Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

You have no evidence of data being "fudged". Just assertions that it was, that have been debunked.

Repeating assertions over and over does not change them from false to true. All it does is prove delusion.

If you can't imagine any corruption being involved in ANY government action to combat global warming, I can't help you.

If you can't imagine energy companies corrupting politicians not to do anything to combat global climate change, I can't help you.

quote:

---

•The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

---

John Kenneth Galbraith

So you agree with Galbraith?
Interesting. But not surprising. Most conservatives seem to be proud of their selfishness.

Show your figures.

A dishwasher is actually more energy efficient than hand washing.

http://www.treehugger.com/...d-washing-which-is-greener.html
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=dishwash.pr_handwas...

You do realize that this is an open forum, don't you. Grow a pair and address the answers that were given to you. If you cannot or will not then move along

That's ok. I will get my science from actual scientists that use their actual names.

Oh I see KevinK claims to be an optical and electrical engineer. Hardly an expert on climate science. There is a bit more to the subject than optics.

The amazing thing is that you would even posit that anyone that understands the science of AGW would think such a thing. I think you just built a giant of a strawman.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

The scary thing is that foreverclueless thinks he has made fantastic points and had amazing responses to the information that destroyed his world class arguments.

Now it is about time for petrophysics dude to post something inane and totally nonscientific.

A little basic science might help.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/...science/question7461.htm
This argument of yours is a loser.

Please enlighten us on what is incorrect.

You did not address what I asked.

Show me the information in the article that is wrong. The specific information. You are making blanket assertions but are not addressing the particular article I posted.

This should be simple. Quote part of the article and refute the point they are making.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

2 is incorrect. Solar panels work great in northern areas. ND ranks tied for 17th in solar potential. Politics is the only thing holding it back.

quote:

---

While the Southwest region of the United States has some of the best solar resources in the world, almost all areas of the continental United States and Southern Canada have solar resources suitable for solar energy systems. For example, while frequently overcast and rainy Seattle is considered the worst place for solar in the United States (outside of Alaska), it still has a better solar resource potential than Germany which alone accounts for a third of the world's solar energy installations.
In addition, despite receiving less direct sunlight, northern states have the advantage of photovoltaic (PV) systems working more efficiently during cooler temperatures because heat lowers the efficiency at which the panels convert light to electricity. Northern states also have longer days in summer which can contribute to relatively more generation, which depending on when the power is needed, may offset shorter winter days.

---

http://solar.gwu.edu/...oes-solar-make-sense-northern-states

4 is not as black and white as you make it. Industry and government has not given us reason to accept it. With the drive towards eliminating oversight and regulations nuclear is a tragedy waiting to happen.
The cost of nuclear is prohibitive.
http://www.ucsusa.org/...wer/cost-nuclear-power#.WKM2-oWcH3k

Installation cost is relevant if your electricity costs are low. Installation for me would be about $25k, I use about $1300/year in electricity.
Financially it is a stupid move for me.