Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?

Where is the "it is irrelevant" option?

It's a yes or no question.

Next poll: Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?

Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.

If humans do have an impact on it, then it's relevent.

Why? It doesn't really matter if we are having an effect right now. Even if we are we won't be having an effect in another 20 years... so it doesn't really matter.

Where did you hear this?

Next poll: Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?

Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.

Next poll: Has BigDyl stopped beating his boyfriend?

Polls are only as good as their selection pool and their questions.

There is someone you should meet, Big D!

Stop global warming before Greenland thaws out...again.

I'm really glad to see an original subject pop up that hasn't been discussed before!

Lots of places. The writing is on the wall. The technology is getting there. The world needs to double it's amount of energy available in the next 20 years to keep up with growth. That is simply not achievable with fossil fuels. Nuclear is very unpopular... this means there is going to be a lot of money available for alternate energy. Solar cells are getting smaller and more efficient every year. Carbon nanotubes are starting to appear in solar cells which boosts their efficiency greatly. At that does not even mention hydrogen fuel cells.

So here is the trend... Solar is getting cheaper, more efficient and more widely available (not to mention more socially acceptable)

Fossil Fuels are getting more expensive, the quality is going down as the 'good' reserves are being used up first. They are also getting less available as we burn them and as wars make it more troublesome and expensive to extract it.

Couple that with exponentially shorter development times as technology progresses and it is going to happen. It has to... not because we want to save the environment or be responsible but because there is money to be made in alternate energy.

Take a look at this trend:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato...tor12_data.htm

It's not a linear trend. Fossil fuel growth doesn't have this same kind of a curve.

Technology growth is an exponential curve made up from a series of S curves. A technology starts out slow and gradually builds then as it is begins to work and become profitable, it goes through an exponential growth period. As the limits of that technology are reached the curve slows down and you get an S shaped curve. But the amazing thing is that as that technology starts to slow down, a newer technology always emerges with a new S curve that starts to take off as the old one flattens. If you average these S curves together, you will notice that the overall trend is exponential and the new technology increases what the old one can do by several orders of magnitude.

We have seen the effects of this technology expansion on computation already. We started out with manual computations. They were slow... pencil and paper type of transactions. This lasted thousands of years. Electromechanical technology (punch cards) increased our computational power. These got faster and faster on an S curve but eventually topped out where relays took over and gave a new fresh S curve... which was replaced by S curves offered by vacuum tubes, then transistors, and eventually integrated circuits. Now as the physical limits of transistors are starting to be seem, new technologies in nanotech and quantum computing are starting to emerge promising to carry on the exponential scale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceler...rating_Returns

This is not just in computing. This trend can be seen in ALL forms of technology... it is just the most obvious in computing since that technology is the furthest along in its exponential curve. Many of the curves that look kind of linear are really exponential, they just look like the start of the curve we saw in early computing. It is exponential, though... and that will be much more obvious in the next 20-50 years.

The same kind of curve is now obvious in wireless computing.

And in 20 years, it will be obvious in energy production too. We are simply at a shifting point between fossil and clean energy production.

Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?

The shift in any growth pattern has ALWAYS been industry driven with profit as the primary incentive. I have no recollection of any altruistic contributions to progress in any area of the human development ... it's always been all about the Benjamins. The most powerful people on this planet today are the heads of the oil industry. IF the Bush family dynasty was founded in cosmetics and I asked you about either one of the Georges you'd be all "Bush who?" ... you'd have no idead who I was talking abut. It's only because his family's dynasty was planted in the dusty ground of an oil field that they rose to power and political affluence. It would be a pretty safe bet to make that BushCo and the rest of the monsters that own that human food chain right now do not want to see any theoretical exponential shift away from fossil fuels come along and knock a dent their profit/power structure.

Ain't gonna happen without a serious paradigm shift. This shift will not happen with the current political system in place ... the game is rigged. A green policy is what we need to own a cleaner planet, but that green policy would mean that gas in America would be the same as it is in other places around the planet. $5 a gallon ... any votes for $5 a gallon? Anyone?

The paradigm shift is a technological, economic one... it has nothing to do with politics. Politics can slow down progress but only to a point. They can't and won't block the enabling technologies. As nanotech and computer processing continue progress, it is going to happen. We already are seeing hybrids come out and they are extremely successful... so much so, there are more and more models every year. This does not benefit the Bush's, they can't block it from happening.

In 20 years, when a company is offering a backyard solar system that fits on a 3 x 3 foot panel and is capable of running your entire house (including electricity for a plug in rechargable car) for less than $1000... No oil company will be able to compete... especially when fossil fuel burning is at $5 (or more a gallon)

Rising oil prices is exactly what is going to help speed up the death of the oil companies. They know there days are numbered. They will branch out into other technologies to try and compete with the new solar start ups... either that or they will just try and make as much as they can in the next 10 years, retire rich and let the companies fold.

It doesn't matter if they don't want to see a shift away from fossil fuels. You can't stop the technology especially in a global system...

It's just like biotech and stem cell research now. The religious right can try and block it but they can't. They might slow down development in the US but they can't get rid of the need for it. Where there is a need, there is someone in the world that will develop stuff to fill that need. China, Japan, Europe... they aren't going to stop stem cell research or alternate fuel research. When they are all living with clean, cheap energy and vastly extended life spans, the US government and oil companies won't be able to keep the technology out.

It is no coincidence the fall of communism all over the world happened right around the time the internet because popular and mass global communications became faster and readily available. The governments fought it as long as they could but technology and the spread of information ultimately won out and continues to do so. No government or group of people is strong enough to hold back the global spread of technology... ain't going to happen.

Anyone who claims humans have an influence on the atmosphere equal to zero units of whatever we're measuring is a fool.

