Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

reply to post by Indigo5


Solar is not the most efficient in some areas. Try in Arizona, Cali, and Florida instead. In Some places solar can only be used as a backup not as a primary. I did happen to notice a little solar panel sitting up in the hills along the highway here, doesn't seem attached to a house. I don't know what they are powering with it, but it's pretty funny to see in this place with all the cattle and sheep.

I only have one thing to say about this.

There has never been an open debate with both sides represented.

I know a person who is pretty high up in the "AGW is bunk" movement and he always invites alarmists to an open debate, they always decline.

So we skipped the whole peer review process, and we skipped the debate and went straight to conclusions and solutions.

If man made global warming is real, why are they refusing to debate the issue?

That is all.

reply to post by FlyersFan

but he is going to cost this country a heck of a lot of money with his latest green schemes ... it's going to cost jobs and kill the coal industry as well. An AWFUL thing to do to Americans especially with a lot of us going paycheck to paycheck

Yes, and the poor state I live in, coal is big here and the environmentalists won on the coal thing. Too bad they are impoverishing us more and more. Thanks Obama and Green nuts for making my state more poor.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

So we skipped the whole peer review process, and we skipped the debate and went straight to conclusions and solutions.

They use the Delphi Technique to manufacture consensus. It's part of the Agenda 21 thing.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

By the way... before I had those panels installed, I paid on average $50.00 more in electricity per month. I'm using less man made energy and I'm saving about $13.00 per month. I don't get what's so bad about this at all..

You're only saving $50 or $13 a month on electricity, with solar panels? Does that savings factor in the purchase of all the equipment and mounting, etc.?

My solar panels are leased at $37.00 per month and a 5 year contract (installation fee was waived for me, and I'm not sure how much it is... but it's based on the number of panels you require etc.). I save in electricity averaging $50.00... sometimes more, up to actually getting credit from the electric company between late July - mid Sept.

Since I lease the panels, I subtracted the leasing fee from my average $50.00 savings which is why I said I save $13.00 per month. It's not much most of the year, but I did it to help my carbon footprint.

Just further information, I live just outside of DC, so I'm not in Arizona, San Diego, Florida, or anywhere that the benefits could potentially be much higher.

There exist four types of 'corporate' behavior when it comes to pollution. (Or climate change.)


1- The first that seek to deny it exist, because if they are forced to acknowledge it, or that they may be the cause of it; they would be liable for the costs of cleaning it.
2- The second that know it exists, and know that they can make money cleaning it up.
3- The third doesn't care on way or the other, they just hope their part of the bill will be small.
4- The fourth, recognise that there is a problem and works to mitigate their pollution impact.

The fact that corporations are looking for ways to profit on cleaning up pollution or blocking pollution controls, is pretty much indicative that there exists a problem.

Also, there have always been companies making a profit on cleaning up pollution. Landfills, recycling and solid waste handling is a money making business. To suddenly think companies are just -now- jumping on the money train over pollution clean up, is foolishness.

M.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SilentKillah

 

You do make quite a post and point there about panels and jobs. It's a fair one, too. It's just lost deep in idealism and not reality. That's not a slight or insult. It's really not. Our own national leadership is suffering the same very short thinking cycle.

Solyndra and others we could get into by name were funded on that EXACT line of thought. 'Make them and buyers will come', being the underlying thought to it. On paper, that's exactly how it work (and a great many other good ideas that turn to calamity off paper). What that doesn't take into account is that demand cannot be MADE. It sure cannot be forced by law and regulation to create a whole new market. Mandates of solar energy replacements to business upgrades just insure no one upgrades or go out of business first. It's been happening in some cases.

To solar power specifically? I'm glad it worked for you. Are you 100% and TOTALLY off the grid or is your solar home more of a hybrid home? I know some entirely solar projects exist. I've seen them and walked through one. Very impressive. Very George Jetson ...and most of what I have for plug in electronics would need trashed at the door. Collectively, they'd over-AMP the system in short order. Special gizmos for a special power grid was what I saw in the pure systems. Hybrid? Well... Half a solution does not a solution make.


