Quote:It must be weird that even if Global Warming isn't happening, that I want my children to grow up in an environment that is clean in a country that has energy independence. The only real downside is cost, and it's not as if fossil fuels are a truly sustainable source of energy.
Agreed, this is the same perspective I approach the issue from. My SO and I don't even intend on having children yet I still think it's our responsibility to preserve and improve as best we can simply because we can.
Quote:
I'm all for research into better technologies, even government-funded research, although I think the money would be better spent in the form of prizes. For example, the government could offer $10B to the first US person or company that builds a battery that has the, size, safety, and energy density of gasoline, with an average lifespan of 10 years (and some other requirements). It only costs the taxpayer if successful. A useful battery would make solar and wind viable.
What about the new Tesla battery that powers your house and that they claim is infinitely scalable? They're pricing it at $3,500 for the 10KWh model.
"Powerwall comes in 10 kWh weekly cycle and 7 kWh daily cycle models. Both are guaranteed for ten years and are sufficient to power most homes during peak evening hours. Multiple batteries may be installed together for homes with greater energy need, up to 90 kWh total for the 10 kWh battery and 63 kWh total for the 7 kWh battery."
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
This makes solar panels much more viable.
Quote:"Spin" hilariously hypocritical. True in his case, but still hypocritical in yours.
"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
And you still haven't exactly told me how my telling you the truth is hypocritical.
Quote:"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
And you still haven't exactly told me how my telling you the truth is hypocritical.
" Anyone who disagrees with you is in Big Oil's pockets, and since that's your constant position it's better just to sit back and laugh at you guys and your spin."
Your words. You do the exact same thing from the other side. I'll assume you don't need the definition of what a hypocrite is. I suppose since you have deceived yourself to that fact than I am performing revolutionary act for you.
Your idea of truth in this situation is simply a belief. And us much as zealots want to equate belief with truth the two have nothing to do with each other. The biased evidence you supply is no different than the science from the other side. At this point both are merely speculation at best. Time and more data will show which hypothesis is correct. Until then you can keep using words like truth all you want but you are using it wrong.
Quote:Didn't science prove the earth was round? Didn't science prove we revolve around the sun?
Didn't science prove genes and dna make us who we are?
His point was that science can and has been wrong, and healthy skepticism has always been a trademark and benefit of the scientific world. In fact if it hadn't been for certain ones brave enough to speak up against the establishment so to speak, those corrections you mentioned would have languished even further
Quote:Look who is talking.
Please, explain to me how the actual science is wrong.
I'll wait.
Again no one is disputing the basic facts. There has been warming. It's 1. How catastrophic will it be 2. And what's causing it that are being questioned here and for good reason.
Quote:But THIS time they are absolutely correct and we should totally trust them and do what they say. 
Dude, what? The earth is round and revolves around the sun... What every it is you are trying to smugly say is beyond me.
Quote:Did you even see who the guy was? Or does your Ooga Booga Anti-corporation bias overwhelm even the slightest hint of natural curiosity?
I mean, I do understand, for you all it's SETTLED. Critical thinking or critique is forbidden, the dogma ruleth all and the prophets of Gaia must remain unquestioned by the faithful. And only the stake remains for the heretics of the Word.
Please explain away the greenhouse effect. Please explain away that co2 is a greenhouse gas. Please explain away that human activity is adding co2 into the atmosphere. Then please explain away the necessary implications of those simple facts.
I'll more than willing to change position on this issue. In fact, I had no position at all on this matter until Malabarjag started posting rightwing talking points about global warming. That looked off to me. Blaming scientists, believing politicians. So I did my own research. And now here we sit.
But, please. Explain away the actual science.
I'll wait.
I was a philosophy major btw, you will never find someone more open-minded.
But, please. Explain the science away.
Quote:Please explain away the greenhouse effect. Please explain away that co2 is a greenhouse gas. Please explain away that human activity is adding co2 into the atmosphere. Then please explain away the necessary implications of those simple facts.
I'll more than willing to change position on this issue. In fact, I had no position at all on this matter until Malabarjag started posting rightwing talking points about global warming. That looked off to me. Blaming scientists, believing politicians. So I did my own research. And now here we sit.
But, please. Explain away the actual science.
I'll wait.
I was a philosophy major btw, you will never find someone more open-minded.
But, please. Explain the science away.
First off, I posted no 'rightwing talking points' so that is a flat out lie. Of course this is from someone who thinks the IPCC is conservative. From that viewpoint just about everything is 'rightwing.' It must be lonely out there on the fringe left.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (misnamed since a greenhouse doesn't work that way, but the name doesn't matter since the mechanism is understood). CO2 absorbs various wavelengths in the IR and re-releases them, which re-directs some back downwards.