In the 70's Carter built a tax credit into the system that allowed people to install solar water heaters for free. The credit was such that between the tax relief and the energy savings the home owner was completely reimbursed for the cost of the system within 14 to 24 months. Ronnie and George killed it. They also ended the investment into solar and alternative energy research. It's still dead compared to the research done in the computer industry. The advancements in alternative energy research are way out of sync with those made in collateral areas like robotics, space flight, and something as useless as the television.

Politics effectively killed this research 25 years ago ... and we still are not really making the advances we should be given the available resources at hand. Politics driven by money = world dominance.

DOMS, I remember your view on this from the last thread.

But voting no? I mean do you really believe we have ZERO effect?
I don't think humans "caused" global warming. It is a natural process.

But we did add at least a little to it, IMO.

Saying we have no effect on global warming is like saying I shit but it doesnt stink.

I'm not projecting any kind of hypothesis here, just recounting history. Technology has been altered, bought out and shelved, or completely deleted for the sake of the financial gain of more powerfull competitive industries. I'm not making this up as I go along ... this is just part of our history as a culture. I see as you do the direction we will eventually go in with our ever expanding technologically driven alternative fuel research. I'm just not convinced the powers that be will roll over and play dead as this technology kills their cash cow.

Remember this chart I posted:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato...tor12_data.htm

Name-calling so early in the debate? Shame on you DOMS.

Too be completely honest, I could care less. I was hoping to get a rise out of someone. "Tool" sold me a little short.

Anyone that states that humans have had an impact on global warming is a tool.

There is no concrete proof that humans are having any effect at all on the median global temperature and there is plenty of proof that it's a natural cycle.

Lack of proof does not mean lack of existence, you know that.

Refusing to accept something that isnt certain but pretty well accepted and agreed on isn't going to win any arguments.

True, but it doesn't mean that you can go around saying that it is a fact either. The worst part of the global warming crap is that decisions are being made on it. Just look at the cluster fuck that is the Kyoto Protocol.



"Accepted" does not equate to scientific proof. If you want to be a tool and do something that you were told to believe in, with no concrete scientific proof, then knock yourself out.

The solution isn't free market, it's more government control. Hillary Clinton is going to save us by stealing all of Exxon Mobile's profits and then having the government spend it (She actually said she wants to do this). After all, the government knows better than the people it represents. The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people

Neil has psoted scientific proof. Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time.

Besides, if you based your life off scientific "proof", you'd be an atheist. Are you?

Post the salient points of his "proof." I've read a lot about global warming and I've yet to see anything that approaches the word proof.

Most of what passes as proof of global warming is the increasing temperature. Which has been proven satisfactorily to be inline with natural cycles. The cry out "Look, it's getting warmer! That could only happen because of mankind". What a load of shit.



It's not prudent to make large scale fiscal decisions on faith.

You didnt answer my question. And don't say you implied anything, I want to know. It does have an effect on how I view your stance on these scientific topics, but you can keep it private if you wish. Plus neil is an atheist too, I believe. Are you?

I'm agnostic. What the hell does that have to do with global warming? What, if I were a devout Christian I couldn't have an opinion on scientific matters? If so, that's a pretty fucking suck-ass attitude you have.

Not at all, don't twist my words. I wanted to know because it makes a difference of how I perceive the foundation of your argument.

For instance, I'd be much more interested in hearing an atheist debate evolution on the side of intelligent design than a Christian. It's more a matter of curiosity of the debater than the debate itself.

Oh, and you never said what the supposed proof was.

Neil's proof?

Fuck if I know, I'm not going to read that shit. (no offense neil, not my interest)

I'm off to the gym, driving through snow.

I wish this global warming would kick in a little sooner, it's cold as balls here.

I'm glad we have unbiased men and women like this in these threads.

Watch out for the moron drivers.



Canadian?

Nope, jsut south of DC. Check the avatar.

I went to the Caps game yesterday, and on the road to the metro, my tiny mitsubishi almost fucked me a few times. Just outside my house, the pickup truck in front of me spun out sideways into a ditch, and I was about 30 feet behind going 25, and couldnt stop. He was sideways into the ditch, and by the time my brakes/wheels foudn traction i slammed to a halt not 4 inches from him.

Then, around the next turn, my car slid through the turn and straight into the curb, and now I have to get my wheel realigned.

Not 5 mins later, my Japanese POS vehicle hit a bump going 20 and spun out, forcing an SUV to dodge me. This was in the meat of the snow storm, got about 4 inches total.

Complaints about bias from a person who makes comments like

"Because a republican government based on big business doesnt accept, doesnt mean you have to be a "tool" and follow them. The proof is everywhere, I dont have to wait on an old man in a suit to confirm it for the hundredth time."

are funny. Tell me more about bias, this evil Republican government (I guess you're leaving out the House and the Senate when you refer to government?) that, *gasp*, is supported by the big bad evil businesses.

Next you move on to asking if someone is an atheist or a Christian. Totally relevant to global warming discussion, I agree, good one.

The solution isn't free market, it's more government control. Hillary Clinton is going to save us by stealing all of Exxon Mobile's profits and then having the government spend it (She actually said she wants to do this). After all, the government knows better than the people it represents. The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people

What kind model car do you drive? I have an Eclipse with racing slicks that I drive in snow storms and it handles find for me. Though I should mention that it's lowered.

Touché!

GS 2001. I love it 11 months out of the year, but come snowtime I'm fucked.

For over half a year, when I lived in Vegas, I would hydroplane every day. Now I can handle a spin better than most drives.

Hell, I like to drive my car down some street with it diagonal to the road.

haha nice. You had the eclipse in Vegas?