When Solar, Wind, Thermal or Hydro reach the big time of being repeatable on scale to compete with Nuclear and Coal, then a very good day will have arrived. Trying to FORCE that square peg into a round hole will lead to our national ruin. The market cannot be dictated ..and the attempt to do that in various ways across decades is how we're now in a "Free Market" mixed with just about everything else to include outright Marxist theory all rolled into one big fur ball.

No where is it more evident as a pure 'Do Gooder" inspired mess than the green sectors.

edit on 26-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

I agree that many have not been drawn to the solar market as I have chosen. I agree that many probably will never do it until forced. The reason why is because there are many people that think such as the OP in the since of "why should I if it doesn't benefit me" and "I can do whatever I want... just leave me alone and don't try to force this on me". People don't like to be told or convinced against their beliefs. But, if there were more that would just try it out, then we may be able to actually reduce our carbon footprint while still using some of the fossil fuels, but reduce the usage.

No... I'm still on the grid but the energy that my panels produce (and I don't use) go to the electric company. The electric company uses me as a electricity provider and gives me credits. Then those credits are used once I start using electricity not from my panels again. Once I'm out of credits, and not producing enough electricity, to sustain my use, I begin getting a bill. My bill dropped on average from $75.00 - $100.00 to $25.00 - $40.00 each month. Some months I have no bill and gain a fair amount of credits that will be used before I begin getting charged again.

reply to post by Moshpet


Correction there Politcans/Corporattions profit by making people think problems exist, and sell 'miracle cures' to the masses.

Most people use to call them snakeoil salesmen.

Yes, Yes, Climate Change is actually Satan using democrats to test Republican's intelligence.

Obama calls climate change skeptics flat earthers. I call climate change alarmists cultists.
He has no patience for global warming skeptics. I have no patience for global warming fascists.

There. I myself do not deny that there are climate changes happening. Climate changes, and pretty sudden ones, have been happening on earth for the past 4 billion years. As well as on other planets in the solar system. What I am not convinced of is that it is all somehow being caused by human activity, that carbon dioxide is the bane of our existence, So far, I see a lot more evidence of it being an open door for governments and leftist control freaks to force their agenda down people's throats and further control.

So far, no open debate has been held on this.

reply to post by SilentKillah


Okay, so you have a Hybrid house. Let me ask you this, if you don't mind. How much was the total turn-key cost of the system you're seeing those reductions in utility bill for? That's the figure that put me in shock a couple years ago when I had an inheritance to play with a bit and looked at this myself. 20-30 years for payoff on investment to something that wasn't even warranty beyond 10 wasn't feasible to me. The state offered some credits back which took some pain off...but on a house I paid $63,000 for, it represented 1/3 of my overall purchase price just to reduce ..not eliminate...an electrical demand from the Utilities (Who have one coal plant on the edge of town with a smaller one nearby).

I'm sure you probably figured all that in your own cost/benefit analysis though, so I figure it's worth asking. Whats payoff time in years?

* On a different note.... I really get my fur up at the mere suggestion of "forced to do" or "forced to buy". Totalitarian nations 'force' their people to do things by law and force of the State behind it. America, until recently, has followed it's literal CORE values of personal responsibility stemming from personal choice and no "force" to do anything but live and pay taxes. Markets were determined when people stopped buying and bankrupted old tech....not watched Government save it to redefine it themselves. So.. On that? I'm with the OP. They can take "Forcing Change" to other nations. Stalin and Mao required 60 million to die in their efforts for social change.

reply to post by Moshpet

To suddenly think companies are just -now- jumping on the money train over pollution clean up, is foolishness.

Yah, Chlorox is now suddenly Green. What did they do, install a solar panel in their operation?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I only have one thing to say about this.

There has never been an open debate with both sides represented.

I know a person who is pretty high up in the "AGW is bunk" movement and he always invites alarmists to an open debate, they always decline.

