Yep. Decades from now, when you're having to deal with the decommissioning problems of your nuclear plant... A far greater problem.
Well played. Kind of an argument stopper in fact.
Since panels are always improving, a plant based on microinverters (which are desirable anyway as they reduce transmission loss)
And less strategically vulnerable as well. Imagine the strategic advantages of that - I guess the best non military example of that is when we have a local power failure, and my house is still lit up, furnace working, while the neighbors shiver in the dark - disclaimer, my neighbors are all welcome to come over and enjoy a blackout party. We have plenty of beer and wine as well.
But I digress
You don't need the vast majority to do that. You can extrapolate from the ones that have. As it is, no solar panels commonly deployed will produce less than 80% of their power after 25 years. Even in the 1970s solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in seven years, and that's the old PC kind. The TF ones can do it in two or three.
This! For some odd reason, solar skeptics often post about how EV panels will just kinda fall apart right after the warranty period. I've got some old-school cells that are still going strong.
And the doubters care free to doubt, but the panels keep going up. Yesterday I had my motorcycle out for an early spring ride, and saw an old Victorian mansion with the roof covered in panels. It was, oddly enough, awesome.
Thanks for posting. The prediction of AGW is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. You seem to be gravely mistaken that the Climate Realist position is that the TLT will not warm. This is completely wrong on your part. The prediction is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface - yet the OPPOSITE is seen.
Goive me both rhe citation(s), and the critical flaw that invalidates glopbal warming, as well as the alternative explanations and the model behind them
Sorry pal, but if you are going to go to e to toe with me, you have to produce. So far you have said this happens, so it's all bullshit.
So far, I've given several citations, and all you do is deny. Homie don't play that.
Cites baby, cites. Otherwise, it's all just bullshit.
Seriously. Pretty soon, everyone will be just creating stuff out of stuff. This Jason douche, what has he created?
My very very favorite part FTA
I bought a big box of SAM Labs kit. My kids can come in here and decide to make a device where if my son squeezes his teddy he will send me a tweet to say, ‘I love you.’ Or if you walk through a laser tripwire it will set off an alarm. It interacts with actual hardware, actual code and all it requires is a squeeze, a drag-and-drop and a little imagination.”
So now we know how creatives will create everything in the future. They will take a SAMS lab kit, and make Twitter feeds from it The gaddamned Universe is now complete!
Seriously My dear Mr Bradbury, if you even remotely think that we are somehow going to create everything in the futeure from already made kits, you are the mental equivalent of the idiot in teh US patent office that said everything had already been invented.
Now, here is the specific text HArd core Republicans might want to stop reading at this point, because this is going to get really uncomfortable instantly. From the 2008 platform
Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
The Solution: Technology and the Market
As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.
Now let us fast forward to today, Here is your 2016 presidential candidate Donald trump on global warming
http://www.inquisitr.com/10836...
specifically his tweet: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”
They are not short-sighted for HIM or his COMPANY... Perhaps society, but that is not his problem to fix, nor is he in any position to do anything about it.
As Carly Fiorina is my witness, many CEO's make bad decisions, short-sighted decisions. Happens every day. And your comments indicate you have already declared Puzler's idea a winner before it is even implemented.
apparently you also missed the point. Try again. Those 'deniers' and the people who vote for them? They DO make decisions on ideology.
While I find you exceptionally unpleasant to discuss with - what with your completely unveiled political based denialism screeds of AGW, with, your completely untrue claims of the Ivy league being communists, your lefties. and scientist blowhard comments, and not one single bit of science ever presented. which points to your intellectual dishonesty, and I fear, absolutely no knowledge of or respect for science. For all of your sound and fury, you signify nothing.
Bu that isn't my point. Its to your constant telling of people that they miss the point, or have comprehension problems.
As my mamma told me, if you are the only one right, and the rest of the world is wrong, it isn't the world. It's you, epy-T-R
AGW Theory makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The opposite is seen. Thus, the AGW hypothesis is invalidated by observational reality. The Scientific Method requires you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you follow the Scientific Method, or not?
Oh - look, the lawyer approach. Just give a yes or no answer, Olsoc! Sorry muchacho, but you are attempting to argue old data. The tropsphere is indeed warming, and th stratosphere is indeed cooling, just as the models predict. The discrepancy that you attempt to use as a false dilemma no longer exists. For your reading enjoyment - if you dare!:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibli...
