The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers I have a dictionary thanks. and yes, species die out all the time. if you chose that to mean every last femtosecond, [Edited for being off-topic] Marc quote>

So much for rational debate.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[MrFingers 0]

Humans are the worst thing that has happened to earth in a very long time. I've never denied that.

but frankly, I only care long enough for us to technologically grow into being able to colonise other planets. If we are able to do that in 300 years, then I say we should not care much about our planet beyond that. besides, at that point we would be able to control the planet's eco-system ourselves if we wanted to.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Originally posted by: schm0

Originally posted by: MrFingers I have a dictionary thanks. and yes, species die out all the time. if you chose that to mean every last femtosecond, that's your problem for being a dumbass.quote>

So much for rational debate.quote>

[Edited for being off-topic] quote>

Thank you for your insight. I find your insults to be vulgur and dismissive, not to mention in complete disregard for the rules for posting in this forum. If you can't maintain a sense of decency, then perhaps you are better off cruising another forum. Both of your previous posts have been reported to the moderators for review. They are also permanently recorded for posterity above.

I will leave you with the following quotes:

"It's not pedantry, but merely a desire for accuracy." - Roy Cropper, in an episode of Coronation Street

"Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another." - Desiderius Erasmus

[MrFingers 0]

coronation street?!?! LOL!

whatever.

[Micah 16]

Let's turn this conversation from about each other to the actual topic. Final warning. If another violation occurs, then the thread will be closed.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: Micah Let's turn this conversation from about each other to the actual topic. Final warning. If another violation occurs, then the thread will be closed.quote>

apologies.

a few beers + irritating comments = annoyed and verbal MrFingers

[coolotter88 2]

yes but it is only a hypothesis that the dinosaurs died of an asteroid collision, they could have died of H2S poisoning.

and IIRC, after a mass extinction, theres something like "radiative evolution"....I forget the correct term though.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 yes but it is only a hypothesis that the dinosaurs died of an asteroid collision, they could have died of H2S poisoning.

and IIRC, after a mass extinction, theres something like "radiative evolution"....I forget the correct term though.quote>

That is a matter for another debate.

The point is, and I feel like I'm saying this over and over again:

Man is warming the globe and it is this phenomenon that is destroying habitats and allows present and future extinctions to occur at a higher rate than naturally possible.

Originally posted by: MrFingers coronation street?!?! LOL!

whatever.quote>

The quote still speaks for itself. The criticism of my analysis, particularly the use of the word "pedantic," prompted me to find someone else's words to illustrate my point: it is in the very minutia of the debate that the basis of an argument exists. Simply saying "this position is right" or "that position is wrong" is too general and broad to form a solid basis for an argument.

When a claim contrary to the "popular science" surrounding climate change is made, I analyze the details of such a claim to determine it's merit. Some of what has been said concerning solar influence and discrepancies in climate models (i.e. upper layers of the atmosphere should be warming) need further study and are definitely worth looking into. However, they do not overshadow the fact that man is primarily causing climate change at an unprecedented and staggering rate.

On a more relevant note, I was watching Nova last night and saw an interesting program on solar energy, "Chasing the Sun", that provides some interesting facts about the clean, renewable energy source found in solar technology. The documentary offered some interesting criticism of solar technology and how it could offer a solution to fossil fuels and help abate global warming and climate change. Here are some (paraphrased) highlights:

Arguments against solar:

* cost

* only works when the sun is shining

* technology needs improvement (efficiency)

Facts about fossil fuels:

* Fossil fuels are responsible for 40% of the carbon dioxide produced every day.

* Fossil fuels create increasing economic problems, rising prices while depleting resources, environmental damage, and political and military conflicts.

* Electricity rates currently fluctuate with the price of fossil fuels.

Facts about solar:

* Current homeowners that have solar panels can hook into the grid and actually provide power when it's not being used, resulting in lower energy bills or potentially providing profit. In one state, the cost of connecting to the grid (output) is only $7.47/month, providing some owners with a virtually free energy bill.

* The homeowners stay connected to the grid to prevent loss of power when solar cells not providing power.

* This technology can cost the homeowner from $25-50,000, but this cost is offset by future savings.

