the patent office was no longer needed because we had already invented everything. The fact is that no one knows what we are going to be able to do in ten or twenty years as technology moves faster every day.
There is one thing that I do know however. If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it. There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.
The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear. Bad idea.
Todd -
So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.
There have been "viable" solar panels for 20 years, genius. That doesn't mean every company that makes them is well managed or successful.
If by being right, you meant that all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in profits would go to more forward-thinking countries, then you were right.
One thing you really need to try and understand is that when private companies make profits - that also benefits the country they are in, because they pay taxes. At the moment I really don't think you get how great the benefits are for countries like Austria, Scotland, Korea or Germany - and how much money Luddites cost the US. It's literally trillions of dollars that you are happily waving goodbye to, and you aren't smart enough to even realise it.
The reason Solyndra failed is not because solar failed, genius, it is because their technology was 10 years out of date. The fact that American Luddite thinking is 20 years out of date probably meant that they thought they were up to speed...
Todd -
So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.
There have been "viable" solar panels for 20 years, genius. That doesn't mean every company that makes them is well managed or successful. The reason Solyndra failed is not because solar failed, genius, it is because their technology was 10 years out of date. The fact that American Luddite thinking is 20 years out of date probably meant that they thought they were up to speed...
In short - companies like Solyndra struggle in the US because of people like you. They are stuck in 1976. The best thing Solyndra could have done was relocate to Austria, where they would have better access to the latest R&D and top staff.
If by being right, you meant that all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in profits would go to more forward-thinking countries, then you were right.
One thing you really need to try and understand is that when private companies make profits - that also benefits the country they are in, because they pay taxes. At the moment I really don't think you get how great the benefits are for countries like Austria, Scotland, Korea or Germany - and how much money Luddites cost the US. It's literally trillions of dollars that you are happily waving goodbye to, and you aren't smart enough to even realise it.
Freedom -
Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?
I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were.
But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.
What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.
Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose.
In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.
Global warming is a red herring created by the fossil fuel industry.
It takes the attentioon of the real issue, which is air and water pollution.
Too many people are dying of cancer and suffering from asthma in this modern age because of the pollution.
Air pollution has been getting worse since the orange fog of london. Our waters are being poisoned.
BriPat -
Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .
If you don't includ feed-in tariffs then yes, of course.....honestly, where do you get your information from?
How about Catalina?
?World?s largest? thin-film solar plant begins operations - PV-Tech
btw, Can YOU name a coal or nuclear company which has never received subsidies?
