Being American doesn't really matter when the fee fees of people all over the world got involved, David.
The long and the short of it is that there are attempts by alarmists to exaggerate the issue beyond the evidence of science to push policy objectives for political reasons.
When that happens, the science is corrupted because it becomes politics and not science. The price of mixing politics with science is that you just have politics. Its like mixing shit with ice cream. You just have shit now. No one is eating that unless they want to eat shit. And I don't want to eat shit, David.
Now if you want to talk about this in an unshitted version... we can do that. But the consensus argument has been widely debunked as politics. And so have the extreme consequence predictions. What we have left are far more moderate conclusions which is all the science actually supports. On this you are not going to be able to base a grand climate change holy war.
So... what more need be said? The climate change crusade is canceled. Go home.
Nice attempt at a goal post move. The issue is not GW but AGW and the the linked concepts of carbon caps and carbon taxes.
As to facts... its a big complex issue with many sub-subjects.
Do you want to go anywhere in particular?
Because if you want me to sperg on the issue, I can do it... and you're going to make an appeal to authority, I'm going to laugh at it, and then we're going to part with both of us throwing insults.
That's what happens.
So can you promise not to make an appeal to authority? Because if you can't make that promise... then I can promise how this is going to end.
Because too many of them virtue signaled on AGW without understanding the science and now they feel like if Al Gore is wrong they're somehow stupid.
Don't get me wrong, some of them are genuinely stupid people... but there's a lot of misplaced trust, lazy thinking, appeals to authority gone rampant... and various other things.
But at the end of the day, their egos got committed to the "cause"... and now they just don't want to feel stupid.
You can evaluate this pretty easily by actually querying them on the science... most people that swear up and down one way or the other don't actually know anything beyond what children are taught in 1st grade. It boils down to happy cartoon suns with squiggly sun rays. Start querying methodology... and suddenly they don't want to talk about it anymore... which is literally where the actual discussion starts... consistently bailing at the start of something that is professed to be understood and which there are professed strong opinions about... is suggestive.
1. Baseless insult. 2. Nuclear power operates very efficiently outside their influence. Thus the impact of the influence is prescriptive on efficiency. 3. Cite your source for why I'm wrong or this is just posturing. 4. Baseless insult. 5. I could use the same argument against people using the Great Depression as the singular economic example and yet everyone seems to do it. This is just more posturing on your part.
We can go into things if you're at all able to do more than posture and insult. But I rather suspect that's all you've got.
1. You're making the Somalia argument... I think I'll call this argumentum ad somalia.
2. Your dam rebuttal makes no sense in the context of dams. You're now arguing that the regulatory burden of daming a river and creating artificial lakes is the same as putting solar panels on the ground. This is literally stupid. And since you made this argument you're either fail trolling or are yourself stupid. Either way your point is not acceptable on any logical basis.
3. No citation from your google source... so I can ignore that now. Thanks.
4. Failing to give reasons means you simply referring to an argument that you didn't actually make. Absent you making an argument about economics that has any falsifiable component, I can't address it because it is not actually an argument. You're just saying you have an argument... but you're not defining it so its a null argument until defined. I can as easily respond that I have a rebuttal to the argument you're not making.
5. A goal post move will remain a goal post move indifferent to how badly you need to move the goal post. The problems with your own argument are not my problem.
1. Negative, it is competitive outside of that interference as you yourself conceded. End of story. The only difference is that you think that interference is legitimate. That's a different discussion and one I'm not interested in right now. You've already conceded the point. You're just not clever enough to see it.
2. Hydro cannot be conflated with solar as one requires government involvement for damming rivers where as putting some solar panels on the ground does not. Your unwillingness to concede the obvious is not required.
3. As to who I trust, cite your source if you want to play the citation game. I'll make you very sorry for doing this but if you want to be punished for acting like an idiot, I am happy to do that. Cite your source please. Direct citation. This is a very stupid move on your part. But if you want to do it. Do it.
4. You say "reasons" but don't say what any of them are... I gave reasons because ironically, it is you that is ignorant and not myself.
5. You asked for a citation and I gave you one. Your distress as being contradicted with a citation is not my problem and if you goal post move, I'll note the goal post move because I'm not an intellectual lightweight.
1. Nope. You simply ignored everything and made the same dumb argument people like you always make. The issue was addressed. Nuclear is entirely competitive outside political interference by anti nuclear activists.