* All of the solar cells in the country currently provide the equivalent of 2 coal-plants-worth of energy production.

* Fears of disasters, meltdowns and nuclear spent fuel rod storage have halted nearly all new construction of nuclear energy plants.

* A solar thermal plant in the Mojave desert uses sunlight to heat synthetic oil which boils water to turn a steam turbine, which powers 150,000 homes. The Mojave desert gets enough sunlight in a year to power the entire country. A current solar thermal plant is being built outside Las Vegas.

* Germany has enacted cash incentives to provide price guarantees for 20 years to sell solar energy into the grid. The Germans receive $.50/kwh in payment for providing this energy and pay only $.20/kwh for regular energy, thus turning a profit.

* This enactment has prompeted a local pig farmer to reap a crop of solar energy. With an initial investment of $5 million, he powers 1500 homes with solar energy. He currently makes $550-600,000 in profit a year. German energy bills are typically 2 times those of the typical U.S. consumer, but surprisingly, 80% of Germany accepts the new energy policy and supports the price guarantees. Typical increases in an energy bill are roughly $15-20.

* This investment in solar technology has created a localized solar industry, which provides 70,000 jobs to the German people.

* Solar power provides relief from daytime usage, when the energy is the most expensive.

* Private companies investing in and providing solar power have been taking off at an unprecedented rate.

* Currently, efficiency is only at 15-20% for the standard solar cell, which is half the efficiency of a typical coal plant.

* Multi-wavelength solar cells are the future of solar technology, creating much more efficiency by broadening the spectrum of sunlight that can be turned into energy.

* These types of solar cells were onboard the Mars Rovers when they landed. They have outlasted their initial lifespan of 3 months and are currently still roving the surface of mars, nearly 12 times the designers expectations.

* However, such technology is very expensive, and research will take time to develop cheap and economically viable products for the general public.

* Nanotechnology has also been used to make things such as "solar paint" which can literally be painted on the side of a house over a positively charged and conductive surface (like a tarp coated with a thin sheet of aluminum.)

* Solar power is also ideal for remote locations in third world countries such as Africa, where local villages use the power source for their needs.

I thought it was very interesting and decided to add it on to my original post. I am hopeful that this technology can hold a lot of promise for a future with little to no carbon emissions. Coming up next post... analysis of the PBS Frontline special: "Hot Politics: Examining the politics behind the U.S. government's failure to act on the biggest environmental problem of our time"

[coolotter88 2]

FUD about nuclear power is just irrational.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 FUD about nuclear power is just irrational.quote>

"Fear, uncertainty and doubt" is a marketing or sales technique. It is used to provide disinformation or negative "advertising" to sway customers from one company or product to another. It has nothing to do with science, nor does it have to do with the public record on nuclear energy. It does, however, have it's political purposes.

Environmentalists don't need sales techniques or political pressure to "scare" the public into thinking nuclear energy, although emitting little to no radiation or harmful emissions, is dangerous. The public record is already very clear on what can happen to a nuclear power plant concerning the effects of possible meltdown or nuclear disaster, it's vulnerability to terrorist attack, and the dangerous "what do we do with it now?" attributes of spent fuel rods all make the case for nuclear power and it's drawbacks, without so-called fear tactics. Thus, the point was made in the documentary that energy companies are mainly focusing on two areas of energy production: fossil-fuels and renewables.

Solar thermal energy produces no carbon emissions, are very safe, and have no costly or harmful byproducts. The same can be said of solar photovoltaic energy.

Uncertainty and doubt were the mainstay of the tobacco industry in the 1980's, replying to critics of the harmful effects of their products: (paraphrased) "The science isn't out yet on how cigarettes cause cancer, so we can't say anything definitively." The same strategy has now been used by the fossil fuel industry, as well as most of the dissenters in this forum, to discredit the findings of thousands of scientists who have been in consensus since the 1992 Earth Summit meetings.

Calling uncertainty and doubt when there is no evidence to suggest such claims (about climate change) would be irrational. However, in the case of nuclear power and climate change, there is a vast record of evidence to back up the consensus. When the public record shows credible evidence to the contrary, such tactics do nothing but confuse and misinform the general public. It is with this notion that I take offense to certain claims and refute or rebut them with all of the knowledge and credible information I can find.