By the way, do you recognize one of those names? He is J. R. Christy, the hero of the denialists. Do you deny your his veracity? If you deny it now, do you deny his earlier "proof"?
For thos who are not familiar, Christy is the radiosonde guy who interpreted the discrepancies as a refutation of AGW.
You see, that is the issue with models. They often need tweaked, and when discrepancies are found, scientists work to find out why any discrepancies existed. In this case, there was an issue with the taken data.
.
So your outdated and incorrect data (actually discrepancies in the measurements) has been corrected, and you are trying to argue with bad data. Not science, and we no longer consider the discrepancy valid. You might as well try to argue for the Phlogiston theory.
The question is, will you follow the computer simulations of the IPCC, or will you accept observational reality and follow the Scientific Method to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of the failed predictions of AGW ?
Actually a better question is - will you? Your data is outdated, and bad. the producer of your dat agrees that the data is now lacking discrepancies, and the expected increases in temperature exist - he says so.
So will you accept the same thing you demand of me? A months wages say you won't, and you have no intention of ever doing so.
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW.
Its the same tactics as used by Creationists and ID'ers.
Cerry picking, false dillemmas, like there were some discrepencies between balloon tropospher measurements and satellite measurements so AGW has to be false right? Then even though the data has long since been reconciled, parroting the long discredited discrepency.
It was hilarious (or sad) that while doing my research on the matter, finding the paper bringing all that into agreement was buried in the midst of hundreds of websites citing the original issue. Not a one cited the later research bring the two together - by the way one that the author of the original paper said was true and correct after the reconciliation.
The problem here is that the big players, the oil companies and major investors, have no interest in actually falsifying AGW. They scarcely need to. They just need to spread enough FUD to create a political environment in which any government looking to curb CO2 emissions is going to have an uphill fight.
And Exxon performing research in the 1970's that validated AGW, then lying about it is indeed the proof of your statement http://www.scientificamerican....
I feel the same way about AGW pseudo-skeptics as I do about Creationists,
Many are the same people. Which allows them to disregard the evidence of ages like the Silurian, warmer than the present via CO2 levels, despite the dimmer sun of the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Like I've said above, it's a question of appearance.. Want the average center right joe to buy into it? Flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues.
So in order for the energy retention effects od the green house gases to be true, this "ivy league" must undergo a transition to right wing politics?
Dayum, if that isn't a first class example of disbelief in science, there isn't one.
I'll disregard what appears to be a strong streak of my way or you're a commie on your part. You can have your politically validated science. Gotta love that Lysenkoism.
Ideological belief isn't very good at tolerating critical thought, anyway.
If you don't catch the irony in you saying that, you never will.
I'm not a denier despite what others immediately assumed, but experience has taught me not to assume anything about topics that've become politically charged.
There are a few things about that I simply have to point out. It is a simple thing to avoid the politics in this matter. Go to the sources of the research.
Read the research. When politics gets into anything, it is immediately apparent. But now, you have the source code, so to speak. That research is freely available - its how denialists get their cherry pickings.
You aren't telling me that you are allowing people with a political agenda tell you what to think are you? Never do that.
Bandwagons are rife with bullshit. The vitriol around here about this topic is evidence for why.
It's the same vitriol reserved for moon landing conspiricists, anti-vaxxers, and creationists. At some point, you don't have to prove the same things over and over.
At some point, you have to say "Come back after you've learned the basics - then we'll discuss. And until then, read and learn. And using people with extreme positions to invalidate physics is a great way to be wrong about the physics
Anyway, thanks for the links, however, it's not me you have to convince. Even if MIT is right on target (as this article seems well written), center right joe won't believe a word.
Well, most deniers such as yourself, won't ever accept the physics of it all. It's a given that you are not a scientific creature. You are a political creature. Your posts are pretty chock-full of political statements. The research is out there, most is free to access. So please don't try to claim you aren't completely politically motivated.
Who said I don't believe in science? Who said I was a denier?
I did. "Contaminated institutions." "You have to flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues" "left wing propaganda".
Here's a challenge. Michael Mann (apologies if I made you foam at the mouth there) works at the Pennsylvania state University. Now tell me about their "contamination and their left wing leaning and their Marxism.
Science doesn't advance because people agree with the status quo. No, they point out where current theories are wrong. That's when science really advances. In most fields, dissenting views are welcome debate because it benefits science. But that doesn't happen with global warming. Dissenting views are silenced just like you see happening here.
You must spend very little time around scientists. There is a tremendous amount of discussion and argument. Often the argument technique is used to work out the theory.
The problem with your thesis is that while there isn't a tremendous amount of argument today about AGW, it is not because of your odd conflation with religion, but it's because Scientists do not argue much about evolution or the idea that the earth is ony 6 thousand years old either. Or gravity, or nuclear fission and fusion for that matter. There aren't any scientists arguing for the Phlogiston theory, and that's a fact. There comes a point where someone who wants to claim that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that the sun is a lump of burning coal, are going to have a hard time being listened to.
As I've told many, put together a hypothesis, an experimental plan and look for funding. And if you are worried about the so called conspiracy of scientists, you could probably get the Koch brothers to fund the experiments at maybe Liberty University. Then after proving AGW wrong, the scientist who does will be in line for a Nobel prize.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, hey! Microsoft's Slashbot is still running!
Its part of the new Personal assistant for Republicans, code named "Trumpy".
Ask Trumpy a question, and it will give you the winning answer, you can trust it.
Yep. Decades from now, when you're having to deal with the decommissioning problems of your nuclear plant... A far greater problem.
Well played. Kind of an argument stopper in fact.
Since panels are always improving, a plant based on microinverters (which are desirable anyway as they reduce transmission loss)
And less strategically vulnerable as well. Imagine the strategic advantages of that - I guess the best non military example of that is when we have a local power failure, and my house is still lit up, furnace working, while the neighbors shiver in the dark - disclaimer, my neighbors are all welcome to come over and enjoy a blackout party. We have plenty of beer and wine as well.
But I digress
You don't need the vast majority to do that. You can extrapolate from the ones that have. As it is, no solar panels commonly deployed will produce less than 80% of their power after 25 years. Even in the 1970s solar panels would pay back the energy cost of their production in seven years, and that's the old PC kind. The TF ones can do it in two or three.
This! For some odd reason, solar skeptics often post about how EV panels will just kinda fall apart right after the warranty period. I've got some old-school cells that are still going strong.
And the doubters care free to doubt, but the panels keep going up. Yesterday I had my motorcycle out for an early spring ride, and saw an old Victorian mansion with the roof covered in panels. It was, oddly enough, awesome.
So I have to argue your side for you? lame.
Your data is old and out of date, Thanks for playing.
Thanks for posting. The prediction of AGW is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface. You seem to be gravely mistaken that the Climate Realist position is that the TLT will not warm. This is completely wrong on your part. The prediction is that the TLT will warm faster than the surface - yet the OPPOSITE is seen.
Goive me both rhe citation(s), and the critical flaw that invalidates glopbal warming, as well as the alternative explanations and the model behind them
Sorry pal, but if you are going to go to e to toe with me, you have to produce. So far you have said this happens, so it's all bullshit.
So far, I've given several citations, and all you do is deny. Homie don't play that.
Cites baby, cites. Otherwise, it's all just bullshit.
My very very favorite part FTA
I bought a big box of SAM Labs kit. My kids can come in here and decide to make a device where if my son squeezes his teddy he will send me a tweet to say, ‘I love you.’ Or if you walk through a laser tripwire it will set off an alarm. It interacts with actual hardware, actual code and all it requires is a squeeze, a drag-and-drop and a little imagination.”
So now we know how creatives will create everything in the future. They will take a SAMS lab kit, and make Twitter feeds from it The gaddamned Universe is now complete!
Seriously My dear Mr Bradbury, if you even remotely think that we are somehow going to create everything in the futeure from already made kits, you are the mental equivalent of the idiot in teh US patent office that said everything had already been invented.
And you have no idea of what creativity is.
Go fuck your self... ;)
I see what you did there.
VR porn is going to change how people use porn quite fundamentally.
As long as it is handie, it will be a sucksess.
Can I see the Golden Girls in VR Porn? I always had a thing for Rue McClanahan.
You would rue the day you got your wish.
Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.
Once upon a time, Republicans believed that CO2 was an energy retaining gas. Now? Denial of science is a party platform.
Just as a point of edification to whoever marked this post as "Troll".....
In 2008 The Republican Party platform listed global warming a a national problem, and cited Human activity among its causes.
citation: http://www.latimes.com/opinion...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Now, here is the specific text HArd core Republicans might want to stop reading at this point, because this is going to get really uncomfortable instantly. From the 2008 platform
Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
The Solution: Technology and the Market
As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.