2. Your lack of agreement that 1+1=2 is not required for 1+1=2
Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Anyone that walks around in the suburbs or rural areas and just has eye balls can see it.
4. Jobs exist in places where labor is... its a dynamic relationship. Cut the subsidies and the labor won't be there and the jobs will follow the labor. You can't evaluate economics if you don't understand economics.
5. I made a claim and I substantiated that claim when asked for a citation. Your goalpost move is noted for what it is and ignored.
2. The hydro issue is again a conflation of environmental politics with economic viability. Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Solar is generally good on 99.9 percent of roofs. Fly over a suburb and spot the roofs that are not totally exposed to the sky. Its very very very few.
4. Cities have increasing populations because of subsidies. The housing is subsidized, the food is subsidized, the medical care is subsidized, the education is subsidized... and the birth rate in cities is shit... and has always been shit. We hear endlessly about how people want to improve the economy and improve birth rates... well... consider not subsidizing stupid urban planning. Just a thought. The higher the urbanization the worse it gets. Consider that it is a false correlation to associate urbanization with modernity. That was a context of the industrial revolution which is not prescriptive on future logistical paradigms.
5. As to examples of the fees utilities charge solar installations... well known and easily found... anyone that can use google will find many examples of it. Here is one: http://www.scientificamerican....
1. Care in shopping for power is irrelevant. The power is competitive or it is not.
2. Nuclear power is mostly government involved because of regulation and fear of misuse of the technology for purposes other than power generation. It also has massively inflated costs in current times due to anti nuclear activism that has made it impossible to store spent fuel despite all reasonable precautions being addressed. A better assessment of the economics of nuclear power would be looking at Russia or China where you can see they find the technology to be vastly more cost efficient due to not having to deal with the same political interference.
3. Hydroelectric dams are actually very cost efficient and break even with investment rather rapidly. The only reason you get government involvement is because you're reshaping mountains, eminent domaining entire valleys, and changing water rights through the rivers. The regulations involved with moving rivers, reshaping valleys, and voiding the deeds to entire populations is why it goes government... not because of the money.
With solar you have none of the problems of nuclear or hydro electric dams. In fact, your situation is much more comparable to coal or natural gas in that your technology isn't dangerous and doesn't need to deal with huge amounts of red tape because of zoning... So conflating your needs with that is not rational.
If you want solar, the best method is to encourage more people to put solar panels on their roofs... not fund giant solar plants. Look at all that unused roof space. In many parts of the US, solar on roofs is being discouraged... fees are being charged to people that install these on their roofs because the local utilities are losing money. Effectively, solar installers are being fined for being efficient.
The same thing should happen with wind. Rural and suburban America should have solar and wind on their own property as they see fit. The suburbs and rural areas should be able to self supply to a large extent on that basis. Urban areas should get over their irrational fears of nuclear and just accept it as the best form of energy for the cities... which is what it is and shall remain until we get something better. Solar and wind ain't it.
I'm from California. We've been playing this game since the 70s. Every time the subsidies are pulled the project dies.
Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
So here is my answer going forward to any retard that says "oh but this time man its totally going to make money... we swear."... I say "well, good... then you don't need public funding because IF you're not either lying or retarded then you should be able to get private funding for your almost certainly retarded idea."
So that's the answer.
Now, still waiting for what you people would accept as evidence for YOU being wrong.
I cited my criteria which I feel are sensible, self consistent, and reliable.
Please please... give me your criteria.
My experience is that no criteria will be offered because the precept that wind energy is a good idea is ultimately a tautology of belief and not in any way based on any empirical reality.
What would you need to see to concede the investment is poor?
Here is what I'd need to see... Total private investment.
If it is ACTUALLY a good investment then the government wouldn't need to fund it. Private interests would be happy to invest with ZERO public money. At most you'd offer a tax break/cut on the investment... that is not a tax Credit... it is a break. Aka you offer to NOT collect taxes on the project.
That is MY condition for believing this is a good idea... convince investors to build this with their own money.
We can do that currently with coal, gas, hydroelectric, and depending on regulations we can do it with nuclear. I have yet to see any wind project get funded by people that actually expect it to make money... I mean... honestly.
So that is what I need. What would you need to see to concede you are wrong?
Warning... if you answer "nothing" you're in creationist territory.
So, you've failed to answer again... oh well. Guess all you can do is be salty and upset. How you think you're doing me any injury when you're the one that's so fucking triggered... its baffling.
Suck it. Price of being an AC troll fuckwit. And you could say any of what you're saying here indifferent to whether you win or lose simply by being stubborn and dishonest. Which is generally to be expected of ACs.
Your appeals to popular opinion backfired. Come up with a better argument for why I'm wrong then me getting down voted. Because I wasn't. I was upvoted. You were not upvoted.
You're furthermore not saying I was wrong once but that I'm repeatedly wrong... or even consistently wrong. Well, on what basis besides your own rhetorical convenience?
My position at inception was accurate. In attempting to dismiss the increasingly pathetic console fans... I pointed out that their entire platform has a dubious future. It does. You don't like that? Why should I care?
I mean, believe what you want. I don't really care. You want to keep humping the console? Do it. I'm not taking anything away from you. Enjoy whatever.
My central argument is that console gaming is stupid.
A sub point of that was that the big console makers are planning to sunset the entire product line. And they are.
Now if you want to talk about that, and stand behind that... I can reengage. Short of that... I really don't know where your endless salt is coming from, buddy.
Which you could "say" regardless of any circumstance. Which is basically my point here. You're just "saying" that. I asked you to back up YOUR claim... and you're too much of a coward to do it.
I mean... AC so what should I expect... but it makes your entire position pretty comical.
Name a claim you want backed and we'll see how easy it is for me to win. I mean, the challenge is quiet clear here, sport. The reality that you're not answering anything but rather just wasting my time with dumb insults and text book fallacies does nothing to change the initial impression that you're a failtroll AC.
So you want to bring up old arguments because you have so little to say in this one?
Why don't you just bring up what you really care about because it isn't this... do it. And I'll ruin you instantly... and then move on. Amuse me by even trying to have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Being American doesn't really matter when the fee fees of people all over the world got involved, David.
The long and the short of it is that there are attempts by alarmists to exaggerate the issue beyond the evidence of science to push policy objectives for political reasons.
When that happens, the science is corrupted because it becomes politics and not science. The price of mixing politics with science is that you just have politics. Its like mixing shit with ice cream. You just have shit now. No one is eating that unless they want to eat shit. And I don't want to eat shit, David.
Now if you want to talk about this in an unshitted version... we can do that. But the consensus argument has been widely debunked as politics. And so have the extreme consequence predictions. What we have left are far more moderate conclusions which is all the science actually supports. On this you are not going to be able to base a grand climate change holy war.
So... what more need be said? The climate change crusade is canceled. Go home.
The price of mixing science with politics is that you're left with only politics... the science is gone.
Nice attempt at a goal post move. The issue is not GW but AGW and the the linked concepts of carbon caps and carbon taxes.
As to facts... its a big complex issue with many sub-subjects.
Do you want to go anywhere in particular?
Because if you want me to sperg on the issue, I can do it... and you're going to make an appeal to authority, I'm going to laugh at it, and then we're going to part with both of us throwing insults.
That's what happens.
So can you promise not to make an appeal to authority? Because if you can't make that promise... then I can promise how this is going to end.
Because too many of them virtue signaled on AGW without understanding the science and now they feel like if Al Gore is wrong they're somehow stupid.
Don't get me wrong, some of them are genuinely stupid people... but there's a lot of misplaced trust, lazy thinking, appeals to authority gone rampant... and various other things.
But at the end of the day, their egos got committed to the "cause"... and now they just don't want to feel stupid.
You can evaluate this pretty easily by actually querying them on the science... most people that swear up and down one way or the other don't actually know anything beyond what children are taught in 1st grade. It boils down to happy cartoon suns with squiggly sun rays. Start querying methodology... and suddenly they don't want to talk about it anymore... which is literally where the actual discussion starts... consistently bailing at the start of something that is professed to be understood and which there are professed strong opinions about... is suggestive.
1. Baseless insult.
2. Nuclear power operates very efficiently outside their influence. Thus the impact of the influence is prescriptive on efficiency.
3. Cite your source for why I'm wrong or this is just posturing.
4. Baseless insult.
5. I could use the same argument against people using the Great Depression as the singular economic example and yet everyone seems to do it. This is just more posturing on your part.
