• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming -

Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

KLATTU said:
Why didn't you?. One of the graphs showed warming in the Northern Hemisphere around 1400. ( warmer than today.) No such warming exists on the hockey stick. Only two explanations are possible. That research is flawed, or there was EXTREME cooling in the Southern hemisphere to balance that warming. Which is it ? IF 2 do you have any evidence to support that ?
Click to expand...

Which graph? The 20-year low-pass filtered one for only three months of the year from 15 sites across an entire hemisphere? You don't need EXTREME cooling in the southern hemisphere to balance that. I just need more data from the northern hemisphere. Maybe from a hundred different sites, and from the OTHER 75% OF THE YEAR

Weird that you think the entire planet was warmer around 1400. Because usually the MWP rhetoric refers to a couple hundred years earlier.
 
Last edited:
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

KLATTU said:
Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability
- See more at: 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

DENIER BLOG!
Click to expand...

Just a question out of curiosity: why should we pay attention to these papers but not the thousands of papers which support global warming? Either you form and change your opinions based on the science, or you want to have opinions regardless of what the science says. Those two positions would be at least consistent. But you can't just ignore or pay attention to science selectively depending on what you already believe. You wouldn't be doing THAT now, would you?
 
Last edited:
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

RetiredUSN said:
The alarmists will be along shortly to discredit any and all of these studies, and declare them on by one to be written by nut jobs, deniers, layman, knuckle draggers....etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Ha - gotta laugh at that one, as my previous chatroom experiences on this subject prove you to be dead on. While the original claims of Gore (in his comic book), Dr. Mann's "hockey stick", and each of the IPCC's predictions throughout the series of assessments (spanning over 20 years now), none of which have come to pass, still the alarmists hold to the firm conviction that we must spend huge amounts to totally replace fossil fuels, right this instant. Without further ado, I will admit to being non-alarmist, but not a denier; I do know that CO2 is among the greenhouse gases, but also know full well that the EXACT amount of warming which can be attributed to it is still unknown. Sadly, it has become obvious that the scientific "knuckledraggers" are the alarmists, rather than the "deniers".
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
Just a question out of curiosity: why should we pay attention to these papers but not the thousands of papers which support global warming? ?
Click to expand...

You should pay attention to all of them . That's the whole point.
ataraxia said:
JEither you form and change your opinions based on the science, or you want to have opinions regardless of what the science says. Those two positions would be at least consistent. But you can't just ignore or pay attention to science selectively depending on what you already believe. You wouldn't be doing THAT now, would you?
Click to expand...

Well if the prevailing theory is that a current warming is unprecedented( based on proxy reconstructions-always inherently less reliable) and several papers show proxy reconstructions which question the prevailing theory, I'd say that deserves questioning, based on science not preconceived opinion.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

KLATTU said:
You should pay attention to all of them . That's the whole point.


Well if the prevailing theory is that a current warming is unprecedented( based on proxy reconstructions-always inherently less reliable) and several papers show proxy reconstructions which question the prevailing theory, I'd say that deserves questioning, based on science not preconceived opinion.
Click to expand...

Sure. But I am just curious if you personally were as impressed with the thousands of papers supporting AGW as you now are with the few against.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
Sure. But I am just curious if you personally were as impressed with the thousands of papers supporting AGW as you now are with the few against.
Click to expand...
I think to compare apples to apples, one could not count all the papers written about the consequences
of "IF" agw is correct, but only those that directly address the physics supporting that catastrophic portions
of AGW are real.
The number of papers that go into the actual physics of not just that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but the necessary amplified feedbacks.
There are a large number of what If papers out there, but not a lot of what, and why, the ECS will be at some level.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
I think to compare apples to apples, one could not count all the papers written about the consequences
of "IF" agw is correct, but only those that directly address the physics supporting that catastrophic portions
of AGW are real.
The number of papers that go into the actual physics of not just that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but the necessary amplified feedbacks.
There are a large number of what If papers out there, but not a lot of what, and why, the ECS will be at some level.
Click to expand...


Why are you making a distinction here? The same science that is saying CO2 is a problem, is telling you that the consequences for the human species are likely to be catastrophic, if not existential.

"Taken together, all model projections indicate that Earth will continue to warm considerably more over the next few decades to centuries. If there were no technological
or policy changes to reduce emission trends from their current trajectory, then further warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would
be expected during the 21st century...

Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes. There is instead significant evidence that most of this increase is due to the influence of human activities alone. Human activities have significantly disturbed the natural carbon cycle by extracting long-buried fossil fuels and burning them for energy, thus releasing CO2 to the atmosphere....

