So...

From this thread at least, it looks like it is American Religion Denial-Of-Reality vs the rest of the world.


We could nuke the main pollution centres of the world and that should sort out most of the pollution problems. Gotta go nuke-it, just to be sure...


Oooooops... Bang goes most of America!


At least that would also get rid of most of the polluting hot air!!



Note to AMERICA: LOUD AND CLEAR?

Years later and the message remains the same. How thick/ignorant/stupid and corrupt and polluting can the USA be?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

You make an excellent argument for deleting the political forum all together.
We can well do without the childish raving that so fills the internet today.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

I did indeed skim thru the first few pages of your document on 'studies' and they're unworthy of being posted in a science based forum. Most of them are vapid mush with no hard numbers and a whole lotta cheerleading. The ones I saw referenced either 'polls' of a few hundred business people or discussed new government 'initiatives' to promote.

Oh and you can determine the reliability and validity of these studies by skimming through the first few pages of a report that links to the actual studies and which hardly covers any methodological issues. Right.

Well indeed, science and reason are clearly lacking in this thread, though I think it has nothing to do with this report or the studies it links to.

You are well short on the 'proof' you claim to provide. Have you actually READ that document or did you google it up and present it assuming it backs your fantasies?

Yeah because business analysts and professionals who work at these companies have noooo idea what their own company is about. And clearly statistics have no place in science, that is why science never ever bothers to use statistics. Seriously....

as long as you keep ignoring the points you can't answer this is a waste of my time.
Obviously you're arguing your religion, not political, economic and technical points.
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?

What a vain, easy way to try and avoid the burden of proof placed on you. This discussion is pointless and I shall end it here.

I did indeed skim thru the first few pages of your document on 'studies' and they're unworthy of being posted in a science based forum. Most of them are vapid mush with no hard numbers and a whole lotta cheerleading. The ones I saw referenced either 'polls' of a few hundred business people or discussed new government 'initiatives' to promote.

Oh and you can determine the reliability and validity of these studies by skimming through the first few pages of a report that links to the actual studies and which hardly covers any methodological issues. Right.

Well indeed, science and reason are clearly lacking in this thread, though I think it has nothing to do with this report or the studies it links to.

You are well short on the 'proof' you claim to provide. Have you actually READ that document or did you google it up and present it assuming it backs your fantasies?

Yeah because business analysts and professionals who work at these companies have noooo idea what their own company is about. And clearly statistics have no place in science, that is why science never ever bothers to use statistics. Seriously....

as long as you keep ignoring the points you can't answer this is a waste of my time.
Obviously you're arguing your religion, not political, economic and technical points.
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?
IF it's economically viable why aren't investors all over it?

What a vain, easy way to try and avoid the burden of proof placed on you. This discussion is pointless and I shall end it here.

So..that's a 'no' on my question if you actually read thru that document. LOL

Your response is amazingly empty of anything at all but feelings and no content assumptions.
you should really avoid places where people of scientific mind meet.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and nobody except people with tax breaks or public money to spend are eating this pudding.
One does NOT have to work so hard to get people to engage in profitable activities.
Q.E.D.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Meet The Climate Denial Machine:

Heartland is holding the 9th International Conference on Climate Change

July 7 to 9 Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.

http://heartland.org/events/9th-international-conference-climate-change

Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading [DENIALISTS] ... understand it! from around the world who question whether “man-made global warming” will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming. Meet the leaders of think tanks and grassroots organizations who are speaking out against global warming alarmism. Don’t just wonder about global warming … understand it!

Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures,

66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening."

The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by

industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy"

over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat.

When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to

sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.