Furthermore, the addendum to my original message (and this one) were concerning the environmentally friendly and carbon emission reducing aspects of solar technology and how they can be a viable solution to help abate abrupt climate change. The tidbit about nuclear energy was presented in the documentary to highlight the dichotomy between fossil fuel and renewable energy sources.

MrFingers: Does that make sense? I can see where my original message might have confused you... re-reading it helped me be a bit more clear. Thanks for pointing it out.

(This post has been edited from it's original form.) - schm0

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

Originally posted by: coolotter88 FUD about nuclear power is just irrational.quote>

"Fear, uncertainty and doubt" is a marketing or sales technique. It is used to provide disinformation or negative "advertising" to sway customers from one company to another.

Environmentalists don't need disinformation to prove that nuclear energy, although emitting little to no radiation or harmful emissions, is still very dangerous. The public record on what can happen to a nuclear power plant if it were to have a meltdown, it's vulnerability to terrorist attack, and the dangerous and "what do we do with it now?" attributes of spent fuel rods all make the case for nuclear power and it's drawbacks.

quote>

you just contradicted yourself.

There is a good response to every thing you just said that shows that you are a victim of disinformation.

[schm0 27]

Sorry, let me rephrase my original post... Look for an update.

[MrFingers 0]

Ok, You've cleared that up somewhat for me

Nuclear power has a very good safety record (164 times safer than wind power), even including Chernobyl which was an exceptional circumstance. It is the only industry that has all its external costs covered, and its waste products are completely under control. People worry about power plants melting down, but that is actually physically impossible with a negative void coefficient (ie overheating is damped, not propogated). People worry about terrorists taking nuclear waste, but I can think of literally a hundred places that are easier to get radioactive material from. Countless industries use radioactive elements, you've even got some in your own home if you have a smoke detector. People worry about terrorists directly blowing up a nuclear reactor, but they have shielding specifically designed to tackle that threat, in fact they've done experiments and shown that a fully armed fighter jet will not penetrate.

People have fears about Nuclear power which are just simply unfounded.  They seem to be incapable of differentiating between a nuclear weapon and a power plant.  The two are so different, infact the only similarity is the isotope of the fuel.

The way nuclear waste is dealt with is a whole new topic, and well dealt with.  I would be happy to explain if you want.

[coolotter88 2]

I believe the fuel in nuclear power plants are not enriched enough to become supercritical and explode. Nuclear is "renewable", we've got so much of the stuff, it will last for quite some time. We also won't have much nuclear waste to bury if we built more fast breeder reactors to recycle the "wastes" we only use 1% of the energy stored in the fuel after it passes through the reactor. we can take advantage of another 98% if we keep recycling the uranium into plutonium (IIRC).

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers Ok, You've cleared that up somewhat for me

Nuclear power has a very good safety record (164 times safer than wind power), even including Chernobyl which was an exceptional circumstance. It is the only industry that has all its external costs covered, and its waste products are completely under control. People worry about power plants melting down, but that is actually physically impossible with a negative void coefficient (ie overheating is damped, not propogated). People worry about terrorists taking nuclear waste, but I can think of literally a hundred places that are easier to get radioactive material from. Countless industries use radioactive elements, you've even got some in your own home if you have a smoke detector. People worry about terrorists directly blowing up a nuclear reactor, but they have shielding specifically designed to tackle that threat, in fact they've done experiments and shown that a fully armed fighter jet will not penetrate.

People have fears about Nuclear power which are just simply unfounded.  They seem to be incapable of differentiating between a nuclear weapon and a power plant.  The two are so different, infact the only similarity is the isotope of the fuel.

The way nuclear waste is dealt with is a whole new topic, and well dealt with.  I would be happy to explain if you want.quote>

Nahh, I just wanted to cite an example of a clean, renewable energy source to be used to combat the effects of climate change. I'm actually a supporter of nuclear energy; my uncle is a nuclear engineer. I just don't think that our ultimate energy solution is nuclear energy. Despite what you say, (and you bring up valid points) nuclear technology brings with it political responsibilities (i.e. North Korea, Iran.) Solar power, or any renewable, does not come with these burdens. Also, this was being discussed in a seperate thread. I'd like to keep the focus here.