All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land
surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than almost all of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt. The present level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost certainly unprecedented in the past million years, during which time modern humans evolved and societies
developed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was however higher in Earth’s more distant past (many millions of years ago), at which time palaeoclimatic and geological
data indicate that temperatures and sea levels were also much higher than they are today. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to
increase.

Earth’s lower atmosphere is becoming warmer and moister as a result of human-emitted greenhouse gases. This gives the potential for more energy for storms and certain severe
weather events. Consistent with theoretical expectations, heavy rainfall and snowfall events (which increase the risk of flooding) and heatwaves are generally becoming more frequent. Trends in extreme rainfall vary from region to region: the most pronounced changes are evident in North America and parts of Europe, especially in winter. Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that global sea level is rising, with best estimates of the global-average rise over the last two decades
centred on 3.2 mm per year (0.12 inches per year). The overall observed rise since 1901 is about 20 cm (8 inches).

How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century? Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological
or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century.

These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world."
-National Academy of Sciences
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf
Click to expand...

Any questions?
 
Last edited:
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
Sure. But I am just curious if you personally were as impressed with the thousands of papers supporting AGW as you now are with the few against.
Click to expand...
Not really.
It's like saying hundreds of news papers endorsed Hillary Clinton. Or almost all Hollywood endorsed Hillary Clinton. That' s dog bites man. Since liberals dominate the field of climate science just like they do newspapers and higher ed, you generally know what result you're going to get from most climate scientists before they even start.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
Why are you making a distinction here? The same science that is saying CO2 is a problem, is telling you that the consequences for the human species are likely to be catastrophic, if not existential.



Any questions?
Click to expand...
I am making the distinction, because the distinction is important.
The vast majority of Scientific papers published related to AGW, are not about the Science of AGW
but rather papers based on the assumption the mid to high range of the predictions are accurate.
Your own cited reference to Royal Society states,
Based just on the established physics of the amount of heat CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would by itself, without
amplification by any other effects, cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 (1.8 °F).
Click to expand...
The predicted amplified feedbacks if they exist are minimal.
One must keep in mind that any feedbacks that exists, have always existed, and are incapable
of discriminating, the source of the warming to be amplified.
This means that the .2 °C of organic warming that occurred before 1939, would of necessity be subject to the same amplification.
If the amplification factor were the 3X necessary to move the 1°C forcing from doubling the CO2 level to 3 °C mid range number,
then the .2°C from before 1939 would be amplified to .6°C.
Of course if we discounted .4 C from the current record as being part of the amplified feedback from pre 1939,
then the remaining warming that we can assign to CO2 gets much smaller.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
I am making the distinction, because the distinction is important.
The vast majority of Scientific papers published related to AGW, are not about the Science of AGW
but rather papers based on the assumption the mid to high range of the predictions are accurate.
Your own cited reference to Royal Society states,

The predicted amplified feedbacks if they exist are minimal.
One must keep in mind that any feedbacks that exists, have always existed, and are incapable
of discriminating, the source of the warming to be amplified.
This means that the .2 °C of organic warming that occurred before 1939, would of necessity be subject to the same amplification.
If the amplification factor were the 3X necessary to move the 1°C forcing from doubling the CO2 level to 3 °C mid range number,
then the .2°C from before 1939 would be amplified to .6°C.
Of course if we discounted .4 C from the current record as being part of the amplified feedback from pre 1939,
then the remaining warming that we can assign to CO2 gets much smaller.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got this stuff from, but the National Academy of Sciences says:

How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century? Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological
or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

So I am afraid I would take the NAS's claims over your claims, until you can show me some links to where you got your information.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
I don't know where you got this stuff from, but the National Academy of Sciences says:



So I am afraid I would take the NAS's claims over your claims, until you can show me some links to where you got your information.
Click to expand...

Most scientists of the day affirmed the Ptolemaic planetary system and denounced Copernicus.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Jack Hays said:
Most scientists of the day affirmed the Ptolemaic planetary system and denounced Copernicus.
Click to expand...

I see. So that's why science is no longer credible and the Earth is flat. Thanks!
:roll:
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Jack Hays said:
Most scientists of the day affirmed the Ptolemaic planetary system and denounced Copernicus.
Click to expand...

