PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[Zero999]

It looks like no one's answered my questions either.

Frankly, I'll take the conclusions of peer reviewed papers by multiple independent groups over a random blog post.

Exactly.

I wonder how many people here are truly qualified to comment on the climate change?

Does anyone here have a degree in climatology?

I doubt it. Just because you're good at electronics, physics and maths, it doesn't make you a climate scientist.

It seems like there a lot of nubetards around there.

[tom66]

Wrong again.

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

The key is "almost". Humans have known about the earth being spherical for a long, long time, and it is now a solid fact. And, we also didn't know about bacteria or atoms up until a few hundred years ago, so does that discredit them from being considered facts, too?

[tom66]

It looks like no one's answered my questions either.

I don't have a degree in climate science, but I can still comment on the subject. I've read the literature and research. A good start is this website as it has many arguments against denialist's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

People are living now longer than ever so stop complaining.

You could say that pollution is an accepted negative consequence to live in first world conditions and to an extent, I agree. However, I think that we can change this by investing in new technology and reducing emissions. If we do not, we will make it increasingly harder to live good lives. Just look at the pollution in cities like Beijing - admittedly not entirely from coal power, but it causes massive health problems. I don't call that OK, by any means, it needs to change.  If anything is going to kill us as a species off, it is massive environmental change. Until we have an established Mars colony, we can't go about destroying the Earth.

Solar and wind still cannot supply the necessary power that we as a population demand, and I do not see the demand reducing any time soon. So I am pro nuclear fission and hopeful that fusion will provide future needs. In the mean time, it is necessary to make changes to how power is generated. More nuclear, more wind, and more solar (where appropriate.)   I support subsidies for solar/wind because in my mind, it levels the playing field. Coal and other technologies have huge unrealised externalities, that don't go accounted for. The coal plant doesn't pay for the harm caused by nearby residents, which makes coal cheaper than it really should be. I don't know at what level those subsidies should be set at but I think scrapping them altogether would be a bad thing.

[dannyf]

People used to die in the UK due to smog.

People in the UK and the world over still die from drawning, over eating, and oxygen poisoning. Maybe we should take away water, food and oxygen from you too?

[tom66]

People in the UK and the world over still die from drawning, over eating, and oxygen poisoning. Maybe we should take away water, food and oxygen from you too?

Straw man and plain stupid argument.

People can decide to do all of those things: swimming, eating, inhaling unnecessary quantities of oxygen(?)...  Their own stupid fault. Ain't gonna stop someone doing that, if they really wish.

They can't decide to not breathe in the pollution from a coal plant or from an ICE. It affects -everyone-.

Well, they can move to East Elbonia...

[dannyf]

The deniers seem to have comprehensively lost the argument now.

Keep telling yourself that and reality wouldn't be as painful to you anymore,

You have been an expert on that.

[Zero999]

I don't have a degree in climate science, but I can still comment on the subject. I've read the literature and research. A good start is this website as it has many arguments against denialist's claims: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

I agree, of course anyone can comment but the opinion of someone who has learned all they know about climatology from Google doesn't carry the same weight as someone who's studied the subject formally. Especially those who go around ranting about it all being bullshit when they know very little about the topic.

You have been an expert on that.

Talking of experts, where did you study climate science? Let me guess, the university of Google?

[zapta]

The deniers seem to have comprehensively lost the argument now. As usual, their arguments have descended to the level of farce and outright silliness.

Deniers? You must mean the infidels.

[zapta]

You keep trying this ad-hominem, trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of religious zealot.

Mojo Chan, first you call us deniers, then you say that calling ourselves infidels is an ad-hominem on you.

It's getting more and more bizarre.

I notice you are still dodging my question. You can't justify your position, only make the weak claim that the harm you want to do isn't that bad so somehow that makes it okay to not even try to reduce it.

My point is that fossil energy brought us much more good than harm so no need to demonize it as you do. If and when a new technology that can provide reliable, scaleable and economic energy will be developed I will be glad to switch to it.  Until then, don't take my money for your pet causes.

As for being a 'green' religious zealot, people can judge from your posts here and come to their own conclusions. I have mine.

I need to go to do some soldering.

[zapta]

Sorry, I went soldering.....

[miguelvp]

The deniers seem to have comprehensively lost the argument now. As usual, their arguments have descended to the level of farce and outright silliness.

Plenty of proof here which you conveniently didn't address:

http://www.c3headlines.com/

For example about CO2 and global temperature changes:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/09/noaa-confirms-with-empirical-proof-co2-changes-not-causing-global-temperature-changes.html

[Galenbo]

Graphs are always the favourite tool of those trying to mislead you.

Especially the ones with a green background.