We can go into things if you're at all able to do more than posture and insult. But I rather suspect that's all you've got.
1. You're making the Somalia argument... I think I'll call this argumentum ad somalia.
2. Your dam rebuttal makes no sense in the context of dams. You're now arguing that the regulatory burden of daming a river and creating artificial lakes is the same as putting solar panels on the ground. This is literally stupid. And since you made this argument you're either fail trolling or are yourself stupid. Either way your point is not acceptable on any logical basis.
3. No citation from your google source... so I can ignore that now. Thanks.
4. Failing to give reasons means you simply referring to an argument that you didn't actually make. Absent you making an argument about economics that has any falsifiable component, I can't address it because it is not actually an argument. You're just saying you have an argument... but you're not defining it so its a null argument until defined. I can as easily respond that I have a rebuttal to the argument you're not making.
5. A goal post move will remain a goal post move indifferent to how badly you need to move the goal post. The problems with your own argument are not my problem.
1. Negative, it is competitive outside of that interference as you yourself conceded. End of story. The only difference is that you think that interference is legitimate. That's a different discussion and one I'm not interested in right now. You've already conceded the point. You're just not clever enough to see it.
2. Hydro cannot be conflated with solar as one requires government involvement for damming rivers where as putting some solar panels on the ground does not. Your unwillingness to concede the obvious is not required.
3. As to who I trust, cite your source if you want to play the citation game. I'll make you very sorry for doing this but if you want to be punished for acting like an idiot, I am happy to do that. Cite your source please. Direct citation. This is a very stupid move on your part. But if you want to do it. Do it.
4. You say "reasons" but don't say what any of them are... I gave reasons because ironically, it is you that is ignorant and not myself.
5. You asked for a citation and I gave you one. Your distress as being contradicted with a citation is not my problem and if you goal post move, I'll note the goal post move because I'm not an intellectual lightweight.
1. Nope. You simply ignored everything and made the same dumb argument people like you always make. The issue was addressed. Nuclear is entirely competitive outside political interference by anti nuclear activists.
2. Your lack of agreement that 1+1=2 is not required for 1+1=2
Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Anyone that walks around in the suburbs or rural areas and just has eye balls can see it.
4. Jobs exist in places where labor is... its a dynamic relationship. Cut the subsidies and the labor won't be there and the jobs will follow the labor. You can't evaluate economics if you don't understand economics.
5. I made a claim and I substantiated that claim when asked for a citation. Your goalpost move is noted for what it is and ignored.
1. I addressed the nuclear power issue.
2. The hydro issue is again a conflation of environmental politics with economic viability. Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Solar is generally good on 99.9 percent of roofs. Fly over a suburb and spot the roofs that are not totally exposed to the sky. Its very very very few.
4. Cities have increasing populations because of subsidies. The housing is subsidized, the food is subsidized, the medical care is subsidized, the education is subsidized... and the birth rate in cities is shit... and has always been shit. We hear endlessly about how people want to improve the economy and improve birth rates... well... consider not subsidizing stupid urban planning. Just a thought. The higher the urbanization the worse it gets. Consider that it is a false correlation to associate urbanization with modernity. That was a context of the industrial revolution which is not prescriptive on future logistical paradigms.
5. As to examples of the fees utilities charge solar installations... well known and easily found... anyone that can use google will find many examples of it. Here is one:
http://www.scientificamerican....
1. Care in shopping for power is irrelevant. The power is competitive or it is not.
2. Nuclear power is mostly government involved because of regulation and fear of misuse of the technology for purposes other than power generation. It also has massively inflated costs in current times due to anti nuclear activism that has made it impossible to store spent fuel despite all reasonable precautions being addressed. A better assessment of the economics of nuclear power would be looking at Russia or China where you can see they find the technology to be vastly more cost efficient due to not having to deal with the same political interference.
3. Hydroelectric dams are actually very cost efficient and break even with investment rather rapidly. The only reason you get government involvement is because you're reshaping mountains, eminent domaining entire valleys, and changing water rights through the rivers. The regulations involved with moving rivers, reshaping valleys, and voiding the deeds to entire populations is why it goes government... not because of the money.
With solar you have none of the problems of nuclear or hydro electric dams. In fact, your situation is much more comparable to coal or natural gas in that your technology isn't dangerous and doesn't need to deal with huge amounts of red tape because of zoning... So conflating your needs with that is not rational.
