The myth of "unfair subsidies to the oil companies" is a nice canard from the alt energy folks, but the facts don't bear it out.
Alternative energy companies want to lump in literally a century's worth of development and infrastructure and label this as an "unfair advantage" to the oil companies, when in fact it's just business. I'm sure that the buggy whip makers had all kinds of "unfair advantages" with roads suitable to buggies and watering holes everywhere when the automobile burst onto the scene--and yet it still happened. Why? Because it was *better*.
The facts are that billions have been pumped into alternative energy (solar, wind, geo) and they are ALL promising technologies. Some day they'll be able to pull their own weight. I just built a 100% solar powered house--completely off the grid and I can tell ya first hand....this is some of the most immature and "not ready for primetime" technology you've ever seen. The government pumping money into it just makes it worse since the manufacturers don't have to make anything *better* that way, they just have to force people to *buy* it. This is probably why the most significant development in battery technology has been to ADD A FRICKIN STRAP so you can move the battery more easily....it's pathetic.
No subsides for ANYBODY, ANYWHERE is the only way to go. Let the ideas fight it out in the marketplace. THIS will improve gasoline efficiency, advance solar technology, make windmills more durable and less prone to breakdown. Having the federal government back ANY of it is not in their list of duties, nor does it allow the industry to mature.
I devoutly hope this works so we can get to cleaning up the mess and preventing future accidents like this.
As an engineer I know what a *bitch* of a job you've got in fixing this mess--good luck!
Give it rest guys. Your claims don't stand up to a moments dispassionate scrutiny. The interment camps were nearly seventy years ago. We've learned since then.
I'm not so sure, when you've had the camps in Thailand, the slaughter in Vietnam, and the recent turnover of data on Arab-Americans to the government after 9/11.
Better they NOT have it and avoid temptation, than they DO have it and we have to rely on trust. The government's kinda worn out their trust card of late.
I'm stunned by the comments of those in favor of this mess above me. One can only surmise that they spend their time alternating between coffee shops and the computer in their mom's basement....
States can't tax imports from other states. The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted.
I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who don't understand the Constitution very well.
This is a great development for those too disabled to be able to use a keyboard directly.
Imagine Stephen Hawking being able to directly write out his ideas rather than them having to go through a translator. Imagine being able to give folks stuck in a bed because they're paralyzed from the neck down a way to interact with family, friends, the Internet at large.
This is basically a retread of the stuff we've seen before--we're losing too much of the rain forest and we need to stop it.
Change in climate isn't even *mentioned* as a possible contributor until very nearly the end of the article, and even then it has a "got to blame that too" kind of feel to it that one often sees in similar BBC News articles.
I'm sure it's *much* more significant that people cut down 150 acres per *minute* of rainforest. THAT is what we need to focus on, not speculative climate science.
Generally the off-shift stuff is their idea/fault/decision in the first place, so if I'm in it they need to lead by example and be there too. Whether it's overtime in the evenings or weekend work, I expect the ones responsible to be there too.
As a scientist I want to see the facts and will draw my own conclusions, thank you. Right now, my take on the various temperature data is that the planet is almost certainly warming but the evidence for mankind having anything to do with it is thin and contradictory. Both of these conclusions are consistent with known global cyclic data (i.e., we're coming out of an Ice Age) and the scale of human-induced factors vs. natural climate.
Lots to learn here, lots to study. By NO means does any credible scientist call any debate on this "settled".
There are plusses and minusses to living out in a rural area (says the man building a house in the mountains). I accept that my road won't get plowed unless my neighbors and I do it, and that I have to generate my own electricity if I want any. On the other hand I have clean air and pine trees and quiet and stunning mountain views in a location that's so gorgeous it's borderline holy.
I don't expect, say, the folks on this list to subsidize a broadband connection for me or to make sure I have trash pickup at my doorstep. That's part of the price for living "in the view", as it were.
No surprises here.
Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say.
As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable. Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did.
The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.
