Funny how 31000 scientists disagree with global warming

[Hillbilly]

$2.70 for one hundred miles. That is the equivelant of 100 mpg. And, if you have solar panels on the roof of your residence, you not only provide energy for your home, but the fuel for your car. Pays the cost of solar back rather quickly, particularly if you are reasonably intelligent, and build your own panels. A 5 kw grid parrallel inverter is only about $2000, and you can get the solar cells for about a $1.25 a watt. A 5 kw installation would cost just a bit over 10 grand.

By the way, JR, can you do basic math?

I don't exactly follow what your point is. At 13.5 cents per kw/h it would be $4, just thought I'd toss that in.

I do basic math quite well. I don't know where you get $1.25/watt it seems to me that $3.50 is about as good as you can do. Buy Solar Panels from Top Manufacturers at Lowest Prices I'm a good sport though, we'll use you figures. I'm going to power my home with your $1.25/watt panels. Here we go.

Monthly usage 2400kw/h. Daily output of a 5kw solar system=16kw, monthly=480kw. Number of 5kw systems needed to power house=5. 25,000 wattsX$1.25= $31,250+$2,000=$33,250. At the price everyone else thinks solar panels cost= $99,750. With a battery system and wiring we could probably add another $3-5k to that. At your price it would take almost 10 years to recoup the inital investment if you don't have loss of output or a hailstorm or other problems. At the normal price that people in the real world would have to live with it would take 30 years to break even with regular from the grid power. Again that is assuming no other problems, like having to replace your roof which would cost extra, unless you have super long life shingles or something. So probably over 30 years. Of course the panels only last what 15-20 years? Not exactly a great deal. I would also have to buy both of the neighbors houses who live next to me in order to get all of my panels to fit and cut down the tree in the front yard which would mean I'd have to use even more panels to keep the house cool. So that'd be an extra few hundred thousand dollars. I think I'll just buy a power plant instead since I'm going to be spending a fortune I might as well power the whole neighborhood and make some money off of my investment.

 

[KittenKoder]

Problem with Solar Power, they only work well in sunny areas, areas like mine where it's cloudy 300 days a year, well, they just won't work.

 

[k2skier]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

 

[KittenKoder]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

Depends on how much you can afford ...

 

[Meister]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Old Rocks won't answer.

 

[KittenKoder]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Old Rocks won't answer.

That's because Rocks drives a gas guzzler from the 60's!

... at least I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[k2skier]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Old Rocks won't answer.

1995 Subaru Legacy 2.2L 25mpg hwy
2005 Subaru Outback 2.5L 28mpg hwy
2003 Ford E250 van 5.4L 14mpg hwy (it was only used for 1,200 miles in 2008 towing a racing trailer)

 

[k2skier]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Old Rocks won't answer.

That's because Rocks drives a gas guzzler from the 60's!

... at least I wouldn't doubt it.

If he answers, which I bet he will, I say it's a Volvo, Subaru or hybrid.

 

[tigerbob]

An interesting tidbit. The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype. Not going to hear about this are you.


Global Warming Petition Project

I'm glad I checked your link!

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

So this mean any hack with a bachelor's degree in biology from Akron State University can sign the petition?


Dude, how many of these "scientists" are actual real climate scientists, who are publishing peer reivewed climate change research in bonafide scientific journals?

Let me save your fingers the trouble of dancing through Google: Probably close to ZERO.


Someone who isn't a bonafied expert who does research in climate science, doesn't have the credibility to fully judge the state of climate science. Especially a list that contains mostly people with bachelors and master's degree, people who aren't trained and don't work in climate research.

Do you go to a heart surgeon when you have a tooth ache? No you don't. You go to a medical professional trained in tooth aches. A Dentist.

Or, alternatively, you could get your climate info from Red Dawn, who is so expert in this area that he can conveniently dismiss the opinions of PhDs.

Let's even say it's not 9,000. Let's say it's half that number. Actually, let's be really cynical and say it's 25%. That's still a shit load of people better qualified than probably anyone on this board. If they are skeptical, their opinions deserve to be heard. If the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming what harm can it do to listen to the concerns and address them in language that everyone can understand? The only "harm" is if the concerns start to make some sense and the tidal wave of climate research funding starts to dry up.

 

[Meister]

I heard that on an average cloudy day solar panels are 60-70% efficient, they will work, just not at 100%.

I'm kind of taking a survey...what kind of car do you drive, K2?
The reason is, that I'm trying to see if the environmentalists walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Old Rocks won't answer.

1995 Subaru Legacy 2.2L 25mpg hwy
2005 Subaru Outback 2.5L 28mpg hwy
2003 Ford E250 van 5.4L 14mpg hwy (it was only used for 1,200 miles in 2008 towing a racing trailer)[/QUOTE]

Hmmm very questionable on your choices for low CO2 transportation.

 

[KittenKoder]

What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL

 

[Meister]

What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL

Did you notice he was towing a racing trailer? Hmmm, very suspect for a environmentalist.
I do better at conservation and polluting.

 

[KittenKoder]

What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL

Did you notice he was towing a racing trailer? Hmmm, very suspect for a environmentalist.
I do better at conservation and polluting.

Me to, I don't drive at all and take the bus only when going more than a couple miles, otherwise I walk. Live alone in a studio so I'm not wasting any electricity, and turn off all the lights when not in use. Most environuts don't even come close, they should be paying me for carbon offsets. But I also don't advocate that any laws should be made to force crap that isn't proven to even help, especially when the real problem isn't even being considered.

 

[k2skier]

Last off topic post.

Car standards started in 1978
The goal was to double the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 to 27.5 mpg in small increments.
1978 18 mpg
1979 19 mpg
1980 20 mpg
1981-84 22, 24, 26, and 27mpg
1985 27.5 mpg
1986-1989, passenger car standards were lowered.
1990 27.5 mpg, where it has remained


Looks like I'm average for US fuel mileage standards. The gas guzzling tow vehicle and my racing consumed 94.71 gallons last year (tax write off, so I have all my receipts). I bet I use less gas than 80% of Americans (last years total mileage for my 1995 was 4207 miles), I don't drive much (very short commute), only skiing burns a lot. If Subaru was forced into better fuel mileage standards then my Subaru would get better mileage, not gonna risk my life in the mountains for 10-20% better mileage.

So; what's your point? You trying to throw something that's not going to stick

 

[Hillbilly]

What's odd is that 36 MPG is considered fuel "efficient" ... LOL

Not many cars do better than that. European cars which have been so touted for their extreme fuel efficiency actually have a different method of computation for mpg so when they say 50 mpg it's really more like 36-38. I'm wondering how we can meet the expectation of 35 mpg average by 2010, or 2012, can't remember the date.

 

[LaLinda75]

What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.

And your reason for this statement is?

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

 

[elvis]

An interesting tidbit. The media-hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, claiming imminent disaster, was put-out by 52 "scientists", yet 31000 don't believe the hype. Not going to hear about this are you.


Global Warming Petition Project

I'm glad I checked your link!

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

So this mean any hack with a bachelor's degree in biology from Akron State University can sign the petition?


Dude, how many of these "scientists" are actual real climate scientists, who are publishing peer reivewed climate change research in bonafide scientific journals?

Let me save your fingers the trouble of dancing through Google: Probably close to ZERO.


Someone who isn't a bonafied expert who does research in climate science, doesn't have the credibility to fully judge the state of climate science. Especially a list that contains mostly people with bachelors and master's degree, people who aren't trained and don't work in climate research.

Do you go to a heart surgeon when you have a tooth ache? No you don't. You go to a medical professional trained in tooth aches. A Dentist.

Or, alternatively, you could get your climate info from Red Dawn, who is so expert in this area that he can conveniently dismiss the opinions of PhDs.

Let's even say it's not 9,000. Let's say it's half that number. Actually, let's be really cynical and say it's 25%. That's still a shit load of people better qualified than probably anyone on this board. If they are skeptical, their opinions deserve to be heard. If the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming what harm can it do to listen to the concerns and address them in language that everyone can understand? The only "harm" is if the concerns start to make some sense and the tidal wave of climate research funding starts to dry up.

Rockhead will be on here to tell you how stupid you are for not bowing down to his point of view and that the scientists you speak of are not real scientists.

 

[tigerbob]

I'm glad I checked your link!







So this mean any hack with a bachelor's degree in biology from Akron State University can sign the petition?


Dude, how many of these "scientists" are actual real climate scientists, who are publishing peer reivewed climate change research in bonafide scientific journals?

Let me save your fingers the trouble of dancing through Google: Probably close to ZERO.


Someone who isn't a bonafied expert who does research in climate science, doesn't have the credibility to fully judge the state of climate science. Especially a list that contains mostly people with bachelors and master's degree, people who aren't trained and don't work in climate research.

Do you go to a heart surgeon when you have a tooth ache? No you don't. You go to a medical professional trained in tooth aches. A Dentist.

Or, alternatively, you could get your climate info from Red Dawn, who is so expert in this area that he can conveniently dismiss the opinions of PhDs.

Let's even say it's not 9,000. Let's say it's half that number. Actually, let's be really cynical and say it's 25%. That's still a shit load of people better qualified than probably anyone on this board. If they are skeptical, their opinions deserve to be heard. If the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming what harm can it do to listen to the concerns and address them in language that everyone can understand? The only "harm" is if the concerns start to make some sense and the tidal wave of climate research funding starts to dry up.

Rockhead will be on here to tell you how stupid you are for not bowing down to his point of view and that the scientists you speak of are not real scientists.

Maybe, and he's welcome to if he wants.

I have no problem with people defending their positions, but I don't like politically motivated double standards when it comes to science.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.

And your reason for this statement is?

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?

 

[del]

And your reason for this statement is?

My reason for this statement? Read it carefully - what is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warning' crap. Reason enough for you?

No, your unbased opinion is not reason enough for me on any subject, let alone one that involves science. Are you able to elucidate on your reasons for your opinion, or are you just regurgitating talking points mindlessly?