So we skipped the whole peer review process, and we skipped the debate and went straight to conclusions and solutions.

If man made global warming is real, why are they refusing to debate the issue?

That is all.

gotta love them global warming freaks...? typical american "I gotta save the world and make a difference" fecal matter!

I liken the global warming freaks to 8th century Christians (no offense to Christians, as I too believe in Jesus) but you would think these people believe the earth is art the center of the universe and the harmony of the spheres is unchanging... the earths orbit and the sun and solar winds are always the same, nothing ever changes unless God did it or humankind is to blame for their transgressions and sins against the planet.

tell me... why in China do you never see some neohippie standing there with a sign that reads "Say no to Monsanto" or "Save the Planet" ?

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

If man made global warming is real, why are they refusing to debate the issue?

That is all.

Amongst credentialed scientist it has already been debated ad nuaseum.

If you mean with the average AWG skeptic, there isn't much point debating science with an Idealogue who sees themselves as soldier in a culture war, science be damned!

It's a flavor of birtherism, where rational minds have already examined the evidence and reached rational conclusions...and the skeptics just don't "believe". That's not a debate, it's playing fetch with a rabid dog.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

America, until recently, has followed it's literal CORE values of personal responsibility stemming from personal choice and no "force" to do anything but live and pay taxes. Markets were determined when people stopped buying and bankrupted old tech....not watched Government save it to redefine it themselves. So.. On that? I'm with the OP. They can take "Forcing Change" to other nations. Stalin and Mao required 60 million to die in their efforts for social change.

Absolutely when people want it, and it is cheap enough people will buy it, no force needed.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Correction there Politcans/Corporattions profit by making people think problems exist, and sell 'miracle cures' to the masses.

Most people use to call them snakeoil salesmen.

Pollution is real, or are you just looking for a way to comfort your self delusion that it is not a real problem?

Seriously, I want to know, just what are you personally getting out of from denying pollution exists?

Is there a paycheck in your mail every time you say there is no pollution?

If so who's company is funding it? And what is the pay scale on it?

Or is this it just another way to play troll and to be annoying?

Or is this some weird political party platform you are subscribing to?
If so what party is it so I can check them out, in order to see if they were not created as a joke someone threw up on the Internet?

Seriously, I want to know, what do you think happens to all the pollution we as a people create?

M.

reply to post by SilentKillah


There was one story in California about a homeowner who had a solar panel on his roof, and a neighbor had large trees that blocked the sunlight from the solar panel so there was a lawsuit on that.

Trees — redwoods, live oaks or blossoming fruit trees — are usually considered sturdy citizens of the sun-swept peninsula south of San Francisco, not criminal elements. But under a 1978 state law protecting homeowners’ investment in rooftop solar panels, trees that impede solar panels’ access to the sun can be deemed a nuisance and their owners fined up to $1,000 a day. The Solar Shade Act was a curiosity until late last year, when a dispute over the eight redwoods(a k a Tree No. 1, Tree No. 2, Tree No. 3, etc.) ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by totallackey
I want to take a look at how the "science," addresses climate...freaking sheer stupidity to think that man can do anything to affect the climate long-term...not to mention, we have anything to to do with any changes that have occurred...

We have ZERO verifiable evidence...we have postulates...that equals, WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!

We have tons of verifiable evidence but you skeptics who like to make impressions of bike racks just ignore the facts. Or worse, don't understand the science laid before you.

If you take once glacier and use it to prove anything you can prove three things (depending on the glacier of choice):
A. The earth is cooling
B No change
C. The earth is warming.

Do you understand that you can't cherry pick data (this is what skeptics do). Instead you have to look at ALL glaciers worldwide. Guess what there are more retreating than advancing. Since glaciers are perfect at averaging temperatures over a year a retreating glacier is proof of warming. There some advancing glaciers due to a strange thing called weather and the fact that climate does not mean every single square inch of the earth will change identically. Only the skeptics believe nonsense like that as "proof of warming" sheesh !!!!

