U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

The only reason that I'm even arguing with you, Pleebo, is due to your flippant use of the word "proof". Strong correlation, sure. Proof, no. Assuming you have all the answers is a horrible way to approach science and a strong indication of bias.

And Zicdeh, I do not have a Ph.D. yet. Honestly I probably won't even go for one unless there's a strong incentive to do so, as I have no desire to teach. I'll see if I can come up with something to address your challenge. In the meantime, I need sleep.

Damn, and I spent forty seconds looking up this video. Now it's not even relevant.

The ultimate plan behind the climate change agenda. Population control by way of nuking most of the planet. Very quick and efficient.

Science, the new religion.

That would explain why all the rich people are building underground bunkers.


It's that attitude that turns me off of someone like Richard Dawkins. Even though I agree with just about everything he's ever said, he carries himself as infallible.

Sagan, Tyson, Nye, Hitchens, Krauss and Harris are more my cup of tea.

Tyson does have a great sense of humor. I think a sense of humor is key in order to not turn into a fascist.

That video on PhD's was amazing.

I much rather discuss arrogant people with PhD's than global warming...

Sounds like fun.

I will say I had a Sociology teacher that was not arrogant he was lazy. I can't tell you how many videos we watched.

Stop talking bro, Pleebo sez the science is settled.

Didn't you get the memo?

Send it again. I must have missed it.

I'm going to need you to go ahead and take this global warming discussion to page 34 that would be great.

It's Bush's fault for Al Gore to buy interest into a fracking company.

Also, Solyndra.

This thread is :

Solar energy is great on smaller levels. Don't know too much about the whole Solynra deal though.

They've even made solar panels for personal use a lot cheaper now.

So... semantics now. Proof doesn't imply infallible evidence that demonstrates something is true 100% beyond doubt with no other possible explanation or no room for misinterpretation (unless referring to a mathematical proof which I'm obviously not). You're still plainly ignoring evidence. It's not simply a correlation. Your entire critique relies on the assumption that an entire community of scientists doesn't understand undergraduate statistics.

It's a "scandal" that isn't a scandal, but you know, like Benghazi, and the IRS thing, they have to keep trying to call foul play when there's no evidence of it.

(honestly, like bridgegate as well, but in the past few years, that's at least 3:1.)

A lot of money was donated to Solyndra along with contracts, and they made what they said they were going to do, and spent the money on exactly that, it just so happened that what they developed became kind of a moot point as the price of silicon plummeted. So these fancy new low silicon solar panels didn't really have a market to go to (can at least partially thank China for that).

I haven't read further to see if there's any other factors, or to check out who was running the opposition, or if things were being sold at a loss or anything, etc.

My only concern with Solyndra (btw, called this pages ago), is if the technology they created with American dollars is now open to the public to use to better humanity as a whole.

The fake outrage over being a political donor is just a bunch of morons who don't know what they're talking about, and continue to ignore the facts, as usual.

As for "smaller levels" I'd personally like to see a solar panel on most people's houses, at least in the areas where it can make a difference (obviously some parts of Alaska wouldn't make sense).

I'd also like to see more advances in battery technology, so people could rely on the solar power they get at night if they don't use all of it, and the rest could go back to the grid. It would reduce our need for coal energy, we wouldn't need to build as many plants, and it would reduce people's reliance on the grid. It's almost a win all around, if only the technology were cheaper and easier to install/maintain.

I don't think there's current national tax credits on more energy efficient technology, I know it was big a few years ago, but I could ask a few people I know, or just look it up. I know when I build a house that I'm going to install panels, and probably a few other pieces of technology that's rather simple to install to reduce my footprint/bills.

They've done this a lot in South Jersey. Solar panels are abundant on all public buildings and even street lights too.

It's not just the cost of installing or maintaining, but hiring/retraining your employees to match the switch from one type of production to another, and to do it safely. Which is where the greatest cost usually ends up being - labor.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about. Most of the "home" kits are easy to install, and can be done by anyone.

