# Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

Discuss.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?


----------



## goob (Feb 26, 2007)

I think they do. But just how much is unknown, could be negligable, could be huge.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

Where is the "it is irrelevant" option?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?



It's a yes or no question.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Where is the "it is irrelevant" option?



If humans do have an impact on it, then it's relevent.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

An Inconvient Truth is a good movie.  

It even won an Oscar.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> It's a yes or no question.



Next poll:  Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?

Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.


----------



## goob (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Next poll:  *Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend*?
> 
> Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.



 What ABC's?????
Not from their last altrication.....


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> If humans do have an impact on it, then it's relevent.



Why?  It doesn't really matter if we are having an effect right now.  Even if we are we won't be having an effect in another 20 years... so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Why?  It doesn't really matter if we are having an effect right now.  Even if we are we won't be having an effect in another 20 years... so it doesn't really matter.



Where did you hear this?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Where did you hear this?



Lots of places.  The writing is on the wall.  The technology is getting there.  The world needs to double it's amount of energy available in the next 20 years to keep up with growth.  That is simply not achievable with fossil fuels.  Nuclear is very unpopular... this means there is going to be a lot of money available for alternate energy.  Solar cells are getting smaller and more efficient every year.  Carbon nanotubes are starting to appear in solar cells which boosts their efficiency greatly.  At that does not even mention hydrogen fuel cells.

So here is the trend...  Solar is getting cheaper, more efficient and more widely available (not to mention more socially acceptable)

Fossil Fuels are getting more expensive, the quality is going down as the 'good' reserves are being used up first.  They are also getting less available as we burn them and as wars make it more troublesome and expensive to extract it.

Couple that with exponentially shorter development times as technology progresses and it is going to happen.  It has to... not because we want to save the environment or be responsible but because there is money to be made in alternate energy.

Take a look at this trend:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_data.htm

It's not a linear trend.  Fossil fuel growth doesn't have this same kind of a curve.

Technology growth is an exponential curve made up from a series of S curves.  A technology starts out slow and gradually builds then as it is begins to work and become profitable, it goes through an exponential growth period.  As the limits of that technology are reached the curve slows down and you get an S shaped curve.  But the amazing thing is that as that technology starts to slow down, a newer technology always emerges with a new S curve that starts to take off as the old one flattens.  If you average these S curves together, you will notice that the overall trend is exponential and the new technology increases what the old one can do by several orders of magnitude.

We have seen the effects of this technology expansion on computation already.  We started out with manual computations.  They were slow... pencil and paper type of transactions.  This lasted thousands of years.  Electromechanical technology (punch cards) increased our computational power.  These got faster and faster on an S curve but eventually topped out where relays took over and gave a new fresh S curve... which was replaced by S curves offered by vacuum tubes, then transistors, and eventually integrated circuits.  Now as the physical limits of transistors are starting to be seem, new technologies in nanotech and quantum computing are starting to emerge promising to carry on the exponential scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change#Kurzweil_and_The_Law_of_Accelerating_Returns

This is not just in computing.  This trend can be seen in ALL forms of technology... it is just the most obvious in computing since that technology is the furthest along in its exponential curve.  Many of the curves that look kind of linear are really exponential, they just look like the start of the curve we saw in early computing.  It is exponential, though... and that will be much more obvious in the next 20-50 years.

The same kind of curve is now obvious in wireless computing.

And in 20 years, it will be obvious in energy production too.  We are simply at a shifting point between fossil and clean energy production.


----------



## largepkg (Feb 26, 2007)

Great post!


----------



## zombul (Feb 26, 2007)

I'm really glad to see an original subject pop up that hasn't been discussed before!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

Stop global warming before Greenland thaws out...again.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Next poll: Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?
> 
> Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.


----------



## the nut (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Next poll:  Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?
> 
> Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.



  There is someone you should meet, Big D!


----------



## MCx2 (Feb 26, 2007)

the nut said:


> There is someone you should meet, Big D!



Ouch.


----------



## the nut (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Stop global warming before Greenland thaws out...again.



They were talking about this on Bill Maher.... very interesting.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

zombul said:


> I'm really glad to see an original subject pop up that hasn't been discussed before!


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

Global Warming is the world's newest religion.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Lots of places.  The writing is on the wall.  The technology is getting there.  The world needs to double it's amount of energy available in the next 20 years to keep up with growth.  That is simply not achievable with fossil fuels.  Nuclear is very unpopular... this means there is going to be a lot of money available for alternate energy.  Solar cells are getting smaller and more efficient every year.  Carbon nanotubes are starting to appear in solar cells which boosts their efficiency greatly.  At that does not even mention hydrogen fuel cells.
> 
> So here is the trend...  Solar is getting cheaper, more efficient and more widely available (not to mention more socially acceptable)
> 
> ...



The shift in any growth pattern has ALWAYS been industry driven with profit as the primary incentive.   I have no recollection of any altruistic contributions to progress in any area of the human development ... it's always been all about the Benjamins.  The most powerful people on this planet today are the heads of the oil industry.  IF the Bush family dynasty was founded in cosmetics and I asked you about either one of the Georges you'd be all "Bush who?" ... you'd have no idea who I was talking abut.  It's only _*because*_ his family's dynasty was planted in the dusty ground of an oil field that they rose to power and political affluence.  It would be a pretty safe bet to make that BushCo and the rest of the monsters that own that human food chain right now _do not want to see any theoretical exponential shift away_ from fossil fuels come along and knock a dent in their profit/power structure.

Ain't gonna happen without a serious paradigm shift.  This shift will not happen with the current political system in place ... the game is rigged.  A green policy is what we need to own a cleaner planet, but that green policy would mean that gas in America would be the same as it is in other places around the planet.  $5 a gallon ... any votes for $5 a gallon?  Anyone?


----------



## Brachiisaurus (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?



DOMS, I remember your view on this from the last thread.

But voting no? I mean do you really believe we have ZERO effect?
I don't think humans "caused" global warming. It is a natural process.

But we did add at least a little to it, IMO.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The shift in any growth pattern has ALWAYS been industry driven with profit as the primary incentive.   I have no recollection of any altruistic contributions to progress in any area of the human development ... it's always been all about the Benjamins.  The most powerful people on this planet today are the heads of the oil industry.  IF the Bush family dynasty was founded in cosmetics and I asked you about either one of the Georges you'd be all "Bush who?" ... you'd have no idead who I was talking abut.  It's only _*because*_ his family's dynasty was planted in the dusty ground of an oil field that they rose to power and political affluence.  It would be a pretty safe bet to make that BushCo and the rest of the monsters that own that human food chain right now _do not want to see any theoretical exponential shift away_ from fossil fuels come along and knock a dent their profit/power structure.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen without a serious paradigm shift.  This shift will not happen with the current political system in place ... the game is rigged.  A green policy is what we need to own a cleaner planet, but that green policy would mean that gas in America would be the same as it is in other places around the planet.  $5 a gallon ... any votes for $5 a gallon?  Anyone?



The paradigm shift is a technological, economic one... it has nothing to do with politics.  Politics can slow down progress but only to a point.  They can't and won't block the enabling technologies.  As nanotech and computer processing continue progress, it is going to happen.  We already are seeing hybrids come out and they are extremely successful... so much so, there are more and more models every year.  This does not benefit the Bush's, they can't block it from happening.

In 20 years, when a company is offering a backyard solar system that fits on a 3 x 3 foot panel and is capable of running your entire house (including electricity for a plug in rechargable car) for less than $1000... No oil company will be able to compete... especially when fossil fuel burning is at $5 (or more a gallon)

Rising oil prices is exactly what is going to help speed up the death of the oil companies.  They know there days are numbered.  They will branch out into other technologies to try and compete with the new solar start ups... either that or they will just try and make as much as they can in the next 10 years, retire rich and let the companies fold.

It doesn't matter if they don't want to see a shift away from fossil fuels.  You can't stop the technology especially in a global system...

It's just like biotech and stem cell research now.  The religious right can try and block it but they can't.  They might slow down development in the US but they can't get rid of the need for it.  Where there is a need, there is someone in the world that will develop stuff to fill that need.  China, Japan, Europe... they aren't going to stop stem cell research or alternate fuel research.  When they are all living with clean, cheap energy and vastly extended life spans, the US government and oil companies won't be able to keep the technology out.

It is no coincidence the fall of communism all over the world happened right around the time the internet because popular and mass global communications became faster and readily available.  The governments fought it as long as they could but technology and the spread of information ultimately won out and continues to do so.  No government or group of people is strong enough to hold back the global spread of technology... ain't going to happen.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> *The shift in any growth pattern has ALWAYS been industry driven with profit as the primary incentive.   I have no recollection of any altruistic contributions to progress in any area of the human development ... it's always been all about the Benjamins.  *



I couldn't agree more with this.  But there is no monopoly that can't be crushed if there is a much better, cheaper, cleaner technology to replace it.

It is those Benjamins that is going to drive alternate fuel and solar... not any government incentives or initiatives.

BushCo might have slowed it down and prevented it from becoming mainstream 20 years ago... but the technology is much better now and much cheaper and is getting better all the time.  You can only hold it back so long before it is obvious the alternatives are much better.


----------



## Pianomahnn (Feb 26, 2007)

Anyone who claims humans have an influence on the atmosphere equal to _zero_ units of whatever we're measuring is a fool.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> The paradigm shift is a technological, economic one... it has nothing to do with politics.  Politics can slow down progress but only to a point.  They can't and won't block the enabling technologies.  As nanotech and computer processing continue progress, it is going to happen.  We already are seeing hybrids come out and they are extremely successful... so much so, there are more and more models every year.  This does not benefit the Bush's, they can't block it from happening.
> 
> In 20 years, when a company is offering a backyard solar system that fits on a 3 x 3 foot panel and is capable of running your entire house (including electricity for a plug in rechargable car) for less than $1000... No oil company will be able to compete... especially when fossil fuel burning is at $5 (or more a gallon)
> 
> ...



Great stuff, but you sound a little to much the techno dreamer and not enough the social realist here.  I use the following part of your post as food for thought.



> The paradigm shift is a technological, economic one... it has nothing to do with politics. Politics can slow down progress but only to a point. They can't and won't block the enabling technologies. As nanotech and computer processing continue progress, it is going to happen. We already are seeing hybrids come out and they are extremely successful... so much so, there are more and more models every year. This does not benefit the Bush's, they can't block it from happening.


In the 70's Carter built a tax credit into the system that allowed people to install solar water heaters for free.  The credit was such that between the tax relief and the energy savings the home owner was completely reimbursed for the cost of the system within 14 to 24 months.  Ronnie and George killed it.  They also ended the investment into solar and alternative energy research.  It's still dead compared to the research done in the computer industry.  The advancements in alternative energy research are way out of sync with those made in collateral areas like robotics, space flight, and something as useless as the television.

Politics effectively killed this research 25 years ago ... and we still are not really making the advances we should be given the available resources at hand.  Politics driven by money = world dominance.  

I'm not projecting any kind of hypothesis here, just recounting history.  Technology _*has*_ been altered, bought out and shelved, or completely deleted for the sake of the financial gain of more powerfull competitive industries.  I'm not making this up as I go along ... this is just part of our history as a culture.  I see as you do the direction we will eventually go in with our ever expanding technologically driven alternative fuel research.  I'm just not convinced the powers that be will roll over and play dead as this technology kills their cash cow.  

When the financial gains are strong enough to fund a complete replacement of the infrastructure currently used to process dead dinosaurs into gasoline then ... and only then ... will we see this shift to alternative fuels.

This hybrid car theory  is a perfect example.  When you amortize the costs of the hybrid car against the savings gained over traditional fuel powered vehicles a loss per miles driven shows up.   The hybrid cars on the market today cost an average of $6000 more per car than comparable cars with conventional gas engines. This means that the amount of money you save, or don???t save, by buying a hybrid is very much dependent on gasoline prices and also depends upon how long you intend to keep the vehicle.  Factor in that the tax incentive for buying these cars ended in 2006 and the costs go up per mile driven.  

Just like with any new technology, you will pay for the privilege of being a pioneer. You shouldn't.  Why is our money we pay out in taxes not used for AFS research?  It is our money placed in the hands of the federal government to steward our advancement as a country, pay the bills of running government, and care for those in need within our own society.  When someone with an altruistic intention gets an initiative up it only lasts a short while then dies, or is capped to a finality that prevents real growth.

We have seen that Arabs do not control gas prices ... politics and big business do.  Our gas prices at the pump went up high enough that we will still pay the man, but not high enough to pay the bill at the academic level for stronger AFS research.  Is this leveling of prices at the pump some kind of social happenstance?  Some sort of random event?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

Pianomahnn said:


> Anyone who claims humans have an influence on the atmosphere equal to _zero_ units of whatever we're measuring is a fool.


Ahhem ... uh DOMS? I believe he is talking to you ...


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

I thought an Inconvienent Truth was well done.


I'm still not sure how anyone has disproved some of the numbers in the movie, like the 928 peer review studies.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> In the 70's Carter built a tax credit into the system that allowed people to install solar water heaters for free.  The credit was such that between the tax relief and the energy savings the home owner was completely reimbursed for the cost of the system within 14 to 24 months.  Ronnie and George killed it.  They also ended the investment into solar and alternative energy research.  It's still dead compared to the research done in the computer industry.  The advancements in alternative energy research are way out of sync with those made in collateral areas like robotics, space flight, and something as useless as the television.
> 
> Politics effectively killed this research 25 years ago ... and we still are not really making the advances we should be given the available resources at hand.  Politics driven by money = world dominance.



