Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 116

Thread: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

  1. #101
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    So do we agree, in principle, to a 1v1 moderated debate or are you just blowing c02?
    Absolutely.

  2. #102
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It seems like solar energy isn't a very labor-intensive industry, so I'm not sure that's accurate. I mean, how much labor does it really take to make a solar panel? I would assume it's mostly an automated process. But I don't know that much about how solar panels are manufactured, so I could be wrong.
    Are you asking for Chinese labor costs or US union costs? I don’t know what the exact numbers are either but I’m pretty sure the disparity is much larger than the price difference between silicone and the cheaper materials you referenced. So sure of it I’ll give you first crack at looking it up if you like.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  3. #103
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Absolutely.
    Absolutly blowing c02 or absolutly agree?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #104
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Absolutly blowing c02 or absolutly agree?
    I agree. Moderated, unmoderated ... whatever. Makes no difference to me.

  5. #105
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I agree. Moderated, unmoderated ... whatever. Makes no difference to me.
    I will give obvious Child a chance to accept first. It will not be a debate over whether global warming exists, but a debate about the causes of global warming and how sensitive the climate is to Co2.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  6. #106
    Advisor nijato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Charm City, USA
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    417
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    First, it should be noted that the IPCC is a political body and that said “conclusions” are based upon achieving political objectives using handpicked scientific theories, and even misrepresentations thereof at times. I don’t trust the UN or even the federal government to control energy in the manner they are (using this issue as a means to an end) any more than I would trust them with control over food or water.
    Sorry - you must address what is said, not who is saying it.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    As to whether the studies/models cited by AR4 use direct or indirect proxy measurements/data does in fact matter when considering AGW, as long as said long term studies/models are predicting quantifiable warming rates and validating their models with the same short term climate variability models Spencer used, they should be criticized by the same people that criticized Spencer for using them in the same manner.
    Untrue. Spencer used a 10-year span. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you cannot find a SINGLE reference from the IPCC that considers a period of < 15 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Even direct temperature measurements taken today incorporate proxy data and algorithms to normalize missing data that has been substituted with measurements from nearby stations. The older the measurements get, the more need there is to fill the holes. This isn’t even challenging the numerous methods used to determine the temperatures of the planet before measurements were taken so yes, “proxy” and “primarily” are appropriately descriptive terms in this instance.
    I guess the terminology doesn't matter, but I really prefer "indirect." And besides - what's wrong with indirect measurement? We find new planets thanks to the wobble they produce in an observable star, for example. Indirect measurements are perfectly valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Spencer wasn’t attempting to overturn the AGW theory. He did show further flaws in the IPPC models and as such, has been relentlessly attacked by the usual (politically motivated) suspects. As to the irrelevance of the cause and effect of cloud formations, it is a pretty big deal actually. I think the more important point he made had to do with the time lapse that is causing problems with the IPPC models’ feedback estimations.

    I, like Spencer, have no doubt that global warming is occurring, believe that there is a likely anthropogenic contribution but have serious problems with the way this issue is handles politically, the way some of the studies have been done and models have been constructed and believe that the climate is a lot less sensitive to anthropogenic/co2 forcing than many would have us believe. Unfortunately any criticism of any AGW theories floating around out there or support of any criticism thereof is to be a heretic or an uneducated fool in today’s environment. Diversity of thought should be more celebrated than it is today, particularly when discussing scientific theories.
    You are right that there is a LOT of uncertainty about AGW, and some people don't appreciate that. For example, the IPCC AR4 sea-level rise predictions are based solely on thermal expansion - they don't account for a single drop of water produced by melting land ice. The reason they did so was because the behavior of ice sheets like the one on Greenland is not well understood. So yes, uncertainty is high about a lot of the details. To say that AGW does not exist is just not accurate though. Human activity is causing global average sea, air, and land temperatures to rise, with observable effects. it just IS.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    You teach K-12 or collegiate?
    High school biology at a science / engineering magnet. Can't wait to meet this year's batch next week.
    Last edited by nijato; 08-23-11 at 01:40 AM.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

  7. #107
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Untrue. Spencer used a 10-year span. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you cannot find a SINGLE reference from the IPCC that considers a period of < 15 years.
    In addition, Spencer used a VERY simplistic model. Far too simplistic to prove the point he was trying to make.

    RealClimate: “Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”

  8. #108
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Hell, C-man hasn't even admitted that NASA said nothing anywhere near what he claims.
    C-man does not understand what he posted. That is obvious.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #109
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Conservatives are lying about the desire for free markets without over regulation by the government and without wasteful spending of our tax dollars?
    It helps to read what my example is before replying.

    Really? Republicans are probably more supportive of nuclear than democrats are but I donít see a ďhardĒ bush by republicans for more nuclear energy.
    Try Google.

    Donít post a link to a handful of congressmen who have made comments, if you are going to refute this, provide a link to the republican leadership pushing a bill or something that looks like ďpushing hardĒ.
    Let's see just how much you pay attention. Have Republicans bashed renewable saying that only nuclear and fossil are viable candidates? Have Republicans bashed Obama for not pushing Nuclear more? Not extending more funding?

    Congressman Edward Markey - July 12, 2011: Republicans Vote to Increase Cash to Oil, Nuclear

    I donít trust the liberal use of the terms subsidize or subsidies, donít believe your claim that the amount is similar to what is being invested in other renewable energies and doubt your claim about construction loans is accurate. Feel free to educate me.
    Try again. If you don't bother to research yourself, no amount of links will ever educate yourself. Show me that you are willing to actually use google unlike many of your friends and we'll chat.

    I see, you deal in abstracts rather than facts. Perhaps you have a peer reviewed article to accompany this externalized ďcostĒ you reference as though it were fact?
    Are you insane? Do you even understand basic pollution impacts? Do you know what acid rain is? (I bet not)

    Do you really think the market prices in pollution costs into fossil production? That has got to be the silliest thing I've heard all month.

    I agree that republicans have been complete schmucks when it comes to the free market and that their words havenít matched their actions. There has been a groundswell of pressure within the grassroots of the party to change that recently. Havenít you noticed?
    By a bunch of people who themselves pay no income tax and benefit from the massive entitlement system we have. Yeah. Right.

    Interesting perspective. Are you a partisan or are you one who understands science and math?
    If you think I'm a partisan, you're off your rocker.

    So liberals are educated and conservatives arenít? Or is this just another one of those sweeping and unsupported proclamations typical of your comments?
    When did liberal and conservative come into play at all? It doesn't matter what you lean. Partisan behavior blinds both ways. Know how many idiot partisans here post polls with variances pushing 5%? LOTS. And they have no idea what that's bad. Nice pathetic attempt at labeling there. Do it again and I'll call you out even louder next time.

    As opposed to liberal alarmists who are all educated, informed and restrained I presume.
    See above. But I see how you ignore how C-man basically screwed the entire article up. The article essentially says that the discrepancies cannot be explained because the method of collecting data is faulty. HOW that disproves Global Warming is beyond the educated.

    This is probably true of both sides on this forum. Care to take me on in a moderated debate over AGW obvious Child?
    That would require people to actually understand the science. Which is like about the number who understand the marginal propensity to spend. Aka, not many. The problem with such discussions is most people frankly just don't get the science. There are idiots here who think that Co2 does not trap heat. I really don't know how to deal with fools like that who do not even have a grasp of science that a 3rd grader has.

    Iíll make a platinum donation to DP if you enter a moderated 1v1 debate with me on this issue and win.
    On the fact that the article merely says we cannot use satellite data to deal with the discrepancy? Sure, why not? Or did you not read it either like C-man? This article basically tells us nothing of usefulness.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #110
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    I will give obvious Child a chance to accept first. It will not be a debate over whether global warming exists, but a debate about the causes of global warming and how sensitive the climate is to Co2.
    Incorrect.

    You responded to this:

    "C-man's posted article already was pointed out to basically say that the discrepancies cannot be explained because the method of collecting the original and the current data aren't accurate. That basically tells us nothing."

    With your challenge. Considering how the article flat up states that the method of collecting data, aka, satellites is not entirely reliable, it cannot be used to explain the discrepancy within the data. Which basically tells us nothing other then the discrepancy cannot be explained with satellite data.

    Make your donation at your leisure.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •