RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies

RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 7:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Um, you do see a general upward trend right? From the left of the graph to the right? Or is the dark side...i mean, my liberal bias, blinding me to the truth? That this graph is actually in a downward trend? Oh why do my cursed eyes deceive me?! As to the second one. Yes! I see it! A poorly photoshoped arrow to show me the truth! Unfortunately, that data seems to be missing so I can't be sure if the dark s...liberal blindness has stopped completely yet. Could you assist me in this regard? And I'm still waiting for those links btw [;)] Look son. I've never said there hasn't been a temperature increase, over the period roughly from 1972 - 1996. What I have said is that there is no causation proved between CO2 and temperature levels. I've said there has been no effective warming in the antartic over the last 35 years - which the IPCC expected to preferentially show AGW. What I have said is that AGW doesn't explain the vostok ice cores which show recurring "global warming" on a period of roughly 58 thousand years. What I've said is that the modals of the IPCC are clearly wrong - when actual values are 1/4 predicted values. I've said that even the IPCC and NASA have admitted that their modelling of absorption by CO2 is incorrect - and their model of aerosol contribution to global temperatures .. is wrong. Anyway.. I've already said a lot of the research and papers can be seen at the non govermental panel on climate change. Or you could look http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm Or you could damn well just pull the surface temperature data sets and run the curves yourself, like I did. Last time I checked the raw data is still available from NASA.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:15:58 PM)
Of course. As I do every single post. For example: https://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/barroso-drops-binding-green-energy-goal/79252.aspx Let me quote: In contrast, the binding target for a 20% share of EU energy from renewables by 2020 will be downgraded to a non-binding goal of a 30% share by 2030, according to sources working on the issue. While the 2020 target came with legally binding national targets that are enforceable through infringement action, the 2030 goal will not be broken down into individual national obligations. The new strategy, to be proposed by the Commission on 22 January, will allow countries such as France and the UK to opt to increase nuclear power capacity instead of renewable energy, leaving action by other countries – for example Germany and Denmark – to fill the gap and account for most of the EU renewable energy increase. A binding renewable-energy target for 2030 might be politically unpalatable and practically unworkable, with member states increasingly pursuing divergent energy paths. Germany, which favours a new binding target, has been unable to convince many other member states of the merits of its case. Sigmar Gabriel, the new centre-left German energy minister, did persuade seven other countries, including France, to co-sign a letter published this week calling for a 2030 target, but it avoided any suggestion that the target should be binding. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Ah, another opinion completely devoid of facts. The fact is that contrary to the European parliament, the EU will set aside mandatory goals per country, setting instead a goal for the entire EU zone. Which is just politician speak for saying we have just removed any mandatory requirements. Can you substantiate any of this bollocks ?

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:17:01 PM)
Come on man, that's an unreliable source, for all we know it could have a bias! We wouldn't want that! But being a dumb liberal I don't know how to find the data. Not to mention that there has to be several peer reviewed papers that support your views, correct? It's not like you simply pulled all of this stuff out of your ass right? There has to be some actual scientific research papers that proves there isn't a link between CO2 and rising temperatures, but considering you have "30l years of experience, I feel it would be best to leave this matter to you. Could you please find me those papers? The sooner I see them the sooner I can shake this curse known as liberalism [;)]

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 FR The OP is technically correct that the subsidies for NUCLEAR are unsustainable, Lets just do a quick little reality check. France gets 80% of its power from nukes. Germany decided to invest heavily in "green energy". One of those nations retail energy costs are up 61% since 2000. Guess who? (and just to help you - the germans elected to remove nuclear power after fukushima - soooo its not really responsible for the price increase. Oops I gave it away, didn't I). And just for the record - berlin pays more than twice as much for power than paris. So much for unsustainable nuclear subsidies...