What's great about something like this is that it's the perfect conspiracy theory.
If you *believe* in Peak Oil, absolutely nothing the industry shows you--charts, graphs, sonic measurements, etc.--will convince you that "they" aren't lying and trying to conceal the truth.
If you *don't* believe in Peak Oil, the folks who do are still whack-jobs no matter what their latest line is. Bonus points if you credit a *reverse* conspiracy on the part of greenies/socialists/oneworlders/etc. to use a fake crisis to sway public opinion.
Sigh.
I want a model, Warmites. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 has any affect whatsoever on global climate and yet still explains our observational data. Note that any *valid* model should be able to recreate past results, which to date none of them have been able to do.
Your argument is flawed with a dubious assumption and leaves out other outcomes, probably in an attempt to shape the conclusion you want.
You *assume* that "doing nothing" will lead to different results 500 years from now than "doing something". This is unprovable with current technology since all you can do is estimate and project.
If (go with it for a moment) AGW is over-stated or non-existent, then if absolutely NOTHING were done that the world would be in *exactly* the same place.
Another option would be alternative outcomes if manmade CO2 is as critical to the balance as AGW proponents believe. For example, if the world is actually beginning to enter a prolonged period of temperature decreases (due to cyclic activity and solar decline) then efforts to reduce CO2 may actually *hurt* the climate.
You ignore many options and outcomes. It's NOT "do this or the world will fry!"....that's a strawman argument with artificially limited choices.
Slashdot Mirror
The myth of "unfair subsidies to the oil companies" is a nice canard from the alt energy folks, but the facts don't bear it out.
Alternative energy companies want to lump in literally a century's worth of development and infrastructure and label this as an "unfair advantage" to the oil companies, when in fact it's just business. I'm sure that the buggy whip makers had all kinds of "unfair advantages" with roads suitable to buggies and watering holes everywhere when the automobile burst onto the scene--and yet it still happened. Why? Because it was *better*.
The facts are that billions have been pumped into alternative energy (solar, wind, geo) and they are ALL promising technologies. Some day they'll be able to pull their own weight. I just built a 100% solar powered house--completely off the grid and I can tell ya first hand....this is some of the most immature and "not ready for primetime" technology you've ever seen. The government pumping money into it just makes it worse since the manufacturers don't have to make anything *better* that way, they just have to force people to *buy* it. This is probably why the most significant development in battery technology has been to ADD A FRICKIN STRAP so you can move the battery more easily....it's pathetic.
No subsides for ANYBODY, ANYWHERE is the only way to go. Let the ideas fight it out in the marketplace. THIS will improve gasoline efficiency, advance solar technology, make windmills more durable and less prone to breakdown. Having the federal government back ANY of it is not in their list of duties, nor does it allow the industry to mature.
....we haven't been allowed to use thumbdrives and such, like, forever......
Interesting findings.
Four hours of light is better than none, but LED lights generally suck for much else besides spot lighting. Good idea; needs improvement.
I devoutly hope this works so we can get to cleaning up the mess and preventing future accidents like this. As an engineer I know what a *bitch* of a job you've got in fixing this mess--good luck!
Give it rest guys. Your claims don't stand up to a moments dispassionate scrutiny. The interment camps were nearly seventy years ago. We've learned since then.
I'm not so sure, when you've had the camps in Thailand, the slaughter in Vietnam, and the recent turnover of data on Arab-Americans to the government after 9/11.
Better they NOT have it and avoid temptation, than they DO have it and we have to rely on trust. The government's kinda worn out their trust card of late.
What a sad day for the nation and the world.
...on my right of association (by forcing me to purchase a good or service). Freedom died a little bit with this monstrosity.
I'm stunned by the comments of those in favor of this mess above me. One can only surmise that they spend their time alternating between coffee shops and the computer in their mom's basement....
This is illegal and unconstitutional.
States can't tax imports from other states. The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted.
I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who don't understand the Constitution very well.
Totally concur Jason.