If you want solar, the best method is to encourage more people to put solar panels on their roofs... not fund giant solar plants. Look at all that unused roof space. In many parts of the US, solar on roofs is being discouraged... fees are being charged to people that install these on their roofs because the local utilities are losing money. Effectively, solar installers are being fined for being efficient.
The same thing should happen with wind. Rural and suburban America should have solar and wind on their own property as they see fit. The suburbs and rural areas should be able to self supply to a large extent on that basis. Urban areas should get over their irrational fears of nuclear and just accept it as the best form of energy for the cities... which is what it is and shall remain until we get something better. Solar and wind ain't it.
I'm from California. We've been playing this game since the 70s. Every time the subsidies are pulled the project dies.
Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
So here is my answer going forward to any retard that says "oh but this time man its totally going to make money... we swear."... I say "well, good... then you don't need public funding because IF you're not either lying or retarded then you should be able to get private funding for your almost certainly retarded idea."
So that's the answer.
Now, still waiting for what you people would accept as evidence for YOU being wrong.
I cited my criteria which I feel are sensible, self consistent, and reliable.
Please please... give me your criteria.
My experience is that no criteria will be offered because the precept that wind energy is a good idea is ultimately a tautology of belief and not in any way based on any empirical reality.
What would you need to see to concede the investment is poor?
Here is what I'd need to see... Total private investment.
If it is ACTUALLY a good investment then the government wouldn't need to fund it. Private interests would be happy to invest with ZERO public money. At most you'd offer a tax break/cut on the investment... that is not a tax Credit... it is a break. Aka you offer to NOT collect taxes on the project.
That is MY condition for believing this is a good idea... convince investors to build this with their own money.
We can do that currently with coal, gas, hydroelectric, and depending on regulations we can do it with nuclear. I have yet to see any wind project get funded by people that actually expect it to make money... I mean... honestly.
So that is what I need. What would you need to see to concede you are wrong?
Warning... if you answer "nothing" you're in creationist territory.
So, you've failed to answer again... oh well. Guess all you can do is be salty and upset. How you think you're doing me any injury when you're the one that's so fucking triggered... its baffling.
Show were I was wrong in my initial comment.
All my posts are proving right now is how empty your sad little boasts were.
You're rated 0. I'm rated 5+ insightful.
Suck it. Price of being an AC troll fuckwit. And you could say any of what you're saying here indifferent to whether you win or lose simply by being stubborn and dishonest. Which is generally to be expected of ACs.
Your appeals to popular opinion backfired. Come up with a better argument for why I'm wrong then me getting down voted. Because I wasn't. I was upvoted. You were not upvoted.
You're furthermore not saying I was wrong once but that I'm repeatedly wrong... or even consistently wrong. Well, on what basis besides your own rhetorical convenience?
My position at inception was accurate. In attempting to dismiss the increasingly pathetic console fans... I pointed out that their entire platform has a dubious future. It does. You don't like that? Why should I care?
I mean, believe what you want. I don't really care. You want to keep humping the console? Do it. I'm not taking anything away from you. Enjoy whatever.
"Negative (Score:5, Insightful)"
Get rekt.
My central argument is that console gaming is stupid.
A sub point of that was that the big console makers are planning to sunset the entire product line. And they are.
Now if you want to talk about that, and stand behind that... I can reengage. Short of that... I really don't know where your endless salt is coming from, buddy.
Which you could "say" regardless of any circumstance. Which is basically my point here. You're just "saying" that. I asked you to back up YOUR claim... and you're too much of a coward to do it.
I mean... AC so what should I expect... but it makes your entire position pretty comical.
Name a claim you want backed and we'll see how easy it is for me to win. I mean, the challenge is quiet clear here, sport. The reality that you're not answering anything but rather just wasting my time with dumb insults and text book fallacies does nothing to change the initial impression that you're a failtroll AC.
Appeal to motivation, eh? Yawn.
Answer the challenge or your concession by default
So you were challenged to back up your position and you had nothing.
*yawn* Won without even trying.
So you want to bring up old arguments because you have so little to say in this one?
Why don't you just bring up what you really care about because it isn't this... do it. And I'll ruin you instantly... and then move on. Amuse me by even trying to have a point.
The same AC claiming to be different people and then appealing to a majority which is just himself.
Silly.