If you haven't already, check out the PBS documentary about climate change and U.S. Policy that I mentioned above. You can even watch the documentary on the site. Even if you don't agree with it, it brings up a lot of new talking points concerning climate change in the past decades in the U.S. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about it.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

Nahh, I just wanted to cite an example of a clean, renewable energy source to be used to combat the effects of climate change. I'm actually a supporter of nuclear energy; my uncle is a nuclear engineer. I just don't think that our ultimate energy solution is nuclear energy. Despite what you say, (and you bring up valid points) nuclear technology brings with it political responsibilities (i.e. North Korea, Iran.) Solar power, or any renewable, does not come with these burdens. Also, this was being discussed in a seperate thread. I'd like to keep the focus here.

If you haven't already, check out the PBS documentary about climate change and U.S. Policy that I mentioned above. You can even watch the documentary on the site. Even if you don't agree with it, it brings up a lot of new talking points concerning climate change in the past decades in the U.S. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about it. quote>

Solar panels are really not that great. 

1) They actually cost more to manufacture and maintain, than the energy they produce. 

2) They use chemicals such as cadmium (toxic stuff) inside PV cells which has to come from zinc mines. 

3) They are harvesting energy from a pretty low dense source.  Because of that, solar panels will never be able to produce that much energy, even if they were perfectly efficient.  Sun light enters earth's atmosphere at 1.4kW per meter squared.  A third of that reaches the surface - 500W per meter squared.  So even if you had a perfectly efficient solar PV, a 1GW power plant (below average for even today, let alone the future), it would take up; 10^9 / 500 = 2 million square meters of space.  the reality is that solar PVs are not much more than 15% efficient.

4) They only work during the day time.  For that reason, you then have to have massive banks of batteries to store energy.  More toxic chemicals, more cost.

The reality is that solar panels have limited applications to tree hugger home owners, and remote locations.

Interesting fact; If you were to have all the energy you ever consumed in your entire life produced by nuclear power, the total waste would fit into a desk side trash can.

[millsmed 0]

"its pronounced nukuler" lol

[jammy 0]

Hey Micah

I'd just like to say sorry for making a thread so similar to yours, I created a similar one to the thread I made a few months back but didn't see it

your thread is very good by the way!!!

[crazyyaya 4]

Got anything against wind power mrfinger? I'd just like to say if anyone has doubts about global warming.you should watch an Inconvient Truth. f it dosen't convince people, nothing will.

[coolotter88 2]

Wind power kills birds and mangles bats.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya Got anything against wind power mrfinger? I'd just like to say if anyone has doubts about global warming.you should watch an Inconvient Truth. f it dosen't convince people, nothing will.quote>

Dude, are you serious? 

I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", and I've honestly got to say, I have never seen anything so sensationally [content] Marc in my entire life.   "An Inconvenient Truth" is a bigger political stunt than 9/11.  If you actually find his "documentary" (boy, is that charitable) informative, then I really am simply going to have to laugh at you.

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had the following to say about this; "Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak, that they are pathetic.  The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.""

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Solar panels are really not that great. 

1) They actually cost more to manufacture and maintain, than the energy they produce.quote>

...currently. Technology is always improving, as well as investments in that technology. The very first cars were out of reach for the average consumer and weren't very efficient at all. Dozens of manufacturers went out of business or were bought out by other companies. But, the technology grew and investment poured in (like it is today with solar and other renewables) and the new market took off and gave birth to the U.S. auto industry. It's a solid business model and it can work.

2) They use chemicals such as cadmium (toxic stuff) inside PV cells which has to come from zinc mines. quote>

So does every PC made in the world. There are tons of toxic chemicals in almost anything you can buy at the store. I could probably go into any hardware store blindfolded, walk around until I bumped into something, and read the label only to find out it has a warning label or toxic chemical or contains some substance makes you go blind if you snort it. The fact is, if environmentally-conscious people install, maintain and recycle these things (which I'm sure the manufacturers will provide) then I'm sure the EPA will regulate their disposal.

3) They are harvesting energy from a pretty low dense source.  Because of that, solar panels will never be able to produce that much energy, even if they were perfectly efficient.  Sun light enters earth's atmosphere at 1.4kW per meter squared.  A third of that reaches the surface - 500W per meter squared.  So even if you had a perfectly efficient solar PV, a 1GW power plant (below average for even today, let alone the future), it would take up; 10^9 / 500 = 2 million square meters of space.  the reality is that solar PVs are not much more than 15% efficient.quote>

I would hardly call the sun a "low dense source."

I'm not sure where you've gotten your figures, but the documentary I cited above stated that several dozen acres was enough to power 150,000 homes. The solar thermal plant turned a steam turbine to create energy comparable to that of a "typical coal plant" (if I'm remembering correctly. Check out the second half of the documentary online... they divided it up into six chapters, and the whole thing is only 50 minutes long... so that's about 8 minute segments.)

4) They only work during the day time.  For that reason, you then have to have massive banks of batteries to store energy.  More toxic chemicals, more cost.quote>

More power is used during the day than at night. People usually sleep at night, and I'd say 99% of them do it with the lights off. You don't need to store energy; they had a Whole Foods store that ran during the day (in the documentary) completely on the direct current supplied by the solar cells on their roof. Refridgeration, air conditioning, checkout lanes... the whole store. I don't think they had anything other than a DC to AC converter.

The reality is that solar panels have limited applications to tree hugger home owners, and remote locations.

Interesting fact; If you were to have all the energy you ever consumed in your entire life produced by nuclear power, the total waste would fit into a desk side trash can.quote>

I don't understand your last "fact." Maybe it's worded wrong. Anyways, you need to WATCH the documentary. There are many examples outside the typical "tree-hugger" home that solar power is currently used for. I'll even make you a promise. I'll watch that "documentary" Swindle or whatever if you watch the PBS one... deal?

Originally posted by: coolotter88

Wind power kills birds and mangles bats.quote>

So do buildings and bat-hunters.

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Dude, are you serious? 

I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", and I've honestly got to say, I have never seen anything so sensationally [content] Marc in my entire life.   "An Inconvenient Truth" is a bigger political stunt than 9/11.  If you actually find his "documentary" (boy, is that charitable) informative, then I really am simply going to have to laugh at you.

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had the following to say about this; "Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak, that they are pathetic.  The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.""

quote>

Man, I sure love debating you, but you're gonna get banned if you keep on this streak.

I agree that Mr. Gore's film was sensational... as is all matters to do with climate change. It's the new "sensation."

As far as it being a political stunt, Mr. Gore is retired and as of today, is not running for President. (Don't get me started, remember? ) The facts in his presentation are from widely respected sources. If you care to back up Mr. Bob Carter's claims, then feel free. Again, I'll repeat myself: one scientist does not a consensus make.

[coolotter88 2]

bat hunters purposefully mangle bats...and building's kill birds more humanely than those giant fan things (lets see you stick any part of your body into a running fan with metal blades and see how it feels like...much less put your whole body through one)

[kibblewitbit 0]

its funny how in a couple years al gore has turned from a boring, uncharismatic, stiff, unexciting politician, to a celebrity people are worshiping around the world.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

...currently. Technology is always improving, as well as investments in that technology. The very first cars were out of reach for the average consumer and weren't very efficient at all. Dozens of manufacturers went out of business or were bought out by other companies. But, the technology grew and investment poured in (like it is today with solar and other renewables) and the new market took off and gave birth to the U.S. auto industry. It's a solid business model and it can work.

quote>

yeah, but all technology is growing, not just solar panels.  unless there is some leap ahead for the cost of building a solar panel and its durability against the natural decrease in real energy costs, solar panels are never going to break even.  As solar panels become more efficient with time, so will all our other sources of energy production, meaning it still has no edge.

Don't really see how that is immediately relevant anyway.

So does every PC made in the world. There are tons of toxic chemicals in almost anything you can buy at the store. I could probably go into any hardware store blindfolded, walk around until I bumped into something, and read the label only to find out it has a warning label or toxic chemical or contains some substance makes you go blind if you snort it. The fact is, if environmentally-conscious people install, maintain and recycle these things (which I'm sure the manufacturers will provide) then I'm sure the EPA will regulate their disposal.

quote>

What's a "PC"?  a solar PV means a photovoltaic cell.

