I thought you guys were "winning"...?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the WIN here when the tax payers will be funding this project.White House announces plan to train 50,000 people, including veterans, to install solar panels
WASHINGTON — The U.S. is planning to train veterans to become solar panel installers in the next six years, the White House said Thursday.
The jobs training program is among a host of initiatives the White House says will cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 300 million tons through 2030, plus save billions of dollars on energy bills for homeowners and businesses. It will launch this fall at one or more military bases and train a total of at least 50,000, including veterans.
The Agriculture Department will also spend nearly $70 million to fund 540 solar and renewable energy projects, focused on rural and farming areas. And the Energy Department will propose stricter efficiency standards for commercial air conditioners, a move the department said could cut emissions more than any other efficiency standard it has issued to date.
The proposals are modest compared with what President Barack Obama has asked Congress to do through legislation to promote clean energy, invest in infrastructure projects and force reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. But with lawmakers unwilling to consider any major climate legislation, Obama has sought to maximize what presidential authority he does hold.
Next week, Obama will attend a one-day United Nations summit on climate change in which heads of state are expected to show up with commitments to curbing emissions at home.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-train-veterans-install-solar-panels-part-initiative-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
Much less to buy Chinese panels.
That first guy on that PBS page read my mind.
"The Agriculture Department will also spend nearly $70 million to fund 540 solar and renewable energy projects,..."
So the libs are gonna spend taxpayers money training people to perform a lib agenda, and then spend taxpayers money purchasing the products of that agenda?
Thats like me spending your taxes training people to make things I like, like cigarettes, and then using your taxes to buy cigarettes.
Thats not really job creation IMO.
How is that different from hiring 50 thousand people to work at the welfare office?
Job creation would be creating an environment for entrepreneurs and the working class to be productive how they choose in a free market.
Thats just you redistributing my taxes for your own interests.
As usual.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
"I'm not saying there's a massive conspiracy but, there's a massive conspiracy"
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
BUT if you really think about it.
Maybe they're doing what they believe is right for everyone.
They get new research funding, we get newer cleaner tech, the planet stops getting raped and the human race advances.
Personally, I don't think the climate change debate focuses on the correct idea regardless of what side you chose to be on.
We should be trying to advance as a species to cleaner, more efficient, renewable and cheaper sources of energy.
I propose ending the climate change debate and simply funding huge amounts of Govt led R&D at the various National Labs around the world.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
lol. You should totally have used the "...but it's aliens" guy image with that.
I'm not saying there isn't a massive conspiracy (there are many, actually); i'm just saying that it's not "including the willing participation of 90% of scientists." Because that's a patently absurd and incredible assertion.
Once the data exists, those who discovered or produced it, do not get to control how it is interpreted by the unqualified masses, when said data is distributed by politicians and other such agenda-pushers.
I also think it's hilariously ironic that you're apparently insinuating that anyone who thinks any conspiracy has ever occurred, is somehow of questionable mental capacity... while you're wearing a GEORGE ORWELL quote in your signature, which directly references such types of conspiracies.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
hey man, scientists gonna science
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Are they being trained to fix a bracket to a roof and attach a solar panel?White House announces plan to train 50,000 people, including veterans, to install solar panels
WASHINGTON — The U.S. is planning to train veterans to become solar panel installers in the next six years, the White House said Thursday.
The jobs training program is among a host of initiatives the White House says will cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 300 million tons through 2030, plus save billions of dollars on energy bills for homeowners and businesses. It will launch this fall at one or more military bases and train a total of at least 50,000, including veterans.
The Agriculture Department will also spend nearly $70 million to fund 540 solar and renewable energy projects, focused on rural and farming areas. And the Energy Department will propose stricter efficiency standards for commercial air conditioners, a move the department said could cut emissions more than any other efficiency standard it has issued to date.
The proposals are modest compared with what President Barack Obama has asked Congress to do through legislation to promote clean energy, invest in infrastructure projects and force reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. But with lawmakers unwilling to consider any major climate legislation, Obama has sought to maximize what presidential authority he does hold.
Next week, Obama will attend a one-day United Nations summit on climate change in which heads of state are expected to show up with commitments to curbing emissions at home.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-train-veterans-install-solar-panels-part-initiative-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
How about wiring it back to the grid and commissioning the system?
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
This. It's possible for someone to make a choice that goes against their own principles, if they truly believe it's the better choice, especially when it involves more than only themselves.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I know.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Nobody controls how data is collected or analyzed, it's completely transparent, and peer reviewed papers are published listing data that proves ACC correct, this is not debatable.
The only people who don't accept ACC right now never will. You could show them hundreds and hundreds of pieces of data (as they've been shown) and nothing will convince them. This is not science. In science, you observe the data and then come up with a valuable conclusion, in politics, what the fabricated "debate" is about is the complete opposite. Energy corporations bribe whoever they can to spread propaganda about the importance of the issue while simultaneously admitting ACC is real. Exxon, for example, has measures in place to curb greenhouse emissions they emit, now why would they have such measures? All for show?