Now let us fast forward to today, Here is your 2016 presidential candidate Donald trump on global warming
http://www.inquisitr.com/10836... specifically his tweet: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
More tweets
Any and all weather events are used by the GLOBAL WARMING HOAXSTERS to justify higher taxes to save our planet! They don't believe it $$$$!
It’s snowing & freezing in NYC. What the hell ever happened to global warming?
Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
Your other possibility, another person who represents the soul of the republican party, Ted Cruz Has this to say about global warming:
“Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of
The religion of Peace, with an exhibition of just how peaceful it is.
They are not short-sighted for HIM or his COMPANY... Perhaps society, but that is not his problem to fix, nor is he in any position to do anything about it.
As Carly Fiorina is my witness, many CEO's make bad decisions, short-sighted decisions. Happens every day. And your comments indicate you have already declared Puzler's idea a winner before it is even implemented.
apparently you also missed the point. Try again. Those 'deniers' and the people who vote for them? They DO make decisions on ideology.
While I find you exceptionally unpleasant to discuss with - what with your completely unveiled political based denialism screeds of AGW, with, your completely untrue claims of the Ivy league being communists, your lefties. and scientist blowhard comments, and not one single bit of science ever presented. which points to your intellectual dishonesty, and I fear, absolutely no knowledge of or respect for science. For all of your sound and fury, you signify nothing.
Bu that isn't my point. Its to your constant telling of people that they miss the point, or have comprehension problems.
As my mamma told me, if you are the only one right, and the rest of the world is wrong, it isn't the world. It's you, epy-T-R
Hey - any citations yet?
What kind of idiot does that anyway? You don't need global warming to be hit by a plain old hurricane or flood.
Well, they could just build in Miami in the places that used to be dry, but are now being flooded at spring tide.
Ironically, it is in the wealthy area, populated by denialists. Now that's funny!
Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.
Once upon a time, Republicans believed that CO2 was an energy retaining gas. Now? Denial of science is a party platform.
AGW Theory makes a specific prediction, that the Tropical Lower Troposphere will warm faster than the surface. The opposite is seen. Thus, the AGW hypothesis is invalidated by observational reality. The Scientific Method requires you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you follow the Scientific Method, or not?
Oh - look, the lawyer approach. Just give a yes or no answer, Olsoc! Sorry muchacho, but you are attempting to argue old data. The tropsphere is indeed warming, and th stratosphere is indeed cooling, just as the models predict. The discrepancy that you attempt to use as a false dilemma no longer exists. For your reading enjoyment - if you dare!: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibli...
By the way, do you recognize one of those names? He is J. R. Christy, the hero of the denialists. Do you deny your his veracity? If you deny it now, do you deny his earlier "proof"?
For thos who are not familiar, Christy is the radiosonde guy who interpreted the discrepancies as a refutation of AGW.
You see, that is the issue with models. They often need tweaked, and when discrepancies are found, scientists work to find out why any discrepancies existed. In this case, there was an issue with the taken data.
So your outdated and incorrect data (actually discrepancies in the measurements) has been corrected, and you are trying to argue with bad data. Not science, and we no longer consider the discrepancy valid. You might as well try to argue for the Phlogiston theory.
The question is, will you follow the computer simulations of the IPCC, or will you accept observational reality and follow the Scientific Method to accept the Null Hypothesis instead of the failed predictions of AGW ?
Actually a better question is - will you? Your data is outdated, and bad. the producer of your dat agrees that the data is now lacking discrepancies, and the expected increases in temperature exist - he says so.
So will you accept the same thing you demand of me? A months wages say you won't, and you have no intention of ever doing so.
political beliefs trumps physics
Political beliefs are 'Physics according to Trump'
As soon as I hit the submit button, I knew this was going to happen!
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW.
Its the same tactics as used by Creationists and ID'ers.
Cerry picking, false dillemmas, like there were some discrepencies between balloon tropospher measurements and satellite measurements so AGW has to be false right? Then even though the data has long since been reconciled, parroting the long discredited discrepency.
It was hilarious (or sad) that while doing my research on the matter, finding the paper bringing all that into agreement was buried in the midst of hundreds of websites citing the original issue. Not a one cited the later research bring the two together - by the way one that the author of the original paper said was true and correct after the reconciliation.