I realise there are lots of things that are toxic, but arguing that solar PVs are squeaky clean is incorrect.  That's my point.

I would hardly call the sun a "low dense source."

quote>

per unit area, 150 million kilometers away, yes it is.  compare your 1.4kW per meter squared of sunlight with the 60 million MILLION joules of energy locked inside just one kilogram of fissile uranium.  sun light is a low density energy source.

More power is used during the day than at night. People usually sleep at night, and I'd say 99% of them do it with the lights off. You don't need to store energy; they had a Whole Foods store that ran during the day (in the documentary) completely on the direct current supplied by the solar cells on their roof. Refridgeration, air conditioning, checkout lanes... the whole store. I don't think they had anything other than a DC to AC converter.

quote>

Are you telling me that we don't use energy between sunset and sunrise?  seriously?  Sure, peak demand is 4pm, and the trough is at 4am, but you're mad if you think we don't use energy night time.

I don't understand your last "fact." Maybe it's worded wrong.

quote>

I'll rephrase;

If all the energy you ever consume in your entire life was provided by nuclear power, your total radioactive waste would fit into a desk trash can.

 Anyways, you need to WATCH the documentary. There are many examples outside the typical "tree-hugger" home that solar power is currently used for. I'll even make you a promise. I'll watch that "documentary" Swindle or whatever if you watch the PBS one... deal?

quote>

It's a deal.  I will watch it when I get the chance, and that will be in the next couple days.

Originally posted by: coolotter88

Wind power kills birds and mangles bats.quote>

So do buildings and bat-hunters.

quote>

This epitomises environmentalist stupidity.  Ok, maybe not quite as well as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw, but the bird deaths with wind turbines just shows how mathematically challenged they are.

Bird deaths per wind turbine per year - 2

Bird deaths caused by:

Glass Windows - 100 to 900 million

House Cats - 100 million

Vehicles - 50 to 100 million

Transmission Lines - 175 million

Agriculture - 70 million

and the list goes on, and on, and ON.

guess what?  birds DIE.

Man, I sure love debating you, but you're gonna get banned if you keep on this streak.

I agree that Mr. Gore's film was sensational... as is all matters to do with climate change. It's the new "sensation."

As far as it being a political stunt, Mr. Gore is retired and as of today, is not running for President. (Don't get me started, remember? ) The facts in his presentation are from widely respected sources. If you care to back up Mr. Bob Carter's claims, then feel free. Again, I'll repeat myself: one scientist does not a consensus make.

quote>

He doesn't have to be running for president to have political motives. 

Here are some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Criticism

I will try to not get banned

[coolotter88 2]

did you hear, canada is going to build a huge solar array somewhere in ontario...er... 1.4 square miles...maybe not quite as big as people would envision...anyway, it will produce a whopping.....40 megawatts! enough to power.....10000 homes with an average price of something like 42 cents per kilowatt hour...I don't know about you but here in the united states, there isn't anything nice like the state government buying the power at 42 cents per kilowatt hour and putting it on the grid at market price (a couple cents per kilowatt hour).

[MrFingers 0]

yeah, but the government gets the money to do stupid stuff like that by taxing you.

[JanYpe 17]

He doesn't have to be running for president to have political motives.quote>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/wgore22.xml>It's still not entirely unlikely that Gore will try a deus ex machina.

Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.

Two members of Mr Gore's staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.quote>

Because, goshdarnit, he can't stand idly by while evil is done. He has to save the day (after tomorrow), whether he likes it or not.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

yeah, but all technology is growing, not just solar panels.  unless there is some leap ahead for the cost of building a solar panel and its durability against the natural decrease in real energy costs, solar panels are never going to break even.  As solar panels become more efficient with time, so will all our other sources of energy production, meaning it still has no edge.

Don't really see how that is immediately relevant anyway.quote>

It's relevance is that it doesn't produce carbon emissions. It doesn't produce toxic waste. It's clean. And I'm sure that you know how this relates to climate change. Thus, it's "immediately relevant."

