FAUX News Lying again (this time about solar energy)

[Windpower]

USA

Rank 1st (nominal) / 1st (PPP)
Currency US$ (USD)
Fiscal year October 1 – September 30

Statistics

GDP $15.676 trillion (2012) [1][2]
GDP growth 1.5% (Q4 2012, real, year ago rate) [1]
GDP per capita $49,601 (2012)[2]
(14th–2011, nominal; 6th–2011, PPP)
GDP by sector agriculture: 1.2%, industry: 19.2%, services: 79.6% (2011 est.)
Inflation (CPI) 1.7% (December 2011-December 2012) [3]
Population
below poverty line 15.0% (2011)[4]
Gini coefficient 0.477 (2011) (List of countries)[5]
Labor force 155.654 million (includes 12,332 mil. unemployed, January 2013)[6]
Labor force
by occupation farming, forestry, and fishing: 0.7% manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts: 20.3% managerial, professional, and technical: 37.3% sales and office: 24.2% other services: 17.6% (2009)

[note: figures exclude the unemployed]
Unemployment 7.9% (January 2013)[6]    (+0.1%)
Average gross salary $45,230 (May 2011)[7]
Main industries Highly diversified, world leading, high-technology innovator, second largest industrial output in world; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining
Ease of Doing Business Rank 4th [8]
External
Exports $1.851 trillion (Q3 2012)[9]
Export goods agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%
Main export partners Canada 19%[citation needed], Mexico 13.3%, China 7%, Japan 4.5% (2011)
Imports $2.246 trillion (Q3 2012)[9]
Import goods agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys)
Main import partners China 18.4%, Canada 14.2%, Mexico 11.7%, Japan 5.8%, Germany 4.4% (2011)
FDI stock $227.9 billion (2011)[10]
Gross external debt $16.05 trillion / 103% of GDP[11] (as of 10 Nov 2012)
Public finances
Public debt $16.433 trillion[12] / 99.8% of GDP[11]
Budget deficit $1.09 trillion (2012)[13]
Revenues $2.45 trillion (individual income tax, 46.1%; social insurance, 34.7%; corporate taxes, 9.9%; other, 9.3% - 2012)[13]
Expenses $3.54 trillion (Social Security, 21.5%; defense, 18.4%; Medicare, 13.2%; interest, 7.3%; Medicaid, 7.1%; other, 32.4% - 2012)[13]
Economic aid ODA $19 billion, 0.2% of GDP (2004)[14]
Credit rating Standard & Poor's:[15]
AA+ (Domestic)
AA+ (Foreign)
AAA (T&C Assessment)
Outlook: Negative[16]
Moody's:[16]
AAA
Outlook: Negative[17]
Fitch:[16]
AAA
Outlook: Negative

Foreign reserves $151.866 billion 



Germany


Rank 4th (nominal) / 5th (PPP)
Currency Euro (EUR)[1]
Fiscal year calendar year
Trade organisations EU, WTO (via EU membership) and OECD

Statistics

GDP $3.577 trillion, €2.570 trillion (2011)[2]
GDP growth 0.7% (2012)
GDP per capita Nominal: $43,741, €31,437 (2011)[2]
GDP by sector agriculture: 0.8%, industry: 28.6%, services: 70.6% (2011 est.)
Inflation (CPI) 1.3% (October 2010)[3]
Gini coefficient .27 (2006)
Labour force 43.62 million (2011 est.)
Labour force
by occupation agriculture (2,4%), industry (29,7%), services (67,8%) (2005)
Unemployment 5.4% (September 2012)[4]
Average gross salary 4,217 € / 5,692 $, monthly (2006)[5]
Average net salary 2,040 € / 2,754 $, monthly (2006)[5]
Main industries automobiles, iron, steel, coal, cement, chemicals, machinery, vehicles, machine tools, electronics, food and beverages, shipbuilding, textiles,
Ease of Doing Business Rank 20th[6]
External
Exports €1.288 trillion (2011)[7]
Export goods motor vehicles, machinery, chemicals, computer and electronic products, electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, metals, transport equipment, foodstuffs, textiles, rubber and plastic products
Main export partners France 9.4%, U.S. 6.8%, Netherlands 6.6%, U.K. 6.2%, Italy 6.2%, China 5.7%, Austria 5.5%, Belgium 4.7%, Switzerland 4.4% (2011 est.)
Imports €1.155 trillion (2011)[7]
Import goods machinery, data processing equipment, vehicles, chemicals, oil and gas, metals, electric equipment, pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, agricultural products
Main import partners China 9.7%, Netherlands 8.4%, France 7.6%, U.S. 5.7%, Italy 5.2%, U.K. 4.7%, Belgium 4.2%, Austria 4.1%, Switzerland 4.1% (2011 est.)
FDI stock $1.057 trillion (31 December 2010 est.)
Gross external debt $5.624 trillion (30 June 2011)
Public finances
Public debt 81.2% of GDP (26 April 2012)
Revenues $1.551 trillion (2011 est.)
Expenses $1.588 trillion (2011 est.)
Economic aid donor: $7.5 billion (€5 billion), 0.28% of GDP GDP Germany is ranked on the CPI [2] 2009 as 14th for the perceived level of public sector corruption, with a confidence range between 7.7-8.3.