No, I had a Mustang.

There was a street in Henderson where some moron would run their water every day at 4:30. I'd hit that and hydroplane (tapping the brakes helped) on it every day. The first time was on accident. So was the second time, but I got out of the spin so quick that I found it to be fun. So I'd do it every day on the way home from work.

Clemson? That you?

I aksed DOMS about his religious preference for the reasons stated about, don't be an idiot. I already said it wasn't on-topic, Einstein.

Practically the entire EU has acknowledged global warming, it's a matter of time till we do. And calling me bias makes "the pot calling the kettle black" the understatement of the year.


Wanna see my favorite part?

"The elitist geniuses like Hillary and Pelosi can spend the money of those who earn it much better than the individuals and the corporations themselves. Individuals in the government are the only individuals who can make right decisions, because they are not selfish, unlike those who work for oil companies and white people"

So it's Hillary and Pelosi who know better than the American public? Is that why 60% of all Americans want to be out of Iraq, but Bush is keeping us in there? Or why the vast majority of teachers say the "No Child Left Behind Act" is terrible, but Bush considers it completely necessary?

Please sir, but unless I heard otherwise, the entire reason Hillary and Pelosi were put into office, is because Bush ISNT following what the American public wants.

You are missing the overall picture though. Sure you can cripple a technology for a while. They did it to solar. For years it was dead but something interesting happened during those years. Semi-conductor technology greatly advanced. Nanotechnology is also starting. Carbon nano-tubes were developed. Different materials capable of absorbing light were developed for other applications. You might kill an application for a while but the enabling technologies still advance. 25 years ago, you would have needed politcal tax credits and other things to force the issue because it wasn't the natural time for it yet. The underlying ideas were sound but it needed many more years of enabling technologies to be developed to truly bring down the price and make it competitive.

Remember this chart I posted:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato...tor12_data.htm

Solar energy is on an exponential curve just like computer processing is and all other technology. It just hasn't hit the knee of the curve yet so it seems insignificant. That is the nature of exponential technology. It kind of sneaks up on you when you didn't think it was a big deal. Solar production has been increasing by around 35% a year. And that is like compound interest. The Mega watts generated from solar took from 1970 to 1998 to get from 0 to 153. Then in only 2 years it was at 288. Then another doubling 2 years later. It still isn't a lot but if you understand exponential growth, you can see how this could easily overtake fossil fuels.

You can't say advances in alternate energy are out of sync with other advancements. Technology that is developed for other things have a direct overlap. You can't separate it. Nano-tubes weren't created for solar cells but they hold the promise for making them 10 times more efficient.

The government can end government research into these things which it did in the 70s.... it hasn't stopped the natural progress into enabling technologies though. And now it is starting to make sense for private companies to take these enabling technologies and bring out better solar. Once it is out of government hands and into the private sector, it can't be stopped.

Computers, cell phone communication, LCD displays, MP3s, CDs, DVD, blueray, blue tooth... every single thing we use daily as high tech, came from private develop not the government. Some enabling technologies were created from government research but ultimately (and usually years later after costs come down) it is the private sector that brings us these technologies. It is going to be no different with alternate energy.

#1, it doesn't matter what the EU acknowledges, it matters what is REAL. Several centuries ago, nearly everyone acknowledged that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the earth. Consensus != Truth, sorry.

I forgot the EU had no scientists or governmental bodies in it. Apologies.
#2 I didn't say a word about George Bush, but nutjobs always want to bring him in. I repsonded w/ GWB as a response to Hillary. (And no, I dont like her either)Both have commented on global warming and have agendas. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, or how limiting globalwarming-causing pollution would hurt GWB's big business style of govt.

#3 I mentioned Hillary because she's using Global Warming to advance the big-government agenda. Either a typo, or youre wrong. She's against GWB's style of big-business, as is her party. She stated she wants to seize a private company's profits and let the government spend it because of global warming. You're being played by the government for them to grab more power, open your eyes, it isn't any different than the government using "security" to push itself into our lives. It just hasn't matured as much yet (thankfully).

#4 I never said I wasn't biased, your implication was that I was the only biased person in this thread, it is quite clear from reading it. I'm biased because I like cars, electricity, traveling at speeds faster than walking, plastics, and other things that my beloved polluting products make possible. Admission of guilt?

Sorry man, but...

Well correct me then. As I see it, brogers point of her taxing Exxon is an act of anti-big business, not the other way around...

Both parties back big business. Who do you think are the biggest contributors come election time? That's the way the political system works in this country.

Do you really think that the DMCA (that Clinton passed) was meant to help the little guy?

Sorry man, but...

His reading comprehension is terrible.. I'm done trying to make any point to him. I said Hillary is pushing a big-government agenda and he somehows confuses that with big business?

I could have a more intelligent discussion with my cousin, a 4th grader.

Democrats back big business as a larger tax benefactor. Republicans sell their rish souls and give big business tax breaks. Hence the Exxon ordeal.

His reading comprehension is terrible.. I'm done trying to make any point to him. I said Hillary is pushing a big-government agenda and he somehows confuses that with big business?

You make my point for me. Most of those technologies you mentioned did not exist in the 70's. My cell phone has more power than the computers used to send our boy Buss Aldren to the moon. How much of that then non-existent technology is used for things related to AFS?

Brother I'm not disputing your assertion of collateral technological growth cycles or that the willingness of the academic mind to deploy those developments is there. It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia.

I do not agree with you though that the growth of the AFS research is going to explode over the next 20 years because of collateral technological advancements. Look at the tax imposed on bio-diesel ... it makes the production and sales of the product a not for profit endeavor so it's not getting done. More money gets made off of bio-diesel scams than the sale of the product itself. Reduce the tax .. an excessive average of $1.20 per gallon ... to something like $.40 a gallon and we'd all be driving diesel motor powered hummers fueled by a non diesel product. Big oil business doesn't want that so it ain't happinin'.