The "leap" you speak of is occuring right now, as energy spending on solar is increasing exponentially. Clean, alternative and renewable energy sources are the future. Ask any market analyst and ask them what kind of energy they think will have the lion's share of the market in 50 years. You'll get an overwhelming answer for clean renewables like solar, geothermal and similar technology.

What's a "PC"?  a solar PV means a photovoltaic cell.

I realise there are lots of things that are toxic, but arguing that solar PVs are squeaky clean is incorrect.  That's my point.quote>

PC is short for personal computer.

Do PCs get thrown out in the garbage? Sure... why? Because they become obsolete. Solar panels and the like, when they grow old and dysfunctional, will most definately become recyclable themselves. I'm sure the "greenies" will make a federal law to make sure their disposal is taken care of properly.

per unit area, 150 million kilometers away, yes it is.  compare your 1.4kW per meter squared of sunlight with the 60 million MILLION joules of energy locked inside just one kilogram of fissile uranium.  sun light is a low density energy source.quote>

Like I said, I don't know where you got your figures. I'll have to research this some more... however, the limits of nuclear energy are (also) apparent. Eventually, they stop giving off usable energy, and we have to store the spent fuel rods in an underground bunker deep inside of some mountain. With solar, you don't have this problem.

Are you telling me that we don't use energy between sunset and sunrise?  seriously?  Sure, peak demand is 4pm, and the trough is at 4am, but you're mad if you think we don't use energy night time.quote>

I'm saying the usage of energy at night is a significant fraction of the energy we use during the day. Seriously. Thus, solar provides a great relief to this large amount of energy that needs to be provided during the day.

I'll rephrase;

If all the energy you ever consume in your entire life was provided by nuclear power, your total radioactive waste would fit into a desk trash can.quote>

Where are you going to store the 6 billion trash cans? (1 for every human on the planet.) Solar produces exactly 0 trash cans of radioactive waste per person.

It's a deal.  I will watch it when I get the chance, and that will be in the next couple days.

quote>

Right on.

This epitomises environmentalist stupidity.  Ok, maybe not quite as well as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw, but the bird deaths with wind turbines just shows how mathematically challenged they are.

Bird deaths per wind turbine per year - 2

Bird deaths caused by:

Glass Windows - 100 to 900 million

House Cats - 100 million

Vehicles - 50 to 100 million

Transmission Lines - 175 million

Agriculture - 70 million

and the list goes on, and on, and ON.

guess what?  birds DIE.quote>

Finally, we agree on something. That was my original point. Birds and bats don't run into windmills, and when they do, it's a very rare thing.

He doesn't have to be running for president to have political motives. 

Here are some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Criticism

I will try to not get banned quote>

I looked up the criticisms, and there are... let me count... 6 documented cases of dispute that refute or call into question all or some of Mr. Gore's documentary. These do not come near to the thousands of documented cases that back up Mr. Gore's statements. As far as statements concerning "fear-mongering" and the such, the science has been slow to cause "panic" and only in recent decades has the topic become a hot-button issue for politicians and the media. I don't really see anyone out there "panicking" or promoting "fear" when it comes to this issue. Discussing the facts and making people aware does not equate to fear-mongering.

Originally posted by: MrFingers yeah, but the government gets the money to do stupid stuff like that by taxing you.quote>

Of course, they could always use that "money tree" they've been storing away all these years. Things cost money, and when it comes to government, that requires taxes. Would you support a tax to change all energy in the country to nuclear? The fact is the changes in our environment and abrupt climate change are going to require governments to undergo radical changes, and those changes are going to cost money.

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It's still not entirely unlikely that Gore will try a deus ex machina.

Because, goshdarnit, he can't stand idly by while evil is done. He has to save the day (after tomorrow), whether he likes it or not.quote>

How dare you bring up that crap-pile of a movie. That movie was a bunch of horse manure and I don't think that anyone (within their right mind) took it seriously. While it brought into play some science around the issue of global warming and ocean currents, the timescale in which the movie was presented was fantastic and unrealistic. However, we aren't entirely sure how long it would take for the ocean currents to stop like they did, but... I'm sure we won't be racing for the inside of the New York Public Library any time soon.