So why should we pay attention to these supposed new papers in the OP?
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
I don't know where you got this stuff from, but the National Academy of Sciences says:



So I am afraid I would take the NAS's claims over your claims, until you can show me some links to where you got your information.
Click to expand...
The NAS projection is to the end of the century, so they extrapolated the IPCC's 1.5 to 4.5 °C doubling range to 2.6 to 4.8 °C.
Do you understand that the range is very large, and dependent on the very large "IF" emissions continue on their present trajectory,
without either technological or regulatory abatement.
What I am saying is that from the empirical data, the low end of the range is more likely, because
as I said "any feedbacks that exists, have always existed, and are incapable of discriminating, the source of the warming to be amplified."
Predictions of AGW and based on two factors, the forcing from a doubling of the CO2 level causing warming,
and then that warming being amplified by various positive open loop feedbacks to produce additional
warming between .25 and 3.75 times the input warming. (forcing input 1.2 °C, ECS 1.5 to 4.5°C).
Of course based on your NAS citation the forcing warming is now stated as 1°C rather than 1.2 °C,
so the entire ECS range should lower as well.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
Do you understand that the range is very large, and dependent on the very large "IF" emissions continue on their present trajectory,
without either technological or regulatory abatement.
Click to expand...

That would be fine- if there was not such fierce resistance, let alone outright denial, from conservatives against ANY attempts at such technological or regulatory abatement.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
I see. So that's why science is no longer credible and the Earth is flat. Thanks!
:roll:
Click to expand...

ataraxia said:
So why should we pay attention to these supposed new papers in the OP?
Click to expand...

Because new paradigms generally displace the old via changes that first appear on the fringes.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
That would be fine- if there was not such fierce resistance, let alone outright denial, from conservatives against ANY attempts at such technological or regulatory abatement.
Click to expand...
Please point out the resistance to technological advancements?
The resistance to regulatory abatement, is because they are unnecessary, and possible harmful
to advancing technology. (look at biofuels)
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
Please point out the resistance to technological advancements?
Click to expand...
Resistance to solar
Resistance to wind
Resistance to energy conservation and efficiency
Resistance to electric cars / Adoration of gas guzzlers
Minimal interest in scaling back the disposable consumer lifestyle


The resistance to regulatory abatement, is because they are unnecessary, and possible harmful
to advancing technology. (look at biofuels)
Click to expand...
Pushing biofuels wasn't "harmful" to the development of other technologies.

It's also pretty obvious that conservatives have a knee-jerk rejection of pretty much any regulations.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Visbek said:
Resistance to solar
Resistance to wind
Resistance to energy conservation and efficiency
Resistance to electric cars / Adoration of gas guzzlers
Minimal interest in scaling back the disposable consumer lifestyle



Pushing biofuels wasn't "harmful" to the development of other technologies.

It's also pretty obvious that conservatives have a knee-jerk rejection of pretty much any regulations.
Click to expand...
Your list sure looks like opinion to me!
Solar is a very good path forward,
Wind except for specific geographies, lacks sufficient energy density to be cost effective.
When efficiency and energy conservation can demonstrably be shown to save people money, then they use it.
LED light bulbs, better insulation, new windows, High seer HVAC, ect.
Electric cars are unlikely to meet user requirements/cost anytime soon, battery energy density is too low.
While people do enjoy a powerful automobile, if the same effect could be had with better mileage, they would be all over it.
People like their first world lifestyle, and the goal should not be to bring them down to a lower lifestyle,
but rather how to elevate the entire worlds population to our lifestyle if they so choose.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
Your list sure looks like opinion to me!
Click to expand...
uh huh

| National Review
| National Review
| National Review

Solar Energy for DOD Installations Diverts Funds from Defense Priorities | The Heritage Foundation
Dark Days For Solar Power | The Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/allow-energy-tax-credits-expire

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-obamas-push-energy-efficiency-nicolas-loris
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/160974/google-turns-lights-out-nathan-goulding

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trump-is-so-right-to-wage-war-on-wind-farms/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/09/delingpole-renewables-doomed-fossil-fuels-future/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/01/californias-renewable-energy-grid-on-verge-of-crisis/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chevy-volt-flagship-model-governmentindustrial-complex
https://www.cato.org/blog/tesla-red-state-blues

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html
https://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html

Do you really need more?


People like their first world lifestyle, and the goal should not be to bring them down to a lower lifestyle,
but rather how to elevate the entire worlds population to our lifestyle if they so choose.
Click to expand...
....aaaand that mentality right there is the problem.

Renewable energy supplies, and more energy efficient goods, do not "bring down" anyone's lifestyle in any meaningful manner -- unless you think disposable crap like fidget spinners are absolutely vital to human existence.

spinner-focusfied-e1485104438275.jpg
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Jack Hays said:
Because new paradigms generally displace the old via changes that first appear on the fringes.
Click to expand...

