You're an idiot. Check yourself. Don't be so friggin' quick to dismiss such a bright guy -- Al Gore. What a friggin' imebecile you are. And BTW, is it your hypothesis that we're not depleting and abusing the planet currently? Right.
shut up should shut up.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/complimentary?view=ukcomplimentary
• adjective 1 expressing a compliment; praising or approving.
True, my life probably won't be altered much except for higher gas and energy prices. Maybe those higher prices will encourage me to not waste as much energy.
And there you have the biggest single lie in the whole debate - can you actually explain why, if we decided to include renewables in our energy generation policy, energy prices would increase?
You know, after reading this thread and seeing both sides of the argument I have to say that I've changed my mind. I'm sorry I was rude and called people who are concerned about others' welfare 'imbeciles.' In light of the factual data presented in this thread I can see now that this was unjustified and I'd like to apologize for calling it bullshit based on nothing but my own ignorance.
Do you know what I like? Morons arguing about weather.
Renewable energy sources are more expensive to produce with current technology.
only me wrote:
And there you have the biggest single lie in the whole debate - can you actually explain why, if we decided to include renewables in our energy generation policy, energy prices would increase?
Are they? Any proof of that?
only me wrote:
shut up should shut up.
complimentaryhttp://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/complimentary?view=uk• adjective 1 expressing a compliment; praising or approving.
A mistake. I thought you were saying complementary, not complimentary, in which case it would be the wrong word.
only me wrote:
Are they? Any proof of that?
I'm pretty sure the majority of scientists believe in that. You should just trust them... unless, of course, you are willing to offer evidence that global warming is a real threat?
What has the cost of energy got to do with global warming? And why would "the majority of scientists" be the authority I should trust on energy prices?
Did you make the mistake because you are in a snit?
I work for a major solar panel manufacturer. While I want solar power to see widespread use, we must understand that the technology is just not cost competitive yet.
As of February 2010
For the BEST solar panels it is $4.27 per watt
While coal and oil are about $2.10 per watt
So it is more than double the price, not including the fact that solar panels only work during the day and in sunlight intensive regions.
This information can be found at solarbuzz.com
If you stop at solar photovoltaic as the only solution, that may be true (even though some of the bigger arrays produce energy more efficiently than what you have quoted), but what about solar thermal, biomass, biomass CHP, tidal, geothermal, or wind?
But it's not just about renewables, it's about using the fossil fuels we have more efficiently, so what about small-scale fossil fuel CHP power plants, coal gasification, etc?
I been told that my IQ equals Tiger Woods 1-round score. I'm proud to be as smart as Tiger, but still don't understand what the GW fuss is all about.
As fossil fuel stores get gradually depleted, their use'll become so expensive that alternatives become viable .... 'carbon' will be reduced.
No need for arm twisting, taxing, edicting, punishing citizens and industry ... it's going to happen anyway thru natural and economic forces.
only me wrote:
What has the cost of energy got to do with global warming? And why would "the majority of scientists" be the authority I should trust on energy prices?
Okay, I misspoke. The majority of just about everyone believes that. Who are you to say no?
only me wrote:
Did you make the mistake because you are in a snit?
Nope.
shut up wrote:
Okay, I misspoke. The majority of just about everyone believes that. Who are you to say no?
The irony:
"Thousands of scientists" doesn't mean jack squat when there's someone like you simply using it as a magic bullet instead of actually discussing the relevant points, which are:
How big is the majority?
Who decided that there's a majority?
Can this majority be demonstrated?
Oh, the irony:
Oh, and you should know as an adult (I assume you are one) that the majority does not make right? You still have to prove things. So far, you have not substantiated your claims except for saying that the scientists are on your side. That does not constitute evidence for anything. Show the evidence.
Oh, the irony:
You may or may not believe this gives you absolute authority on the subject, but if you can't provide anything other than touting the majority, why are you here?
Oh, the irony:
Also, the majority should never constitute evidence for anything. Should we simply accept everything the majority of scientists say and never question it? That way, there would never be truth, and no one would ever learn. The majority of scientists have been wrong before, and it's all about how they interpret the evidence. Science can never be totally neutral or objective because scientists can only base things on what they already know or believe about how things work. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the majority of scientists also believe the majority is not always right.
Oh, the irony:
The simple fact is: the majority counts for absolutely NOTHING until you've looked at the evidence.
Bringing your own words back to haunt you:
The majority of just about everyone believes that.
Excellent claim, but:
I'm not saying you have to prove it (should I repeat that?) but if you can't back up what you are saying and you haven't looked at the evidence, then YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. You can't argue if you can't back up what you are saying.
Then the only other explanation for confusing the words "complementary" and "complimentary" is that you are a f***ing retard.
New thread topic: are "shut up" and "only me" the same person?