You are missing the overall picture though.  Sure you can cripple a technology for a while.  They did it to solar.  For years it was dead but something interesting happened during those years.  Semi-conductor technology greatly advanced.  Nanotechnology is also starting.  Carbon nano-tubes were developed.  Different materials capable of absorbing light were developed for other applications.  You might kill an application for a while but the enabling technologies still advance.  25 years ago, you would have needed politcal tax credits and other things to force the issue because it wasn't the natural time for it yet.  The underlying ideas were sound but it needed many more years of enabling technologies to be developed to truly bring down the price and make it competitive.

Remember this chart I posted:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_data.htm

Solar energy is on an exponential curve just like computer processing is and all other technology.  It just hasn't hit the knee of the curve yet so it seems insignificant.  That is the nature of exponential technology.  It kind of sneaks up on you when you didn't think it was a big deal.  Solar production has been increasing by around 35% a year.  And that is like compound interest.  The Mega watts generated from solar took from 1970 to 1998 to get from 0 to 153.  Then in only 2 years it was at 288.  Then another doubling 2 years later.  It still isn't a lot but if you understand exponential growth, you can see how this could easily overtake fossil fuels.

You can't say advances in alternate energy are out of sync with other advancements.  Technology that is developed for other things have a direct overlap.  You can't separate it.  Nano-tubes weren't created for solar cells but they hold the promise for making them 10 times more efficient.

The government can end government research into these things which it did in the 70s.... it hasn't stopped the natural progress into enabling technologies though.  And now it is starting to make sense for private companies to take these enabling technologies and bring out better solar.  Once it is out of government hands and into the private sector, it can't be stopped.

Computers, cell phone communication, LCD displays, MP3s, CDs, DVD, blueray, blue tooth... every single thing we use daily as high tech, came from private develop not the government.  Some enabling technologies were created from government research but ultimately (and usually years later after costs come down) it is the private sector that brings us these technologies.  It is going to be no different with alternate energy.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

Brachiisaurus said:


> DOMS, I remember your view on this from the last thread.
> 
> But voting no? I mean do you really believe we have ZERO effect?
> I don't think humans "caused" global warming. It is a natural process.
> ...



But that's it, there is no proof of that.  Heck, the numbers that the pro-global warming group likes to throw as proof falls into statistical variance.

I chose "no" because that was the closest answer to "unknown".


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

Saying we have no effect on global warming is like saying I shit but it doesnt stink.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Saying we have no effect on global warming is like saying I shit but it doesnt stink.



What sort of nonsense is that?  Well, in all honesty, I know it's the logic of a "tool".

There is no decent proof that humans are adding to global warming, but we'll just say it is anyway.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm not projecting any kind of hypothesis here, just recounting history.  Technology _*has*_ been altered, bought out and shelved, or completely deleted for the sake of the financial gain of more powerfull competitive industries.  I'm not making this up as I go along ... this is just part of our history as a culture.  I see as you do the direction we will eventually go in with our ever expanding technologically driven alternative fuel research.  I'm just not convinced the powers that be will roll over and play dead as this technology kills their cash cow.



Sure technology has been shelved but not completely forgotten.  When usually happens is something shows promise but is expensive and doesn't work well.  It may get bought out or shelved but the idea is still around.  Years later, innovative companies realized that technology has advanced and that they can reinvent the same wheel that was shelved but this time make it work better and cheaper.  They too might get shelved but that just delays it a few years.  The next generation remembers the concepts from the previous generations and with what has been learned since, comes out with something even better....  Eventually, the technology becomes so easy and cheap to make that ANY business can do it.  Now if you want to stop the technology, you have to buy out 100 start ups this year... and 200 next year.

It's all about the dollar.  When any cheesy little company can form and get your entire energy needs off the grid for less than $1000.... you can bet someone is going to capitialize on that.

The truth is, the technology just wasn't ready for the big time yet in the 70s


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

Name-calling so early in the debate? Shame on you DOMS.

Too be completely honest, I could care less. I was hoping to get a rise out of someone. "Tool" sold me a little short.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Remember this chart I posted:
> 
> http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_data.htm



This chart only goes to 2003 showing 742 megawatts

Here is a story about some other solar plants that are in production or built since

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17985/

It also talks about solar doubling every 18 to 24 months.  There is no doubt about it, it is on an exponential curve.  Fossil Fuel is growing but it's exponential days are done.  It is old technology and the writing is on the wall for its replacement.  It will be more interesting to me though when they get personal systems a little smaller and cheaper than they are right now.  I think that is when we will really see the exponential growth take off


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Name-calling so early in the debate? Shame on you DOMS.
> 
> Too be completely honest, I could care less. I was hoping to get a rise out of someone. "Tool" sold me a little short.



Anyone that states that humans have had an impact on global warming is a tool.  

There is no concrete proof that humans are having *any* effect at all on the median global temperature and there is plenty of proof that it's a natural cycle.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17774/


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Anyone that states that humans have had an impact on global warming is a tool.
> 
> There is no concrete proof that humans are having *any* effect at all on the median global temperature and there is plenty of proof that it's a natural cycle.



Lack of proof  does not mean lack of existence, you know that. Refusing to accept something that isnt certain but pretty well accepted and agreed on isn't going to win any arguments.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

http://www.ratepayersunited.org/sites/ratepayersunited.org/files/pgesolar.pdf


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

Not to mention that it doesn't appear that Bush is totally trying to kill solar:

"Resch said $65 million of President Bush's $148 million budget request for the Solar America Initiative is earmarked for photovoltaic research, leveraging federal dollars with private investment."

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=5145

Also in the same article:

"Various states have started their own solar encouragement programs, too, giving credence to Resch's prediction that solar energy produced from panels on U.S. roofs will likely jump from 1,250 megawatts in 2004 to 3,400 megawatts in 2008"

Just in case there is any doubt that it is increasing exponentially.  This figure just counts roof top solar but still it is in line with the exponential curve in the other link.  Remember this doesn't include all the solar plants being built


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Lack of proof  does not mean lack of existence, you know that.



True, but it doesn't mean that you can go around saying that it is a fact either.  The worst part of the global warming crap is that decisions are being made on it.  Just look at the cluster fuck that is the Kyoto Protocol.



goandykid said:


> Refusing to accept something that isnt certain but pretty well accepted and agreed on isn't going to win any arguments.



"Accepted" does not equate to scientific proof.  If you want to be a tool and do something that you were _told_ to believe in_,_ with no concrete scientific proof, then knock yourself out.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> True, but it doesn't mean that you can go around saying that it is a fact either.  The worst part of the global warming crap is that decisions are being made on it.  Just look at the cluster fuck that is the Kyoto Protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> "Accepted" does not equate to scientific proof.  If you want to be a tool and do something that you were _told_ to believe in_,_ with no concrete scientific proof, then knock yourself out.



Neil has psoted scientific proof. Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time.

Besides, if you based your life off scientific "proof", you'd be an atheist. Are you?


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

The solution isn't free market, it's more government control. Hillary Clinton is going to save us by stealing all of Exxon Mobile's profits and then having the government spend it (She actually said she wants to do this). After all, the government knows better than the people it represents. The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> The solution isn't free market, it's more government control. Hillary Clinton is going to save us by stealing all of Exxon Mobile's profits and then having the government spend it (She actually said she wants to do this). After all, the government knows better than the people it represents. The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people



I'm glad we have unbiased men and women like this in these threads.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm

"Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25% per annum over the past 15 years (hydrocarbon energy demand typically grows between 0-2% per annum)."

If you do the math at the conservative rate of 25%, solar overtakes all other energy sources combined in 2046.  At 35% which is what we are seeing over the last 8 or so years,  it overtakes it in 2034.  That is just at todays rates though.  Since other enabling technologies are making the rate quicker... I think 2028-2034 is probably a better prediction.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Neil has psoted scientific proof. Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time.



Post the salient points of his "proof."  I've read a lot about global warming and I've yet to see anything that approaches the word proof.

Most of what passes as _proof_ of global warming is the increasing temperature.  Which has been proven satisfactorily to be inline with natural cycles.  The cry out "Look, it's getting warmer!  That could only happen because of mankind".  What a load of shit.



goandykid said:


> Besides, if you based your life off scientific "proof", you'd be an atheist. Are you?



It's not prudent to make large scale fiscal decisions on _faith_.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Post the salient points of his "proof."  I've read a lot about global warming and I've yet to see anything that approaches the word proof.
> 
> Most of what passes as _proof_ of global warming is the increasing temperature.  Which has been proven satisfactorily to be inline with natural cycles.  The cry out "Look, it's getting warmer!  That could only happen because of mankind".  What a load of shit.
> 
> ...



You didnt answer my question. And don't say you implied anything, I want to know. It does have an effect on how I view your stance on these scientific topics, but you can keep it private if you wish. Plus neil is an atheist too, I believe. Are you?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> You didnt answer my question. And don't say you implied anything, I want to know. It does have an effect on how I view your stance on these scientific topics, but you can keep it private if you wish. Plus neil is an atheist too, I believe. Are you?



I'm agnostic.  What the hell does that have to do with global warming?  What, if I were a devout Christian I couldn't have an opinion on scientific matters?  If so, that's a pretty fucking suck-ass attitude you have.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I'm agnostic.  What the hell does that have to do with global warming?  What, if I were a devout Christian I couldn't have an opinion on scientific matters?  If so, that's a pretty fucking suck-ass attitude you have.



Not at all, don't twist my words. I wanted to know because it makes a difference of how *I* perceive the foundation of your argument. 

For instance, I'd be much more interested in hearing an atheist debate evolution on the side of intelligent design than a Christian. It's more a matter of curiosity of the debater than the debate itself.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Not at all, don't twist my words. I wanted to know because it makes a difference of how *I* perceive the foundation of your argument.



Which is why I said "If so" and not "You are".



goandykid said:


> For instance, I'd be much more interested in hearing an atheist debate evolution on the side of intelligent design than a Christian. It's more a matter of curiosity of the debater than the debate itself.



Whatever floats your boat...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

Oh, and _*you*_ never said what the supposed proof was.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Oh, and _*you*_ never said what the supposed proof was.



Neil's proof?

Fuck if I know, I'm not going to read that shit.  (no offense neil, not my interest)

I'm off to the gym, driving through *snow*. 


I wish this global warming would kick in a little sooner, it's cold as balls here.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Neil's proof?
> 
> Fuck if I know, I'm not going to read that shit.  (no offense neil, not my interest)
> 
> I'm off to the gym, driving through *snow*.



Watch out for the moron drivers.




goandykid said:


> I wish this global warming would kick in a little sooner, it's cold as balls here.


Canadian?


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> I'm glad we have unbiased men and women like this in these threads.


 
Complaints about bias from a person who makes comments like 

"Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time."

are funny.  Tell me more about bias, this evil Republican government (I guess you're leaving out the House and the Senate when you refer to government?) that, *gasp*, is supported by the big bad evil businesses.

Next you move on to asking if someone is an atheist or a Christian.  Totally relevant to global warming discussion, I agree, good one.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Watch out for the moron drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian?



Nope, jsut south of DC. Check the avatar.

I went to the Caps game yesterday, and on the road to the metro, my tiny mitsubishi almost fucked me a few times. Just outside my house, the pickup truck in front of me spun out sideways into a ditch, and I was about 30 feet behind going 25, and couldnt stop. He was sideways into the ditch, and by the time my brakes/wheels foudn traction i slammed to a halt not 4 inches from him.

Then, around the next turn, my car slid through the turn and straight into the curb, and now I have to get my wheel realigned.

Not 5 mins later, my Japanese POS vehicle hit a bump going 20 and spun out, forcing an SUV to dodge me. This was in the meat of the snow storm, got about 4 inches total.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Nope, jsut south of DC. Check the avatar.
> 
> I went to the Caps game yesterday, and on the road to the metro, my tiny mitsubishi almost fucked me a few times. Just outside my house, the pickup truck in front of me spun out sideways into a ditch, and I was about 30 feet behind going 25, and couldnt stop. He was sideways into the ditch, and by the time my brakes/wheels foudn traction i slammed to a halt not 4 inches from him.
> 
> ...



What kind model car do you drive?  I have an Eclipse with racing slicks that I drive in snow storms and it handles find for me.  Though I should mention that it's lowered.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> Complaints about bias from a person who makes comments like
> 
> "Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time."
> 
> ...



Touché!


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> The solution isn't free market, it's more government control. Hillary Clinton is going to save us by stealing all of Exxon Mobile's profits and then having the government spend it (She actually said she wants to do this). After all, the government knows better than the people it represents. The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people



Clemson? That you?

I aksed DOMS about his religious preference for the reasons stated about, don't be an idiot. I already said it wasn't on-topic, Einstein.

Practically the entire EU has acknowledged global warming, it's a matter of time till we do. And calling me bias makes "the pot calling the kettle black" the understatement of the year.


Wanna see my favorite part? 

_"The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people"_

So it's Hillary and Pelosi who know better than the American public? Is that why 60% of all Americans want to be out of Iraq, but Bush is keeping us in there? Or why the vast majority of teachers say the "No Child Left Behind Act" is terrible, but Bush considers it completely necessary?