(2004)[8]
Credit rating Standard & Poor's:[9]
AAA (Domestic)
AAA (Foreign)
AAA (T&C Assessment)
Outlook: Stable[10]
Moody's:[10]
Aaa
Outlook: Stable
Fitch:[10]
AAA
Outlook: Stable
Foreign reserves $233.813 billion, €200 billion (April 2011)[11]


Main data source: CIA World Fact Book
All values, unless otherwise stated, are in US dollars

Germany is doing much better than the US in: Unemployemnt, balance of trade, average gross salary, inflation, percent of GDP from manufacturing,  debt to GDP ratio

This is obviously not due solely to solar energy as someone here erroneously implied, but for a country that was destroyed in WWII verses the US which never lost any infrastructure by comparison I think Germany has done a whole lot better with less resources than the US

I think Americans need to start asking why the middle class has been systematically gutted in the last 40 years.

Part of that discussion might involve 'news casts' that lie to keep Americans dumbed down.

Note: I did mention NPR as complicit in the propaganda along with the rest.

[Windpower]

FAUX Noos has earned this moniker IMO

In fact they argued in court that they had a right to falsify reports



[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/JL1pKlnhvg0[/embed]

[flyingvan]

Do you believe MSNBC has a higher accuracy rate?

[archimedes]

I'm not defending the economics of solar.  I don't think,  under current conditions,  that solar is economically feasable.   Don't know why you're disagreeing with me when I agree with you.

Fox news has a demonstrated ax to grind with solar and global warming,  that's a fact.  They do not present even a remotely "fair and balanced" presentation  on any issue, but particularly on those two issues.  I can recognize that whether I agree with the economics of solar (or the facts behind global warming) or not.

I don't have a problem with people enjoying Fox News.  It's a free country,  watch whatever you want.  I do take issue with the people are so enveloped in the whole politically partisan thing that they can't recognize that Fox is selling an agenda pure and simple.  You may like or not like that agenda,  that's fine with me,  but know enough to recognize when someone is blowing smoke up your a** to increase their ratings. 

There is no source of perfectly,  virtuously,  objective news in America.  But to equate what Fox does with the other networks is like equating stealing a pack of gum from a candy store to a mass murderer.  The false equivalency seems pretty obvious to an objective mind.

Again,  I have no issue with people saying "I like to watch Fox News because they share my political viewpoint".    I do have an issue with the notion that Fox news is "fair and balanced".   It's a lie.

[archimedes]

Germany is doing much better than the US in: Unemployemnt, balance of trade, average gross salary, inflation, percent of GDP from manufacturing,  debt to GDP ratio

Note: I did mention NPR as complicit in the propaganda along with the rest.

The two primary measures of how well an economy is doing are GDP % growth and per capita GDP.  In both cases Germany is not doing better.

Germay's unemployment rate is 7.4% (not the number cited in your data)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate
negligibly different from the US rate.  As are the other less significant factors that you cited.

With the data you posted you have not support at all your claim that Germany is doing better than the US economically.
Because it just isn't true.

I share your concern about the middle class.  But the claim that Germany is doing better falls flat.

[mgramann]

There is no source of perfectly,  virtuously,  objective news in America. But to equate what Fox does with the other networks is like equating stealing a pack of gum from a candy store to a mass murderer.  The false equivalency seems pretty obvious to an objective mind.