Next averaging mechanism. The flora and fauna of the earth. Many species, including those in oceans, are moving to the poles indicating a warming climate. But no doubt the plants are in some sort illuminati conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is the heat coming from? Here are 3 sources:
The sun
The centre of the earth
The burning of fuel.

This is a no brainer. The heat from the sun is orders of magnitude greater than the other 2 put together. The heat causing the warming is coming from the sun. So why warmer? :

The sun is getting warmer.
The earth is nearer the sun
The SAME heat radiation is not escaping but being trapped.

We know the first is not happening.....well if you believe thousands of measurements from many satellites from different countries.....who no doubt are all involved in some sort of global conspiracy in order for you to dismiss that evidence !!!!

The second is not happening otherwise astronomers worldwide would be jumping up and down....unless they are part of NWO. it is the third. Not only that we can measure it. Shock horror: As solar radiation enters the atmosphere is passes through layers, specifically the stratosphere and the troposphere. The stratosphere is cooling, the troposphere (our bit) is warming. Less heat is passing through the stratosphere because less heat is reflected back into space due to it being trapped in the Troposphere......D..O Y..O..U U..N..D..E..R..S.T..A..N..D that mechanism.

Moving on. Next question: why is the heat being trapped. Well here we have a few mechanisms but the one that has been increasing (as opposed to recently increasing since the temperature increased) is CO2. Now historically there is a lag between co2 and temperature but this is due to CO2 NOT being a trigger it WAS in the PAST a feedback effect hence the lag some other process was the initial trigger (unknown by the way). We, though, have released tons of CO2 and thus provoked the same effect but as a trigger mechanism not a feedback. However, it looks like CO2 feedback is now occuring due to the saturation of the oceans (ie less absorbtion of CO2) and the new danger methane.

Moving on ; how do we know man is responsible for the CO2? Ever heard of Carbon isotopes? and carbon dating ? The sun irradiates carbon in the atmosphere and this creates a specific proportion of isotopes which decay with a fixed rate. Living organisms absorb this ratio of carbon whilst alive but once dead the carbon decays. Thus you can tell when a living thing died. The CO2 from fossil fuels has no isotopes due to it being millions of years old. The ratio of isotopes can be measured and thus we can determine the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels. We can link past temperatures to CO2 levels and (taking account of feedback versus trigger) determine the temperature increase due to our stupidity.

OK.....

P.S. if a person puts their head in the sand their a.se sticks out, a perfect bike rack.

reply to post by Moshpet


No one here is denying that pollution exists, they are just saying that global warming is mostly not anthropogenic. And also they are saying that co2 is not really a pollution unless you can find some humans and animals which do not exhale....it is patently ridiculous assertion, and also that trees use co2. The global warming crowd do misrepresent science purposely for their agenda.

You could read up on Agenda 21 and find out what's really going on, and how the Cub of Rome, a major organization of the Elites is really behind this nonsense.

reply to post by Moshpet

Pollution is real, or are you just looking for a way to comfort your self delusion that it is not a real problem?

Yeah in China and other parts of the globe here not so much

Seriously, I want to know, just what are you personally getting out of from denying pollution exists

Must have misaken me for that guy who has made half a billion dollars AL GORE scamming people with 'taxes' and 'credit's'.

Is there a paycheck in your mail every time you say there is no pollution?

Sorry don't get paid for opinons See the earlier comment about AL GORE.

Or is this it just another way to play troll and to be annoying?

Correction this is trolling:

Seriously, I want to know, just what are you personally getting out of from denying pollution exists? Is there a paycheck in your mail every time you say there is no pollution? If so who's company is funding it? And what is the pay scale on it? Or is this it just another way to play troll and to be annoying? Or is this some weird political party platform you are subscribing to? If so what party is it so I can check them out, in order to see if they were not created as a joke someone threw up on the Internet?

Seriously, I want to know, what do you think happens to all the pollution we as a people create? M.

Goes to China the worlds fastest growing economy thanks to the climate control crowd.