Please sir, but unless I heard otherwise, the entire reason Hillary and Pelosi were put into office, is because Bush ISNT following what the American public wants.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> What kind model car do you drive?  I have an Eclipse with racing slicks that I drive in snow storms and it handles find for me.  Though I should mention that it's lowered.



GS 2001. I love it 11 months out of the year, but come snowtime I'm fucked.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Touché!



It's OK, I like to follow a jab like his w/ a strong hook. After agruing w/ the likes of you and clemson so long, he's shit.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> GS 2001. I love it 11 months out of the year, but come snowtime I'm fucked.



For over half a year, when I lived in Vegas, I would hydroplane every day.  Now I can handle a spin better than most drives.  

Hell, I like to drive my car down some street with it diagonal to the road.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> For over half a year, when I lived in Vegas, I would hydroplane every day.  Now I can handle a spin better than most drives.
> 
> Hell, I like to drive my car down some street with it diagonal to the road.



haha nice. You had the eclipse in Vegas?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> haha nice. You had the eclipse in Vegas?



No, I had a Mustang. 

There was a street in Henderson where some moron would run their water every day at 4:30.  I'd hit that and hydroplane (tapping the brakes helped) on it every day.  The first time was on accident.  So was the second time, but I got out of the spin so quick that I found it to be fun.  So I'd do it every day on the way home from work.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> No, I had a Mustang.
> 
> There was a street in Henderson where some moron would run their water every day at 4:30.  I'd hit that and hydroplane (tapping the brakes helped) on it every day.  The first time was on accident.  So was the second time, but I got out of the spin so quick that I found it to be fun.  So I'd do it every day on the way home from work.



Thats great. Earlier this season during snowstorms I'd hit the gym when it opened at 5 so that I could be the first to drive on the roads, I'd be spinning out every few blocks. Once you get used to it, it's a lot of fun. Unfortunately, the drive to the metro wasn't the case, I couldnt get cut out of a slide if my life depended on it. I would brake, tap the brakes, e-brake, spin the wheel either way, and even tried to gas out of it. No going in the Mitsu.


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Clemson? That you?
> 
> I aksed DOMS about his religious preference for the reasons stated about, don't be an idiot. I already said it wasn't on-topic, Einstein.
> 
> ...


 
#1, it doesn't matter what the EU acknowledges, it matters what is REAL. Several centuries ago, nearly everyone acknowledged that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the earth. Consensus != Truth, sorry.

#2 I didn't say a word about George Bush, but nutjobs always want to bring him in.

#3 I mentioned Hillary because she's using Global Warming to advance the big-government agenda. She stated she wants to seize a private company's profits and let the government spend it because of global warming. You're being played by the government for them to grab more power, open your eyes, it isn't any different than the government using "security" to push itself into our lives. It just hasn't matured as much yet (thankfully).

#4 I never said I wasn't biased, your implication was that I was the only biased person in this thread, it is quite clear from reading it. I'm biased because I like cars, electricity, traveling at speeds faster than walking, plastics, and other things that my beloved polluting products make possible.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> You are missing the overall picture though.  Sure you can cripple a technology for a while.  They did it to solar.  For years it was dead but something interesting happened during those years.  Semi-conductor technology greatly advanced.  Nanotechnology is also starting.  Carbon nano-tubes were developed.  Different materials capable of absorbing light were developed for other applications.  You might kill an application for a while but the enabling technologies still advance.  25 years ago, you would have needed politcal tax credits and other things to force the issue because it wasn't the natural time for it yet.  The underlying ideas were sound but it needed many more years of enabling technologies to be developed to truly bring down the price and make it competitive.
> 
> Remember this chart I posted:
> 
> ...



You make my point for me.  Most of those technologies you mentioned did not exist in the 70's.  My cell phone has more power than the computers used to send our boy Buss Aldren to the moon.  How much of that then non-existent technology is used for things related to AFS?

Brother I'm not disputing your assertion of collateral technological growth cycles or that the willingness of the academic mind to deploy those developments is there.  It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia.  

I do not agree with you though that the growth of the AFS research is going to explode over the next 20 years because of collateral technological advancements.  Look at the tax imposed on bio-diesel ... it makes the production and sales of the product a not for profit endeavor so it's not getting done.  More money gets made off of bio-diesel scams than the sale of the product itself.  Reduce the tax .. an excessive average of $1.20 per gallon ... to something like $.40 a gallon and we'd all be driving diesel motor  powered hummers fueled by a non diesel product.  Big oil business doesn't want that so it ain't happinin'.



> You can't say advances in alternate energy are out of sync with other advancements.


_I'm_ *not* saying they are ... it's just a reality.  Passive solar water heaters were alive and well in the 70's.  No major advances were needed to use the damn things they worked great, had a long service life and were free of anything that required power to function.  

Using a solar water heating system could have offered a lowered energy consumption at the national level and ... after the initial 24 months needed to recoup the investment ... provided free hot water at the individual level, but that would have killed natural gas sales.  How many solar water system do you know of on the homes of your community?  What technologies have been used to improve their efficiency? Zilch ... buttkiss, nada.   I'm not _*saying*_ anything here.  I'm just viewing our collective history together as a culture, recounting what has driven it and what controls it as a whole. 

Do I want what you say to be the gospel?  You have no idea how bad I want that.  Seriously though ... how can it become a reality?  Where is the financial incentive for the oil barons?  Find that incentive and you will see miracles happen overnight.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> #1, it doesn't matter what the EU acknowledges, it matters what is REAL. Several centuries ago, nearly everyone acknowledged that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the earth. Consensus != Truth, sorry.
> 
> *I forgot the EU had no scientists or governmental bodies in it. Apologies. *
> #2 I didn't say a word about George Bush, but nutjobs always want to bring him in. *I repsonded w/ GWB as a response to Hillary. (And no, I dont like her either)Both have commented on global warming and have agendas. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, or how limiting globalwarming-causing pollution would hurt GWB's big business style of govt.
> ...




.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> *She's against GWB's style of big-business, as is her party.*



Sorry man, but...


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Sorry man, but...



Well correct me then. As I see it, brogers point of her taxing Exxon is an act of anti-big business, not the other way around...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Well correct me then. As I see it, brogers point of her taxing Exxon is an act of anti-big business, not the other way around...



Both parties back big business.  Who do you think are the biggest contributors come election time?  That's the way the political system works in this country.

Do you really think that the DMCA (that Clinton passed) was meant to help the little guy?


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

Keep this up, I gotta head to the gym seriously now. I'm expecting either a save from Decker, or being called an asshole or something from Brogers. Don't disappoint.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Both parties back big business.  Who do you think are the biggest contributors come election time?  That's the way the political system works in this country.
> 
> Do you really think that the DMCA (that Clinton passed) was meant to help the little guy?



Democrats back big business as a larger tax benefactor. Republicans sell their rish souls and give big business tax breaks. Hence the Exxon ordeal.


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Sorry man, but...


 
His reading comprehension is terrible.. I'm done trying to make any point to him.  I said Hillary is pushing a big-government agenda and he somehows confuses that with big business?

I could have a more intelligent discussion with my cousin, a 4th grader.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> His reading comprehension is terrible.. I'm done trying to make any point to him.  I said Hillary is pushing a big-government agenda and he somehows confuses that with big business?
> 
> I could have a more intelligent discussion with my cousin, a 4th grader.



I did mis-read, my fault. Before you kick me in my balls again, mind respnding to the rest of the post?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Democrats back big business as a larger tax benefactor. Republicans sell their rish souls and give big business tax breaks. Hence the Exxon ordeal.



So, you think that the DMCA was about taxes?  Come on man...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> His reading comprehension is terrible.. I'm done trying to make any point to him.  I said Hillary is pushing a big-government agenda and he somehows confuses that with big business?



She's (and the Dems) are pushing both.  It's funny that those who vote Democrat don't know that.


----------



## Bakerboy (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You make my point for me.  Most of those technologies you mentioned did not exist in the 70's.  My cell phone has more power than the computers used to send our boy Buss Aldren to the moon.  How much of that then non-existent technology is used for things related to AFS?
> 
> Brother I'm not disputing your assertion of collateral technological growth cycles or that the willingness of the academic mind to deploy those developments is there.  It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia.
> 
> ...



True story! It's always about who owns the means of production. Green industries will only happen on a large scale when the individuals/ share holders who own those companies find a way to make more money using green technology.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

The copyright act you keep bringing up was a long overdue law, preventing shit like kazaa and limewire from stealing music legally.(again, correct me where I'm wrong, this is off memory) It was more of face law than anything else, not often enforced, and targeting everyone, INCLUDING, big business. It doesnt differ much from the way patents are written.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> The copyright act you keep bringing up was a long overdue law, preventing shit like kazaa and limewire from stealing music legally.(again, correct me where I'm wrong, this is off memory) It was more of face law than anything else, not often enforced, and targeting everyone, INCLUDING, big business. It doesnt differ much from the way patents are written.



There were already laws to cover that.  

A "face law"?  You have no _damn idea_ what you're talking about and how the DMCA has been used.

I get the feeling that you're just trying to cover for your political party.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> There were already laws to cover that.
> 
> A "face law"?  You have no _damn idea_ what you're talking about and how the DMCA has been used.
> 
> I get the feeling that you're just trying to cover for your political party.



For the 4th(?) time, correct me. I have a feeling you say shit like that instead of a true response, to cover your own ass.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 26, 2007)

11-3


----------



## brogers (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> She's (and the Dems) are pushing both. It's funny that those who vote Democrat don't know that.


 
One word:  Hollywood


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> For the 4th(?) time, correct me. I have a feeling you say shit like that instead of a true response, to cover your own ass.



Take your pic.

You're turning out to be a real tool.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

brogers said:


> One word:  Hollywood



They have to get their opinions from somewhere.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

"The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all companies producing analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of a particular commercial firm (Macrovision). The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the macrovision technology to the financial benefit of macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation."


I understand your point DOMS, but you're not seeing mine. the DMCA forces ALL companies to abide by the same laws and guidelines. Yes, macrovision gets a governemnt handjob, but all companies are forced to do the same thing, there's no break or benefit for the major companies affected by this.

Plus, trouble involving the DMCA is easily avoided.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Using a solar water heating system could have offered a lowered energy consumption at the national level and ... after the initial 24 months needed to recoup the investment ... provided free hot water at the individual level, but that would have killed natural gas sales.  How many solar water system do you know of on the homes of your community?  What technologies have been used to improve their efficiency? Zilch ... buttkiss, nada.   I'm not _*saying*_ anything here.  I'm just viewing our collective history together as a culture, recounting what has driven it and what controls it as a whole.


There are thousands of Solar Hot Water systems here, and hundreds of Solar Electric systems a mix of stand-alone and grid-tied.  There has been a steady rise in numbers of solar systems being installed, I see it every year climbing more and more...one of the driving forces is the government offering tax credits on installed cost of systems...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> "The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all companies producing analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of a particular commercial firm (Macrovision). The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the macrovision technology to the financial benefit of macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation."
> 
> 
> I understand your point DOMS, but you're not seeing mine. the DMCA forces ALL companies to abide by the same laws and guidelines. Yes, macrovision gets a governemnt handjob, but all companies are forced to do the same thing, there's no break or benefit for the major companies affected by this.
> ...



Really man, who do you think pushed that shit through?  For the little guy my ass.

There's also Clinton's extension of the copyright law.  Yeah, that was for the "little guy" again and not for Disney, who was about to loose Mickey to public domain.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

I forgot Clinton has soft spot for Mickey. Poor mouse... 

Like I said, it was a long overdue piece of legislature, passed by both parties pretty easily. Did you not get the patent, copyright reference?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Post the salient points of his "proof."  I've read a lot about global warming and I've yet to see anything that approaches the word proof.
> 
> Most of what passes as _proof_ of global warming is the increasing temperature.  Which has been proven satisfactorily to be inline with natural cycles.  The cry out "Look, it's getting warmer!  That could only happen because of mankind".  What a load of shit.
> 
> ...



I never claimed I had proof either way of global warming... because I don't.

I am just saying it doesn't really matter.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

My summation on the input offered thus far here:

*DOMS:* humans increasing global warming ain't happening and there is no proofof it.  None at all. andy is a tool.

*Andy:* yes it is.  common sense is proof enough but there is other evidence. andy's turds have no odor.

*brogers:* hitlery is a slut that will take exxon's money.  god bless the united states of the republican party.  andy is a commie

*NeilPearson:* green technology will be here in a few years.  
It's almost ready ... he's holding his breath.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*Me:* bushco sux and has held back green techno development and deployment until all the members of bushco are dead thus increasing the effects of global warming for their own greed. i was drifting in the snow and rain while DOMS was being spawned in a republican laboratory test tube.

*Bakerboy:* a very intelligent person who agrees with me.  

*BigDyl:* 11-3   ...


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

goandykid said:


> Neil's proof?
> 
> Fuck if I know, I'm not going to read that shit.  (no offense neil, not my interest)
> 
> ...




