CollegeDoog said it isn't about warming anyway. He said "oil is great", and shifted the debate to what will people in the next three or four generations use when the oil supply fails to meet demand. Isn't that correct? In that debate, it isn't about science, it's about economics. A topic he is woefully lacking in.
The life oil gave us is great. What was once a boon is now a risk.
If you really care about the middle class and the poor you'd be worried about the 2% crop decrease expected in the next 20 years, against a 10-14% increase in global population.
You'd worry about the droughts and the excess water vapor, a result of increased atmospheric CO2, that creates wild fires and more extreme weather. I worry about the people of New Orleans and coastal New Jersey. The people in Tornado Alley.
The people effected by the flooding in Colorado and Iowa. The flooding expected to come to coastal cities as sea ice melts and oceans rise.
There's a sound bite.
+1
I am also against bullying, war and parking lot rapes
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
LOL I'm glad you brought up thermodynamics because now you're operating in my #Wheelhouse.
The thermodynamic mechanism of global warming could not be more clear to anyone with an understanding of basic atmospheric physics and molecular composition.
If you want to argue against laws of thermal physics like Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, and proven theories such as the greenhouse effect be my guest.
I can already bet you're going to say the first law of thermodynamics, "energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed," is proof that the CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. Fox News has actually trotted out a meteorologist to argue that this law is proof that AGW is impossible, not realizing that in doing so he is arguing against the greenhouse effect (which was actually developed a century ago). The CO2 emitted isn't the external source of heat, it's the sun. The increased CO2 traps the infrared rays reflected by the Earth's surface on a greater scale, which is then reflected in all directions (Kirchhoff's law) and in doing so warms the earth. In 2013 we passed 400 parts per million, an unprecedented number in all of the Holocene. It's only going to increase faster and you can guess what those ramifications will be.
If you want to argue against that go ahead, but trying to disprove the laws of physics is generally a losing battle, and you may want to save yourself the embarrassment.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
If you're going to start out by saying that Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, I really shouldn't be entertaining your opinion. But I will because I laugh at people that think the scientists are operating in a large scale groupthink. You also didn't post any link that would confirm that it is "fake and wrong". If you do, I can already imagine the source.
The 1000 years of stagnant temperature at or below 0 degrees celcius projected in the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by the measurements available to us today. Ice cores are generally the best measurement, and scientists have been able to assess temperatures going back thousands of years; before the initiation of the Holocene 11,000 years ago by looking at CO2 in parts per million and Oxygen volume. The data extracted confirms this.
Other methods of Paleoclimatology confirm the findings in the hockey stick graph. It's why there are dozens of independent studies and peer reviewed journals that have consistent findings with the hockey stick graph.
And even if there were significant problems with it like you state, the hockey stick graph is not the basis of global warming, it's a useful tool in past comparison. Like I said, the climate mechanisms that cause AGW are more or less irrelevant to past temperatures.
You should really drop that argument. It's a loser.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
Lastly, on economics, this is where there will always be fundamental disagreement.
It's wrong that fossil fuel producers get to pollute the environment for free and a carbon tax is long overdue. Cap and trade would be an interesting experiment because it's a market based solution to cut emissions.
The problem is the Oil lobby which strangles legislative progress and works the system to the tune for $24 Billion worth of annual tax breaks (and people think it's the scientists that are financially motivated). It's becoming increasingly clear that the problem of global warming is beyond the solutions of the free market and in need of a political movement. Big oil is perfectly happy to sit on trillions of dollars worth of staked oil reserves because it will always be cheap and the infrastructure is efficient. They can't see beyond the billion dollar profits. It's why they continually push the skeptic agenda and proportionally invest very little in sustainable alternatives. The only way to curb global warming is political action, not sitting on our hands and hoping the free market produces a renewable winner.
You're right that Solar has been expensive for a long time, but recently the costs have been plummeting as it has become more efficient and cheaper to produce. I read recently that it's falling on a logarithmic scale of 7% annually. Experts in the industry seem to think that Moore's Law is applicable to the improvements shown in solar power efficiency.
The potential energy from sunlight is mouth watering:
"The numbers are staggering and surprising. In 88 minutes, the sun provides 470 exajoules of energy, as much energy as humanity consumes in a year. In 112 hours – less than five days – it provides 36 zettajoules of energy – as much energy as is contained in all proven reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas on this planet.
If humanity could capture one tenth of one percent of the solar energy striking the earth – one part in one thousand – we would have access to six times as much energy as we consume in all forms today, with almost no greenhouse gas emissions. At the current rate of energy consumption increase – about 1 percent per year – we will not be using that much energy for another 180 years."