The problem here is that the big players, the oil companies and major investors, have no interest in actually falsifying AGW. They scarcely need to. They just need to spread enough FUD to create a political environment in which any government looking to curb CO2 emissions is going to have an uphill fight.
And Exxon performing research in the 1970's that validated AGW, then lying about it is indeed the proof of your statement http://www.scientificamerican....
I feel the same way about AGW pseudo-skeptics as I do about Creationists,
Many are the same people. Which allows them to disregard the evidence of ages like the Silurian, warmer than the present via CO2 levels, despite the dimmer sun of the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is no fucking Marxism in the US. Jesus fucking christ, pal. The US hasn't had a meaningfully Marxist movement since the 19 fucking 30s.
To be accurate, the neocons are Trotskyites. Oddly enough, they are associated with the Republican party.
Like I've said above, it's a question of appearance.. Want the average center right joe to buy into it? Flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues.
So in order for the energy retention effects od the green house gases to be true, this "ivy league" must undergo a transition to right wing politics?
Dayum, if that isn't a first class example of disbelief in science, there isn't one.
I'll disregard what appears to be a strong streak of my way or you're a commie on your part. You can have your politically validated science. Gotta love that Lysenkoism.
Ideological belief isn't very good at tolerating critical thought, anyway.
If you don't catch the irony in you saying that, you never will.
I'm not a denier despite what others immediately assumed, but experience has taught me not to assume anything about topics that've become politically charged.
There are a few things about that I simply have to point out. It is a simple thing to avoid the politics in this matter. Go to the sources of the research.
Read the research. When politics gets into anything, it is immediately apparent. But now, you have the source code, so to speak. That research is freely available - its how denialists get their cherry pickings.
You aren't telling me that you are allowing people with a political agenda tell you what to think are you? Never do that.
Bandwagons are rife with bullshit. The vitriol around here about this topic is evidence for why.
It's the same vitriol reserved for moon landing conspiricists, anti-vaxxers, and creationists. At some point, you don't have to prove the same things over and over.
At some point, you have to say "Come back after you've learned the basics - then we'll discuss. And until then, read and learn. And using people with extreme positions to invalidate physics is a great way to be wrong about the physics
Anyway, thanks for the links, however, it's not me you have to convince. Even if MIT is right on target (as this article seems well written), center right joe won't believe a word.
Well, most deniers such as yourself, won't ever accept the physics of it all. It's a given that you are not a scientific creature. You are a political creature. Your posts are pretty chock-full of political statements. The research is out there, most is free to access. So please don't try to claim you aren't completely politically motivated.
Who said I don't believe in science? Who said I was a denier?
I did. "Contaminated institutions." "You have to flush the marxism out of the ivy leagues" "left wing propaganda".
Here's a challenge. Michael Mann (apologies if I made you foam at the mouth there) works at the Pennsylvania state University. Now tell me about their "contamination and their left wing leaning and their Marxism.
Any citations yet?
Only 4% of global CO2 is attributable to humans. 96% of it is naturally occurring, and we couldn't do anything about it if we tried.
By the way, the CO2 we've put into the air has a mere 800 Terawatts of Radiative forcing compared to 1750.
Or Open Pit Mining??
Is that anything like a Cleveland Steamer?
You use the word Fuck a lot.
Do you need some alone time or maybe a hooker?
I can haz hoooker? I don't swear as much, but I can haz one?
Science doesn't advance because people agree with the status quo. No, they point out where current theories are wrong. That's when science really advances. In most fields, dissenting views are welcome debate because it benefits science. But that doesn't happen with global warming. Dissenting views are silenced just like you see happening here.
You must spend very little time around scientists. There is a tremendous amount of discussion and argument. Often the argument technique is used to work out the theory.
The problem with your thesis is that while there isn't a tremendous amount of argument today about AGW, it is not because of your odd conflation with religion, but it's because Scientists do not argue much about evolution or the idea that the earth is ony 6 thousand years old either. Or gravity, or nuclear fission and fusion for that matter. There aren't any scientists arguing for the Phlogiston theory, and that's a fact. There comes a point where someone who wants to claim that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that the sun is a lump of burning coal, are going to have a hard time being listened to.
As I've told many, put together a hypothesis, an experimental plan and look for funding. And if you are worried about the so called conspiracy of scientists, you could probably get the Koch brothers to fund the experiments at maybe Liberty University. Then after proving AGW wrong, the scientist who does will be in line for a Nobel prize.