Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then most of the scientific models show that solar is advancing exponentially and reaching parity with fossil fuels now and will be cheaper in the world by 2020 and 50% cheaper by 2030 and nearly free by 2035. Because of this we will have no problem getting significantly off fossil fuels by 2030. In fact my goal is to be off fossil fuels by 2020. Yet when I point this out to climate change activists they tell me well the models could be wrong. So my question is if you believe in science then you believe in science not just the science you want to. You can't say you believe in the models that show climate change is a issue but dismiss all the ones that show solar will take over fossil fuels well before the date the UN models say we have to be off fossil fuels.
You do realize this is a false equivalence, right? The models of climate change are based on accepted physics, planetary science, and mathematics. They make extremely accurate predictions that have been true. This is a very different thing than having a bunch of data points and extrapolating it to the future. There's a very high probability the latter is wrong, especially if the data points are exponential. There's a very low chance the former is wrong given how well it explains the climate as we observe it and its strong agreement with experiment.
Extrapolations of data points is not scientific, and doing so with exponential data makes for extremely bad science. Then again, you constantly cite a man who's made a living off extraordinary claims and extrapolating exponential curves into the far future. I can now see how you have come to the conclusion that both are "science".
Lastly, you argument that you "believe in science, not just the science you want to" is extremely flawed and ludicrous. You do understand that not all science is equally valid? Much of science is well documented and established, while others are highly speculative and could be entirely wrong. Science is not meant to be accepted on faith, rather it is the experts who must convince you with sufficient evidence that their models are accurate representations of nature.
You do realize this is a false equivalence, right? The models of climate change are based on accepted physics, planetary science, and mathematics. They make extremely accurate predictions that have been true. This is a very different thing than having a bunch of data points and extrapolating it to the future. There's a very high probability the latter is wrong, especially if the data points are exponential. There's a very low chance the former is wrong given how well it explains the climate as we observe it and its strong agreement with experiment.
Extrapolations of data points is not scientific, and doing so with exponential data makes for extremely bad science. Then again, you constantly cite a man who's made a living off extraordinary claims and extrapolating exponential curves into the far future. I can now see how you have come to the conclusion that both are "science".
Lastly, you argument that you "believe in science, not just the science you want to" is extremely flawed and ludicrous. You do understand that not all science is equally valid? Much of science is well documented and established, while others are highly speculative and could be entirely wrong. Science is not meant to be accepted on faith, rather it is the experts who must convince you with sufficient evidence that their models are accurate representations of nature.
All the models on how solar will advance are scientific as well. In fact there have been multiple scientific studies done from colleges to large companies like GE.
Here is just one of many articles on solar. This is why I am not worried about climate change. Not because I am a climate change denier but that I know we will be off fossil fuels just like the climate change activists say we need to be and before 2030.
What I mean is most scientists agree that society using fossil fuels is bad for the environment and we should stop using them and switch to alternative fuels like solar.
We often hear this 97% figure from the media and other sources but these studies all have serious flaws. For example the Doran study is one that is the most often cited but that 97% figure is only 76 scientists. of the 3000 they polled. FYI this is the only study that has attempted to directly poll scientists individually.
Quote:
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
Here is the questions:
Quote:
1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Note the difference in the totals between 1 and 2, 79 and 77. There is reason 2 scientists didn't answer question 2. This is carefully worded question designed to elicit a specific response. What is the quantification of significant? If man has been able to change the earth temperature at all even if that was change negligible it could be considered significant.
Quote:
Then most of the scientific models show that solar is advancing exponentially and reaching parity with fossil fuels now and will be cheaper in the world by 2020 and 50% cheaper by 2030 and nearly free by 2035. Because of this we will have no problem getting significantly off fossil fuels by 2030.
Come see me when the government is not offering a 50% tax break, the green credits and the laundry list of subsidies to manufacturers. There has been predictions about cheap solar just around the corner for decades. The recent precipitous drop in prices is becsue China has been dumping product on the market and there is some serious concerns about the quality of the product which could result in setting this industry back decades if they start to fail prematurely.
LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Just to add if they ever expect to be cost comparative they will need to be tied to the grid making them reliant on fossil fuel based power. The only alternative would be storage sytems which are enormously expensive themselves and introduce their own inefficiencies.
purpose of grant- 'I want $1 million to show that humans are causing global temperatures to rise'. Grant approved.
Purpose of grant. 'I want $ 1000 to show that any fluctuations in global temperatures is the natural ebb and flow of the last 11,000 years' Grant disapproved. And we never want to hear from you, a denier, again.
Enacting anti-global climate change laws and forcing manufacturing to move to China - where pollution controls are less - is going to help stop climate change how???
Apparently we're having this argument again, because the OP felt like making it (which is kind of ironic).
Now I don't want to close this thread so please remember to stay calm, respectful and on topic.
Yac.
Come see me when the government is not offering a 50% tax break, the green credits and the laundry list of subsidies to manufacturers. There has been predictions about cheap solar just around the corner for decades. The recent precipitous drop in prices is becsue China has been dumping product on the market and there is some serious concerns about the quality of the product which could result in setting this industry back decades if they start to fail prematurely.
The forecast models are based on no tax breaks. Why when climate change activists say we must be significantly off fossil fuels by 2030 I am not worried because I know we will.
Scientific literacy is no match for propaganda machines like Fox News and the Koch brothers who dump buckets of money into "studies" that generate controversy over climate change.
The same thing happened with evolution. Religious groups succeeded in spreading fear about a misunderstood theory ("theory" in science, of course, has mountains of evidence to support it, unlike the common usage of the word, i.e. "it's just a theory" or "I have a theory..."). Teachers across America have to tiptoe around this subject, hence the general understanding of evolution is poor.
In the 1960s, the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against studies that proved their products caused cancer. It wasn't until the evidence directly affected people that it became common knowledge - in other words, it took people to die from cancer before the link between cigarettes and cancer was accepted and became conventional wisdom.
Climate change will be more like cigarettes than evolution - it's effect on our lives is going to be direct, personal, and disastrous. It's a shame we'll learn the hard way.
This would be true if we would be using fossil fuels for decades to come. We wont. The 2020's will see a major switch in this area.
I agree. And I'm not going to have that argument anymore. I'm so sick of hearing about it, at this point I don't give a f@#$ what happens, good or bad.
Perhaps it's time to create a new Global Warming / Climate Change sub forum, and move all the related threads from the Politics & Other Controversies, Weather and other locations, into this single sub forum?
As others have noted, this argument goes on and on, and never seems to end.
New Global Warming / Climate Change threads seem to appear almost every day in the Politics forum.
Maybe if they were all consolidated into a single forum, only those interested in Global Warming would need to see these threads?
And perhaps people would continue to use existing threads for the debate, rather than constantly creating new ones?
Just a thought ....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