So please keep peddling your defeatist attitude when it comes to solar energy. Of course it's going to take massive capital costs to get it working efficiently enough to be a global solution, but the vast potential of solar is worthy of that and I have little problem with government subsidies and credits.
You want to keep the energy cheap, I can understand that, but dirty. The latter part of that equation is no longer viable.
Finally admits he wants to fuck the poor and middle class
You know what REALLY fucks the poor and middle class?
Things like the 2012-2013 drought which cost farmers between 75-150 Billion, and affected US GDP by .5-1%.
Higher food prices historically fuck over the poor the most.
It's a big picture thing.
If only higher fuel prices didn't raise the cost of food you'd have a point. I mean you were really close.
So we raise the raise the price of gas to get to work and fuel to heat the home and food to eat for an undefined and most likely meaningless difference in your hysteria.
Great plan as always. I guess I am too stupid to get it
Finally admits he wants to fuck the poor and middle class
You know what REALLY fucks the poor and middle class?
Things like the 2012-2013 drought which cost farmers between 75-150 Billion, and affected US GDP by .5-1%.
Higher food prices historically fuck over the poor the most.
It's a big picture thing.
If only higher fuel prices didn't raise the cost of food you'd have a point. I mean you were really close.
So we raise the raise the price of gas to get to work and fuel to heat the home and food to eat for an undefined and most likely meaningless difference in your hysteria.
Great plan as always. I guess I am too stupid to get it
I never insinuated an immediate hiking of fuel prices that would create that problem.
When it comes to this issue, dealing in nuance doesn't seem to be your forte.
Wow...you responded 3 times. Quantity over quality?
First Post: Thermo is thermo...my disagreement with you is in the understanding. In isolation everyone agrees with the concept...only problem is that it is not in isolation and no one understands it in relation to all the other things going on (i.e. is it significant or is it a drop in the bucket). However, you can look at reality and realize that it is nothing like what is claimed by most of the global warming hysterics (including yourself). Case in point...the global temp has not changed in 10-15 years and may be trending slightly downward even through CO2 levels have gone up 10+% (something like from 360ppm to a little under 400ppm). According to the "models" it should have changed pretty significantly (1 degree or so), which means the models are crap. Also means the predictions are crap, and its just as likely either some other effect(s) dominate over the changing CO2 level, the CO2 changes are resulting in some other counterbalance, or who knows. But simple logic and science shows the line you are spewing of being "known" and "proven" is BS.
Second Post: Mann's stuff is false. Here is a good read from a believer in global warming (an apt term since its lost the science and is almost a religion now...and yes I am aware of his recent "conversion", although I have no idea how you are converted when you say you believe it to begin with, and would point out funding his pet project with his daughter seemed to have helped...)
Doesn't address a lot of the other problems the hockey stick guys have in that and subsequent work including being addicted to pine cone data since it gives them the answers they want, but I think its especially appropriate for you since it was written 10 years ago and what he said might happen did...global temps didn't change over that time.
Third Post: And your economic arguments are both elementary and in such a vacuum who knows where to start. 1) Taxing energy is a tax on the poor and middle class...accept that first. If not you might as well hop into a short bus. 2) If we implement cap and trade and even some countries don't, you might as well start a counter on the economic development that moves from here to those places. You can't place a tax on the US and Europe and not the developing world and not expect a huge flux of money/development to shift with it. 2) Propping up failing companies with ideas that are proven to be economic losers is idiocy only you (and a few others in govt now) could propose. You want to fund basic research in Universities to improve the efficiency of the technology go ahead...but propping up companies where the technology they are founded on is easily proven to be a loser in the current marketplace is stupid. Being very familiar with the current solar technology your estimates are beyond optimistic...all of the production is moving to China because no one can afford to build them here, and even with that their theoretical maximum efficiencies don't match the cost efficiency of current power generation methods. And that ignores the impact of an oscillating source of energy on the grid.
You really want to keep spinning this thread? Yikes...
BTW...are you inferring "global warming" caused the drought of 2012-13? What caused the dust bowel in the 30's etc? Why are you ignoring the impact of funneling 40% of the corn crop to ethanol? I hope you are not dumb enough to be suggesting such...it would really display how piss poor your science skills are...
The people who are skeptic of climate change are essentially the doogs who after 5 years of Sark's record, still held out hope he would be a great coach. They pointed to shit like Don James mediocre first few seasons, or recruiting rankings, even though it was a dishonest comparison.
The HHB's like us are able to look at all the data, the mountain of evidence that Sark was a mediocre coach, by looking at road record, artificial schedule boosts against shitty OOC and the like. It's the same for people who can look at all the data supporting climate change, observe what's happening around them, and accurately assess what's happening.
You fucks are being doogs.
Global Warmoogs.