Again, if anyone actually read my long winded post, they would know I don't care about global warming either way.  All the people fighting on both sides are fighting for something that makes no difference in the long run.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You make my point for me.  Most of those technologies you mentioned did not exist in the 70's.  My cell phone has more power than the computers used to send our boy Buss Aldren to the moon.  How much of that then non-existent technology is used for things related to AFS?
> 
> Brother I'm not disputing your assertion of collateral technological growth cycles or that the willingness of the academic mind to deploy those developments is there.  It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia.
> 
> ...



We're not talking about the same solar energy obviously.  I'm not talking passive water heaters.  I am talking the kind of solar that will be coming out in the next 20 years.  Not everything has to offer oil barons money for it to happen.  Oil barons didn't win with government mass transit, or hybrids.

The entire world isn't about just making money for the oil barons.  Where there is opportunity, someone will fill it and make a buck.

Solar hasn't taken off on a world wide scale because the technology is still maturing and right now fossil fuel is cheaper.  It's as simple as that, its not some grand Bush conspiracy to keep us down and paying lots for energy.

*"It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia"*

Nope there are tons of giants that pop up out of nowhere as technology allows them too.  Think Micosoft, Google, EBay.  These are all small garage companies that went from their garage to an industry giant in just a few years because the technology they needed became cheap and easy.  It is no different than what will happen to energy.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Passive solar water heaters were alive and well in the 70's.  No major advances were needed to use the damn things they worked great, had a long service life and were free of anything that required power to function.



Passive water heaters didn't solve all the energy needs for a home (including car) and they often had ugly installations.  Not only that, energy was a lot cheaper so there wasn't the pressure to convert just to save on the electricity to heat water.

Now if you offer someone their entire energy needs in a small hidden (not ugly) installation and you can do that for a fraction of the cost of the solar water heaters of the 70s... now you have something that will spark more interest especially as the cost of fossil fuels rises.  You can already see the growing exponential solar trends in the data I listed.  It's already happening.  A lot of it isn't on home units.  A lot of it is large 100+ Megawatt solar plants (probably owned by existing Fossil Fuel companies)... so even Bushco sees this and is jumping on the bandwagon... either way, it results in more solar and less green house gases


----------



## goandykid (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> My summation on the input offered thus far here:
> 
> *DOMS:* humans increasing global warming ain't happening and there is no proofof it.  None at all. andy is a tool.
> 
> ...




 Beautifully done.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

Bakerboy said:


> True story! It's always about who owns the means of production. Green industries will only happen on a large scale when the individuals/ share holders who own those companies find a way to make more money using green technology.



Existing power companies are already building large solar plants with the newer solar technology.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

maniclion said:


> There are thousands of Solar Hot Water systems here, and hundreds of Solar Electric systems a mix of stand-alone and grid-tied.  There has been a steady rise in numbers of solar systems being installed, I see it every year climbing more and more...one of the driving forces is the government offering tax credits on installed cost of systems...



True story... I work for a power company and we want (need) people to start making their own power.

There is no way the current plants can keep up with energy production and there just aren't enough being built to keep up with growing world energy needs.  As electricity get more expensive and solar gets cheaper, more will make the jump.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

And since we are talking green house gases and pollution... this is what wikipedia has to say about LA:

"Due to the city's geography, which makes it susceptible to atmospheric inversion, heavy reliance on automobiles as a major form of transportation, and the L.A./Long Beach port complex, the city suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. The Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley hold in the fumes from automobiles, diesel trucks, shipping, and locomotive engines, as well as manufacturing and other sources. In addition, the groundwater is increasingly threatened by MTBE from gas stations and perchlorate from rocket fuel. Unlike other large cities that rely on rain to clear smog, Los Angeles only gets 15 inches (380 mm) of rain each year, so the smog is able to accumulate over multiple consecutive days. This has brought much attention from the state of California to the need for low emissions vehicles. As a result, pollution levels have dropped markedly in recent decades. The number of Stage 1 smog alerts has declined from over 100 per year in the 1970s to almost zero in the new millennium. Despite this remarkable success, the 2006 annual report of the American Lung Association ranks the city as the most polluted in the country with short-term particle pollution and year-round particle pollution.[10][11] Smog from the basin is pushed towards the mountains, where the pollutants harm trees. However, the city is taking even more aggressive steps to improve air quality"

California has definitely been an innovator for cleaner air and eventually that technology trickles out to other states and countries.  Hell, when I was growing up they still sold leaded gasoline.

All I am saying is it is not all so doom and gloom.  Their is an optimistic side to pollution green house gases and global warming too.


----------



## Brachiisaurus (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> My summation on the input offered thus far here:
> 
> *DOMS:* humans increasing global warming ain't happening and there is no proofof it.  None at all. andy is a tool.
> 
> ...



  

Nice!


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> We're not talking about the same solar energy obviously.  I'm not talking passive water heaters.  I am talking the kind of solar that will be coming out in the next 20 years.  Not everything has to offer oil barons money for it to happen.  Oil barons didn't win with government mass transit, or hybrids.
> 
> The entire world isn't about just making money for the oil barons.  Where there is opportunity, someone will fill it and make a buck.
> 
> ...



You keep stepping around me here.  I used solar water as a model of how big money has treated an established usable conservation product.  It was shut down.  When a political force with a social alignment to AFS minded growth has held power and made advances those advances were removed by de-funding the research and killing the financial incentive needed to promote change with the American public.  The growth of the companies you mentioned have nothing to offer in the way of direct competition with big oil.  Bill gates has no relative bearing on this topic because he poses no threat to BushCo ... ditto google and ebay.

ALL technologies that could compete with big oil have had their growth either severely stunted or closed out. Companies in smaller countries with  no oil reserves have been the driving edge of every single bright spot on the AFS horizon, while in any country with a need for cheap mass production big oil has put the kabash on AFS advancement.   This has been done with unilateral agreements to provide reduced price for oil access, nuking the financial incentives in some way ... or through direct buy outs.

We are at a heightened level of technology and on the brink of phenomenal growth across the board on the electronics front.  These advancements will offer insane value for AFS.  Big oil will be threatened and find a way to dissuade the migration of those technologies.  That has been the case thus far and since we are still being governed by the same ruling class I see no way for that to change any time soon.

The amount of money BushCo approved for AFS didn't help the effort because it only goes to a small handful of research groups that have BushCo oversight.  Same old song and dance that has produced nothing in the last 27 years of BUshCo control. 

You have high expectations of AFS showing exponential growth within our life times. I say that as long as oil has control over our government that growth will not occur.  Somehow big oil will continue to control and arrest that development.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Passive water heaters didn't solve all the energy needs for a home (including car) and they often had ugly installations.  Not only that, energy was a lot cheaper so there wasn't the pressure to convert just to save on the electricity to heat water.
> 
> Now if you offer someone their entire energy needs in a small hidden (not ugly) installation and you can do that for a fraction of the cost of the solar water heaters of the 70s... now you have something that will spark more interest especially as the cost of fossil fuels rises.  You can already see the growing exponential solar trends in the data I listed.  It's already happening.  A lot of it isn't on home units.  A lot of it is large 100+ Megawatt solar plants (probably owned by existing Fossil Fuel companies)... so even Bushco sees this and is jumping on the bandwagon... either way, it results in more solar and less green house gases



I would be as happy as you to see that come to the side of my house.   I'd vote for Bush to have a third term if he could deliver it ...


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

I understand what you are saying and to an extent agree - Bushco has done a good job holding it back.  I just don't believe they can do it forever...

It's kind of like communism trying to hold back information about the rest of the world.  The task eventually becomes too great and the information seeps in.

As oil prices rise and alternatives get cheaper and more available, it will be more and more difficult to hold it back and keep everyone on the status quo.

I don't think they can continue it for much longer.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 26, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You have high expectations of AFS showing exponential growth within our life times. I say that as long as oil has control over our government that growth will not occur.  Somehow big oil will continue to control and arrest that development.



I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s.  It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with.  It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.

This looks exponential to me:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsGrowth.htm
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_data.htm

I haven't found numbers for 2006 but between 1971 and 2005 we had 35 years of exponential growth... graph it out, it is definitely exponential.  True there was little growth in the 70s and 80s but that is the nature of exponential growth.  It slowly builds its momentum.

Not only that but the doubling rate is accelerating.  Where it was doubling on average every 4-5 years through the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s... it appears to be double more like every 2 years since the late 90s until today.

So showing exponential growth in our lifetime... yup for the last 35 years.

Year Annual Production in Megawatts

1971 0
1975 2
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 4
1980 7
1981 8
1982 9
1983 17
1984 22
1985 23
1986 26
1987 29
1988 34
1989 40
1990 46
1991 55
1992 58
1993 60
1994 69
1995 79
1996 89
1997 126
1998 153
1999 201
2000 288
2001 391
2002 560
2003 742
2004 1086
2005 1460


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 26, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s.  It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with.  It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.
> 
> This looks exponential to me:
> 
> ...


What about when you compare that data with the growth in demand?


----------



## Pianomahnn (Feb 27, 2007)

Up next: another topic that no one can agree upon!!

Fact: Humans affect the natural world they live in.
Not fact: This effect is the leading cause of global atmospheric change

I say it again:  if you think we have zero affect you're a total moron.  Keep in mind I'm not giving any quantifiable number to this affect other than it being greater than 0.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> What about when you compare that data with the growth in demand?



Sure:

http://greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_of_rome_revisted.html

"From an energy perspective, the world was consuming 111 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day in 1970 as The Limits to Growth was being written. The world's energy growth had already soared from under 30 million BOE in 1940 to 67 million BOE in 1960 and almost
doubled that in another 10-years. By 1980, energy growth totaled 147 million BOE per day, in
1990 it reached 164 million BOE per day and is fast approaching 180 million BOE per day in
2000"

So between 1970 and 2000... we haven't even see one doubling yet.  Hardly anywhere near the 18 month - 2 year doubling time we're seeing in solar growth.

I already detailed in another post how fossil fuel growth has been going up 0-2% a year in the same time period... again no where near the growth of solar


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 27, 2007)

Pianomahnn said:


> Up next: another topic that no one can agree upon!!
> 
> Fact: Humans affect the natural world they live in.
> Not fact: This effect is the leading cause of global atmospheric change
> ...



LOL ... don't get all commitment heavy on us.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 27, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Sure:
> 
> http://greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_of_rome_revisted.html
> 
> ...


The site had some interesting data, but it ended (excluding projections) at 2000.  We are looking for a comparison of AFS deployment stacked against petroleum consumption so that we can work out a projection that will include something from at least within a 2 year period.  We need a date reference close enough to shoot an accurate forecast of the next 20 years.  With 7 years of missing data nothing in this link is useful for us with that.  

I would like to introduce that any site with a biased political perspective is not going to yield useful numbers.  Al Gore is not going to give us a straight answer on anything is all I'm looking to say before his stuff seeps in here.

Not trying to shit in your cheerios, we just need more timely data before we try to crunch the numbers.  Make sense?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The site had some interesting data, but it ended (excluding projections) at 2000.  We are looking for a comparison of AFS deployment stacked against petroleum consumption so that we can work out a projection that will include something from at least within a 2 year period.  We need a date reference close enough to shoot an accurate forecast of the next 20 years.  With 7 years of missing data nothing in this link is useful for us with that.
> 
> I would like to introduce that any site with a biased political perspective is not going to yield useful numbers.  Al Gore is not going to give us a straight answer on anything is all I'm looking to say before his stuff seeps in here.
> 
> Not trying to shit in your cheerios, we just need more timely data before we try to crunch the numbers.  Make sense?



I don't think missing 6 years of data (we can't possibly have data for 2007 yet) makes this unusable.  It still shows a slow growth over many years.  Is there a reason to think it has changed in the last 6 years?

This site that I already quoted pretty much sums it up...

http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm

"Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25% per annum over the past 15 years (hydrocarbon energy demand typically grows between 0-2% per annum)."

Our energy usage is increasing but only at 0-2% a year.  It is nowhere near the 25-35% a year for solar growth that we've seen.

This graph on wikipedia shows a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_energy_use_from_1980_to_2004.jpg

Oil, gas and coal have been the largest growing energy sources from the start of the century to today and will continue to be the largest for some time.  However their doubling rates are taking 15-20 years or longer.  My point is solar has a much faster doubling time.  Notice on the graph, solar is still an insignificant source... I'm not arguing its not.  I am just suggesting that with it's exponential growth, compared to the growth in other larger sectors, that it has the potential to catch up.

When cell phones first came out, if the usage for the first 15 years had been compared to land lines, you never would have guessed that cell phones would become serious competition to land line phones.  If on the other hand you would have looked at the exponential rate of growth of cell phones in the early years compared with the relative static growth of land lines, you would have understood that it wouldn't take too long for cell phones to be real competition to land lines.  It's basically the same comparison.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 27, 2007)

I'm seriously enjoying our debate here Neil, but I'm also installing ubuntu and need to attend to the installation and get the laptop I installed it on networked and online.  I'll be back from the ubuntu OS after I get it up and running and we can go from there.  

I'll leave you with this thought. Technology and the graphs the growth cycles project do not account for the human element well enough.  Add in that three years of data that the oil wars have created cannot be omitted from this project IMHO.

Catch ya in a few ...