Meet The Climate Denial Machine:

• Heartland Institute And James Taylor
  
  
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
  
  
• Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
  
  
• Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
  
  
• Heritage Foundation
  
  
• Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
  
  
• American Enterprise Institute
  
  
• Marc Morano
  
  
• Anthony Watts
  
  
• Steve Milloy
  
  
• Joe Bastardi
  
  
• Matt Ridley
  
  
• Larry Bell
  

Meet The Climate Denial Machine:

Heartland is holding the 9th International Conference on Climate Change

July 7 to 9 Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.

http://heartland.org/events/9th-international-conference-climate-change

Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading [DENIALISTS] ... understand it!

Thanks for that.

There are some rather scary (and morally/academically corrupt?) pundits amongst those links...

That is all very real and scary. Just as scary as the USA Bible Belt denial of "Science Learnin'" and the USA religious denial of evolution and the USA xenophobic denial that there is anything outside of the USA...


Is that one for a "Only in the USA" thread?

And we ALL have only this one planet...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... LOL

Your response is amazingly empty of anything at all but feelings and no content assumptions. ...

Q.E.D.

Any yet for your 95 posts you give no real world comment beyond your "I want this imposed upon the world" Bible-blind opinion.


Only in the Bible belt of the USA?

Or do we need to wait for a pollution inspired 'natural disaster' to have the Bible belt awake to the realities of the real world?


Only in the USA...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Eh, lets not call for a nuclear holocaust of pollution centers. I doubt there would remain much of ...

Well, at least the reference may have awoken just one poster of the USA to the sentiment being stirred for the continued pollution from the fossil fuels corruption, of which American politics is badly subversively financed...


Mainly in the USA?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... LOL

Your response is amazingly empty of anything at all but feelings and no content assumptions. ...

Q.E.D.

Any yet for your 95 posts you give no real world comment beyond your "I want this imposed upon the world" Bible-blind opinion.


Only in the Bible belt of the USA?

Or do we need to wait for a pollution inspired 'natural disaster' to have the Bible belt awake to the realities of the real world?


Only in the USA...
Martin

This is how completely you've missed my point due to blindness.
I am not a denier. I am not saying you're wrong or arguing against the fact of climate change and the virtual certitude humans have most to do with it.
I thought that fact would be obvious since I never even referenced climate change in my comments. Parsing Problems?

I'm telling you your efforts will not produce results because you aren't attacking the right problems because you've failed to properly define them.

I'm also pointing out that alternative energy sources are NOT economically viable at this time which is a real, honest to goodness self evident truth. It costs too much and there's no dependability. (regarding nighttime, clouds and still air)

I think the main problem here is you just don't want to hear it and you have fingers in your ears.

and P.S. I've been an agnostic ever since I was 11 and brought Mark Twain's 'Letters from the Earth' home from the Library.

and PPS.. that odd post was the result of double posting, trying to delete and finding out you can't but need to type something to exit the function LOL

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

I'm also pointing out that alternative energy sources are NOT economically viable at this time which is a real, honest to goodness self evident truth. It costs too much and there's no dependability. (regarding nighttime, clouds and still air)

That may have been the case a few years ago, but not anymore (at least not with solar panels). Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

And you keep claiming that the only companies that take in sustainability are the ones that are funded by government subsidies. Prove it. Show us evidence that government subsidies are the primary reason these companies do it.

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

More and more of our customers have solar panels, which is fantastic I think! Clean and cheap energy:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

I have:) Do it everyday...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

I have:) Do it everyday...

Then show me, because I am very skeptical.

50 studies that show companies that invest in sustainability outperform companies that don't.

Slogans and PR material won't cut it financially and in the real world when it comes to keeping the price of energy from destroying what is left of our society.

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

I have:) Do it everyday...

Then show me, because I am very skeptical.

Most customers who have solar panels pay the minimum of €10 a month. One kWh solar energy releases 50 grams of CO2 while coal for example releases 1000 grams per kWh. (that's the clean energy part)The energy it costs to build a solar panel is won back after 2 or 3 years of using the solar panel.