So why were you so readily dismissing these "fringes" when they first appeared for climate change, but now so eagerly embracing the new fringes? You wouldn't happen to be a little biased, would you?
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

ataraxia said:
So why were you so readily dismissing these "fringes" when they first appeared for climate change, but now so eagerly embracing the new fringes? You wouldn't happen to be a little biased, would you?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. I'm a former believer. I began to lose faith when I read The Skeptical Environmentalist, and I was deeply influenced by the rancid behavior exposed in Climategate. It is not, however, enough to be skeptical; there has to be a viable alternative hypothesis. I find that in the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Visbek said:
uh huh

| National Review
| National Review
| National Review

Solar Energy for DOD Installations Diverts Funds from Defense Priorities | The Heritage Foundation
Dark Days For Solar Power | The Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/allow-energy-tax-credits-expire

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-obamas-push-energy-efficiency-nicolas-loris
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/160974/google-turns-lights-out-nathan-goulding

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trump-is-so-right-to-wage-war-on-wind-farms/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/09/delingpole-renewables-doomed-fossil-fuels-future/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/01/californias-renewable-energy-grid-on-verge-of-crisis/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/chevy-volt-flagship-model-governmentindustrial-complex
https://www.cato.org/blog/tesla-red-state-blues

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html
https://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html

Do you really need more?



....aaaand that mentality right there is the problem.

Renewable energy supplies, and more energy efficient goods, do not "bring down" anyone's lifestyle in any meaningful manner -- unless you think disposable crap like fidget spinners are absolutely vital to human existence.
Click to expand...
I looked at the first 6!
link 1: Was mostly positive with questions about the IPCC ideas of globally pricing carbon.
link 2: 2011 6 years old!
link 3: Correctly states that requiring renewable energy purchases, disrupts market forces.
link 4:Same as 3 except the renewable energy requirement was for the DOD.
link 5: Was pointing out that Solyndra was in trouble, hint, they were!
link 6: Allowing the energy tax credits to expire. They have already done their job, prices for solar has fallen so low
it is now cheaper to buy a home solar system without the credit, than it was in 2009 with the credit.

You want to say in one breath, that people have to make choices that you deem acceptable,
and at the same time say it will not bring down anyone's lifestyle!
I would ask according to who, you?

People will adopt alternate energy without any government regulation.
They will use it because it is the best value choice, selected by market forces.
Efforts by the government to pick a winner through regulation, will almost surly select an inferior path,
Examples include corn ethanol, and Solyndra.
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

Jack Hays said:
Not in the slightest. I'm a former believer. I began to lose faith when I read The Skeptical Environmentalist, and I was deeply influenced by the rancid behavior exposed in Climategate.
Click to expand...

You may be overreacting.

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Click to expand...
 
Re: 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmi

longview said:
I looked at the first 6!
link 1: Was mostly positive with questions about the IPCC ideas of globally pricing carbon.
link 2: 2011 6 years old!
link 3: Correctly states that requiring renewable energy purchases, disrupts market forces.
link 4:Same as 3 except the renewable energy requirement was for the DOD.
link 5: Was pointing out that Solyndra was in trouble, hint, they were!
link 6: Allowing the energy tax credits to expire. They have already done their job, prices for solar has fallen so low
it is now cheaper to buy a home solar system without the credit, than it was in 2009 with the credit.

You want to say in one breath, that people have to make choices that you deem acceptable,
and at the same time say it will not bring down anyone's lifestyle!
I would ask according to who, you?

People will adopt alternate energy without any government regulation.
They will use it because it is the best value choice, selected by market forces.
Efforts by the government to pick a winner through regulation, will almost surly select an inferior path,
Examples include corn ethanol, and Solyndra.
Click to expand...

A lot of the modern world was built by government investing in technologies before their commercial benefits became clear to the free market: airplanes, rockets, satellites, nuclear power, lasers, satellites, solid state, cancer and genetics research, etc... Even now, governments around the world are investing in some very bizarre cutting edge technology whose commercial uses are not at all clear right now: light the giant particle collider research being done at places like CERN in Switzerland or the FermiLab here in the US. If the Dept of Energy doesn't fund this, no private corporation in their right mind would fund it right now. The technology is too immature, its applications too unclear at this time. Only once the technology becomes mature will it be ready for the free market.

The free market is a very powerful tool, no question. But it is not the answer to everything. I could never understand this almost religious faith of conservatives in the free market. It goes beyond just seeing it as a useful tool, as a means to an end. It is an end to itself, something which if worshipped obediently and blindly enough, has omnipotence to grace us with everything. We just must believe and have faith, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom