Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 116

Thread: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    Shhhh! Just because you're ignorant of science and don't know better, don't go parading it around town for everyone to see! It's better to keep you mouth shut and let everyone suspect you're a fool...
    NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?

  2. #32
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    Read the story. NASA says those who promote the idea the greenhouse gases are man caused etc. alarmists, that makes their position a HOAX.

    The environmentally ill who back this HOAX are in it either for the money those who run the groups who make 6 figure salaries and then there are followers who do all grunt work for nothing because they fell for the BS.

    Hell Al Gores movie can't be show in schools in the UK unless there is a warning given that it contains a number of glaring errors.



    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything,"
    You are wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start, so I'll just start with the main error:

    This is not something NASA is saying. I'm guessing that's why you didn't post a link - this article was written by a lawyer from the (edit: ) Heartland Institute

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?
    NASA isn't saying anything here. C-man is lying to you.

    edit: Either that or he didn't bother to actually read the article he decided not to post a link to.
    Last edited by Deuce; 08-16-11 at 11:06 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Unfortunately free markets don't really take climate change into account.
    Sure they do, Climate, changes.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #34
    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 1Perry View Post
    NASA is saying that the computer models are wrong but he's the one ignoring science? Should we not ignore scientific models built upon false assumptions?
    Two points:

    1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

    Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

    2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.

  6. #36
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    More on Councilman's Non-linked article for those not familiar.

    The writer is James M. Taylor, a lawyer who writes for the Heartland Institute. (a libertarian think tank) In the article, Taylor is talking about a paper put out by Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell. In the paper, they say that climate sensitivity is lower than what "mainstream" climate scientists put it at. A few problems:

    1) They use a "simplified model" of their own creation. This model assumes that clouds act as a forcing rather than a feedback - i.e. that some other, unknown cycle of cloud formation kickstarts a change in temperature.
    2) The dataset used is very small - 2000-2010.
    3) The paper was published in the journal Remote Sensing, not a journal that typically deals with this sort of analysis of climate.
    4) Even the paper itself makes no declarations anywhere near as strong as Libertarian Lawyer claims it says. (this is very common. when you read an opinion article that talks about a paper, always check the paper itself to see that the article accurately represents it) From the paper:

    The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
    Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
    probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
    and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
    lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
    in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
    primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations
    .
    So it's an unsolvable discrepancy of an unknown magnitude, and that's taking the paper at face value! Of course, quite a few scientists have already come out and pointed out technical flaws with the paper.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #37
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.
    AGW hasn't been dismissed by NASA, contrary to what C-man has just told you.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #38
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    Two points:

    1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

    Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

    2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.
    You shouldn't concede anything because NASA hasn't dismissed anything. A lawyer has.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    AGW hasn't been dismissed by NASA, contrary to what C-man has just told you.
    Of course not. They have been a believer for years so I wouldn't expect them to quit cold turkey. It's just another case of showing where the models have used biased assumptions to come to the desired conclusion.

  10. #40
    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 nijato View Post
    Two points:

    1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:

    Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.

    2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.
    This is what climate change deniers don't get. They feverishly pass on every finding or blog post that they think (99.99% of the time incorrectly) casts some doubt on AGW as if there's a possibility that a silver bullet will come along making the whole thing go away. But it doesn't work that way. It's a huge theory supported by many disciplines providing confirmation from multiple data sets covering multiple overlapping time periods and scores of models that look at the problem from all kinds of different directions. There are literally thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting it. There is never going to be a EUREKA moment one way or the other.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •