Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[DanKegel]

unburned hydrocarbons are a short term health threat.

carbon dioxide is a long term climate (and thus health) threat.

[diogenes]

CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → x CO2 + (x+1) H2O

Converts long chain carbohydrates into CO2, the chemical formula shows that it takes non CO2 into CO2 and water. Long chain carbohydrates are smog, so which is worse?

[DanKegel]

If CO2 is so bad, then why haven't we eliminated catalytic converters? They are a major source of CO2.

That's not a serious remark, but I'll answer anyway.

Catalytic converters just finish burning anything the engine missed. It's a pretty tiny amount of co2 compared to what the engine puts out.

[diogenes]

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

The causes and effects of the change in the climate regardless of whatever the reason may be are far from known - many have taken a halfassed and wild assed guess but nothing more.

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

If CO2 is so bad, then why haven't we eliminated catalytic converters? They are a major source of CO2.

[Kleinero]

Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030

Thanks for the thoughts TG. I will look a the Outback brand. I haven't seen them yet.

My resoning for grid tied is the 30 federal tax credit and 25 state credit i get, basically cutting the system cost in half. I won't be really selling much back at all since I am looking at a system that is about half of my average usage.

Do you think my idea would work? Could I create a signal that would let the power flow?

[agrofarm]

My solar powerplant in Croatia:

[Sunking]

Everyone seems to over look the scientist claiming climate change is man made gets their bread buttered by the government towing the company line.

Another fact is everyone seems to forget Climaye Gate when it was discovered the scientist cooked the books to Hide The Decline.

[J.P.M.]

I think it stems in part from a pervasive anti-intellectualism in the country. After all, who is more revered in high school: the football athlete or the math whiz? Also the average person has difficulty with complexity and instinctively distrusts those who don't.

I'd agree that an anti-intellectualism devolution is occurring and accelerating about 110%, but I remember jocks as always being more popular than geeks.

[DanKegel]

I had a look at his testimony and supporting documents,

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

He seems a little superficial to me. For instance, he dismisses the threat to Pacific islands from sea level rise, saying
they're built on coral, and coral grows. That may have been true in the past, but coral's going to have a lot harder
time growing as the oceans get more acidic; see e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...lno.10003/full
And he rejects climate models outright, giving as an example for his skepticism the fact that they didn't explain the pause in global temperature increase after 2000. It turns out that the pause is due to interactions with the ocean, which won't save us for very long, and the models have been fixed; see
e.g. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate1863.html
See also http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...says-earth-ha/ for a fact-check of his assertion that the earth hasn't warmed for the last 17 years.

Last month, he hilariously claimed you could drink a quart of Monsanto's Roundup pesticide without harm, then refused to do so when offered the chance; see

http://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-moore/

Why do you trust this guy over the hundreds of actual climate scientists who worked on the IPCC report? Is it because you like his conclusions?

[Ian S]

Why people disagree with scientists about climate change without actually understanding the science is a complex subject.

I think it stems in part from a pervasive anti-intellectualism in the country. After all, who is more revered in high school: the football athlete or the math whiz? Also the average person has difficulty with complexity and instinctively distrusts those who don't.

[Ian S]

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

Senator James Inhofe, Republican Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in 2012:

“My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous”

[SunEagle]

Sorry I had to use two paragraphs to do it. I usually try to be more concise.

Why people disagree with scientists about climate change without actually understanding the science is a complex subject.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/ may be relevant here.
If all your friends (and favorite news sources) are saying it's a bunch of hooey,
it's hard not to go along, especially when it might get you ridiculed and shunned.

It's gotten to the point where climate change denialists want to shut
down NASA's earth observation systems.
(See e.g. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cru...ission-budget/ )
Happily, even if they manage to do that, Europe and Japan will continue to fly earth science missions,
not only to measure CO2 sources, but also to improve our understanding
of the climate and how it depends on the makeup of the atmosphere.

I am not following along with my friends in my belief of climate change. I have read a number of articles written by a Patrick Moore PhD who is a well known scientist that use to belong to Green Peace for 15 years but left after he determined that a lot of their "data" was false or manipulated.

Go read his statement presented to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb 25th 2014. Read it with an open mind and hopefully you will start to question that the data gathered "by scientists" to prove CO2 is the cause of climate change is like using an hours time of a 70 year old's life to represent who that person is.

[pleppik]

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

The causes and effects of the change in the climate regardless of whatever the reason may be are far from known - many have taken a halfassed and wild assed guess but nothing more.

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.

Clearly you don't find the current scientific arguments about human-caused climate change persuasive. And that's OK, everyone should examine the evidence as best they can and make up their own minds. Though I would argue there's a lot of really solid chemistry and physics behind what you call "halfassed and wild assed guesses."

But I'm curious as to what sort of evidence might change your mind?

[DanKegel]

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

Sorry I had to use two paragraphs to do it. I usually try to be more concise.

Why people disagree with scientists about climate change without actually understanding the science is a complex subject.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/ may be relevant here.
If all your friends (and favorite news sources) are saying it's a bunch of hooey,
it's hard not to go along, especially when it might get you ridiculed and shunned.

It's gotten to the point where climate change denialists want to shut
down NASA's earth observation systems.
(See e.g. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cru...ission-budget/ )
Happily, even if they manage to do that, Europe and Japan will continue to fly earth science missions,
not only to measure CO2 sources, but also to improve our understanding
of the climate and how it depends on the makeup of the atmosphere.

[russ]

A lot of right wing folks agree with you, but I suspect it's motivated reasoning, not an accurate reading of the science.
(Maybe the very thought of having to change (e.g. to pay more for energy) is
so offensive to them that they can't help but infer that anyone who
suggests such a thing is needed must be off their rocker,
and therefore doing bad science. Or maybe it's
"only God can do something so big as change the climate". Whatever.)

Happily, increasing efficiency and switching to renewables is desirable
from a national defense standpoint, too, so even people who
disagree that climate change can be caused by humans
can work together with the rest of us on fixing the problem.

You managed to regurgitate at least 50% of the dead head green line in one post! Congratulations!

The causes and effects of the change in the climate regardless of whatever the reason may be are far from known - many have taken a halfassed and wild assed guess but nothing more.

Throwing religion in the whole thing makes it even more stupid than ever! Anyone that thinks the mythical god has anything to do with climate is beyond hope.