I'm not saying they are ... it's just a reality. Passive solar water heaters were alive and well in the 70's. No major advances were needed to use the damn things they worked great, had a long service life and were free of anything that required power to function.

Using a solar water heating system could have offered a lowered energy consumption at the national level and ... after the initial 24 months needed to recoup the investment ... provided free hot water at the individual level, but that would have killed natural gas sales. How many solar water system do you know of on the homes of your community? What technologies have been used to improve their efficiency? Zilch ... buttkiss, nada. I'm not saying anything here. I'm just viewing our collective history together as a culture, recounting what has driven it and what controls it as a whole.

Do I want what you say to be the gospel? You have no idea how bad I want that. Seriously though ... how can it become a reality? Where is the financial incentive for the oil barons? Find that incentive and you will see miracles happen overnight.

The copyright act you keep bringing up was a long overdue law, preventing shit like kazaa and limewire from stealing music legally.(again, correct me where I'm wrong, this is off memory) It was more of face law than anything else, not often enforced, and targeting everyone, INCLUDING, big business. It doesnt differ much from the way patents are written.

There were already laws to cover that.

A "face law"? You have no damn idea what you're talking about and how the DMCA has been used.

I get the feeling that you're just trying to cover for your political party.

She's (and the Dems) are pushing both. It's funny that those who vote Democrat don't know that.

For the 4th(?) time, correct me. I have a feeling you say shit like that instead of a true response, to cover your own ass.

One word: Hollywood

Using a solar water heating system could have offered a lowered energy consumption at the national level and ... after the initial 24 months needed to recoup the investment ... provided free hot water at the individual level, but that would have killed natural gas sales. How many solar water system do you know of on the homes of your community? What technologies have been used to improve their efficiency? Zilch ... buttkiss, nada. I'm not saying anything here. I'm just viewing our collective history together as a culture, recounting what has driven it and what controls it as a whole.

"The DMCA has been criticized for forcing all companies producing analog video equipment to support the proprietary copy protection technology of a particular commercial firm (Macrovision). The producers of video equipment are forced by law to support the macrovision technology to the financial benefit of macrovision whereas those who build the video equipment get nothing in compensation."


I understand your point DOMS, but you're not seeing mine. the DMCA forces ALL companies to abide by the same laws and guidelines. Yes, macrovision gets a governemnt handjob, but all companies are forced to do the same thing, there's no break or benefit for the major companies affected by this.

Plus, trouble involving the DMCA is easily avoided.

Post the salient points of his "proof." I've read a lot about global warming and I've yet to see anything that approaches the word proof.

Most of what passes as proof of global warming is the increasing temperature. Which has been proven satisfactorily to be inline with natural cycles. The cry out "Look, it's getting warmer! That could only happen because of mankind". What a load of shit.



It's not prudent to make large scale fiscal decisions on faith.

Neil's proof?

Fuck if I know, I'm not going to read that shit. (no offense neil, not my interest)

I'm off to the gym, driving through snow.


I wish this global warming would kick in a little sooner, it's cold as balls here.

You make my point for me. Most of those technologies you mentioned did not exist in the 70's. My cell phone has more power than the computers used to send our boy Buss Aldren to the moon. How much of that then non-existent technology is used for things related to AFS?

Brother I'm not disputing your assertion of collateral technological growth cycles or that the willingness of the academic mind to deploy those developments is there. It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia.

I do not agree with you though that the growth of the AFS research is going to explode over the next 20 years because of collateral technological advancements. Look at the tax imposed on bio-diesel ... it makes the production and sales of the product a not for profit endeavor so it's not getting done. More money gets made off of bio-diesel scams than the sale of the product itself. Reduce the tax .. an excessive average of $1.20 per gallon ... to something like $.40 a gallon and we'd all be driving diesel motor powered hummers fueled by a non diesel product. Big oil business doesn't want that so it ain't happinin'.

I'm not saying they are ... it's just a reality. Passive solar water heaters were alive and well in the 70's. No major advances were needed to use the damn things they worked great, had a long service life and were free of anything that required power to function.

Using a solar water heating system could have offered a lowered energy consumption at the national level and ... after the initial 24 months needed to recoup the investment ... provided free hot water at the individual level, but that would have killed natural gas sales. How many solar water system do you know of on the homes of your community? What technologies have been used to improve their efficiency? Zilch ... buttkiss, nada. I'm not saying anything here. I'm just viewing our collective history together as a culture, recounting what has driven it and what controls it as a whole.

Do I want what you say to be the gospel? You have no idea how bad I want that. Seriously though ... how can it become a reality? Where is the financial incentive for the oil barons? Find that incentive and you will see miracles happen overnight.

Passive solar water heaters were alive and well in the 70's. No major advances were needed to use the damn things they worked great, had a long service life and were free of anything that required power to function.

My summation on the input offered thus far here:

DOMS: humans increasing global warming ain't happening and there is no proofof it. None at all. andy is a tool.

Andy: yes it is. common sense is proof enough but there is other evidence. andy's turds have no odor.

brogers: hitlery is a slut that will take exxon's money. god bless the united states of the republican party. andy is a commie

NeilPearson: green technology will be here in a few years.
It's almost ready ... he's holding his breath.

Me: bushco sux and has held back green techno development and deployment until all the members of bushco are dead thus increasing the effects of global warming for their own greed. i was drifting in the snow and rain while DOMS was being spawned in a republican laboratory test tube.

Bakerboy: a very intelligent person who agrees with me.