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 27, 2007)

Hopefully you know the basics or we are going to have some massive linux install/gui/xorg/networking/kismet etc etc etc threads lol.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 27, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm seriously enjoying our debate here Neil, but I'm also installing ubuntu and need to attend to the installation and get the laptop I installed it on networked and online.  I'll be back from the ubuntu OS after I get it up and running and we can go from there.
> 
> I'll leave you with this thought. Technology and the graphs the growth cycles project do not account for the human element well enough.  Add in that three years of data that the oil wars have created cannot be omitted from this project IMHO.
> 
> Catch ya in a few ...


Take it from a guy who works in the PV market, PV grows every year and will continue to grow.  Not only that but each year they squeeze more power out of the same size module.  When I started 4 years ago we had the SP130(130Watts), the next year the same module was the SP150(150Watts) now it is an SW175(175Watts) and they are working on getting more out of it.  There are other researchers working on PV modules that work in the UV spectrum of light and still others working on PV modules that work in multiple color spectrums instead of the blue light they are currently stuck using, there are also new ploymers they can coat the glass with that can change other spectrums into the blue light and end up doubling the efficiency not to mention studies on organic photovoltaic substances and nano science solar cells....


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 28, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm seriously enjoying our debate here Neil, but I'm also installing ubuntu and need to attend to the installation and get the laptop I installed it on networked and online.  I'll be back from the ubuntu OS after I get it up and running and we can go from there.
> 
> I'll leave you with this thought. Technology and the graphs the growth cycles project do not account for the human element well enough.  Add in that three years of data that the oil wars have created cannot be omitted from this project IMHO.
> 
> Catch ya in a few ...



I think the human element is just part of a natural technological process.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Exponential progress is natural and has been going on since the big bang.  Take a look at this graph.  It is a plot of 15 historians key events in history plotted on a log scale.  It shows how the time to the next major event in history gets shorter and shorter.  This looks back 1,000,000,000,000 years.  Progess 10^11 years ago was extremely slow.  It took Billions of years for the next key event.  These events were evolutionary and took time.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

Biological evolution initially was slow.  It took billions of years for the first cells to develop into multicellular organisms.  As evolution progressed, the progression got faster and faster.  Look at the timeline of evolutionary events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

The basic timeline is a 4600 million year old Earth, with

4000 million years of simple cells, 
3000 million years of photosynthesis, 
2000 million years of complex cells, 
1000 million years of multicellular life, 
600 million years of simple animals, 
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians, 
475 million years of land plants, 
400 million years of insects and seeds, 
360 million years of amphibians, 
300 million years of reptiles, 
200 million years of mammals, 
150 million years of birds, 
100 million years of flowers and 
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out. 

This is an exponential growth scale.  This pretty much exhausted the evolutionary paradigm.  At this point, biological evolution just couldn't go much faster... so what happened?  There was a paradigm shift.  Progress started to be technological instead of biological.  Just like when vacuum tubes couldn't go much faster, they were replaced with transistors and then microprocessors when transistors were exhausted.  We started using tools.

Still progress was slow but it was getting faster.  We went from primitive tools to farming to mathematics all the time, progress was getting faster and faster.  This even could only go so fast... to continue the exponential curve we needed something faster.  This is when the industrial revolution started and progress really started to take off.  Mechanical progress could only go so fast so to keep on the curve we invented computers and then the internet was needed to share information at a faster rate.

*If you plot progress from the first cells through all of human history to biotech and nanotech, the entire thing amazing fits on the same exponential curve of progress.  This is a natural system and is bigger than the human element.*

So saying this doesn't account for the human element is not really true.  This actually is the nature of not only the human element but of a larger system of progress in which the human element has just been a recent addition to the system... but an addition that has done it's part to ensure progress fits the same exponential scale that was started with the first cells.

Even major historical events - wars, ice ages, mass extinction, plagues couldn't stop the curve...  Sure they caused blips in the curve but for some reason progress always sped up after the blip to put us back on our evolutionary schedule.  Bushco might be a blip on the scale for energy progress... but it isn't bigger than anything progress hasn't handled before.


----------



## Witchblade (Feb 28, 2007)

I like this thread.

1. I should do a search, but what do you guys think about the graph Al Gore showed in An Inconvenient Truth? Any inconvenient truth to this?
There's obviously a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the type of correlation (e.g. causality) has not been proven.

2. I've heard this is and this isn't the hottest period on earth in 650.000 years. Which is it?

3. Is the current rise in temperature in line with the natural wavering of temperature?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 28, 2007)

Yes, humans cause global warming, but only the white devil.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> what do you guys think about the graph Al Gore showed in An Inconvenient Truth? Any inconvenient truth to this?
> There's obviously a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the type of correlation (e.g. causality) has not been proven.



Gore tries to say that the ambient temperature controlled by CO2 levels, but the chart seems to say that (without human intervention) CO2 levels are controlled by the ambient temperature.


----------



## Witchblade (Feb 28, 2007)

I've heard that before too. Seems viable.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 28, 2007)

Manic said:
			
		

> Take it from a guy who works in the PV market, PV grows every year and will continue to grow. Not only that but each year they squeeze more power out of the same size module. When I started 4 years ago we had the SP130(130Watts), the next year the same module was the SP150(150Watts) now it is an SW175(175Watts) and they are working on getting more out of it. There are other researchers working on PV modules that work in the UV spectrum of light and still others working on PV modules that work in multiple color spectrums instead of the blue light they are currently stuck using, there are also new ploymers they can coat the glass with that can change other spectrums into the blue light and end up doubling the efficiency not to mention studies on organic photovoltaic substances and nano science solar cells....


I'm not trying to suggest that we as a species will not invent a better mouse trap or sell those mouse traps to each other or that we will somehow exist off of the human evolutionary scale ... 


			
				Neil said:
			
		

> *If you plot progress from the first cells through all of human history to biotech and nanotech, the entire thing amazingly fits on the same exponential curve of progress. This is a natural system and is bigger than the human element.*



What I am saying is that the human element is a part of that scale not outside of it.  The information you've provided makes for a very good read, and the results of the model you provide is undeniable.  NOTHING can stop time and progress from producing results.  

What history shows us through all this data is that as long as an entity with enough power and financial gain wishes to do so, that entity can delay the results.  The dark ages saw a reversal of science as the world under the control of the church became a religious quagmire where anything not accepted by the church was considered heresy and cause for death.  The human element held sway.  The Asians continued on with their development as did the moors, while scientific advances from the Christians were suppressed for a few hundred years.  This is our history, this is what the human condition has provided as a working model of how we evolve.  

Our evolution as a species is more than just science meeting the needs of the people.  Darwin will provide witness to that.  His science interfered with the needs of the powers that be.  He was packed of to his island and left to study his animals while the world remained in darkness.  Now we have BushCo, a very large and powerful force that has controlled for the last 27 years the most powerful civilization to have ever existed in human history.  Darwin doesn't have a chance against BushCo.  Their power _will_ wain, and as that happens the things you insist are going to happen will happen ... but not until it suits the powers that be or and unless they are toppled.

You can post all the scientific studies and models you want all day long but you will not ever be able to post one that shows how science was used by the inventor to control the powers that be.  It has ALWAYS been the powers that be who controlled the destiny of the people. 

If you can show how the AFS industry will provide a power base to allow BushCo to continue to hold control, then you may have something.


----------



## goandykid (Feb 28, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Yes, humans cause global warming, but only the white devil.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 28, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm not trying to suggest that we as a species will not invent a better mouse trap or sell those mouse traps to each other or that we will somehow exist off of the human evolutionary scale ...
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the human element is a part of that scale not outside of it.  The information you've provided makes for a very good read, and the results of the model you provide is undeniable.  NOTHING can stop time and progress from producing results.
> ...



I agree.  I just think that the length of time humans can suppress it is relative to doubling rates of technology.  The dark ages took hundreds of years to overcome because it took hundred of years for societies to advance.  And the dark ages were just a blip on the grand evolutionary scale.  As the doubling rate increases and we get further and further along on the curve, I see us overcoming these blips faster and faster.  I just think we will overcome Bushco faster than you do.  I don't think Bushco is as significant as the dark ages... in fact it may not survive the next election


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 28, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> If you can show how the AFS industry will provide a power base to allow BushCo to continue to hold control, then you may have something.



It's not just start ups that are using solar.  Lots of large electric companies are making large 100 MWatt solar plants... and as the technology gets better, these plants will become more affordable and take up less space.

So maybe solar will help the large energy companies too... if they can somehow keep the technology out of consumers hands.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 28, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> I agree.  I just think that the length of time humans can suppress it is relative to doubling rates of technology.  The dark ages took hundreds of years to overcome because it took hundred of years for societies to advance.  And the dark ages were just a blip on the grand evolutionary scale.  As the doubling rate increases and we get further and further along on the curve, I see us overcoming these blips faster and faster.  I just think we will overcome Bushco faster than you do.  I don't think Bushco is as significant as the dark ages... in fact it may not survive the next election


LOL ... it will be another puppet pulled by the same strings.   With all the posturing and posing done by the Clintons, there were no changes in the way we move relative to AFS that came out of their watch ... no massive or even minimal changes to AFS research or deployment of AFS technology at the consumer levels.  BushCo is more than just George Bush.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 28, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> LOL ... it will be another puppet pulled by the same strings.   With all the posturing and posing done by the Clintons, there were no changes in the way we move relative to AFS that came out of their watch ... no massive or even minimal changes to AFS research or deployment of AFS technology at the consumer levels.  BushCo is more than just George Bush.



Maybe but my predictions are based on the current rates of research and deployment.  At the current rates I'm thinking 20-25 years.  If it wasn't for Bushco, it would have been 10-20 years ago... so they effectively delayed it for 30-50 years.  That is quite an accomplishment and longer than the dark ages were if you look at both scenarios relative to the advancement rates they took place in.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 28, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> LOL ... it will be another puppet pulled by the same strings.   With all the posturing and posing done by the Clintons, there were no changes in the way we move relative to AFS that came out of their watch ... no massive or even minimal changes to AFS research or deployment of AFS technology at the consumer levels.  BushCo is more than just George Bush.


Well the solar systems that Jimmy Carter put on the Whitehouse and then Reagan later ripped off, were planned to be reinstalled during Clinton's administration...it just so happens it wasn't gotten around to until Bush had made it to office....

And I agree we can barely get shit done with Bush in office in respect to AFS', but the Germans and Japanese are putting the shit up faster than it can be manufactured.  My Boss has 2 books on Building integrated PV and one is from Japan and one from Germany, their architects have all begun to design buildings with solar modules somehow involved in the structure....We're talking awesome designs, patio sections covered with solar modules with tinted backing so that some sunlight goes through, office buildings with a window and then a solar module all the way across the southern face which of course only works in places further north of the equator, even building with solar modules as eaves above windows to not only provide power but to act as shades to keep the cooling costs down....this stuff works everywhere for them and America would do just as well to integrate it themselves...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 28, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Well the solar systems that Jimmy Carter put on the Whitehouse and then Reagan later ripped off, were planned to be reinstalled during Clinton's administration...it just so happens it wasn't gotten around to until Bush had made it to office....
> 
> And I agree we can barely get shit done with Bush in office in respect to AFS', but the Germans and Japanese are putting the shit up faster than it can be manufactured.  My Boss has 2 books on Building integrated PV and one is from Japan and one from Germany, their architects have all begun to design buildings with solar modules somehow involved in the structure....We're talking awesome designs, patio sections covered with solar modules with tinted backing so that some sunlight goes through, office buildings with a window and then a solar module all the way across the southern face which of course only works in places further north of the equator, even building with solar modules as eaves above windows to not only provide power but to act as shades to keep the cooling costs down....this stuff works everywhere for them and America would do just as well to integrate it themselves...


My next house built will be earning me money on energy production.  What sucks though is that I like to cook with gas better than electricity.  I like money more though and the thought of them paying me for the energy I send out gives me a chuby.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 1, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> My next house built will be earning me money on energy production.  What sucks though is that I like to cook with gas better than electricity.  I like money more though and the thought of them paying me for the energy I send out gives me a chuby.



Are you sure?  I looked into what it would cost for solar to cover my energy needs...

http://www.americanpv.com/pdf/res_on/prices.pdf

last year we used 30k kWh.  Their largest system covers 985 square feet and only offers < 16kWh per year.... so to completely cover my energy usage, I would need 2 of their largest systems which would cost $50k after rebates.

I think this is the real reason solar hasn't taken off yet.  I'll give if a few years for the efficiency of these cells to get better before I look into it again.

Even the $7500 system... that would only cut off 1/6 of my bill.  I am just not interest in a system that is going to take 12 years to pay for itself.  Especially when I will probably move within 5 years.

My washer, dryer, stove and water heater are all gas.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Mar 1, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Are you sure?  I looked into what it would cost for solar to cover my energy needs...
> 
> http://www.americanpv.com/pdf/res_on/prices.pdf
> 
> ...


Energy efficiency standards are set way too low in the US IMHO.  A house built to normal industry standards isn't the same as a house built to green standards.   I'll go solar water as well, so the demand will be very different than a what a conventional house would place on electric supply.  
It's already getting done  by some folks, so I'll manage  

It'll be another four or five years before I build a anything.   This  guy I been talking to lately insists that I'll have more options soon and I really hope he is right.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 1, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Energy efficiency standards are set way too low in the US IMHO.  A house built to normal industry standards isn't the same as a house built to green standards.   I'll go solar water as well, so the demand will be very different than a what a conventional house would place on electric supply.
> It's already getting done  by some folks, so I'll manage
> 
> It'll be another four or five years before I build a anything.   This  guy I been talking to lately insists that I'll have more options soon and I really hope he is right.