One of the most disappointing posts ive ever read. You should he ashamed of yourself.
And all the REAL scientists have listened to skeptics claims, taken them into account when assessing the data, and deemed them unfounded.
Stick to real estate and sports.
You are a fucking idiot.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.
Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.
And all the REAL scientists have listened to skeptics claims, taken them into account when assessing the data, and deemed them unfounded.
Stick to real estate and sports.
You are a fucking idiot.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.
Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.
If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.
If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.
Hth
The sun is practically entirely responsible for heating the earth.
Fuck, young people these days are stupid.
The earth has warmed around a degree since 1880, so let's burn trillions of dollars, reward fraud, politicize/ruin science, and trample liberty.
There are real negative externalities to pollution, anthropogenic global warming is not one of them. This AGW scam has distracted humanity from real pressing issues of concern while missallocating trillions of dollars that would be better invested elsewhere.
AGW zealots = bible thumpers. At least bible thumpers have been less successful at getting government to shovel their bullshit religion down my throat.
Don't worry. CollegeDoog will sit here and talk about how we are all doomed and humans need to get a grip then go out on a jet and get drunk while skiing next weekend. Probably fit a wet BJ (or 23) in there from APAG at some point
If the sun was solely responsible for heating the earth and the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the average temperatures on earth would be frigid.
Hth
The sun is practically entirely responsible for heating the earth.
Fuck, young people these days are stupid.
The earth has warmed around a degree since 1880, so let's burn trillions of dollars, reward fraud, politicize/ruin science, and trample liberty.
There are real negative externalities to pollution, anthropogenic global warming is not one of them. This AGW scam has distracted humanity from real pressing issues of concern while missallocating trillions of dollars that would be better invested elsewhere.
AGW zealots = bible thumpers. At least bible thumpers have been less successful at getting government to shovel their bullshit religion down my throat.
Comments
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
The thermodynamic mechanism of global warming could not be more clear to anyone with an understanding of basic atmospheric physics and molecular composition.
If you want to argue against laws of thermal physics like Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, and proven theories such as the greenhouse effect be my guest.
I can already bet you're going to say the first law of thermodynamics, "energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed," is proof that the CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. Fox News has actually trotted out a meteorologist to argue that this law is proof that AGW is impossible, not realizing that in doing so he is arguing against the greenhouse effect (which was actually developed a century ago). The CO2 emitted isn't the external source of heat, it's the sun. The increased CO2 traps the infrared rays reflected by the Earth's surface on a greater scale, which is then reflected in all directions (Kirchhoff's law) and in doing so warms the earth. In 2013 we passed 400 parts per million, an unprecedented number in all of the Holocene. It's only going to increase faster and you can guess what those ramifications will be.
If you want to argue against that go ahead, but trying to disprove the laws of physics is generally a losing battle, and you may want to save yourself the embarrassment.
The 1000 years of stagnant temperature at or below 0 degrees celcius projected in the hockey stick graph has been confirmed by the measurements available to us today. Ice cores are generally the best measurement, and scientists have been able to assess temperatures going back thousands of years; before the initiation of the Holocene 11,000 years ago by looking at CO2 in parts per million and Oxygen volume. The data extracted confirms this.
Other methods of Paleoclimatology confirm the findings in the hockey stick graph. It's why there are dozens of independent studies and peer reviewed journals that have consistent findings with the hockey stick graph.
And even if there were significant problems with it like you state, the hockey stick graph is not the basis of global warming, it's a useful tool in past comparison. Like I said, the climate mechanisms that cause AGW are more or less irrelevant to past temperatures.
You should really drop that argument. It's a loser.
It's wrong that fossil fuel producers get to pollute the environment for free and a carbon tax is long overdue. Cap and trade would be an interesting experiment because it's a market based solution to cut emissions.
The problem is the Oil lobby which strangles legislative progress and works the system to the tune for $24 Billion worth of annual tax breaks (and people think it's the scientists that are financially motivated). It's becoming increasingly clear that the problem of global warming is beyond the solutions of the free market and in need of a political movement. Big oil is perfectly happy to sit on trillions of dollars worth of staked oil reserves because it will always be cheap and the infrastructure is efficient. They can't see beyond the billion dollar profits. It's why they continually push the skeptic agenda and proportionally invest very little in sustainable alternatives. The only way to curb global warming is political action, not sitting on our hands and hoping the free market produces a renewable winner.
You're right that Solar has been expensive for a long time, but recently the costs have been plummeting as it has become more efficient and cheaper to produce. I read recently that it's falling on a logarithmic scale of 7% annually. Experts in the industry seem to think that Moore's Law is applicable to the improvements shown in solar power efficiency.