BigDyl: 11-3 ...

True story! It's always about who owns the means of production. Green industries will only happen on a large scale when the individuals/ share holders who own those companies find a way to make more money using green technology.

There are thousands of Solar Hot Water systems here, and hundreds of Solar Electric systems a mix of stand-alone and grid-tied. There has been a steady rise in numbers of solar systems being installed, I see it every year climbing more and more...one of the driving forces is the government offering tax credits on installed cost of systems...

My summation on the input offered thus far here:

DOMS: humans increasing global warming ain't happening and there is no proofof it. None at all. andy is a tool.

Andy: yes it is. common sense is proof enough but there is other evidence. andy's turds have no odor.

brogers: hitlery is a slut that will take exxon's money. god bless the united states of the republican party. andy is a commie

NeilPearson: green technology will be here in a few years.
It's almost ready ... he's holding his breath.

Me: bushco sux and has held back green techno development and deployment until all the members of bushco are dead thus increasing the effects of global warming for their own greed. i was drifting in the snow and rain while DOMS was being spawned in a republican laboratory test tube.

Bakerboy: a very intelligent person who agrees with me.

BigDyl: 11-3 ...

We're not talking about the same solar energy obviously. I'm not talking passive water heaters. I am talking the kind of solar that will be coming out in the next 20 years. Not everything has to offer oil barons money for it to happen. Oil barons didn't win with government mass transit, or hybrids.

The entire world isn't about just making money for the oil barons. Where there is opportunity, someone will fill it and make a buck.

Solar hasn't taken off on a world wide scale because the technology is still maturing and right now fossil fuel is cheaper. It's as simple as that, its not some grand Bush conspiracy to keep us down and paying lots for energy.

"It's the politically powers that be who are owned by the giants of industry that ALWAYS lead the way who are not hearing you, or funding the desires of academia"

Nope there are tons of giants that pop up out of nowhere as technology allows them too. Think Micosoft, Google, EBay. These are all small garage companies that went from their garage to an industry giant in just a few years because the technology they needed became cheap and easy. It is no different than what will happen to energy.

Passive water heaters didn't solve all the energy needs for a home (including car) and they often had ugly installations. Not only that, energy was a lot cheaper so there wasn't the pressure to convert just to save on the electricity to heat water.

Now if you offer someone their entire energy needs in a small hidden (not ugly) installation and you can do that for a fraction of the cost of the solar water heaters of the 70s... now you have something that will spark more interest especially as the cost of fossil fuels rises. You can already see the growing exponential solar trends in the data I listed. It's already happening. A lot of it isn't on home units. A lot of it is large 100+ Megawatt solar plants (probably owned by existing Fossil Fuel companies)... so even Bushco sees this and is jumping on the bandwagon... either way, it results in more solar and less green house gases

You have high expectations of AFS showing exponential growth within our life times. I say that as long as oil has control over our government that growth will not occur. Somehow big oil will continue to control and arrest that development.

I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s. It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with. It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.

This looks exponential to me:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsGrowth.htm
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato...tor12_data.htm

I haven't found numbers for 2006 but between 1971 and 2005 we had 35 years of exponential growth... graph it out, it is definitely exponential. True there was little growth in the 70s and 80s but that is the nature of exponential growth. It slowly builds its momentum.

Not only that but the doubling rate is accelerating. Where it was doubling on average every 4-5 years through the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s... it appears to be double more like every 2 years since the late 90s until today.

So showing exponential growth in our lifetime... yup for the last 35 years.

Year Annual Production in Megawatts

1971 0
1975 2
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 4
1980 7
1981 8
1982 9
1983 17
1984 22
1985 23
1986 26
1987 29
1988 34
1989 40
1990 46
1991 55
1992 58
1993 60
1994 69
1995 79
1996 89
1997 126
1998 153
1999 201
2000 288
2001 391
2002 560
2003 742
2004 1086
2005 1460

What about when you compare that data with the growth in demand?

Up next: another topic that no one can agree upon!!

Fact: Humans affect the natural world they live in.
Not fact: This effect is the leading cause of global atmospheric change

I say it again: if you think we have zero affect you're a total moron. Keep in mind I'm not giving any quantifiable number to this affect other than it being greater than 0.

Sure:

http://greatchange.org/ov-simmons,cl..._revisted.html

"From an energy perspective, the world was consuming 111 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day in 1970 as The Limits to Growth was being written. The world's energy growth had already soared from under 30 million BOE in 1940 to 67 million BOE in 1960 and almost
doubled that in another 10-years. By 1980, energy growth totaled 147 million BOE per day, in
1990 it reached 164 million BOE per day and is fast approaching 180 million BOE per day in
2000"

So between 1970 and 2000... we haven't even see one doubling yet. Hardly anywhere near the 18 month - 2 year doubling time we're seeing in solar growth.

I already detailed in another post how fossil fuel growth has been going up 0-2% a year in the same time period... again no where near the growth of solar

The site had some interesting data, but it ended (excluding projections) at 2000. We are looking for a comparison of AFS deployment stacked against petroleum consumption so that we can work out a projection that will include something from at least within a 2 year period. We need a date reference close enough to shoot an accurate forecast of the next 20 years. With 7 years of missing data nothing in this link is useful for us with that.

I would like to introduce that any site with a biased political perspective is not going to yield useful numbers. Al Gore is not going to give us a straight answer on anything is all I'm looking to say before his stuff seeps in here.

Not trying to shit in your cheerios, we just need more timely data before we try to crunch the numbers. Make sense?

I'm seriously enjoying our debate here Neil, but I'm also installing ubuntu and need to attend to the installation and get the laptop I installed it on networked and online. I'll be back from the ubuntu OS after I get it up and running and we can go from there.