Yeah, if you are building a home from scratch, you definitely have more options than trying to apply solar to an existing home.  The way you are doing it is much more manageable.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Mar 1, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Yeah, if you are building a home from scratch, you definitely have more options than trying to apply solar to an existing home.  The way you are doing it is much more manageable.


I'd run the project.  I've got a lot of construction experience so I'd enjoy the process ... with the thought in mind that this is an investment.  I'd look to sell inside of 4 to 6 years.  The new owner would be in a great position, and I'd make a few dollars I'm sure.


----------



## Dub guy (Mar 1, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?



What a moronic post!


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> What a moronic post!



Okay dumb fuck, put up the ironclad proof that humans have affected the mean temperature of the planet.


----------



## BigDyl (Mar 1, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Okay dumb fuck, put up the ironclad proof that humans have affected the mean temperature of the planet.



Al Gore convinced me.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 1, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Al Gore convinced me.




Lemmings...


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2007)




----------



## Dub guy (Mar 1, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> Al Gore convinced me.



One of many great sources......go back to school Doms....your lost!


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> One of many great sources......go back to school Doms....your lost!



It's "you're lost", you fucking moron.

So, humans are affecting the mean global temperature because you saw it in a movie?


----------



## goob (Mar 1, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It's "you're lost", you fucking moron.
> 
> So, humans are affecting the mean global temperature because you saw it in a movie?



I'm telling you Doms......... time for the WLG signature again. It should be your epitaph.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Mar 1, 2007)

"WLG" ...


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2007)

William Lloyd Garrison, "I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not  excuse; I will not retreat a single inch and _I will be heard!_"


----------



## DOMS (Mar 1, 2007)

goob said:


> It should be your epitaph.



It probably will.  

I am, at all times, always me.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 1, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Are you sure?  I looked into what it would cost for solar to cover my energy needs...
> 
> http://www.americanpv.com/pdf/res_on/prices.pdf
> 
> ...


If my calcs are right you use 82-83kWhs a day?  With our Gridtie Pricing Excel sheet that system would be $150,000 and you would need (120) 175W solar modules measuring 64" x 32", (3) 6000W Sunny Boy inverters and the other base of systems parts....

Ummmmmm, I think you would be better off paying someone to come in and give your place an energy audit to find out what the hell is draining all that juice when you are using gas for the major energy hogs washer, dryer, stove and water heater.  I don't know if you leave every light on in your house and there all 100W bulbs, you have 4 refrigerators or what.  But we sell systems that large to businesses, and luckily businesses get much better rebates and tax credits for installing solar...


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 1, 2007)

maniclion said:


> If my calcs are right you use 82-83kWhs a day?  With our Gridtie Pricing Excel sheet that system would be $150,000 and you would need (120) 175W solar modules measuring 64" x 32", (3) 6000W Sunny Boy inverters and the other base of systems parts....
> 
> Ummmmmm, I think you would be better off paying someone to come in and give your place an energy audit to find out what the hell is draining all that juice when you are using gas for the major energy hogs washer, dryer, stove and water heater.  I don't know if you leave every light on in your house and there all 100W bulbs, you have 4 refrigerators or what.  But we sell systems that large to businesses, and luckily businesses get much better rebates and tax credits for installing solar...



A lot of it is due to the fact that I live in Arizona.  4 months of 110+ running 2 air conditioners draws a lot.  Then when it gets in the 30s and 40s in the winter, I have to heat the house electrically.

And I have a fish tank with 850 Watts of lights on it for the coral.  It also needs pumps to move 5000 gallons of water an hour.  Coral needs water movement as close as the oceans as possible.  The lights and pumps heat up the water so I have to run a chiller to keep the water down to 80 degrees

I installed 2 dedicated circuits for the fish tank.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 1, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Energy efficiency standards are set way too low in the US IMHO.  A house built to normal industry standards isn't the same as a house built to green standards.   I'll go solar water as well, so the demand will be very different than a what a conventional house would place on electric supply.
> It's already getting done  by some folks, so I'll manage
> 
> It'll be another four or five years before I build a anything.   This  guy I been talking to lately insists that I'll have more options soon and I really hope he is right.


PV systems on the homes in the outer islands that are built to the "Green Standards" are way smaller than the homes here that are built to the "Cheapest Standards"...


----------



## maniclion (Mar 1, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> A lot of it is due to the fact that I live in Arizona.  4 months of 110+ running 2 air conditioners draws a lot.  Then when it gets in the 30s and 40s in the winter, I have to heat the house electrically.
> 
> And I have a fish tank with 850 Watts of lights on it for the coral.  It also needs pumps to move 5000 gallons of water an hour.  Coral needs water movement as close as the oceans as possible.  The lights and pumps heat up the water so I have to run a chiller to keep the water down to 80 degrees
> 
> I installed 2 dedicated circuits for the fish tank.


One of my customers brought in his electric bill over the last year.  One month he installs the most efficient washer Sears has his bill drops from 25.4kWh a day to 19, then he installs the most efficient fridge from Sears, it drops to 16kWh, then he takes 2 of his most used lights in his house and puts in LED lights, it drops to 12.7, then he replaces all of his bulbs with LED's and it goes down to 7.6.  After he installs his Solar Thermal Water Heater he'll probably be down to 3 or 4 maybe less, then he will install his PV system and it will cost a whole lot less than that 25kWh system would have.....this is what I stress to all of my customers, get your house as efficient as possible first then bring me your electirc bill and let me build a less expensive system for you...that way PV will make a lot more financial sense than just getting it at your most ridiculous Utility bill cost...


----------



## the nut (Mar 1, 2007)

maniclion said:


> One of my customers brought in his electric bill over the last year.  One month he installs the most efficient washer Sears has his bill drops from 25.4kWh a day to 19, then he installs the most efficient fridge from Sears, it drops to 16kWh, then he takes 2 of his most used lights in his house and puts in LED lights, it drops to 12.7, then he replaces all of his bulbs with LED's and it goes down to 7.6.  After he installs his Solar Thermal Water Heater he'll probably be down to 3 or 4 maybe less, then he will install his PV system and it will cost a whole lot less than that 25kWh system would have.....this is what I stress to all of my customers, get your house as efficient as possible first then bring me your electirc bill and let me build a less expensive system for you...that way PV will make a lot more financial sense than just getting it at your most ridiculous Utility bill cost...



I gotta go more efficient myself, they're instituting an electric rate increase in CT.
DPUC Approves Settlement to Phase-in-Rate Increases
to Residential Customers of UI

In a three to two split Decision, the Department of Public Utility Control today approved a Settlement between UI and Prosecutorial Staff of the DPUC.  The Settlement applies only to residential customers.  As a result of the Settlement, residential customers??? rates will increase incrementally over the course of 2007 as follows:

  January 1 ??? March 31, 2007     bills will rise by 24.7% over 2006 rates 
  April 1 ??? June 30, 2007   bills will rise by 44.7% over 2006 rates 
  July 1 ??? December 31, 2007     bills will rise by 50.0% over 2006 rates 

The 50% figure is an estimate assuming that the procurement of power for the second half of 2007 comes in at the same price as the bids for the first half of the year.

DPUC Chairman Donald W. Downes, Lead Commissioner in this matter noted that, ???It is with great reluctance that we find ourselves faced with voting for this rate increase.  Everyone at the Department is aware of the magnitude of the rate hike and hopes that the General Assembly will act upon changing the procurement process and that market prices will drop by mid-winter when the Company is securing power for the second half of 2007.???

(Click here to be linked to the DPUC site and the full text of the release.)

A Message from The United Illuminating Company

Higher electricity prices are not what anyone wants.  
And that holds true for all of us here at The United Illuminating Company. 

We don???t generate electricity, so we must buy what our customers need.  
We do not profit from the supply cost.  We charge customers what we must pay the marketers and generators who fulfill this need.  
When the Connecticut Legislature made deregulation law in 1998, UI was required to sell all of its generating stations.  The process we use to obtain our electricity supply is controlled by state statute and reviewed by the agency charged with our oversight, the Department of Public Utility Control.

The onset of higher prices for electricity is not a surprise.  It has been happening throughout the United States for most of the last decade.  Several states that have enacted deregulation have been struggling to regain control of the price for their customers.  With the ending of our favorably priced three-year supply contract, much higher electricity costs have, unfortunately, arrived in Connecticut.

At UI, we???ve been working to address the coming price hike before it was headlines.  Our experience indicated that the customers would be faced with price issues beyond our deregulated ability to directly address.  Since 2000 we???ve made presentations to legislators, regulators and others in which we outlined all or portions of the issue.  We???ve also attempted to work with the Governor and with the Attorney General to bring these increases into check.  

High fuel costs are part of the reason for the dramatic increase in supply costs, but the situation is also worsened by the present process.  Under current regulation, UI cannot procure electric energy for periods in excess of three years.  Three years is considered ???short-term??? in the energy business and suppliers charge premium prices. To get better pricing, we need to be able to acquire energy for long periods of time (fifteen years or more). 

We know that this cost increase is very difficult for those that depend on the energy we provide.  We field those calls every day.  And although UI is now a delivery company, you can count on us to continue working to solve this important customer issue.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 1, 2007)

the nut said:


> I gotta go more efficient myself, they're instituting an electric rate increase in CT.


http://www.dsireusa.org/library/inc...Code=CT10F&state=CT&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=1


----------



## maniclion (Mar 1, 2007)

The Northeast of the US is where analysts expect the next big boom of installed PV systems to come from...


----------



## Witchblade (Mar 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It's "you're lost", you fucking moron.
> 
> So, humans are affecting the mean global temperature because you saw it in a movie?


Glad to have you back DOMS, after that post in training that showed restraint I thought you were no more.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 2, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> Glad to have you back DOMS, after that post in training that showed restraint I thought you were no more.



I lasted for two posts.  That's gotta be my record.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 2, 2007)

maniclion said:


> One of my customers brought in his electric bill over the last year.  One month he installs the most efficient washer Sears has his bill drops from 25.4kWh a day to 19, then he installs the most efficient fridge from Sears, it drops to 16kWh, then he takes 2 of his most used lights in his house and puts in LED lights, it drops to 12.7, then he replaces all of his bulbs with LED's and it goes down to 7.6.  After he installs his Solar Thermal Water Heater he'll probably be down to 3 or 4 maybe less, then he will install his PV system and it will cost a whole lot less than that 25kWh system would have.....this is what I stress to all of my customers, get your house as efficient as possible first then bring me your electirc bill and let me build a less expensive system for you...that way PV will make a lot more financial sense than just getting it at your most ridiculous Utility bill cost...



Show me a link to the following and I will do that:

Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.

Actually my bill ranges anywhere from $200-450 depending on how hot it is outside... so I would probably have to replace all my windows as a starting point.

Even if I could get my house down to the level that a $15k system would provide for my energy needs, it wouldn't really matter.  That is only going to lower my bill maybe $100 a month.  I don't really want to wait 15 years for something like that to pay off... especially when I believe that same $15k system will cost $8k in 2-3 years.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 2, 2007)

kind of interesting...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=47553


----------



## maniclion (Mar 2, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Show me a link to the following and I will do that:
> 
> Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
> Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.
> ...


I'm not saying do it now, what I'm saying is start making the preparations so that when it does become more cost effective you won't have too much cost...


----------



## maniclion (Mar 2, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> kind of interesting...
> 
> http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=47553


That's the kind of stuff I mentioned earlier in the thread, this kind of stuff is going to revolutionize the solar energy market....I hope...but I really can see it happening all of my research shows that it should be achievable once they can find the right combination of materials.....

Like these guys who I've been checking in on from time to time to see how they are coming along:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/aldrich/brochure/al_chemfile_v5_n3.pdf

I mean organic PV using semi-conductor nanocrystals to connect PV organic polymers this is awesome science, the stuff I love...


----------



## Spud (Mar 2, 2007)

Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient.

Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Mar 2, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Show me a link to the following and I will do that:
> 
> Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
> Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.
> ...


You have to match that investment with the increased appraisal value of your home not just what you realize in energy savings.  When you do the math it may come up a little different.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 2, 2007)

Spud said:


> Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient.
> 
> Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.


Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology.  I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....


----------



## BoneCrusher (Mar 2, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology.  I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....


I'm thinking "The Stand" by Stephen King ...


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 2, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology.  I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....



Biotech is more dangerous than nuclear for sure.  That has always been the flipside of technology.  The more advanced and powerful it is, the more dangerous it is.

Just wait and see what kind of destruction self replicating nanobots will be capable of.  (google gray goo - if you care)  Nothing to loose sleep over yet though.  It is highly theoretical right now.

Personally, I don't believe we are in any real danger though.  Although these things are possible it is quite difficult for it to go wrong.  Basically, the technology would have to land into the hands of terrorists.  While terrorists are resourceful, they have never been on the cutting edge of technology.  By the time biotech trickles down to them, we should have early warning defenses in place to combat any attack.  Just look at the response we had to SARS.  I think it took less than a week to sequence the SARS DNA.  AIDS on the other hand took well over a decade.  As we understand the technology more, dealing with problems will become that much easier.