It still needs to be made with quality control and efficiency to the point that it becomes more common with the same incentives, and easier to distribute the home kits to locations for people to purchase at reasonable prices.


I was actually referring to this part I quoted.

Again: has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Unless you're going of the distant part of "cheaper" as I wasn't really going to get in to why it's expensive to manufacturer anything, nor was it my point. But if that was yours then fine.

Even in the instance that something is cheaper or easier to install for home kits, you would still need a properly skilled technician to make maintaining and installing it cheaper.

On the other hand, there still needs to be widespread access to the technology to have any kind of lasting impact on energy conservationism, and positive impact, or reduced negative impact on the environment.

Since it was mentioned in your posts, it's still dealing with one of the points brought up, that happens to carry some weight in determining if this is a viable option widescale, or only for smallest minority.

It's not really a point, as what you mentioned applies to anything manufactured, and doesn't really change. Safety regulations are pretty wide spread, and taught/enforced rather rigorously and it doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

Yes there's a cost associated with manufacturing any technology, even new technologies based on older ones, you're not surprising anyone with such a statement. If that were the majority of the cost in this case and you had a way to reduce it, then by all means continue no the tangent, otherwise I really don't understand the point of your tangent.

Your other points again, go without saying, for any bit of technology.

The last self install kit I read the package for was so easy, any nincompoop who owned the tools could do it, it's not really that hard. But whatevs, I don't really care, as that cost can never really be eliminated, others can be.

For...?

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I make a crapload of money doing work for people who either aren't physically capable of putting peg A into slot B, or are so scared of doing anything (even simply screwing a box to a stud) because "it might burn the house down!!"

I think when you say they're easy to install, you're assuming everyone is like you or your friends. Trust me, most people aren't. New technology scares them. Hell old technology scares them. Doing anything more than plugging in the tv is too much of a risk.

Holy sh!t you really don't know do you?

The US Government spends slightly south of 4bn USD per year on "Climate Change" research. There is a huge amount of money to be gained by linking anything and everything to it. The US government spends less then $500 million USD on fusion research per year and that amounts usually gets reduced every year.

Here is a thought, for all of you. The Democratic party doesn't give a rats *** about "climate" or being "nature friendly". Just as the Republican part doesn't give a sh!t about "family values" or "morals". Both are out to find ways to provide wealth and power to their respective sponsors while reducing the wealth and power to the sponsors of their enemy. There has been so much nonsensical sh!t proposed by the Democrats that I no longer take any of you seriously anymore. The only thing all of it had in common was finding a way to provide more wealth to the progressive sponsors and / or take wealth / power from the Republicans.

Asking democrats for environmental solutions is like asking republicans for financial reforms. You get the same sh!t from both.

Anyhow, the only future power source worth a damn is nuclear. Solar / Wind are only useful when the opportunity costs are near zero. Once those start getting factored in (progressives always pretend they don't exist), burning newspaper and wood ends up looking better. And in all case's neither of those can provide for base load power, something that the "big evil coal" currently does. The "evil oil companies" make their profits from selling transportation fuel, something that won't be replaced in any of our lifetimes.

To the person mentioning E85 fuel, it has largely been scrapped because of how inefficient it us. Ethanol has a much lower energy density then Gasoline / Diesel which in turn cause's one gallon of it to go much less distance. With E10 the difference isn't noticeable and so people use it without knowing they are getting less energy out of every gallon of purchased fuel then before. The really bad part is that since we measure fuel efficiency by the distance you travel per volume unit (gallon/liter) and Ethanol has less energy density, a vehicle with E85 would appear to get horrid gas millage vs a vehicle running pure gasoline. Industrial vehicles, the ones really burning fuel hauling goods all over the nation and providing the life blood of our economy, rely on energy density and therefor won't go near E85 unless it's hugely subsidized by Government using tax payer money.

It's so funny, when the Government gives tax breaks to financial corporations the Democrats scream "corporate welfare" but are amazingly silent when that same Government gives that same money to green / progressive friendly corporations. Hypocrisy much.