I'll leave you with this thought. Technology and the graphs the growth cycles project do not account for the human element well enough. Add in that three years of data that the oil wars have created cannot be omitted from this project IMHO.

Catch ya in a few ...

I'm seriously enjoying our debate here Neil, but I'm also installing ubuntu and need to attend to the installation and get the laptop I installed it on networked and online. I'll be back from the ubuntu OS after I get it up and running and we can go from there.

I'll leave you with this thought. Technology and the graphs the growth cycles project do not account for the human element well enough. Add in that three years of data that the oil wars have created cannot be omitted from this project IMHO.

Catch ya in a few ...

what do you guys think about the graph Al Gore showed in An Inconvenient Truth? Any inconvenient truth to this?
There's obviously a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the type of correlation (e.g. causality) has not been proven.

Take it from a guy who works in the PV market, PV grows every year and will continue to grow. Not only that but each year they squeeze more power out of the same size module. When I started 4 years ago we had the SP130(130Watts), the next year the same module was the SP150(150Watts) now it is an SW175(175Watts) and they are working on getting more out of it. There are other researchers working on PV modules that work in the UV spectrum of light and still others working on PV modules that work in multiple color spectrums instead of the blue light they are currently stuck using, there are also new ploymers they can coat the glass with that can change other spectrums into the blue light and end up doubling the efficiency not to mention studies on organic photovoltaic substances and nano science solar cells....

Yes, humans cause global warming, but only the white devil.

I'm not trying to suggest that we as a species will not invent a better mouse trap or sell those mouse traps to each other or that we will somehow exist off of the human evolutionary scale ...


What I am saying is that the human element is a part of that scale not outside of it. The information you've provided makes for a very good read, and the results of the model you provide is undeniable. NOTHING can stop time and progress from producing results.

What history shows us through all this data is that as long as an entity with enough power and financial gain wishes to do so, that entity can delay the results. The dark ages saw a reversal of science as the world under the control of the church became a religious quagmire where anything not accepted by the church was considered heresy and cause for death. The human element held sway. The Asians continued on with their development as did the moors, while scientific advances from the Christians were suppressed for a few hundred years. This is our history, this is what the human condition has provided as a working model of how we evolve.

Our evolution as a species is more than just science meeting the needs of the people. Darwin will provide witness to that. His science interfered with the needs of the powers that be. He was packed of to his island and left to study his animals while the world remained in darkness. Now we have BushCo, a very large and powerful force that has controlled for the last 27 years the most powerful civilization to have ever existed in human history. Darwin doesn't have a chance against BushCo. Their power will wain, and as that happens the things you insist are going to happen will happen ... but not until it suits the powers that be or and unless they are toppled.

You can post all the scientific studies and models you want all day long but you will not ever be able to post one that shows how science was used by the inventor to control the powers that be. It has ALWAYS been the powers that be who controlled the destiny of the people.

If you can show how the AFS industry will provide a power base to allow BushCo to continue to hold control, then you may have something.

If you can show how the AFS industry will provide a power base to allow BushCo to continue to hold control, then you may have something.

I agree. I just think that the length of time humans can suppress it is relative to doubling rates of technology. The dark ages took hundreds of years to overcome because it took hundred of years for societies to advance. And the dark ages were just a blip on the grand evolutionary scale. As the doubling rate increases and we get further and further along on the curve, I see us overcoming these blips faster and faster. I just think we will overcome Bushco faster than you do. I don't think Bushco is as significant as the dark ages... in fact it may not survive the next election :P

LOL ... it will be another puppet pulled by the same strings. With all the posturing and posing done by the Clintons, there were no changes in the way we move relative to AFS that came out of their watch ... no massive or even minimal changes to AFS research or deployment of AFS technology at the consumer levels. BushCo is more than just George Bush.

LOL ... it will be another puppet pulled by the same strings. With all the posturing and posing done by the Clintons, there were no changes in the way we move relative to AFS that came out of their watch ... no massive or even minimal changes to AFS research or deployment of AFS technology at the consumer levels. BushCo is more than just George Bush.

Well the solar systems that Jimmy Carter put on the Whitehouse and then Reagan later ripped off, were planned to be reinstalled during Clinton's administration...it just so happens it wasn't gotten around to until Bush had made it to office....

And I agree we can barely get shit done with Bush in office in respect to AFS', but the Germans and Japanese are putting the shit up faster than it can be manufactured. My Boss has 2 books on Building integrated PV and one is from Japan and one from Germany, their architects have all begun to design buildings with solar modules somehow involved in the structure....We're talking awesome designs, patio sections covered with solar modules with tinted backing so that some sunlight goes through, office buildings with a window and then a solar module all the way across the southern face which of course only works in places further north of the equator, even building with solar modules as eaves above windows to not only provide power but to act as shades to keep the cooling costs down....this stuff works everywhere for them and America would do just as well to integrate it themselves...

My next house built will be earning me money on energy production. What sucks though is that I like to cook with gas better than electricity. I like money more though and the thought of them paying me for the energy I send out gives me a chuby.

Are you sure? I looked into what it would cost for solar to cover my energy needs...

http://www.americanpv.com/pdf/res_on/prices.pdf

last year we used 30k kWh. Their largest system covers 985 square feet and only offers < 16kWh per year.... so to completely cover my energy usage, I would need 2 of their largest systems which would cost $50k after rebates.

I think this is the real reason solar hasn't taken off yet. I'll give if a few years for the efficiency of these cells to get better before I look into it again.

Even the $7500 system... that would only cut off 1/6 of my bill. I am just not interest in a system that is going to take 12 years to pay for itself. Especially when I will probably move within 5 years.

