That email is a good example of one way in which Linus is an effective manager. He had a clear vision about the logo and explained it vividly, using humor to reinforce the message.
Bruno Wiskel, Mr. V's major share holder was born in 1960 in Edmonton where he was raised pretty well as a city boy until the passing of his grandfather in 1974. As a young man Bruno's love for farming began when he started helping his father Stan on weekends and summer holidays to build Wiskel Farms into a progressive grain farm.
As with many father/son partnerships, a disagreement arose as to the direction the farm should move in. Son - more conservation minded and intensive; father larger and more extensive.
Bruno settled the dispute by attending the U of A and obtaining a degree in geology specializing in groundwater geology, followed by 2.5 years as an exploration geologist for a small oil company in Calgary. When oil dropped to below $10 per barrel, the entire exploration department was laid off, Bruno included.
For his next job he worked that summer as a pipeline inspector on the Trans Canada Pipeline from Gretna (at the US border)to Brandon Manitoba. Although he learned nothing about pipelining, he did learn about growing the various "alternative" crops of fruit and vegetables from farmers who owned the fields through which the pipeline ran.
And so on...
Now, Mr. Wiskel sounds like an interesting person, but calling him a geologist at the U of A is certainly a stretch - he has geology degree, and he teaches some extension courses there that have nothing to do with geology. None of this means Mr. Wiskel is wrong in his opinions, but I don't know what he brings to the table that is of exceptional interest.
I'll let someone else tackle the other guys on the list.
It'd sure be nice if CO2 was not a worry. But the reality is that none of the research that purports to contradict the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity to GHG forcings seems very ironclad.
I am very pleased with the location and duration of advertising on, say, iTunes downloads for The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Very limited and at the end.
I don't have cable, so iTunes is the only legit channel I have for some shows. Other than the DRM garbage, and the erratic timing with which the videos are released after airing, I am generally pleased with the arrangement.
Does it matter what the scientific consensus was in 1975 if the public was made to believe a certain view based on "scientific evidence"? No, the only thing that matters is that global cooling was credited as legit in the mainstream press, albeit it's not the wide spread panic / money making machine that global warming is today.
Yes, it does matter. How many people read this article? Were influenced by it? Read the book, watched the movie? Total media saturation? Mmmmm, no.
There were no treaties.
No pledges signed by multinationals.
No regional initiatives to battle global cooling.
There were observations, some extrapolation of trends, some concern.
From the article: "Just what causes the the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery." No mechanism. Not exactly an ironclad endorsement of the science.
Honestly I don't understand why people so involved in science are outright angry at global warming skeptics.
Because most of the skepticism has such a clear ideological motivation, and is so devoid of rigor. Most of the big-name skeptics have engaged in activities that are shameful. I specifically refer to Pat Michaels' outright lies to Congress about James Hansen's 1988 testimony (turns out his predictions pan out fairly well 20 years later), but there are many other examples.
And the small-time skeptics are worse. Every GHG post on./, I see the same tired talking points that have been debunked from here to Kalamazoo. The Swindle thing has amplified the dumbest of these.
Apparently on./ it's become kool to be a skeptic, because that must mean you're smarter than the dumb crowd that buys into the IPCC consensus. Peak oil is also fashionable around here now for similar reasons.
I say this over and over. Here are the facts:
CO2 emissions: Current trend is due to humans. If you can debunk that you deserve a goddamn Nobel. It's not the volcanoes. CO2 emissions on climate: There is an impact. Arrhenius had this figured out more or less in 1896. Climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions: There's enough uncertainty here to have a debate. Have at it. But few skeptics talk about this (Lindzen at least has a theory that may not be completely full of crap), other than to say "It's the sun, duh." Climate impacts on ecosystems and human society: Lots of uncertainty here to discuss. But I would submit that uncertainty does not equal an excuse for inaction. And uncertainty is also not proof of absence. Finally: the models are imperfect. But the findings of the IPCC et al. are not exclusively model-based. There's work on things like climate sensitivity that is "gasp!" based on empirical observation.
So, in short, I am personally angry at skeptics b/c they are wasting time on the dumb stuff, and not paying enough attention to the interesting stuff. And their thinking is dominated by idealogy (this of course applies to both sides).
You've stated a number of unsubstantiated "facts", but other than one link to a chart, and your heavy and embarrassing reliance on the Swindle show, no independently verifiable references. A reference means providing a mechanism so I could evaluate your statements. Just throwing out "data" that I know to be wrong is not sufficient.
Or did I miss something?
BTW your chart showed more or less the same data that I had already cited here.
I've known about Arrhenius and CO2 for over a decade; my MS thesis at MIT concerned oceanic carbon cycles, so I read up on him then. If you can point out the errors in his 1896 paper, that would be a good start.
And I actually have done my homework on this topic, beyond watching a "documentary" that I would be embarrassed if my 5-year-old referenced as a source for anything.
Here's a poorly worked reference that provides some data about Mt. St. Helens. It contradicts your claims. They screwed up on which numbers are sources and which are sinks (some units should be kg/year), but you get the idea. Volcanism is not the current driver of the spiking CO2 trend. Period. End of story. Find a new talking point.
Your turn- please, please, please provide a scientific reference that demonstrates that humans are not the primary cause behind the current atmospheric CO2 trend. As to why that matters, see: Arrhenius (and yes, I know about the Arrhenius equation; I took high school chemistry too).
Funny how there was a 20 year "scientifically accurate, data-driven" global cooling scare inbetween.
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
I don't think you are a shill or dumb. But I reject the weather vs. climate argument, and the coin-flipping analogy is a pretty good one.
Predicting weather is about forecasting the dynamics of a system on time- and distance scales on which the system is chaotic. This is coin flipping. It's possible to predict the distribution of the results, but it's impossible to do much predicting the next flip.
Here's another analogy. Take a cup of coffee. Pour milk in it. Can you predict the precise way in which the milk swirls around? No, that's weather. Can you figure out what the average temperature and milk concentration of that cup will be in five minutes? Yes, depending on your ability to measure the thermal conductivity of the cup, the ambient temperature and humidity, etc.
Modeling climate sure isn't easy or particularly precise. But it is a false premise to reject such activities based on the fundamental constraints of weather prediction. Weather and climate are obviously governed by the same dynamics, but they differ fundamentally in terms of their time and distance scales.
STOP MAKING UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE.
And yet you have not provided a single citation yourself. Fascinating.
I don't have the time to begin to point out all the errors in your post. So I'll stick to 2.
Want a citation for Arrhenius? How about this one:
Svante Arrhenius. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". Philosophical Magazine 41, 237 (1896)[1]
Now please explain to me "Arrhenius had nothing to do with this. Don't invoke his name. He was dead thirty years before this idea surfaced, and his work - which is about the temperatures at which a chemical reaction will occur (protiens only work in certain temperature ranges, for example) - had nothing to do with this. If you wanted to name drop a scientist, you chose exceptionally poorly" again? If you can dig yourself out of that whole, I would be most impressed.
As for the CO2 data: Where, oh where, are the signals from volcanoes? And if you look at the chart, you'll see that it's CO2 in terms of ppm by volume in the atmosphere. It's spelled out quite clearly.
And your link (your one reference) doesn't refute anything I said. When I spoke of natural fluxes cancelling out, I was referring to the present day, stuff like this. Note part (c) for example, where the flux in/out of the oceans is of magnitude ~90 PgC/yr, but the net flux is ~2. Human emissions are ~5.3 PgC/yr, which is significant relative to the net fluxes.
Yes, historical CO2 perturbations over millions of years shows some variations in the net fluxes. But please, please explain the causes that bring us to the red arrow in your image. Volcanoes?
Please, please please: Explain your Arrhenius comment, and cite your volcanic emissions data. And "Source: Out of my ass" is not sufficient.
You seem to be confused. Allow me to help you. Nobody said "humans aren't warming the earth." Nobody said "we have no part in global warming." Was was said was "our current climate models are so poor as to be unusable, and the international treaties we've made to stop this phenomenon are based on bad science."