The people still debating the topic while all 34 national science academies unanimously agree ACC is real and is a significant threat to the planet and steps need to be taken accordingly by world governments are the same people still asking for the missing link, over 150 years after the theory of evolution was published. 150 years+... If we wait around 150 years to act, we won't be able to act. Therefore, science and the majority of the educated public have reached an agreement that these peoples voices and opinions are meaningless in science. The only people in opposition of transitioning to renewable, cleaner energy sources have a financial conflict of interest, are completely ignorant regarding the science, or are, sadly, blinded by political bias, like many of the members of this forum, specifically this section.
I have yet to find a single credible scientist who denies ACC. Please, if you know of one, list it, I'd be happy to verify the claim. On the flip side, nearly 98% of scientists, worldwide, who study the climate accept ACC.
98%...
I have a feeling if 98% of the doctors you visited to see if you had a brain tumor agreed, you should probably get it removed, you would not agree with the 2% who don't.
If you had a ham sandwich that was 98% shit, would you eat it?
If you had a date with a woman who was 98% male, would you fuck her?
The margin of error on something like that is larger than the goddamn dissent. It's sad and hilarious the general conservative opinion in regards to ACC is so behind the data/times.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
You may be correct about ACC, but i wouldn't know! And neither would most people. That was kinda my point: most people don't have the ability to discern something like this for themselves, and then it gets complicated with all the politicians and groups arguing, and social pressure to either get on board with the "eco-types," or act all macho and drink beer and say " 'murica!" and pretend like it's stupid to care about anything.
I like your point about the missing link... that's pretty much right on.
On the other hand: what does it really matter? Does it even matter? Does anything matter after the individual dies? Why should i care what happens to earth after i'm gone? (especially after the not-so-welcoming atmosphere i've encountered from so many of its inhabitants, and the reasonable expectation that people aren't going to self-correct, unless massive paradigm shifts occur, which TPTB apparently doesn't want, and is perpetually stifling...)
I could care... more or less. Sometimes i feel like it matters, and other times i don't. Sometimes i think "we should do what we can to minimize our detrimental impacts in all aspects of life..." but i don't think it's the average citizen causing most of the pollution. I think ACC is wildly blown out of proportion by groups who want to put all the burden on the average citizen, while creating special exceptions for their grossly pollutant businesses... so that we all end up with stuff like a "carbon tax," while exceptions are made for the most massive polluters. I feel that is a reasonable expectation and/or prediction.
But, like you said... the general conservative opinion, apparently only cares about facts when the data can be made to support whatever their agenda. This is part of why i laugh when people post "stats" and "graphs" and the like. Most people don't seem to realize how easy it is to manipulate people's opinions with a sharply increasing curve and some scary colors (even though the "sharp increase" could actually be showing a much shorter distance than it first appears...).
So anyway, too many "facts" and too much "data" is intentionally misrepresented for political reasons, and too few people are able to adequately discern when and/or whether they are being deceived.
Plus, there's the problem of people not wanting to have to learn new things and reconfigure their lives for the purpose of averting some alleged climate disaster they won't even live long enough to be impacted by. They'll just put it out of their minds and keep doing whatever they do... like so many people do about so many things... one of which is the primary topic of this site.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Would you say most people would know the nuances that come with neurosurgery or organ transplants? Of course not, right? Yet we entrust doctors and medical professionals to do their jobs right. This is literally our life in their hands, yet we don't question their diagnoses or treatments. Why? What's the difference? Brain surgery and organ transplants don't conflict with our ideologies, our beliefs. The questions science asks and answers do.
Well, that's something I can't answer for you, you have to answer it for yourself. We all go through life searching for meaning and purpose, I personally feel it's a very meaningful pursuit to try to preserve the planet for future generations and, similar to entering someones house as a guest, try to leave it better off than when I got there. I can't really think of many other things I would personally consider more admirable or virtuous.
You have to decide for yourself if preserving the planet actually matters to you.
This is a consequence of crony capitalism and corruption. Corporations with enough financial flexibility can buy politicians, those politicians then go on to grant subsidies to said corporations. It's a cycle of corruption that will take enacting a 28th amendment to the Constitution to solve.
www.wolf-pac.com
This is the main reason I stress the scientific method and peer review. It's very unlikely false data will get through peer review. Consider it. I'm a corrupt scientist working to push a political agenda, I fudge the numbers, exaggerate the data and reach a preconceived conclusion I set out to reach, then it goes to peer review.. The next set of scientists come along to verify my experiments don't reach the same conclusions because they didn't manipulate the data to fit my agenda like I did. Doesn't pass peer review, doesn't get published, and I likely get investigated for malpractice because each of the other scientists all reached the exact same conclusion together all independent of one another. My credibility is gone, my funding is pulled, and I'm shit out of luck when it comes to finding another job in that field. This happens when politics meets science quite often, and more often than not, the criticisms that come from these bonheaded scientists is "academic discrimination". Completely baseless.