As someone who's default position is "skeptic" when it comes to news from any network, the statement above is hardly an objective one. 

I don't dispute that Fair and Balanced is hardly accurate, and that Fox News has a default setting when it comes to global warming, but on the opposite side, MSNBC has it's default positions as well, just look at the recent gun debate-all the while both claim to have a monopoly on accuracy.

While I have little interest in devoting any time to it, I suspect a tit-for-tat measurement would show that all networks leave their viewers in a mess that waders can't compete with.  Human nature tends to look the other way when it is based on a viewpoint they agree with, no matter how many times objectivity is claimed.

[archimedes]

again false equivalency

Just because no one is perfectly innocent,  doesn't mean everyone is equally/i] guilty

[mgramann]

That wasn't my point, and while I agree with that premise, it would be applied incorrectly when it comes to the big two, MSNBC and Fox.  I would argue that both are equally deceptive-at least from what I have seen.  Fox or MSNBC compared to NPR, your point stands.  NPR, while biased, is significantly less in that regard.

My original point was that the gum stealing/murder comparison is hardly an objective one.  Fox is not the only guy running around with a bloody knife.

[Bob S.]

 I have been on the forum for years and generally I do not post on these kinds of topics.
That being said I want to weigh in here.
I know I have a conservative view of politics and not everyone will agree with me.
Liberals look at Nazi Germany and the death camps and see where conservatism leads, conservatives look at communist Russia with it's golag death camps and see where liberalisem leads.
The point is they both get to the same place, as the political spectrum is not a strait line but its a circle. Thats why we need checks and balances.
In my mind there is no question but that we have lost one of our checks and balances with the TV newscast as they are all just propagandist.

I wiil sit down and shut up now.
Bob

[Windpower]

The two primary measures of how well an economy is doing are GDP % growth and per capita GDP.  In both cases Germany is not doing better.

Germay's unemployment rate is 7.4% (not the number cited in your data)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate
negligibly different from the US rate.  As are the other less significant factors that you cited.

With the data you posted you have not support at all your claim that Germany is doing better than the US economically.
Because it just isn't true.



I share your concern about the middle class.  But the claim that Germany is doing better falls flat.

It's not 'my' data it is from what many consider the 'gold' standard for world stats -  the CIA

[flyingvan]

  Sounds like a good point of consensus here is, relying on a news oulet alone---any news outlet---does not produce accurate conclusion.  I try never to make the mistake that someone has an opposing viewpoint simply because it's something they heard on the news.  It's insulting and degrading----I know you can have two people with the exact same input draw two very different conclusions.  Fox reports stuff, ABC reports stuff.  Most everyone has a filter and can apply their own observations and scrutinize.
  Take 'global warming', for instance.  We'll have varying opinions--mine is, the earth has been warming since the last ice age and human activity has had a negligible effect on it; further, it isn't necessarily detrimental, freeing up more arable land to feed the masses. 
   How did I draw this conclusion?  As a wee lad, I remember worrying about how all the rainforests would be gone by 1990 until I actually looked at the numbers people were thowing around, and they didn't make sense.  We had giant billboards in the early 70's showing an empty fuel gauge, saying "What Then (Now)", implying we were out of oil.  I remember clearly how human actions were bringing about a new ice age.  So when I started hearing the exact sort of thing about 'global warming', my filters went up.  I require proof, not consensus.  If you're telling me the planet is warming, I expect it to be--i don't know, warmer?
    Point is this----always assume people draw conclusions from a variety of sources, and that they are at least as intelligent as you are---regardless of political leanings.  The advantage of debate is breaking things down to common ground, difference of opinion, and laying out the facts---but you can't get there or win minds over when you attack the individual, attack the source, or rely on anecdotal evidence.

[archimedes]

It's not 'my' data it is from what many consider the 'gold' standard for world stats -  the CIA

I'm not disputing the source of the data,  I'm disputing your interpretation of that data.   The data in your own post doesn't support the case that you are making.  The "Gold Standard" for economists to measure the health of a nations economy are % growth in GDP and per capita GDP.  And in both of those categories,  in the data you linked Germany is in worse shape than the US.

There are centainly some categories where Germany may be doing better,  often difficult to quantify,  but to say that the German economy is doing better than the US economy isn't supported even by the data that you posted. 

[archimedes]

    If you're telling me the planet is warming, I expect it to be--i don't know, warmer?
   