And for someone who exhorts his/her opponents to provide citations, you haven't provided a single one. I'd especially like references to claims like That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
So the CO2 record should show spikes that are timed with earthquakes? Right?
the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face.
And your criticism of Wunsch was something more than an ad-hominem attack?
With each post I am increasingly convinced that you are completely moon-bat insane. Crazy factoids without references. Unfounded ad-hominem attacks. Back it up, buddy.
Ok, historically CO2 has been part of the feedback to solar forcing of climate change. But the increased CO2 has been a positive feedback, sustaining the climate change well past the solar forcing. What's different this time is that due to human activity we are pushing CO2 directly, so if our understanding of physics is correct (as established by Arrhenius himself), the result is heating. This is basic theory and the temperature record, though noisy, hardly contradicts this over the 20th century. Now, there's uncertainty about feedbacks, clouds, etc., but the CO2 forcing is there.
Natural gross CO2 fluxes are huge. Net fluxes are small (i.e. they largely cancel out, and that's not accidental). Human fluxes are large compared to the net flux. See above link.
If you really don't think that CO2 traps heat, you are wrong. Grab a physics textbook, or start here. It has pictures and everything.
If you really found that documentary convincing, you need to get your head examined.
Have you read Carl Wunsch's response to that "documentary" that he was featured in? Here's an interesting excerpt:
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
If you want to attack global warming, focus on climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (if you really think there is zero CO2 forcing, please provide a reference for that ?) and the hurricane stuff. Plenty of uncertainty there. But to claim "It's all about the sun" is to expose yourself as deeply ignorant/blind. Note that I am not claiming the sun isn't an important driver of climate; that is an equally insane proposition. But to ignore basic physics that no one can or will debunk is a little silly.
Can we all step back and admit that our opinions on climate change are fundamentally formed by deeper philosophical values that we have? It is clear to me that many, many people on both sides of this issue don't really pay attention to the science (read that IPCC report lately); they find the factoids that fit their preconceptions and go from there. I'm no different, though I actively try to objectively consider the available information. If we can start to get past our idealogical blinders, maybe we can have a conversation. But that goes for just about every issue these days.
BTW if anyone can explain how ocean acidification might not be a big deal, please share.
around 30 reasons 30? I mean I know it was a new one every day, but I didn't realize we were up to 30.
Why does the far left support groups like Hamas and Al Quada Here's a relatively simple answer: They don't. Opposing the war in Iraq ~= support for Al Quaeda. That's a pretty important point to grasp. In fact, if you can't grasp how that is possible, ho boy, I really don't know where to start.
And you actually explain cogently why lefties don't support Muslim terror groups- you are absolutely right, no feminist or gay would ever welcome sharia law. QED.
That's another problem with the far left. Its inability to allow others to argue their side. Yeah, cuz it's not like Tom Delay accused Reid of treason today, or anything. It's all on the left, huh.
And I personally love it when people whine about their anticipation of getting modded down. Especially those who tend to criticize the supposed 'victim culture' in the US. Poor me, people criticize my dumb ideas.
Hell, one single item, small children being imprisoned for the political beliefs of the parents, was a good enough reason. And now they get blown up b/c of the religious beliefs of their parents. Big improvement.
Listen, people on the really far left tend to piss me off. But they aren't the problem here. The problem is that we had a bad plan for Iraq and implemented it poorly, and it all comes back to senior leadership. Even if one accepts that removing Saddam's regime was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons (a position I can support in principle), everything else with Iraq (too light a force, no post-fall-of-Baghdad plan, dissolution of the Army, etc.) has been a complete cock-up that has cost lives and billions of dollars. I can't pretend to know the right course of action going forward, but it should be led by someone new. Hell, let's swap Bush 41 back in there, or something.
But the problem is that the discussion has been around $/W for a cell, not for an installed system.
Arguing that $/W matters, and efficiency does not, ignores the fact that efficiency drives $/W, because it drives the size of the array, which then incurs costs around land, installation labor, etc.
You are right that $/W for a fully installed system is the key metric. But what a lot of other $/W proponents are missing is that efficiency is a strong driver of installed cost.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably called a diesel generator. Fuel comes in on the same road that carried the tower equipment.
A Beowulf cluster that fits in my pocket!
You win.
That email is a good example of one way in which Linus is an effective manager. He had a clear vision about the logo and explained it vividly, using humor to reinforce the message.
Let's start with Bruno, #2 on Inhofe's list.
And so on...
Now, Mr. Wiskel sounds like an interesting person, but calling him a geologist at the U of A is certainly a stretch - he has geology degree, and he teaches some extension courses there that have nothing to do with geology. None of this means Mr. Wiskel is wrong in his opinions, but I don't know what he brings to the table that is of exceptional interest.
I'll let someone else tackle the other guys on the list.
It'd sure be nice if CO2 was not a worry. But the reality is that none of the research that purports to contradict the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity to GHG forcings seems very ironclad.
Thanks. I had downloaded MSWLogo awhile ago and liked it; I'll give it a shot with my twins.
I've had no problems with wireless or anything else on Thinkpads (T-30-something, T-42 or 43). Except for sound...
I like Logo too. I've been thinking about getting my kids started on it (my oldest 2 are 5). How'd you get them started, explain angles, etc.?
I am very pleased with the location and duration of advertising on, say, iTunes downloads for The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. Very limited and at the end.
I don't have cable, so iTunes is the only legit channel I have for some shows. Other than the DRM garbage, and the erratic timing with which the videos are released after airing, I am generally pleased with the arrangement.
Yes, it does matter. How many people read this article? Were influenced by it? Read the book, watched the movie? Total media saturation? Mmmmm, no.
There were no treaties.
No pledges signed by multinationals.
No regional initiatives to battle global cooling.
There were observations, some extrapolation of trends, some concern.
From the article: "Just what causes the the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery." No mechanism. Not exactly an ironclad endorsement of the science.
Because most of the skepticism has such a clear ideological motivation, and is so devoid of rigor. Most of the big-name skeptics have engaged in activities that are shameful. I specifically refer to Pat Michaels' outright lies to Congress about James Hansen's 1988 testimony (turns out his predictions pan out fairly well 20 years later), but there are many other examples.
And the small-time skeptics are worse. Every GHG post on
Apparently on
I say this over and over. Here are the facts:
CO2 emissions: Current trend is due to humans. If you can debunk that you deserve a goddamn Nobel. It's not the volcanoes.
CO2 emissions on climate: There is an impact. Arrhenius had this figured out more or less in 1896.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions: There's enough uncertainty here to have a debate. Have at it. But few skeptics talk about this (Lindzen at least has a theory that may not be completely full of crap), other than to say "It's the sun, duh."
Climate impacts on ecosystems and human society: Lots of uncertainty here to discuss. But I would submit that uncertainty does not equal an excuse for inaction. And uncertainty is also not proof of absence.
Finally: the models are imperfect. But the findings of the IPCC et al. are not exclusively model-based. There's work on things like climate sensitivity that is "gasp!" based on empirical observation.
So, in short, I am personally angry at skeptics b/c they are wasting time on the dumb stuff, and not paying enough attention to the interesting stuff. And their thinking is dominated by idealogy (this of course applies to both sides).
You've stated a number of unsubstantiated "facts", but other than one link to a chart, and your heavy and embarrassing reliance on the Swindle show, no independently verifiable references. A reference means providing a mechanism so I could evaluate your statements. Just throwing out "data" that I know to be wrong is not sufficient.
Or did I miss something?
BTW your chart showed more or less the same data that I had already cited here.
I've known about Arrhenius and CO2 for over a decade; my MS thesis at MIT concerned oceanic carbon cycles, so I read up on him then.
If you can point out the errors in his 1896 paper, that would be a good start.
And I actually have done my homework on this topic, beyond watching a "documentary" that I would be embarrassed if my 5-year-old referenced as a source for anything.