Ignoring everything but CO2, the expected additional warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is 1.2 degrees C
. Note that that's for an increase from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, in the past 100 years CO2 concentration increased about 100 ppm. Even most believers admit that 1.2 degrees C of warming would be beneficial, as is the additional CO2 to plants and thus to the biosphere in general. The higher values claimed for CO2 warming are based on the supposition that additional water vapor in the warmer atmosphere will amplify the effect. Measurements of atmospheric water vapor show no increase.
Quote:So now you're believing corporate press releases? Lead-acid batteries can already do what these do and are cheaper. This is just a big Lithium Ion battery. There's no technological breakthrough here.
And $31,000 for nine batteries buys a lot of electricity, and that doesn't even include the cost of the solar panels or the DC/AC converter. At 8% interest (a good mutual fund pays more) you'd get over $200 per month from $31,000 without ever dipping into the principal.
I don't think you would need nine batteries. Supposedly, one of these would power a typical home. It's $3500, and includes a DC/AC converter. Don't just reject this without actually reading it.
And, there is no "good" mutual fund that pays 8% interest.
As you have stated, the problem with solar power is that it isn't stored. So it doesn't work at night. A battery such as this stores solar power and allows the homeowner to use it at night. No breakthrough, just an obvious answer to the problem.
Quote:Dude, what? The earth is round and revolves around the sun... What every it is you are trying to smugly say is beyond me.
I'll make it simple.
"Scientists" were wrong that the Earth was flat until other scientists proved it wasn't, but those other scientists were persecuted by the Flat Earthers.
"Scientists" are wrong about AGCC and are, once again, persecuting those who disagree with the so-called Settled Science.
The more things change the more they stay the same and everything you "know" today will be wrong tomorrow.
Quote:I'll make it simple.
"Scientists" were wrong that the Earth was flat until other scientists proved it wasn't, but those other scientists were persecuted by the Flat Earthers.
"Scientists" are wrong about AGCC and are, once again, persecuting those who disagree with the so-called Settled Science.
The more things change the more they stay the same and everything you "know" today will be wrong tomorrow.
Ahh, ok... I see your logic now. But you realize how faulty that logic is, don't you?
Science is wrong, until they get it right. So because sometimes a hypothesis is disproven, we must ignore all science? That's a bad argument in my opinion...
Quote:I don't think you would need nine batteries. Supposedly, one of these would power a typical home. It's $3500, and includes a DC/AC converter. Don't just reject this without actually reading it.
And, there is no "good" mutual fund that pays 8% interest.
As you have stated, the problem with solar power is that it isn't stored. So it doesn't work at night. A battery such as this stores solar power and allows the homeowner to use it at night. No breakthrough, just an obvious answer to the problem.
I read it. The DC/AC converter is not included.
The S&P averages over 8% over the long term. I would expect a 'good' mutual fund to do better.
One battery will not power a typical house. 7.5 KWh per day = 500 watts for 15 hours (and nothing for the other nine). I average over 40 KWh per day, and my house is small. OK, that's only six batteries, not nine. These batteries typically last about 5 years in cars. It makes me wonder what exclusions are built into the 10 year warranty.
A good battery would go a long way toward making home solar viable. This battery isn't it.
Quote:Ahh, ok... I see your logic now. But you realize how faulty that logic is, don't you?
Science is wrong, until they get it right. So because sometimes a hypothesis is disproven, we must ignore all science? That's a bad argument in my opinion...
Not the we must ignore it, that we don't make cataclysmic changes based on what they say because more often than not they aren't right, have other motivations, or their ideas are incomplete at best.
Quote:Bravo
None of that is true, btw.
Quote:First off, I posted no 'rightwing talking points' so that is a flat out lie. Of course this is from someone who thinks the IPCC is conservative. From that viewpoint just about everything is 'rightwing.' It must be lonely out there on the fringe left.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (misnamed since a greenhouse doesn't work that way, but the name doesn't matter since the mechanism is understood). CO2 absorbs various wavelengths in the IR and re-releases them, which re-directs some back downwards.
Ignoring everything but CO2, the expected additional warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is 1.2 degrees C
. Note that that's for an increase from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, in the past 100 years CO2 concentration increased about 100 ppm
. Even most believers admit that 1.2 degrees C of warming would be beneficial, as is the additional CO2 to plants and thus to the biosphere in general. The higher values claimed for CO2 warming are based on the supposition that additional water vapor in the warmer atmosphere will amplify the effect. Measurements of atmospheric water vapor show no increase.
Do you get paid for this crap? I'm starting to believe you are.