  ......or rely on anecdotal evidence.

Interesting juxtapositioning of lines within the same post ^^^^^   

So if it's not warmer in your neighborhood than all the data that have been collected over decades don't mean anything?  98% of all climate scientists are wrong because you sense that it isn't warmer in your neighborhood? 

[flyingvan]

Heh...98% of statistics are made up on the spot....
    Wasn't there supposed to be sea rise by now?  Isn't the ice in Antartic actually growing?  Didn't they weasel-word it into 'climate change'?  Remember all the same climate experts saying hurricanes were going to continue to get worse every year right after Katrina?   Everytime I pin someone down to a prediction it doesn't play out....
    Then there's this.  I think this is really cool.
   
You probably haven't heard his name before. He was an explorer. He explored the Arctic on four voyages under Admiral Parry; and later led his own expeditions into the Antarctic.
Ross was employed on the magnetic survey of Great Britain. He was also tasked with discovering the magnetic south pole, and discovered/named many features and bays in Antarctica. Ross ice shelf and the Ross Sea are among things he first identified (later named for him).


Ross was a fanatic recorder, recording tidal, astronomical, and meteorological observations. He sailed to The Isle Of The Dead not far from Point Arthur (Tasmania)with the purpose of providing a benchmark. These are excerpts from his journal, made in 1841..

"The fixing of solid and well secured marks for the purpose of showing the mean sea level of the ocean at a given epoch was suggested by Baron von Humboldt..." (Another traveller, and hero of mine)....
"My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, (the Deputy Commissary General) and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean sea level as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time; by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, MIGHT AT ANY FUTURE PERIOD BE DETECTED, AND ITS AMOUNT DETERMINED."
Ross gave Lempriere laborers and specific instructions to cut this mark in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean sea level of the ocean.
July 1st 1841 the mean sea level mark was made. Careful present day observations put mean sea level, over a century and a half later, more than 4 inches below Ross's mark.
Thanks for the effort, Mr. Ross, but you wasted your time. Science ain't based on keen observation anymore. When your ice shelf seasonally recedes, it's due to our industrial greed. If you ask your average Joe, they'll insist the oceans have significantly risen in spite of the benchmark you provided.

[flyingvan]

In hindsight, I shoulda chosen a less contentious topic like religion or screws versus nails

[NM_Shooter]

Wait.....

So the OP on this mess was that Joshi was lying? 

I don't know why anyone would think that he was lying, and not just making a mistake talking about meteorology when he is a businessman?

What gain does he or Fox get in making a statement such as that?

No... I don't think he is lying.  I think he made that statement simply because he didn't have a clue how to answer and he felt under the gun to say something.  In this instance he would have appeared more intelligent to just say that he didn't know. 

You certainly can't say that he was lying, unless you can prove that he knew otherwise at the time that he said this.  That is something that you simply can not do. 

Fox won't correct this, because this is a non-story.  Nobody cares.  The globe spins, continues to cool, and hurtles through space. 

[Huge29]

Flyingvan,
Thanks for ruining this entire discussion with facts, way to screw it all up!  So, Mr Windpower was proven to be wrong and clearly mistaken in his assertion, so he just sidesteps it and posts more quotes?  Is that the new liberal debate technique, if you can't just destroy their name since you don't know online forum participants just post a bunch of quotes?  What was the lie again?
I like the solar option as well as anyone, but as everyone with a brain has already stated, it is not even close to being a viable option cost wise.  20-30 year return on investment just is not reasonable, not to mention the obvious, as already mentioned, obsolescence and simple wearing out of equipment in that 20-30 year period.  I had a customer outfit his bar with solar at a cost of $400k, but with stimulus funds, mine and  your (assuming you pay taxes) money his cost was about $110k for him to save about $600/month in power.  So, even at that very high cost, his breakeven point is 16 years even after we paid for about 70% of it.  In my state, he will get very little money back from the power company due to the way the demand metering works.  I am intrigued by the whole concept and I hope that the free market can make the technology more feasible.  Hopefully Barry can stay away from it, we can all see just how well he helped Solindra with his kiss of death, they could not even make it with an enormous subsidy. 

[Windpower]

Wait.....

So the OP on this mess was that Joshi was lying? 

I don't know why anyone would think that he was lying, and not just making a mistake talking about meteorology when he is a businessman?