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:35:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Come on man, that's an unreliable source, for all we know it could have a bias! We wouldn't want that! But being a dumb liberal I don't know how to find the data. Not to mention that there has to be several peer reviewed papers that support your views, correct? It's not like you simply pulled all of this stuff out of your ass right? There has to be some actual scientific research papers that proves there isn't a link between CO2 and rising temperatures, but considering you have "30l years of experience, I feel it would be best to leave this matter to you. Could you please find me those papers? The sooner I see them the sooner I can shake this curse known as liberalism [;)] Nasa is unreliable? Brit Met is unreliable? Perhaps you'd just like the Mann's data. Oh shit - you're out of luck. He won't release it. Something about .. MAKING IT UP. For Gosh sake man. Use your brain. Actually look at the data with an open mind.

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 8:41:57 PM)
I'm just a stupid little liberal looking for answers, I'm clearly not competent enough to find this stuff on my own. It always turns out to be drivel. Which is why I'm turning to you for assistance! [:)] It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me the links to the information you are talking about. I'd be ever greatful, truly.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 9:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The cost of the actual closing is the reason, not because they were unsustainable. weve had the same issue here with the cost of closing gas plants, first being given a price tag of 30 millionto shut it, is now going to cost 950 million. WHere does the money come from to cover it? borrow from peter to pay paul.... If the subsidies were sustainable, then they would have continued, Lucy. Apparently, the German government decided that, in light of higher energy costs due to the shuttering of the nuke plants, that they could no longer sustain the subsidies at the current level (iow, they were unsustainable). For some kooky reason, Germany seems to think that increased costs in one area means that costs in other areas need to be reduced to cover. Completely un-American, as US politicians prove time and time again. [:D] You use some perverse arguments DS........ Read things slow and it may sink in. Green subsides were cut because the money set aside for it was used for something else. In this case it was the safe dismantling of Nuclear Power so Germany can go green. The only thing unsustainable is your argument. Perverse argument? You do recall this site itself could be referred to as "perverse" by others, right? lol [:D] I don't have to read slowly. Perhaps you do. Nowhere have I stated that green subsidies were cut for any other reason than what you wrote. That they were chosen to be cut shows that Germany's government decided that they could not be sustained in the current economic environment. If that is not true, why were the subsidies cut? And, my "completely un-American" assertion is, in fact, a compliment to Germany. Oh please......... Its quite clear what you stated. I thought it was, but, apparently...

DomKen -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 9:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm just a stupid little liberal looking for answers, I'm clearly not competent enough to find this stuff on my own. It always turns out to be drivel. Which is why I'm turning to you for assistance! [:)] It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me the links to the information you are talking about. I'd be ever greatful, truly. He can't because then the truth that he is using denialist sites that misrepresent and flat out lie about the actual science would be revealed.

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 9:13:22 PM)
I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;)

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/20/2014 11:44:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;) Ignore facts? Thats been evident quite awhile. Tell ya what my pointy little friend.. why don't we pick one little picture. Lets say .. from the vostok cores. Why don't you explain how man's industrial activity is responsible for the last bit of global warming - roughy 50,000years ago. Cuz, despite all DomKen's snark. Or yours. Or Mnotter's .. not a single bit of refutation. Ever. Despite posting it three times now. Commence....

mnottertail -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 4:27:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 FR The OP is technically correct that the subsidies for NUCLEAR are unsustainable, Lets just do a quick little reality check. France gets 80% of its power from nukes. Germany decided to invest heavily in "green energy". One of those nations retail energy costs are up 61% since 2000. Guess who? (and just to help you - the germans elected to remove nuclear power after fukushima - soooo its not really responsible for the price increase. Oops I gave it away, didn't I). And just for the record - berlin pays more than twice as much for power than paris. So much for unsustainable nuclear subsidies... Simply not true, the move away from nukes was decided in the 1998-2005 timeframe, and Fukishima only sharpened the desire. So, as usual you gave away the fact that you are full of shit as a christmas goose, and unconcerned with fact. And Germany is still the green leader, they will still invest, they will (maybe) remove some of the hard core and restrictive subsidies, but the investments in green will remain. And lets do a reality check, a ham sandwich usually contains ham, and has as much to do with what the fuck France is up to, as it does have to do with what Germany is up to. Costs are rising because they are stripping out nukes AND building coal plants AND subsidizing green. Of those three, the subsidies going away will help keep electric costs from skyrocketing, but will not make it cheaper, cuz they don't want fuckin nukes, so thats still going forward, albeit at a slower pace. That don't look like its gonna change.