An installation with a capacity of 4000 Wp (wattpeak) produces 3200 kWh a year. The average usage of a 4 person family is 3500 kWh a year so a family who has solar panels only pay for a small amount of kWh. If the solar panels deliver 100% of your yearly usage you don't even have to pay for the tranport-and distribution costs of the electricity. So we advice every customer who owns the delivery address to consider solar panels. Actually we can't advice it pro-active because of the company's profits, you know.........

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

I have:) Do it everyday...

Then show me, because I am very skeptical.

Most customers who have solar panels pay the minimum of €10 a month. One kWh solar energy releases 50 grams of CO2 while coal for example releases 1000 grams per kWh. (that's the clean energy part)The energy it costs to build a solar panel is won back after 2 or 3 years of using the solar panel.

An installation with a capacity of 4000 Wp (wattpeak) produces 3200 kWh a year. The average usage of a 4 person family is 3500 kWh a year so a family who has solar panels only pay for a small amount of kWh. If the solar panels deliver 100% of your yearly usage you don't even have to pay for the tranport-and distribution costs of the electricity. So we advice every customer who owns the delivery address to consider solar panels. Actually we can't advice it pro-active because of the company's profits, you know.........

No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical.

The rated output will be decreased by,
The latitude, you need to take the cosine, so at 54 degrees it would be 0.587
Where I am they have to be fitted at same angle as roof, therefore there is a reduction between 10% in summer to 46% in winter. Average is ~24% loss compared to quoted.
There also has to be a calculation for direction, most installations don't face south. For max output the system would have to track the sun, but these are expensive and it is usually cheaper to fit 25% extra panels to cover this loss from the ideal.
If not cleaned there will be a 5 to 10% reduction in 3 months.
Inverter efficiency often quoted as 93% to 95% only applies at full load, if there is no output and the inverter is on then there will be a loss, some inverters only consider time of day not actual output.

Therefore the professional estimate to cover my requirements of 10,000 KWh/year was for a 22.5 KW system, which would have cost over £25,000 to install. Assuming that it worked flawlessly, and without subsidies it would have to work for over 19 years before there was any payback. And then there is the cost of keeping them clean.

50 studies that show companies that invest in sustainability outperform companies that don't.

Slogans and PR material won't cut it financially and in the real world when it comes to keeping the price of energy from destroying what is left of our society.

You wanted proof, I gave you 50 studies that all state that investing in sustainability as business is beneficial. Look, if you are going to stick your head in the sand and ignore studies into this subject be claiming they are just slogans and pr material, it is abundantly clear that you have made up your mind and nothing I do, say or show you will change your mind.

I'm also pointing out that alternative energy sources are NOT economically viable at this time which is a real, honest to goodness self evident truth. It costs too much and there's no dependability. (regarding nighttime, clouds and still air)

That may have been the case a few years ago, but not anymore (at least not with solar panels). Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

And you keep claiming that the only companies that take in sustainability are the ones that are funded by government subsidies. Prove it. Show us evidence that government subsidies are the primary reason these companies do it.

In stark contrast, note how most Fossils are only able to continue polluting due to the ridiculous tax breaks that they get and for the sake that they pay nothing for the waste products and pollution they cause...


There are far better and cleaner and far less costly ways to power our industry and farming that do not require the fossils fueled destruction of our environment...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical

I work in the energy business. I see the figures everyday. Solar panels in general are a good way to save money for your energy and they're proven to be quite effective. Of course it depends which country you live in. The more sun, the more your solar panels produce.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Those things are becoming dirt cheap that even without government subsidies they become affordable and pay themselves back within a decent time.

Have you done the maths, to back that claim.

of course they haven't.
fundamentally, if it was economically viable, big investors would be all over it. they aren't.
These guys aren't arguing science, technology or economics. It's religion.
You will also notice the responses are cherry picking parts of my/our posts to 'answer' and completely ignoring some very telling points.
the 3 main possibilities are 1. people making a living selling solar panels, 2. outright trolls taking advantage of our very earnest desire to have a substantive discussion SOMEWHERE on the internet or 3. children

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;