AdamT
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,773
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So do we agree, in principle, to a 1v1 moderated debate or are you just blowing c02?
Absolutely.
So do we agree, in principle, to a 1v1 moderated debate or are you just blowing c02?
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.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.
Absolutly blowing c02 or absolutly agree?Absolutely.
Absolutly blowing c02 or absolutly agree?
I agree. Moderated, unmoderated ... whatever. Makes no difference to me.
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.
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.
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.
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 teach K-12 or collegiate?
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.
Hell, C-man hasn't even admitted that NASA said nothing anywhere near what he claims.
Conservatives are lying about the desire for free markets without over regulation by the government and without wasteful spending of our tax dollars?
Really? Republicans are probably more supportive of nuclear than democrats are but I don’t see a “hard” bush by republicans for more nuclear energy.
Don’t 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 “pushing hard”.
I don’t trust the liberal use of the terms subsidize or subsidies, don’t 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.
I see, you deal in abstracts rather than facts. Perhaps you have a peer reviewed article to accompany this externalized “cost” you reference as though it were fact?
I agree that republicans have been complete schmucks when it comes to the free market and that their words haven’t matched their actions. There has been a groundswell of pressure within the grassroots of the party to change that recently. Haven’t you noticed?
Interesting perspective. Are you a partisan or are you one who understands science and math?
So liberals are educated and conservatives aren’t? Or is this just another one of those sweeping and unsupported proclamations typical of your comments?
As opposed to liberal alarmists who are all educated, informed and restrained I presume.
This is probably true of both sides on this forum. Care to take me on in a moderated debate over AGW obvious Child?
I’ll make a platinum donation to DP if you enter a moderated 1v1 debate with me on this issue and win.
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.
It's funny how conservatives can be so blindly partisan that they actually root against clean, renewable energy. Liberals support it, therefore they're against it.
Cell phone companies and internet providers have gone bankrupt. Clearly that internet thing isn't going to catch on!
I don’t see conservatives rooting against clean renewable energy. Conservatives are rooting for free markets without over regulation by the government and without wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
When clean renewable energy becomes affordable, conservatives will buy and use it.
I know what Co2 is but have seen nothing that convinces me it is driving global warming.
Bull****, we don't complain about it all as potential energy sources. It's just that lefties think we can shutdown coal and oil source immediately and go completely on these new energies. Only zealous fanatics could possibly be convinced that we could do such a thing.You've certainly proved that strawman you've created is false. But nothing I posted was a false at all. Coal and nuclear does indeed received government subsidies in tax credits and direct handouts for research. American Conservatives on a whole complain about renewal energy sources like wind and solar and would absolutely like to defund it.
Republicans Want To Ax Renewable Energy and Environment
So which part of my entire statement is false?
Bull****, we don't complain about it all as potential energy sources. It's just that lefties think we can shutdown coal and oil source immediately and go completely on these new energies. Only zealous fanatics could possibly be convinced that we could do such a thing.
Please enlighten us to what is you have determined to be the driver of climate change, that scientists all over the world have missed?