Politesub53 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 6:21:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;) Some of us were even ahead of you. [8\|] I`m still waiting for proof of his assertions about the EU policy.

Lucylastic -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 6:48:16 AM)
most of us are way ahead.

Lucylastic -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 7:00:39 AM)
[image]https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/1520806_742612585759755_1929778377_n.jpg[/image]

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 7:07:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;) Ignore facts? Thats been evident quite awhile. Tell ya what my pointy little friend.. why don't we pick one little picture. Lets say .. from the vostok cores. Why don't you explain how man's industrial activity is responsible for the last bit of global warming - roughy 50,000years ago. Cuz, despite all DomKen's snark. Or yours. Or Mnotter's .. not a single bit of refutation. Ever. Despite posting it three times now. Commence.... The moment you present a peer reviewed paper, or the papers from which all these graphs were taken from, we can actually have a real discussion and I don't have to continue being sarcastic (which while fun was getting a little boring after a while). All you have posted is cherry picked information and conjecture, not facts. There doesn't need to be refutation when you refuse to support your so called "evidence" with actual scientific data. You posted pictures, well done, have a cookie. There is more information at play than one singular graph. I could bet you 1000$ that the papers these graphs came from had much more information and reached a different conclusion than you did based on said over all information. Find me the proper papers that show I was wrong and I will admit you have been right the entire time. Honestly, isn't that so much easier than debating a "liberal moron"? Just present the papers with links for everyone to see for themselves, and you will have your win. I will admit defeat. It's as easy as that.

Phydeaux -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 9:18:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm glad someone has finally caught on to what I was trying to do ;) Ignore facts? Thats been evident quite awhile. Tell ya what my pointy little friend.. why don't we pick one little picture. Lets say .. from the vostok cores. Why don't you explain how man's industrial activity is responsible for the last bit of global warming - roughy 50,000years ago. Cuz, despite all DomKen's snark. Or yours. Or Mnotter's .. not a single bit of refutation. Ever. Despite posting it three times now. Commence.... Find me the proper papers that show I was wrong and I will admit you have been right the entire time. Ok. This is too good to pass up - not to win the argument, but the actual chance to educate a brainwashed lemming. So lets set the terms. What will meet your requirements of a peer reviewed paper? (Don't want to spend the effort to have you back out and say it doesn't qualify). Just want you to formalize it.

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 9:34:54 AM)
Well, to start you could supply the papers from which you got your graphs that supposedly support your points. In addition to that, any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce. No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research. If you have trouble figuring out what you're looking for, an example would be something along the lines of this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract;jsessionid=71A8F7F125872E37DB90FD24950A3086.f03t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false Except of course it won't be "drivel" because your almighty brain can clearly tell the difference XD A good place to start looking would be google scholar, have fun ;) http://scholar.google.ca

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 9:47:13 AM)
Btw Phydeaux, I'm taking a climate class right now. While climate change isn't the focus, it is something we are talking about. If there's any simple questions you want me to ask my prof, just let me know and I'll post the answers :)

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 10:43:18 AM)
FR On a side note, I'm wondering how many climate change papers Phydeaux is currently wading through as we speak? You search up climate change and countless upon countless papers discuss the effects of climate change on various environments, or the economics of it, or the political and social aspects of it. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Will he find a paper that supports his view? Maybe, but for every 1 paper he finds, 10 more probably exist that criticize said paper and debunk whatever misconceptions it has. The peer review process isn't perfect, and every once in a while, a piece of crap makes it's way through, but it doesn't usually take long for the journal and the scientists involved to see the mistakes that they have made. Tick tock Phydeaux, tick tock [;)]

Tkman117 -> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies (1/21/2014 10:52:19 AM)
Also to the moderators: If this is all straying from the topic too much, I will gladly move it over to a new thread to let the actual discussion continue. Just say the word.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875