Nanotech will be much more precise and faster.  Eventually it will be possible for our nanobots to control all matter on a molecular level.  At that point, biotech issues (as well as health issues) will be obsolete.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 2, 2007)




----------



## Spud (Mar 4, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology.  I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....



Bacterial mutations have been going on for ages now. How do you think enzymes and proteins are created? They mutate a bacteria to produce a certain protein and then harvest it. I think that insulin produced nowadays comes from bacteria.


----------



## Spud (Mar 4, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> Just wait and see what kind of destruction self replicating nanobots will be capable of.  (google gray goo - if you care)  Nothing to loose sleep over yet though.  It is highly theoretical right now.



That is science fiction hocus pocus.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 4, 2007)

Spud said:


> That is science fiction hocus pocus.



So were airplanes at one time.


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 20, 2007)

The exponential curve is starting in the power industry... bring on nanotech

Nanotech will let us wear batteries and get 150 mpg - USATODAY.com

Nanotechnology Spotlight: Carbon nanotubes can double the efficiency of solar cells

Alternative Energy Suppliers Look to Nano-Manufacturing - Semiconductor International

Re-inventing nature for cheaper solar power


----------



## NeilPearson (Mar 20, 2007)

Energy - Small Times Magazine: Coverage of nanotechnology for Energy Sources


----------



## Witchblade (Apr 15, 2008)

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch. 
*
What effect do humans have on global warming?*

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earth’s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earth’s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
-	the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
-	aerosols (net cooling effect)
-	greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
-	clouds 
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18°C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
-	the average global temperature is rising
-	the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
-	greenhouse gases warm the planet
-	global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
-	therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m² (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCC’s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic Rörsch believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa. 
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. It’s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely. 
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.


----------



## goob (Apr 15, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> BUMP.
> 
> I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.
> 
> ...


 
Glad you rushed back with the reply. The whole thread could have hinged on that.....


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> BUMP.
> 
> I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.
> *
> ...



Well said! 

It's amazing what critical thinking will do for you.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2008)

goob said:


> Glad you rushed back with the reply. The whole thread could have hinged on that.....



Hey, the man kept his word.


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 15, 2008)

If Al Gore says it, it must be true.

Did you know it is "irresponsible" to dissent from Al Gore's opinion?  Thats because Al Gore is always right.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 15, 2008)

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## busyLivin (Apr 16, 2008)

'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes.  Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 16, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> 'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes.  Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.



No joke.  When you point out to Followers of the Church of Global Warming that Al Gore's C02 graph shows the opposite of what he's saying (that the mean temperature controls C02 levels and not the reverse), their brains just shut off.


----------



## Doublebase (Apr 30, 2009)

bump


----------



## NeilPearson (May 5, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s.  It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with.  It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.
> 
> This looks exponential to me:
> 
> ...



2006 1744
2007 2826
2008 5950
2009 7300

For all the people that call me crazy, it's been a couple years so I should add to the data to show that solar growth has continued at the expected exponential rate and solar overcoming fossil fuels is still on course.

Marketbuzz 2007: Annual World Solar PV Market Report
Marketbuzz 2008: Annual World Solar PV Market Report
Marketbuzz 2009: Annual World Solar PV Market Report
Marketbuzz 2010: Annual World Solar PV Market Report


----------



## Kathybird (May 5, 2010)

Cool thread.  Gonna try to implement some energy conservation/"green" aspects into a house when the hubby retires (that'll be a while yet) so I like to follow what people think are going to be the best ways of saving energy, heating, cooling, all that jazz.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (May 5, 2010)

Why we must shut down coal burning power stations – now! « Tipping Point

There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is.  We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use.  There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is).  Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint.  Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 5, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Why we must shut down coal burning power stations ??? now! « Tipping Point
> 
> There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is.  We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use.  There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is).  Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint.  Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.



I assume that is sarcasm?


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Why we must shut down coal burning power stations ??? now! « Tipping Point
> 
> There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is.  We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use.  There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is).  Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint.  Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.


fuck off if you think I'm turning off my Santa Fe or stop eating my red meat. Filet Mignon rules. Piss off.


----------



## maniclion (May 5, 2010)

My company just installed a 60kwh PV system and it dropped our electric bill from $1250 a month to $250 a month....with a the tax credits back we figure at current electric rates it'll take 5 years and 1 month to recoup our costs and start getting free electricity.....had we taken out a loan the savings would have paid for the monthly payments and we would have locked our electric bill rates at the 2009 point for 25+ years....can you imagine what electric bills on conventional fuels are going top be by 2034, hell 2020 they'll be absurd, in 2030 it'll be ludicrous....


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

I installed Energy Star thermostats in my gym and went from 1000 bucks a month to 500.00. Those ugly spiral lights? I installed all of them into my lamps and lights, saw an immediate drop in savings per month. I change my air filter on my a/c unit monthly whether it needs it or not-same thing instant savings.


----------



## maniclion (May 5, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Why we must shut down coal burning power stations ??? now! « Tipping Point
> 
> There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is.  We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use.  There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is).  Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint.  Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.


EARTH MUFFIN ALERT, I smell patchouli and hear the faint cloppity clop of birkenstocks at the perimeter....


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 5, 2010)

No man made GW


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

maniclion said:


> EARTH MUFFIN ALERT, I smell patchouli and hear the faint cloppity clop of birkenstocks at the perimeter....


the fuck is that?


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 5, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> the fuck is that?


 
the peacenicks


----------



## juggernaut (May 5, 2010)

oh god those stupid fuck hippies? I hate those fucking assholes....actually I hate everyone. go figure.


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 5, 2010)

juggernaut said:


> oh god those stupid fuck hippies? I hate those fucking assholes....actually I hate everyone. go figure.


 
i think we all hate them


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 7, 2010)

largepkg said:


> Great post!



agree, great post, ( regarding n.peason's post) who cares if humans contribute to global warming, we need to already be looking at fossil fuel alternatives.

Hows this for great monetary compensation. We have fuel expenditures paid for by our business pre tax dollars, the two partners who drive a truck average 500 bucks per month with their trucks, my 6 year old honda civic hyrid, averages currently 70 bucks a month. I take home over 5000 in profit sharing more than my two partners when our yearly distribution comes around, that's a nice mountain biking trip to Hawaii........


----------



## DaMayor (May 7, 2010)

the nut said:


> They were talking about this on Bill Maher.... very interesting.



Oh yeah, now THERE'S a credible source.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 7, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> agree, great post, ( regarding n.peason's post) who cares if humans contribute to global warming, we need to already be looking at fossil fuel alternatives.
> 
> Hows this for great monetary compensation. We have fuel expenditures paid for by our business pre tax dollars, the two partners who drive a truck average 500 bucks per month with their trucks, my 6 year old honda civic hyrid, averages currently 70 bucks a month. I take home over 5000 in profit sharing more than my two partners when our yearly distribution comes around, that's a nice mountain biking trip to Hawaii........



Yeah I personally don't know or care if we are contributing to global warming.  That debate will likely never be solved.

Either way, we should be looking at self sustaining, zero emission energy sources for a ton of other reasons other than just global warming.

This oil spill is a reminder of that.  As is our dependence on foreign oil and all the issues that creates.

I am just saying I think the writing is on the wall and technology is quickly providing us with clean alternatives.


----------



## DOMS (May 7, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Yeah I personally don't know or care if we are contributing to global warming.  That debate will likely never be solved.
> 
> Either way, we should be looking at self sustaining, zero emission energy sources for a ton of other reasons other than just global warming.
> 
> ...



I'm also all for whatever makes the OPEC worth nothing.


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 7, 2010)

san4os said:


> Hi.
> 
> Hm...
> it's strange question. of course *YES*!!!
> ...


 
hmmm


----------



## fufu (May 7, 2010)

Are we affecting the global climate? Maybe.

Should we play a crap shoot in the unraveling of our sensitive nature? No.


----------



## NeilPearson (Sep 23, 2011)

NeilPearson said:


> Originally Posted by NeilPearson
> I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s. It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with. It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.
> 
> This looks exponential to me:
> ...



2010 12,000

We are still on target
Solar Energy Market Growth | Solarbuzz


----------



## DOMS (Sep 23, 2011)

NeilPearson said:


> 2010 12,000
> 
> We are still on target
> Solar Energy Market Growth | Solarbuzz



A very good case for nuclear power.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 23, 2011)

DOMS said:


> A very good case for nuclear power.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2011)

Nobel Physicist Slams Global Warming Claims

Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? 

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period."


----------



## DOMS (Sep 23, 2011)

bio-chem said:


> Nobel Physicist Slams Global Warming Claims
> 
> Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
> 
> "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period."


The very idea that anything in nature should stay the same is the ultimate in uninformed idiocy. Nothing in nature stays the same. Not the arrangement of matter in the universe (from Big Bang to now). Not the Earth's distance from the Sun. Not the layout of the continents (from Pangea to now). Not the distribution of life forms on Earth (99% of documented species are now extinct). Not even the temperature of the human body on any given day.

But the Earth getting warmer, that's unnatural.


----------



## ecot3c inside (Sep 23, 2011)

I'm not going to read all the bullshit, but global warming is a lie.


----------



## bio-chem (Sep 23, 2011)

ecot3c inside said:


> I'm not going to read all the bullshit, but global warming is a lie.



the earth may indeed be getting warmer. Of that i have no idea. But i agree with DOMS. if it is getting warmer it isn't unnatural.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 23, 2011)




----------



## BP2000 (Sep 23, 2011)

Actually our minds interact with matter and our thoughtforms are projected onto matter which as DOMS mentioned is always changing.  Thus, humans are DIRECTLY responsible for everything.  But not what we do physcially but by content and QUALITY of our consciousness.  

Einstein solved this riddle year's ago when he told us matter and energy are the same.  We just have not accessed the implications of his findings.  The higher's ones conciousness. the faster electrons spin and the higher the vibration of light (energy_)

If one raises his consciousness to a certain level it will exert a pull on the rest of the collective consciousness and have an positive effect.  

Nature however, is a passive force, and is the omega polarity to the alpha polarity of consciousness.  It merely outpictures what we (collectivley) have in our minds.  The totality of our minds, not just the mind.  The totality of ours minds thus can be called consciousness.  JUng refered to as the super ego, etc.  

Nature reflect's back to us what we send out.  So to change our surroundings, we first have to change our consciousness.  But the good news is there is alway's solutions to our problems.  Inlcuding our reliance of fossil fuels and in every human endevour.


----------



## BP2000 (Sep 23, 2011)

The energy debacale is about the "forced-based consciousness"  We (currently) think we have to force the earth to produce what we want.  When there are clearly unlimited energy around us to utilize.  Wave energy is one that is free and technology is already there. 

Furthermore, there is technology already available to produce free energy.  Yes I said it, free. 

But the oil companies buy up the patents for these technologies because it cut's in their profit's.  Then they put up commercials displaying how responsible they are.  

So greed play's another part in holding back our progress.  We have to "demand" better leadership and responsibility from our leader's and if they don't do it we have to start getting rid of some people.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 23, 2011)

BP2000 said:


> Actually our minds interact with matter and our thoughtforms are projected onto matter which as DOMS mentioned is always changing.  Thus, humans are DIRECTLY responsible for everything.  But not what we do physcially but by content and QUALITY of our consciousness.
> 
> Einstein solved this riddle year's ago when he told us matter and energy are the same.  We just have not accessed the implications of his findings.  The higher's ones conciousness. the faster electrons spin and the higher the vibration of light (energy_)
> 
> ...


----------



## NeilPearson (Sep 24, 2011)

I'm going to have to resurrect this thread again in another year or so when they list 2011 numbers


----------



## LAM (Sep 24, 2011)

BP2000 said:


> We have to "demand" better leadership and responsibility from our leader's and if they don't do it we have to start getting rid of some people.



If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.

-George Carlin-


----------



## ecot3c inside (Sep 25, 2011)

so global warming is such a problem only al gore made a book about it?


----------



## crazyotter (Sep 25, 2011)

how is this even up for debate?! obv we are fucking up the planet!


----------



## ecot3c inside (Sep 26, 2011)

in all honestly Idc because ill be long gone anyhow.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 26, 2011)

BP2000 said:


> Actually our minds interact with matter and our thoughtforms are projected onto matter which as DOMS mentioned is always changing.  Thus, humans are DIRECTLY responsible for everything.  But not what we do physcially but by content and QUALITY of our consciousness.
> 
> Einstein solved this riddle year's ago when he told us matter and energy are the same.  We just have not accessed the implications of his findings.  The higher's ones conciousness. the faster electrons spin and the higher the vibration of light (energy_)
> 
> ...



When my reps recharge, I will for sure rep you for this.

Is your name Ken?


----------



## big60235 (Sep 26, 2011)

crazyotter said:


> how is this even up for debate?! obv we are fucking up the planet!




Debate is not weatherwe are fucking up the planet..... Debate is about global warming. Everyone has to agree that we have destroyed the planet over the last 2000 years since industrialization but is the planet going to slowly melt? I am sure the planet was much happier when there was nothing but natural occurring land cover. Would anyone really say that the massive concrete, asphalt, and steel jungles we have built over the last 500 years have improved earths quality. 

I can tell you that in the city I reside weather data shows that over the past 30 years we are actually getting about .075 degrees colder on average every year.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

big60235 said:


> Debate is not weatherwe are fucking up the planet..... Debate is about global warming. Everyone has to agree that we have destroyed the planet over the last 2000 years since industrialization but is the planet going to slowly melt? I am sure the planet was much happier when there was nothing but natural occurring land cover. Would anyone really say that the massive concrete, asphalt, and steel jungles we have built over the last 500 years have improved earths quality.
> 
> I can tell you that in the city I reside weather data shows that over the past 30 years we are actually getting about .075 degrees colder on average every year.


You're thinking for yourself about global warming. You're obviously a shill for the oil companies.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 26, 2011)

You guys are being crass.

The real question isn't "are we impacting the atmosphere",
it's "HOW MUCH are we impacting the atmosphere".

We obviously are affecting everything on Earth, from the big to the small.

But in this specific case, I don't think what we're doing has seen it's impact yet....

However, I agree with bandaidwoman, we just need to do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves, and using products/services that are not harmful, but instead beneficial to ourselves and other organisms.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 26, 2011)

If there's wasn't money to make with 'global warming', the governments and the big corporations wouldn't give a shit.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> However, I agree with bandaidwoman, we just need to do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves, and using products/services that are not harmful, but instead beneficial to ourselves and other organisms.


And that's the real problem. If were focused on shit that isn't real, the real problems won't get the attention they should have.

The boogeyman of man-made global warming is a hindrance to solving real issues like the plastic sea and deforestation in third-world countries.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> If there's wasn't money to make with 'global warming', the governments and the big corporations wouldn't give a shit.


Just check in to Al Gore's fiscal maneuverings. He stands to make a lot of money if he can get his laws passed.

But he's really doing it for his love of mankind...


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And that's the real problem. If were focused on shit that isn't real, the real problems won't get the attention they should have.
> 
> The boogeyman of man-made global warming is a hindrance to solving real issues like the plastic sea and deforestation in third-world countries.



Good point.
It's crazy how this happens.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 26, 2011)

YouTube Video











Hannity is correct as the GII is major fuel pig and polluter compared to modern biz jets.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The top rated quote on that video:



> Private Jet, check.
> Huge mansion, check.
> Gas guzzling cars,﻿ check.
> Millions of idiots buying my lies, check.
> That's Al Gore all over.


----------



## LAM (Sep 26, 2011)

Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?

anybody that thinks deforestation is having a positive effect on the world ecosystem does not have a firm understand of science at all.   one need only lightly apply newton's 3rd law to deforestation to understand this.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?
> 
> anybody that thinks deforestation is having a positive effect on the world ecosystem does not have a firm understand of science at all.   one need only lightly apply newton's 3rd law to deforestation to understand this.




I agree with you that leveling a million acres and turning them into asphalt parking lots isn't the most ideal thing to do with the land, but I have a hard time believing the existing cycle of warmer weather isn't just a cycle.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?
> 
> anybody that thinks deforestation is having a positive effect on the world ecosystem does not have a firm understand of science at all.   one need only lightly apply newton's 3rd law to deforestation to understand this.



"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." 

Also, if less trees somehow equals a higher temperature, then I need to go cut down some trees because there are now twice as many trees in the US than there were when Christopher Columbus arrived.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> I agree with you that leveling a million acres and turning them into asphalt parking lots isn't the most ideal thing to do with the land, but I have a hard time believing the existing cycle of warmer weather isn't just a cycle.



The previous seven ice ages, and their associated warming periods, were all just coincidence.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> The previous seven ice ages, and their associated warming periods, were all just coincidence.




Don't forget the Dust Bowl in the 30's.


----------



## troubador (Sep 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?
> 
> anybody that thinks deforestation is having a positive effect on the world ecosystem does not have a firm understand of science at all.   one need only lightly apply newton's 3rd law to deforestation to understand this.




Yeah the force applied to the tree is the same to the axe(opposite direction of course). That has nothing to do with the ecosystem though. You must be thinking of Newton's 4th law of bullshit... "It's ok to pretend you're supported by science as long as you bastardize some law,theory, or principle in a totally fucked up way and apply to something completely unrelated."


----------



## LAM (Sep 26, 2011)

troubador said:


> Yeah the force applied to the tree is the same to the axe(opposite direction of course). That has nothing to do with the ecosystem though. You must be thinking of Newton's 4th law of bullshit... "It's ok to pretend you're supported by science as long as you bastardize some law,theory, or principle in a totally fucked up way and apply to something completely unrelated."



obviously you don't have a firm grasp of the hard sciences or the multitude of conditions that scientific laws can be applied.


----------



## LAM (Sep 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> 
> Also, if less trees somehow equals a higher temperature, then I need to go cut down some trees because there are now twice as many trees in the US than there were when Christopher Columbus arrived.



who was only taking about the US?


----------



## troubador (Sep 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
> 
> Also, if less trees somehow equals a higher temperature, then I need to go cut down some trees because there are now twice as many trees in the US than there were when Christopher Columbus arrived.



What's the specific enthalpy of Christopher Columbus again? Oh and what's the conversion from pine cones to metric squirrels? I'm about to do me some science. 

Also is there a font on this site so I can make the word SCIENCE glitter?


----------



## troubador (Sep 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> obviously you don't have a firm grasp of the hard sciences or the multitude of conditions that scientific laws can be applied.



Ok, try me. Make any relevant (to trees or whatever the hell you were talking about) calculation using Newton's 3rd law of motion.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 26, 2011)

troubador said:


> What's the specific enthalpy of Christopher Columbus again? Oh and what's the conversion from pine cones to metric squirrels? I'm about to do me some science.
> 
> Also is there a font on this site so I can make the word SCIENCE glitter?


----------



## troubador (Sep 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


>



It's beautiful, like a dolled up Las Vegas hooker. 



"You must spread reputation around before giving it to DOMS again"


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Sep 26, 2011)

YouTube Video


----------



## BP2000 (Sep 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
> 
> -George Carlin-



I like this quote.  We often love to cry about our leader's but our leader's are only the reflection of our own consciousness; specifically of not wanting to take responsibility for what we create as co-creators.


----------



## BP2000 (Sep 26, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> When my reps recharge, I will for sure rep you for this.
> 
> Is your name Ken?




have not gone by that name in a long time...

oh wait that is a quote from


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 27, 2011)

Burning a million acres of trees will release that much Carbon into the atmostphere.
Not to mention, that's a million acres of trees that can no longer store carbon.
Thus our atmosphere is that much more polluted with gases that are toxic to all aerobic life forms, such as ourselves.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 27, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Burning a million acres of trees will release that much Carbon into the atmostphere.
> Not to mention, that's a million acres of trees that can no longer store carbon.
> Thus our atmosphere is that much more polluted with gases that are toxic to all aerobic life forms, such as ourselves.


Which, again, has nothing to do with global warming.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

Considering how polluted Asia is and how fast it's growing, particularly China, it will be interesting to see what their air pollution and water run-off looks like in 10 years.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Which, again, has nothing to do with global warming.




Kinda like how Obama said those TX wildfires are due to global warming.  I mean we never had wildfires 10, 20 or 100 years ago did we?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Which, again, has nothing to do with global warming.



Maybe.


Do you not believe at all in the "greenhouse" gas theories?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> Kinda like how Obama said those TX wildfires are due to global warming.  I mean we never had wildfires 10, 20 or 100 years ago did we?



What??

These wildfires occurred because we've had a damn drought for last 2 and a half fucking years.

Everything's dry as fuck, and people are stupid (cigarette smokers for example).
Get my point?


----------



## DOMS (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> Kinda like how Obama said those TX wildfires are due to global warming.  I mean we never had wildfires 10, 20 or 100 years ago did we?


You're shitting me? He said that?


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> What??
> 
> These wildfires occurred because we've had a damn drought for last 2 and a half fucking years.
> 
> ...




My point was Obama said this recently.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> You're shitting me? He said that?




In the last 5 days...


----------



## DOMS (Sep 27, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Maybe.
> 
> 
> Do you not believe at all in the "greenhouse" gas theories?



Not related to the amount of CO2 created by humans based on anything I've seen or read so far.

Take Al Gore's CO2 chart. 





He shows that the amount of CO2 in the air tracks very closely with the Earth's mean temperatures (it may have been the average). Then he shows how CO2 levels have increased. Indicating that it's going to cause the rising temperatures.

However...

That's not what the chart actually shows. The CO2 goes up by several hundred percent, but the temperature doesn't track. The temperature doesn't go up at the same rate as CO2.

What the chart actually shows is that, if human's don't artificially add CO2 to the atmosphere, that _temperature _controls the amount of CO2.

Just FYI, the number one green house gas is _water vapor_.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

A spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry responded to President  Obama???s critique of Perry last night with disbelief after the president  used the state???s wildfire disaster to launch political attack.

 ???It???s outrageous President Obama would use the burning of 1,500  homes, the worst fires in state history, as a political attack,??? Perry  spokesman Mark Miner told ABC News.

 At a fundraiser in Woodside, Calif., Sunday night, Obama laid into the GOP field, specifically criticizing the Texas governor.

 ???Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans  but are puzzled by what???s happened to that party, are puzzled by what???s  happening to that party. I mean, has anybody been watching the debates  lately? You???ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate  change,??? Obama said.

 Wildfires swept across Texas in early September, and Perry even took time off the presidential campaign trail, skipping a South Carolina forum and canceling events in California to attend to the wildfire response in his home state.

 But Perry has not been shy to express his skepticism regarding global warming, telling an audience in August that the issue has been ???politicized.???

 ???I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I  think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated  data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their ??? to their  projects, ??? Perry said in the opening week of his campaign.  ???And I  think we???re seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists who are coming  forward and questioning the original idea that man made global warming  is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climate???s changed,  they???ve been changing ever since the Earth was formed.???


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 27, 2011)

Okay, this takes me to my next question.

Should we be concerned about CO2 levels?

How much is too much?

When will we suddenly start having trouble breathing?


----------



## Big Pimpin (Sep 27, 2011)

^^^^ I don't if we should be concerned about rising C02 because plants and trees love extra CO2.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> ???Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans  but are puzzled by what???s happened to that party, are puzzled by what???s  happening to that party. I mean, has anybody been watching the debates  lately? You???ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate  change,??? Obama said.



What a cunt.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 27, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Okay, this takes me to my next question.
> 
> Should we be concerned about CO2 levels?
> 
> ...



There is a difference between air pollution and global warming.

Besides, if you look at the efforts to curb pollution from the 50's until now, you'll see that we've already made huge strides and continue to do so. As has all the first-world.

The biggest polluters on the third-world shit holes.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> ^^^^ I don't if we should be concerned about rising C02 because plants and trees love extra CO2.



Yea and the point here is, we are destroying most of the plant life to build our concrete jungles, or by dumping pollution into the ocean; which is actually where the majority of O2 comes from.


----------



## LAM (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> ^^^^ I don't if we should be concerned about rising C02 because plants and trees love extra CO2.



hence the problem with deforestation...only 22% of the original forests in the world remain intact this is the natural CO2 scrubber provided by mother earth.


----------



## troubador (Sep 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> hence the problem with deforestation...only 22% of the original forests in the world remain intact this is the natural CO2 scrubber provided by mother earth.



How is the originality of the forest relevant to CO2 scrubbing?


----------



## LAM (Sep 27, 2011)

troubador said:


> How is the originality of the forest relevant to CO2 scrubbing?



if you don't understand the correlation then my explanation certainly isn't going to be any good to you.


----------



## NeilPearson (Sep 27, 2011)

troubador said:


> How is the originality of the forest relevant to CO2 scrubbing?



Yeah less trees = higher CO2

CO2 = plant food

plant food = higher rates of plant growth = more trees


----------



## troubador (Sep 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> if you don't understand the correlation then my explanation certainly isn't going to be any good to you.



I love how you can't explain anything. My point is new growth uses CO2 just like old growth. Who cares if there's 0% original forest, if there is a greater net amount of forest then the CO2 scrubbing effect will be even greater. Unless of course you have info to the contrary. Which is why I asked because it sounds like you're spinning bullshit again.


 And where's that 3rd law of motion equation? Newtons or lb-force is fine.


----------



## troubador (Sep 28, 2011)

NeilPearson said:


> Yeah less trees = higher CO2
> 
> CO2 = plant food
> 
> plant food = higher rates of plant growth = more trees



He didn't say less trees, he said less original forest. It's obvious the impact of less trees, how being old growth is important(in relation to CO2) is what I don't get.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 28, 2011)

troubador said:


> He didn't say less trees, he said less original forest. It's obvious the impact of less trees, how being old growth is important(in relation to CO2) is what I don't get.



Kelju pinned you down perfectly in the other thread (forget the name).

You are an asperberger's retard.

You know he meant less forest = less trees.

That's obvious to everyone in this thread.

You are a fucking idiot "troubador".


----------



## troubador (Sep 28, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Kelju pinned you down perfectly in the other thread (forget the name).
> 
> You are an asperberger's retard.
> 
> ...



I only asked why he specified 'original'. It's a simple question. No need for your bitchy feelings.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Sep 28, 2011)

troubador said:


> I only asked why he specified 'original'. It's a simple question. No need for your bitchy feelings.



Original.

As in, the forests there before we chopped 'em down without rebuilding them.

The "ORIGINAL" matters in this case because as we all know, there was no replacement.

That's why it matters.

I'm sorry if english is not your first language.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 28, 2011)




----------