By the way, did you know that Durkin admitted that the volcano argument is wrong?
Here's a poorly worked reference that provides some data about Mt. St. Helens. It contradicts your claims. They screwed up on which numbers are sources and which are sinks (some units should be kg/year), but you get the idea. Volcanism is not the current driver of the spiking CO2 trend. Period. End of story. Find a new talking point.
Your turn- please, please, please provide a scientific reference that demonstrates that humans are not the primary cause behind the current atmospheric CO2 trend. As to why that matters, see: Arrhenius (and yes, I know about the Arrhenius equation; I took high school chemistry too).
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
I don't think you are a shill or dumb. But I reject the weather vs. climate argument, and the coin-flipping analogy is a pretty good one.
Predicting weather is about forecasting the dynamics of a system on time- and distance scales on which the system is chaotic. This is coin flipping. It's possible to predict the distribution of the results, but it's impossible to do much predicting the next flip.
Here's another analogy. Take a cup of coffee. Pour milk in it. Can you predict the precise way in which the milk swirls around? No, that's weather. Can you figure out what the average temperature and milk concentration of that cup will be in five minutes? Yes, depending on your ability to measure the thermal conductivity of the cup, the ambient temperature and humidity, etc.
Modeling climate sure isn't easy or particularly precise. But it is a false premise to reject such activities based on the fundamental constraints of weather prediction. Weather and climate are obviously governed by the same dynamics, but they differ fundamentally in terms of their time and distance scales.
And yet you have not provided a single citation yourself. Fascinating.
I don't have the time to begin to point out all the errors in your post. So I'll stick to 2.
Want a citation for Arrhenius? How about this one:
Svante Arrhenius. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". Philosophical Magazine 41, 237 (1896)[1]
Now please explain to me "Arrhenius had nothing to do with this. Don't invoke his name. He was dead thirty years before this idea surfaced, and his work - which is about the temperatures at which a chemical reaction will occur (protiens only work in certain temperature ranges, for example) - had nothing to do with this. If you wanted to name drop a scientist, you chose exceptionally poorly" again? If you can dig yourself out of that whole, I would be most impressed.
As for the CO2 data: Where, oh where, are the signals from volcanoes? And if you look at the chart, you'll see that it's CO2 in terms of ppm by volume in the atmosphere. It's spelled out quite clearly.
And your link (your one reference) doesn't refute anything I said. When I spoke of natural fluxes cancelling out, I was referring to the present day, stuff like this. Note part (c) for example, where the flux in/out of the oceans is of magnitude ~90 PgC/yr, but the net flux is ~2. Human emissions are ~5.3 PgC/yr, which is significant relative to the net fluxes.
Yes, historical CO2 perturbations over millions of years shows some variations in the net fluxes. But please, please explain the causes that bring us to the red arrow in your image. Volcanoes?
Please, please please: Explain your Arrhenius comment, and cite your volcanic emissions data. And "Source: Out of my ass" is not sufficient.
You appear to have a short memory.
"It's all about the sun. We've got nothing to do with it."
Or did someone hack your account?
And for someone who exhorts his/her opponents to provide citations, you haven't provided a single one. I'd especially like references to claims like
That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
So the CO2 record should show spikes that are timed with earthquakes? Right?
the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
REFERENCE PLEASE! COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT ALERT!!
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face.
And your criticism of Wunsch was something more than an ad-hominem attack?
With each post I am increasingly convinced that you are completely moon-bat insane. Crazy factoids without references. Unfounded ad-hominem attacks. Back it up, buddy.
And where, kind sir, are your references?
Dude. Where to start?
Ok, historically CO2 has been part of the feedback to solar forcing of climate change. But the increased CO2 has been a positive feedback, sustaining the climate change well past the solar forcing. What's different this time is that due to human activity we are pushing CO2 directly, so if our understanding of physics is correct (as established by Arrhenius himself), the result is heating. This is basic theory and the temperature record, though noisy, hardly contradicts this over the 20th century. Now, there's uncertainty about feedbacks, clouds, etc., but the CO2 forcing is there.
