Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,599
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34231 Feb 12, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know which mainstream media you are watching (probably Fox "news") but they've been mentioning the hell out of it lately. In fact, there is often a special segment on climate change.
Maybe the less than a box of rocks, valley girl Teener only gets her news from Rush and Sean and the clowns on Faux Noose. THAT'S the real fringe.
Your stale argument is based on a minority of mostly media reports of a coming ice age 50 years ago. The real scientist behind the most prominent of those reports was a guy who later became one of the biggest anti-AGW proponents, Mr. Singer. He worked for the tobacco lobby too.
There's that agenda you were looking for; only, funny thing is, it's in your camp.
Actually.
Actually, I watch more CBS than Fox news. I also watch NBC, and ABC far more than Fox news. Unlike you I make sure I check multiple sources so that I know about as many sides of an issue as possible. Do I read Rush Limbaugh transcripts, yes. Then again I will also read the State of the Union transcripts since it is faster to read them than watch it or spend three hours listening to Limbaugh. I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN.

The fact that you have to refer to me in such negative terms as valley girl (for someone who has never lived in Califronia), teener, and others tells me that you are responding on an emotional and not a mental level.

As for my arguement, it is base more than on the last fifty years. That if anything is a sign of how narrow minded your views are. The subject of man and climate change goes back a couple of centuries. They were those who blamed the sinking of the Titantic on man made climate change which was far longer than fifty years ago. There are those who looked at the Internal Combustion Engine the same way you look at solar and the electric car as something that would help prevent climate change. They of course considered methane from all the decomposing horse manure to be a greater threat at the time.

If you consider my arguement against your agrument stale then you should take a look at your argument. After all, mine's is in response to yours which means yours is older.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34232 Feb 12, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yaas, dahlin', I'm sure that if we put it to a vote on who's the bigger fool, the results would be completely partisan. But while you think we're fools, we know you're fools.
The difference, my dear Watson, is in the science.
I sure your friends here would vote with you. Yet that is nothing more than opinion and the opinion of a group of foolish people is still foolish.

As for the difference, yes it is science or in your case the lack thereof.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34233 Feb 12, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, super BrainG, you gonna get more snow.
We're all emitting greenhouse gases, whether we want to or not. You Idiot.
But, Brain, in sunny northern Germany, there by the sea, the snow will just melt right away when the sun comes out. Right?
Will it if the temperatures remain below freezing and the wind is blowing off the Arctic. If all it took was the sun the Greenland and the Anarctic would of been ice free centuries ago.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34234 Feb 12, 2013
AHH the local media more scientific science fiction. Just follow the money.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#34235 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>"WOW" the spaced out spacedoutblues finally has flipped. TOO much ethanol to drink. Well maybe if everyone listens to its favorite channel to world will be safe. Also<re bad weather>.
All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.

Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#34236 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I watch more CBS than Fox news. I also watch NBC, and ABC far more than Fox news. Unlike you I make sure I check multiple sources so that I know about as many sides of an issue as possible. Do I read Rush Limbaugh transcripts, yes. Then again I will also read the State of the Union transcripts since it is faster to read them than watch it or spend three hours listening to Limbaugh. I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN.
The fact that you have to refer to me in such negative terms as valley girl (for someone who has never lived in Califronia), teener, and others tells me that you are responding on an emotional and not a mental level.
As for my arguement, it is base more than on the last fifty years. That if anything is a sign of how narrow minded your views are. The subject of man and climate change goes back a couple of centuries. They were those who blamed the sinking of the Titantic on man made climate change which was far longer than fifty years ago. There are those who looked at the Internal Combustion Engine the same way you look at solar and the electric car as something that would help prevent climate change. They of course considered methane from all the decomposing horse manure to be a greater threat at the time.
If you consider my arguement against your agrument stale then you should take a look at your argument. After all, mine's is in response to yours which means yours is older.
I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN. Funny thing is, that is nothing more than opinion and the opinion of a group of foolish people is still foolish.

You lie, Sarah Palin surrogate!You parrot Fox News and Limburger.

You don't have to have lived in California to act like a valley girl.

Your arguments are weak. You facts are non-existent. Your logic is tortuously twisted.

And your last paragraph.........waaaah! you hit me first! Ma! He hit me first!
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#34237 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Will it if the temperatures remain below freezing and the wind is blowing off the Arctic. If all it took was the sun the Greenland and the Anarctic would of been ice free centuries ago.
Well, that one went completely over your head.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34238 Feb 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.
Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?
You must be having fantasies about watching men. Do you do the same with boys? All of your comments exemplify the nut clueless gallery. See your one up. That would make you CHIEF COMMANDER TROLL.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34239 Feb 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?
Bavaria is further South, maybe the snow is stickier.

If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice. I guess, if you believe in climate change mitigation, there's not much more information about climate for you to care about.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34240 Feb 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?
//////////
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' wrote:
If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice.
/////////
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1....... If the neighbor of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' had a variable angle solar collector, yes, the angle tilt for winter would be 67 degrees for greatest efficiency on Dec. 21st. However, many collectors are less complicated, weighty & less efficient permanent angle attachments, probably set at a much less steep angle(the snow might not slide off) for the time of the year, when least cloud blockage occurs & excellent solar gain is available for feedback into an on-grid system to the local PUD or energy plant.

Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#34241 Feb 13, 2013
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1 wrote:
Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.
Save your money.

On average, there are only 160 sunny days per year in Everett, WA.

The rest of the 205 days each year (56%), all that $$ squandered on tilt & track gizmos & controls is pretty much a stone waste - making it a logical candidate for taxpayer subsidies, yeh?

litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34242 Feb 13, 2013
tina anne wrote:
..... my arguement......my arguement .......your agrument ..... your argument.
I haven't complained about 'tiny-minded anne' & her spelling lately...... because she is trying to cut down on her errors. That's all one can hope for.

This is cute tho. Four attempts & she did get one of them right. Two of them are commonly made, so no big deal. But I think 'agrument' is a new way.........
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34243 Feb 13, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Save your money.
On average, there are only 160 sunny days per year in Everett, WA.
The rest of the 205 days each year (56%), all that $$ squandered on tilt & track gizmos & controls is
Yeah, got to agree with you. Don't even think we get that many days. Probably someone who builds tracking telescopes could figure an axel rotating parallel to the North-South Poles at a sidereal rate. One advantage of a tracking system tho, would allow you to reduce your solar panels by 40%. I always thought a good builder could build a completely manual tilting & rotating mechanism for a modestly sized solar panel set-up to supply part solar power to 4 or 5 homes of say, 15 to 20 people, some of whom would be at home at the right time. Every week or 2(more often at certain times of the year) they could tilt the array for the changing elevation of the sun. During the day, someone would have to be available to rotate the array every hour or two, either 15 or 30 degrees.

Of course, here in Everett, a flexible solar panel is necessary to roll up & take in the house for the month of solid clouds & rain. Yeah, someone would have to be available to get the solar panels out & working for the possible 4-6 hours, when the clouds would clear away....maybe. It could work at a cost efficient rate....... if you had a gathering of solar people living close to each other.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34244 Feb 13, 2013
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?
//////////
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' wrote:
If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice.
/////////
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1....... If the neighbor of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' had a variable angle solar collector, yes, the angle tilt for winter would be 67 degrees for greatest efficiency on Dec.
21st. However, many collectors are less complicated, weighty & less efficient permanent angle attachments, probably set at a much less steep angle(the snow might not slide off) for the time of the year, when least cloud blockage occurs & excellent solar gain is available for feedback into an on-grid system to the local PUD or energy plant.
Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.
I was going by the general rules of thumb for the most gain from a fixed collector. That rule is: add 15 degrees to your latitude.

Variable position entails motors and timers or getting up on the roof to physically move them. My latitude is 32 but my collector face is at 58 degrees, but it faces SE. I also don't care a lot about hot water in the summertime; mine is geared for 12/21.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34245 Feb 14, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't complained about 'tiny-minded anne' & her spelling lately...... because she is trying to cut down on her errors. That's all one can hope for.
This is cute tho. Four attempts & she did get one of them right. Two of them are commonly made, so no big deal. But I think 'agrument' is a new way.........
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#34246 Feb 14, 2013
You worry about what angle to hang your solar panels, you brush off snow and ice.

I use oil to heat my home. That way, I have hot water and heat when I need it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34247 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You worry about what angle to hang your solar panels, you brush off snow and ice.
I use oil to heat my home. That way, I have hot water and heat when I need it.
OK, how about paying the REAL cost of that oil? As it is now, you're just dumping your waste CO2 into the atmosphere, not paying for it, psychotically hallucinating that it's "free" to do that.

What you're doing is forcing people in the future to pay for those negative consequences. It's a bit like the national debt, where we're spending money now that people in the future will have to pay back.

In the case of the national debt, though, we know how much it is. We don't really know the future costs of emitting CO2. They could be less than the national debt, but they also could be much, much larger, even orders of magnitude larger. No joke.

Are you one of those righties who believes it's immoral to leave our children a large national debt? If so, then what you're doing could be much, MUCH worse.

Like the saying goes, we don't inherit the earth from our forefathers, we borrow it from our children.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34248 Feb 14, 2013
I would say you rent it. If you borrow it, there would be an expectation to receive it in the same condition as borrowed.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34249 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
I would say you rent it. If you borrow it, there would be an expectation to receive it in the same condition as borrowed.
OK, I'll go along with that. Let's say we're renting it.

Maybe it'd be a good idea to not completely trash it.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34250 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You worry about what angle to hang your solar panels, you brush off snow and ice.
I use oil to heat my home. That way, I have hot water and heat when I need it.
My home is heated by gas, electric, and solar. When the sun shines (which it does quite a bit in central Mississippi), my gas and coal (electric) bills go down.

My water is heated by coal (electric). When the sun shines, my water is heated or pre-heated by solar.

I have hot water and heat all the time, but my bills are lower because of solar.

That's something you and your sister, valley girl, less than a box of rocks Teener, don't understand and it's incredibly simple. Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.

Repeat after me: Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.
Use more solar, use less fossil fuel.

Are you starting to get it now?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,129,451
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 31 min The Real Missy 17,730
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 2 hr LizW 488,934
To refinance home loan, navigating paperwork an... (Jun '09) 5 hr SandyWilliams 53
two words (Jul '10) 9 hr Princess Hey 26,922
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 9 hr Princess Hey 9,127
Review: Big FIN Seafood Kitchen 10 hr karensweetroberts 3
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]