My washer, dryer, stove and water heater are all gas.

Energy efficiency standards are set way too low in the US IMHO. A house built to normal industry standards isn't the same as a house built to green standards. I'll go solar water as well, so the demand will be very different than a what a conventional house would place on electric supply.
It's already getting done by some folks, so I'll manage

It'll be another four or five years before I build a anything. This guy I been talking to lately insists that I'll have more options soon and I really hope he is right.

Yeah, if you are building a home from scratch, you definitely have more options than trying to apply solar to an existing home. The way you are doing it is much more manageable.

Where's the "Has yet to be determined" option?

What a moronic post!

Okay dumb fuck, put up the ironclad proof that humans have affected the mean temperature of the planet.

Al Gore convinced me.

Al Gore convinced me.

One of many great sources......go back to school Doms....your lost!

It's "you're lost", you fucking moron.

So, humans are affecting the mean global temperature because you saw it in a movie?

It should be your epitaph.

Are you sure? I looked into what it would cost for solar to cover my energy needs...

http://www.americanpv.com/pdf/res_on/prices.pdf

last year we used 30k kWh. Their largest system covers 985 square feet and only offers < 16kWh per year.... so to completely cover my energy usage, I would need 2 of their largest systems which would cost $50k after rebates.

I think this is the real reason solar hasn't taken off yet. I'll give if a few years for the efficiency of these cells to get better before I look into it again.

Even the $7500 system... that would only cut off 1/6 of my bill. I am just not interest in a system that is going to take 12 years to pay for itself. Especially when I will probably move within 5 years.

My washer, dryer, stove and water heater are all gas.

If my calcs are right you use 82-83kWhs a day? With our Gridtie Pricing Excel sheet that system would be $150,000 and you would need (120) 175W solar modules measuring 64" x 32", (3) 6000W Sunny Boy inverters and the other base of systems parts....

Ummmmmm, I think you would be better off paying someone to come in and give your place an energy audit to find out what the hell is draining all that juice when you are using gas for the major energy hogs washer, dryer, stove and water heater. I don't know if you leave every light on in your house and there all 100W bulbs, you have 4 refrigerators or what. But we sell systems that large to businesses, and luckily businesses get much better rebates and tax credits for installing solar...

Energy efficiency standards are set way too low in the US IMHO. A house built to normal industry standards isn't the same as a house built to green standards. I'll go solar water as well, so the demand will be very different than a what a conventional house would place on electric supply.
It's already getting done by some folks, so I'll manage

It'll be another four or five years before I build a anything. This guy I been talking to lately insists that I'll have more options soon and I really hope he is right.

A lot of it is due to the fact that I live in Arizona. 4 months of 110+ running 2 air conditioners draws a lot. Then when it gets in the 30s and 40s in the winter, I have to heat the house electrically.

And I have a fish tank with 850 Watts of lights on it for the coral. It also needs pumps to move 5000 gallons of water an hour. Coral needs water movement as close as the oceans as possible. The lights and pumps heat up the water so I have to run a chiller to keep the water down to 80 degrees

I installed 2 dedicated circuits for the fish tank.

One of my customers brought in his electric bill over the last year. One month he installs the most efficient washer Sears has his bill drops from 25.4kWh a day to 19, then he installs the most efficient fridge from Sears, it drops to 16kWh, then he takes 2 of his most used lights in his house and puts in LED lights, it drops to 12.7, then he replaces all of his bulbs with LED's and it goes down to 7.6. After he installs his Solar Thermal Water Heater he'll probably be down to 3 or 4 maybe less, then he will install his PV system and it will cost a whole lot less than that 25kWh system would have.....this is what I stress to all of my customers, get your house as efficient as possible first then bring me your electirc bill and let me build a less expensive system for you...that way PV will make a lot more financial sense than just getting it at your most ridiculous Utility bill cost...

I gotta go more efficient myself, they're instituting an electric rate increase in CT.

It's "you're lost", you fucking moron.

So, humans are affecting the mean global temperature because you saw it in a movie?

Glad to have you back DOMS, after that post in training that showed restraint I thought you were no more.

One of my customers brought in his electric bill over the last year. One month he installs the most efficient washer Sears has his bill drops from 25.4kWh a day to 19, then he installs the most efficient fridge from Sears, it drops to 16kWh, then he takes 2 of his most used lights in his house and puts in LED lights, it drops to 12.7, then he replaces all of his bulbs with LED's and it goes down to 7.6. After he installs his Solar Thermal Water Heater he'll probably be down to 3 or 4 maybe less, then he will install his PV system and it will cost a whole lot less than that 25kWh system would have.....this is what I stress to all of my customers, get your house as efficient as possible first then bring me your electirc bill and let me build a less expensive system for you...that way PV will make a lot more financial sense than just getting it at your most ridiculous Utility bill cost...

Show me a link to the following and I will do that:

Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.

Actually my bill ranges anywhere from $200-450 depending on how hot it is outside... so I would probably have to replace all my windows as a starting point.

Even if I could get my house down to the level that a $15k system would provide for my energy needs, it wouldn't really matter. That is only going to lower my bill maybe $100 a month. I don't really want to wait 15 years for something like that to pay off... especially when I believe that same $15k system will cost $8k in 2-3 years.

kind of interesting...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=47553

Show me a link to the following and I will do that:

Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.

Actually my bill ranges anywhere from $200-450 depending on how hot it is outside... so I would probably have to replace all my windows as a starting point.

Even if I could get my house down to the level that a $15k system would provide for my energy needs, it wouldn't really matter. That is only going to lower my bill maybe $100 a month. I don't really want to wait 15 years for something like that to pay off... especially when I believe that same $15k system will cost $8k in 2-3 years.

Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient.

Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

Just wait and see what kind of destruction self replicating nanobots will be capable of. (google gray goo - if you care) Nothing to loose sleep over yet though. It is highly theoretical right now.

That is science fiction hocus pocus.

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.

What effect do humans have on global warming?

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earth’s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earth’s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
- the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
- aerosols (net cooling effect)
- greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
- clouds
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18?C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
- the average global temperature is rising
- the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
- greenhouse gases warm the planet
- global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
- therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m? (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCC’s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic R?h believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa.
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. It’s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely.
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.

What effect do humans have on global warming?

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earth’s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earth’s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
- the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
- aerosols (net cooling effect)
- greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
- clouds
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18�C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
- the average global temperature is rising
- the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
- greenhouse gases warm the planet
- global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
- therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m� (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCC’s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic R�rsch believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa.
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. It’s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely.
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.

Glad you rushed back with the reply. The whole thread could have hinged on that.....

'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes. Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.

I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s. It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with. It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.

This looks exponential to me:

Solar Photovoltaic Industry Growth Path
Eco-Economy Indicators - Solar Power | EPI

I haven't found numbers for 2006 but between 1971 and 2005 we had 35 years of exponential growth... graph it out, it is definitely exponential. True there was little growth in the 70s and 80s but that is the nature of exponential growth. It slowly builds its momentum.

Not only that but the doubling rate is accelerating. Where it was doubling on average every 4-5 years through the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s... it appears to be double more like every 2 years since the late 90s until today.

So showing exponential growth in our lifetime... yup for the last 35 years.

Year Annual Production in Megawatts

1971 0
1975 2
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 4
1980 7
1981 8
1982 9
1983 17
1984 22
1985 23
1986 26
1987 29
1988 34
1989 40
1990 46
1991 55
1992 58
1993 60
1994 69
1995 79
1996 89
1997 126
1998 153
1999 201
2000 288
2001 391
2002 560
2003 742
2004 1086
2005 1460

Why we must shut down coal burning power stations – now! « Tipping Point

There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is. We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use. There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is). Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint. Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.

Why we must shut down coal burning power stations – now! « Tipping Point

There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is. We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use. There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is). Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint. Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.

Why we must shut down coal burning power stations – now! « Tipping Point

There is only one solution and everyone knows what it is. We must shut down all coal burning plants immediately and impose laws limiting personal vehicle use. There is also no need to eat beef any longer when there are plenty of healthier alternatives (as if eating meat weren't abhorrent enough as it it is). Rich countries should also impose a one child law so we as humans can begin to limit our own carbon footprint. Finally, since poor countries are suffering the brunt of climate change so that rich countries can get richer, all rich countries must open their borders to climate refugees immediately.

EARTH MUFFIN ALERT, I smell patchouli and hear the faint cloppity clop of birkenstocks at the perimeter....

the fuck is that?

oh god those stupid fuck hippies? I hate those fucking assholes....actually I hate everyone. go figure.

Great post!

They were talking about this on Bill Maher.... very interesting.

agree, great post, ( regarding n.peason's post) who cares if humans contribute to global warming, we need to already be looking at fossil fuel alternatives.

Hows this for great monetary compensation. We have fuel expenditures paid for by our business pre tax dollars, the two partners who drive a truck average 500 bucks per month with their trucks, my 6 year old honda civic hyrid, averages currently 70 bucks a month. I take home over 5000 in profit sharing more than my two partners when our yearly distribution comes around, that's a nice mountain biking trip to Hawaii........

Yeah I personally don't know or care if we are contributing to global warming. That debate will likely never be solved.

Either way, we should be looking at self sustaining, zero emission energy sources for a ton of other reasons other than just global warming.

This oil spill is a reminder of that. As is our dependence on foreign oil and all the issues that creates.

I am just saying I think the writing is on the wall and technology is quickly providing us with clean alternatives.

Hi.

Hm...
it's strange question. of course YES!!!

I do not wish to offend you, but I would tell that the mankind is very silly!!!

___________________________________
buy online coffee at cheap-coffee-online.com

Originally Posted by NeilPearson
I am saying they already are showing exponential growth and have since the 70s. It's just the seed was pretty small to begin with. It takes time for the exponential growth to be noticed or make a big difference.

This looks exponential to me:

Solar Photovoltaic Industry Growth Path
Eco-Economy Indicators - Solar Power | EPI

I haven't found numbers for 2006 but between 1971 and 2005 we had 35 years of exponential growth... graph it out, it is definitely exponential. True there was little growth in the 70s and 80s but that is the nature of exponential growth. It slowly builds its momentum.

Not only that but the doubling rate is accelerating. Where it was doubling on average every 4-5 years through the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s... it appears to be double more like every 2 years since the late 90s until today.

So showing exponential growth in our lifetime... yup for the last 35 years.

Year Annual Production in Megawatts

1971 0
1975 2
1976 2
1977 2
1978 3
1979 4
1980 7
1981 8
1982 9
1983 17
1984 22
1985 23
1986 26
1987 29
1988 34
1989 40
1990 46
1991 55
1992 58
1993 60
1994 69
1995 79
1996 89
1997 126
1998 153
1999 201
2000 288
2001 391
2002 560
2003 742
2004 1086
2005 1460
2006 1744
2007 2826
2008 5950
2009 7300

For all the people that call me crazy, it's been a couple years so I should add to the data to show that solar growth has continued at the expected exponential rate and solar overcoming fossil fuels is still on course.

2010 12,000

We are still on target
Solar Energy Market Growth | Solarbuzz

A very good case for nuclear power.

Nobel Physicist Slams Global Warming Claims

Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period."

I'm not going to read all the bullshit, but global warming is a lie.