Do you see the spike? My eyeballs tell me the slope is roughly 100ppm/century.
Natural gross CO2 fluxes are huge. Net fluxes are small (i.e. they largely cancel out, and that's not accidental). Human fluxes are large compared to the net flux. See above link.
If you really don't think that CO2 traps heat, you are wrong. Grab a physics textbook, or start here. It has pictures and everything.
If you really found that documentary convincing, you need to get your head examined.
Have you read Carl Wunsch's response to that "documentary" that he was featured in? Here's an interesting excerpt:
If you want to attack global warming, focus on climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (if you really think there is zero CO2 forcing, please provide a reference for that ?) and the hurricane stuff. Plenty of uncertainty there. But to claim "It's all about the sun" is to expose yourself as deeply ignorant/blind. Note that I am not claiming the sun isn't an important driver of climate; that is an equally insane proposition. But to ignore basic physics that no one can or will debunk is a little silly.
Can we all step back and admit that our opinions on climate change are fundamentally formed by deeper philosophical values that we have? It is clear to me that many, many people on both sides of this issue don't really pay attention to the science (read that IPCC report lately); they find the factoids that fit their preconceptions and go from there. I'm no different, though I actively try to objectively consider the available information. If we can start to get past our idealogical blinders, maybe we can have a conversation. But that goes for just about every issue these days.
BTW if anyone can explain how ocean acidification might not be a big deal, please share.
I'm not big on voting machines, but if we're going to have them, they should be open.
This guy (Alan Dechert) is active in CA and needs your help. I've ponied up some dough; please join me.
He's speaking at the Red Hat Summit today!
Agreed. But to my knowledge there's no config file or anything that you can backup for the customized home pages.
Methinks Google is starting to show some cracks after growing too fast. I like(d) Google; I hope they can pull this stuff together.
I think GP was a joke...
Sometimes you just gotta feed the trolls?
around 30 reasons
30? I mean I know it was a new one every day, but I didn't realize we were up to 30.
Why does the far left support groups like Hamas and Al Quada
Here's a relatively simple answer: They don't. Opposing the war in Iraq ~= support for Al Quaeda. That's a pretty important point to grasp. In fact, if you can't grasp how that is possible, ho boy, I really don't know where to start.
And you actually explain cogently why lefties don't support Muslim terror groups- you are absolutely right, no feminist or gay would ever welcome sharia law. QED.
That's another problem with the far left. Its inability to allow others to argue their side.
Yeah, cuz it's not like Tom Delay accused Reid of treason today, or anything. It's all on the left, huh.
And I personally love it when people whine about their anticipation of getting modded down. Especially those who tend to criticize the supposed 'victim culture' in the US. Poor me, people criticize my dumb ideas.
Hell, one single item, small children being imprisoned for the political beliefs of the parents, was a good enough reason.
And now they get blown up b/c of the religious beliefs of their parents. Big improvement.
Listen, people on the really far left tend to piss me off. But they aren't the problem here. The problem is that we had a bad plan for Iraq and implemented it poorly, and it all comes back to senior leadership. Even if one accepts that removing Saddam's regime was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons (a position I can support in principle), everything else with Iraq (too light a force, no post-fall-of-Baghdad plan, dissolution of the Army, etc.) has been a complete cock-up that has cost lives and billions of dollars. I can't pretend to know the right course of action going forward, but it should be led by someone new. Hell, let's swap Bush 41 back in there, or something.
But the problem is that the discussion has been around $/W for a cell, not for an installed system.
Arguing that $/W matters, and efficiency does not, ignores the fact that efficiency drives $/W, because it drives the size of the array, which then incurs costs around land, installation labor, etc.
You are right that $/W for a fully installed system is the key metric. But what a lot of other $/W proponents are missing is that efficiency is a strong driver of installed cost.
What's unknown is how many people stumbled across the problem and did not report it.
I really like the web version of Turbo Tax, but things like this leave me very nervous.
Is this any better?
NoScript is a total pain in the ass, but I love it.