The potential energy from sunlight is mouth watering:
"The numbers are staggering and surprising. In 88 minutes, the sun provides 470 exajoules of energy, as much energy as humanity consumes in a year. In 112 hours – less than five days – it provides 36 zettajoules of energy – as much energy as is contained in all proven reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas on this planet.
If humanity could capture one tenth of one percent of the solar energy striking the earth – one part in one thousand – we would have access to six times as much energy as we consume in all forms today, with almost no greenhouse gas emissions. At the current rate of energy consumption increase – about 1 percent per year – we will not be using that much energy for another 180 years."
So please keep peddling your defeatist attitude when it comes to solar energy. Of course it's going to take massive capital costs to get it working efficiently enough to be a global solution, but the vast potential of solar is worthy of that and I have little problem with government subsidies and credits.
You want to keep the energy cheap, I can understand that, but dirty. The latter part of that equation is no longer viable.
Things like the 2012-2013 drought which cost farmers between 75-150 Billion, and affected US GDP by .5-1%.
Higher food prices historically fuck over the poor the most.
It's a big picture thing.
So we raise the raise the price of gas to get to work and fuel to heat the home and food to eat for an undefined and most likely meaningless difference in your hysteria.
Great plan as always. I guess I am too stupid to get it
When it comes to this issue, dealing in nuance doesn't seem to be your forte.
First Post:
Thermo is thermo...my disagreement with you is in the understanding. In isolation everyone agrees with the concept...only problem is that it is not in isolation and no one understands it in relation to all the other things going on (i.e. is it significant or is it a drop in the bucket). However, you can look at reality and realize that it is nothing like what is claimed by most of the global warming hysterics (including yourself). Case in point...the global temp has not changed in 10-15 years and may be trending slightly downward even through CO2 levels have gone up 10+% (something like from 360ppm to a little under 400ppm). According to the "models" it should have changed pretty significantly (1 degree or so), which means the models are crap. Also means the predictions are crap, and its just as likely either some other effect(s) dominate over the changing CO2 level, the CO2 changes are resulting in some other counterbalance, or who knows. But simple logic and science shows the line you are spewing of being "known" and "proven" is BS.
Second Post:
Mann's stuff is false. Here is a good read from a believer in global warming (an apt term since its lost the science and is almost a religion now...and yes I am aware of his recent "conversion", although I have no idea how you are converted when you say you believe it to begin with, and would point out funding his pet project with his daughter seemed to have helped...)
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
Doesn't address a lot of the other problems the hockey stick guys have in that and subsequent work including being addicted to pine cone data since it gives them the answers they want, but I think its especially appropriate for you since it was written 10 years ago and what he said might happen did...global temps didn't change over that time.
Third Post:
And your economic arguments are both elementary and in such a vacuum who knows where to start. 1) Taxing energy is a tax on the poor and middle class...accept that first. If not you might as well hop into a short bus. 2) If we implement cap and trade and even some countries don't, you might as well start a counter on the economic development that moves from here to those places. You can't place a tax on the US and Europe and not the developing world and not expect a huge flux of money/development to shift with it. 2) Propping up failing companies with ideas that are proven to be economic losers is idiocy only you (and a few others in govt now) could propose. You want to fund basic research in Universities to improve the efficiency of the technology go ahead...but propping up companies where the technology they are founded on is easily proven to be a loser in the current marketplace is stupid. Being very familiar with the current solar technology your estimates are beyond optimistic...all of the production is moving to China because no one can afford to build them here, and even with that their theoretical maximum efficiencies don't match the cost efficiency of current power generation methods. And that ignores the impact of an oscillating source of energy on the grid.
You really want to keep spinning this thread? Yikes...
BTW...are you inferring "global warming" caused the drought of 2012-13? What caused the dust bowel in the 30's etc? Why are you ignoring the impact of funneling 40% of the corn crop to ethanol? I hope you are not dumb enough to be suggesting such...it would really display how piss poor your science skills are...
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either fact or not. AGW so far has proven to be a massive fraud. The fucking sun is responsible for heating the earth, not SUVs.
Michael Mann is a fraud. He is Jerry Sandusky part II for the shitty State Penn University. Computer models can be manipulated, just like your young feeble mind.
Hth
The sun is practically entirely responsible for heating the earth.
Fuck, young people these days are stupid.
The earth has warmed around a degree since 1880, so let's burn trillions of dollars, reward fraud, politicize/ruin science, and trample liberty.
There are real negative externalities to pollution, anthropogenic global warming is not one of them. This AGW scam has distracted humanity from real pressing issues of concern while missallocating trillions of dollars that would be better invested elsewhere.
AGW zealots = bible thumpers. At least bible thumpers have been less successful at getting government to shovel their bullshit religion down my throat.
Atmospheric science is lost on you.