Then consider the flip side to that coin, where peer review can actually save a scientists career, as it did with the fabricated "Climategate" scandal. I'd suggest you wiki that, as it's a very interesting set of events. The jist of it is that a group of scientists were investigated after emails leaked critics believed suggested falsification of data. 8 independent investigations were called, and all 8 found no misconduct. Yet you'll still here those same critics suggesting guilt. They simply don't care about facts, truth, honesty. All these people care about is pushing an agenda, and it's sad, you don't have to be right to satisfy that goal, you just have to be loud. FOX News is the loudest soapbox to scream from, and they do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
It's just about time for the "War on CHRISTMAS!" bullshit to start up again as it does every year around this time, pay attention, keep a look out for that, and when you see it, think of me
Admittedly, it's difficult for a lot of people to grasp, but just change the disaster up and see what happens to your opinion. What if a meteor the size of texas was detected at a distance that would take 120 years to reach the Earth, do you think you would feel the same way about funding the solutions NASA scientists came up with? You'll for sure be dead 120 years from now, so why should you care?
I think it's the fact that if you do nothing, you are an active part in the extinction of mankind. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying climate change is that serious, just using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate an example. I believe humans are very adaptable and technologically driven, I don't think CC will end our species, it will just significantly reduce the quality of life for all of Earths inhabitants and it'll be much more expensive to fix if we begin when actual issues caused by it start to arise, like animal extinctions, higher sea levels, etc..
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I believe throwing virgins in a volcano will make it rain and water my crops. But, it's so hard to find them these days. Volcanoes aren't exactly common place either.
If you fuck them first (the virgins, not the volcanoes) and then throw them in the volcano, you will get shitty crops. Everybody knows that.
Obama will have to speak frankly on television with the learned American public and solve this problem.
I predict he will create an executive order saying "no more shitty crops" and then institute a government re-virginization plan for all the welfare queens, thus giving them meaning and a useful job. We all have to do what is best for the country! Thanks Obama!
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
White House announces plan to train 50,000 people, including veterans, to install solar panels
WASHINGTON — The U.S. is planning to train veterans to become solar panel installers in the next six years, the White House said Thursday.
The jobs training program is among a host of initiatives the White House says will cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 300 million tons through 2030, plus save billions of dollars on energy bills for homeowners and businesses. It will launch this fall at one or more military bases and train a total of at least 50,000, including veterans.
The Agriculture Department will also spend nearly $70 million to fund 540 solar and renewable energy projects, focused on rural and farming areas. And the Energy Department will propose stricter efficiency standards for commercial air conditioners, a move the department said could cut emissions more than any other efficiency standard it has issued to date.
The proposals are modest compared with what President Barack Obama has asked Congress to do through legislation to promote clean energy, invest in infrastructure projects and force reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. But with lawmakers unwilling to consider any major climate legislation, Obama has sought to maximize what presidential authority he does hold.
Next week, Obama will attend a one-day United Nations summit on climate change in which heads of state are expected to show up with commitments to curbing emissions at home.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-train-veterans-install-solar-panels-part-initiative-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
Just so we're all clear, you started a new thread to respond to a previous post of mine.
Flattering, thank you.
Then you posted a PBS story about a "plan" to maybe do something in the next six years and that somehow rebuts my assertion?
Wow, a liberal politician made a plan to train people in the very complex art of solar panel installation, sometime in the near future. Most likely, after he leaves office. Does training people to install solar panels somehow increase the demand for solar panels?
Boy, you sure showed me. And the straw that broke my arguments back, a WHOPPING $70 million to fund 540 projects? Hilarious. At $129,000 per project, they might get a third of the "planning stage" complete.
You took the time to start the thread and THIS is the best you can come up with? Brother, you're making my argument for me. It's kinda sad actually.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, the oil will run out and with it our way of life. Then the world might be able to heal itself after a few thousand more years once Fukushima quiets down.
Also I find it hilarious that the point being made here is how environmental groups are giving their money to the people who are studying the problem.
If it were me I would be giving my money to people who are trying to solve the problem.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
you wouldn't worry about it too much eh
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ah here's the post...
Someone has already reached a conclusion and it has nothing to do with science. The stakes could not be higher. To claim that you are not denying the science, but that science has not indeed come to a conclusion is going to require more than a sneaking suspicion that there may be a hoax. It is going to require citation.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
As soon as you stop denying the fact that many opportunistic and privileged people are indeed "conspiring" and using their resources to influence and manufacture benefit for only themselves or their small group, at the expense of the majority of the populace, it will become self-evident. Citation NOT needed. It's repeated throughout history, for anyone who paid attention.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I won't deny the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on this planet who point to humans as the cause for climate change simply because of a Wall Street Journal article.