As *neat* as something like this is, it simply can't compete with the efficiency and size factor to be found with going nuclear.
Would I rather see these towers built than do nothing? Yes.
Would I rather see a nice, compact nuclear plant built instead of these two towers? Definitely yes.
...like a *danged* good idea. Let's do this. Now.
This is a great development for those too disabled to be able to use a keyboard directly.
Imagine Stephen Hawking being able to directly write out his ideas rather than them having to go through a translator. Imagine being able to give folks stuck in a bed because they're paralyzed from the neck down a way to interact with family, friends, the Internet at large.
Awesome, excellent discovery.
This is basically a retread of the stuff we've seen before--we're losing too much of the rain forest and we need to stop it.
Change in climate isn't even *mentioned* as a possible contributor until very nearly the end of the article, and even then it has a "got to blame that too" kind of feel to it that one often sees in similar BBC News articles.
I'm sure it's *much* more significant that people cut down 150 acres per *minute* of rainforest. THAT is what we need to focus on, not speculative climate science.
I absolutely want managers to be there too!
Generally the off-shift stuff is their idea/fault/decision in the first place, so if I'm in it they need to lead by example and be there too. Whether it's overtime in the evenings or weekend work, I expect the ones responsible to be there too.
Actually the correct term is "Skeptic".
As a scientist I want to see the facts and will draw my own conclusions, thank you. Right now, my take on the various temperature data is that the planet is almost certainly warming but the evidence for mankind having anything to do with it is thin and contradictory. Both of these conclusions are consistent with known global cyclic data (i.e., we're coming out of an Ice Age) and the scale of human-induced factors vs. natural climate.
Lots to learn here, lots to study. By NO means does any credible scientist call any debate on this "settled".
Well said, Shakrai.
There are plusses and minusses to living out in a rural area (says the man building a house in the mountains). I accept that my road won't get plowed unless my neighbors and I do it, and that I have to generate my own electricity if I want any. On the other hand I have clean air and pine trees and quiet and stunning mountain views in a location that's so gorgeous it's borderline holy.
I don't expect, say, the folks on this list to subsidize a broadband connection for me or to make sure I have trash pickup at my doorstep. That's part of the price for living "in the view", as it were.
No surprises here. Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say. As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable. Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did. The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.
Now *this* is an interesting take on things...good link!
What's great about something like this is that it's the perfect conspiracy theory. If you *believe* in Peak Oil, absolutely nothing the industry shows you--charts, graphs, sonic measurements, etc.--will convince you that "they" aren't lying and trying to conceal the truth. If you *don't* believe in Peak Oil, the folks who do are still whack-jobs no matter what their latest line is. Bonus points if you credit a *reverse* conspiracy on the part of greenies/socialists/oneworlders/etc. to use a fake crisis to sway public opinion. Sigh.
...the Obama administration is saying, "Bush was right". Hmmmm.....
You first, model wise.
I want a model, Warmites. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 has any affect whatsoever on global climate and yet still explains our observational data. Note that any *valid* model should be able to recreate past results, which to date none of them have been able to do.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Your argument is flawed with a dubious assumption and leaves out other outcomes, probably in an attempt to shape the conclusion you want.
You *assume* that "doing nothing" will lead to different results 500 years from now than "doing something". This is unprovable with current technology since all you can do is estimate and project.
If (go with it for a moment) AGW is over-stated or non-existent, then if absolutely NOTHING were done that the world would be in *exactly* the same place.
Another option would be alternative outcomes if manmade CO2 is as critical to the balance as AGW proponents believe. For example, if the world is actually beginning to enter a prolonged period of temperature decreases (due to cyclic activity and solar decline) then efforts to reduce CO2 may actually *hurt* the climate.
You ignore many options and outcomes. It's NOT "do this or the world will fry!"....that's a strawman argument with artificially limited choices.
Concur...THAT would have earned my respect. As it is now, he only has my pity.
It's easy for the European crowd to act high and mighty--we're the ones they come running to every time they get into trouble.