What gain does he or Fox get in making a statement such as that?

No... I don't think he is lying.  I think he made that statement simply because he didn't have a clue how to answer and he felt under the gun to say something.  In this instance he would have appeared more intelligent to just say that he didn't know. 

You certainly can't say that he was lying, unless you can prove that he knew otherwise at the time that he said this.  That is something that you simply can not do. 

Fox won't correct this, because this is a non-story.  Nobody cares.  The globe spins, continues to cool, and hurtles through space.

You embarass yourself Shooter

Clearly you did not watch the video


"What gain does he or Fox get in making a statement such as that?"

"he" (sic) satisfies his owners agenda. Just like the FAUX Noos BST investigation in FL. 

"We lie, you believe" my new proposed tag line for FAUX Noos

[Canvasman]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577180572533142452.html
Germany once prided itself on being the "photovoltaic world champion," doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany's Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government's generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed "acceptable." It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer's annual power bill.
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany's minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a "threat to the economy." . . .
Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.
In the words of the German Association of Physicists, "solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants." On short, overcast winter days, Germany's 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. When the sun failed to shine last winter, one emergency back-up plan powered up an Austrian oil-fired plant to fill the supply gap.
Germany enjoys, if that's the right word, a thriving solar-energy industry. But the cost of this success, to taxpayers and electricity users alike, has risen to astronomical levels. Some 56% of green-energy subsidies in Germany goes to solar even though solar plants produce only 21% of all subsidized energy. The cost to German consumers of all solar subsidy commitments already tops €100 billion. And you thought Solyndra was expensive.
Last week, the German government reached an agreement with the solar industry to begin monthly reductions in the above-market prices that Berlin forces power companies to pay for solar energy. But the crack-up has been more than two decades in the making. Since 1990, Berlin has imposed "feed-in tariffs"—mandates that require utility companies to buy up renewable energy producers' electricity output at cost and on long-term contracts. That has translated into a boom in solar installations—subsidized, of course, by higher electricity bills for consumers. The average green surcharge is soon expected to amount to an extra €200 each year, according to one estimate.
Berlin is selling the decision to reduce subsidies as a mere adjustment to market reality. Parliamentarian Michael Fuchs told Der Spiegel that "prices of solar cells are dropping much faster than we have been able to reduce subsidies so far. That's a huge mistake." Chinese competitors have indeed driven down the cost of solar production, so much so that German producers were finding it difficult to stay afloat even before Berlin considered slashing giveaways. Solar stocks collapsed after last week's announcement.
But the real story is what the decision means for Germany's ambitions to abandon nuclear power and switch en masse to green sources. Angela Merkel agreed to the nuclear drawdown after last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan, in a highly political move aimed at shoring up support for her government among left-leaning constituencies.
The transition is proving more easily dreamed up than done. The solar farms and rooftop-panel homeowners who profit from feed-in tariffs generate electricity in unpredictable amounts and at unpredictable times. Der Spiegel reports that Germany's 1.1 million solar power systems have generated almost no electricity this winter owing to overcast weather and scarce daylight. Jürgen Grossmann, the CEO of electricity giant RWE, compared subsidizing solar power in Germany to "growing pineapples in Alaska."
The analogy would be even more apt if pineapples were economic lifeblood. In a recent survey by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, a majority of the 1520 companies polled said that rising energy prices, not the euro crisis, are their biggest worry. One-fifth of companies said they had moved business abroad or were planning to do so because of concerns about the electricity supply.
So while dialing back on subsidies is a clear victory for economic rationality, Germany's entire push toward renewables deserves a rethink. In an interview with Reuters last week, Siemens board member Michael Süss estimated that exiting nuclear power could cost German energy consumers and taxpayers as much as €1.7 trillion by 2030, or two-thirds of German GDP. That cost may end up higher still; companies whose products no one would buy without government fiat are not exactly known for being cost-conscious.
Under last week's agreement, feed-in tariffs could be cut by as much as 24% per year and phased out entirely by 2017. If Berlin is expecting those Alaskan pineapples to be any more viable by then, it may be in for a shock.
Since the link doesn't seem to work, here is text. From the WSJ.

[NM_Shooter]

You embarass yourself Shooter

Clearly you did not watch the video


"What gain does he or Fox get in making a statement such as that?"

"he" (sic) satisfies his owners agenda. Just like the FAUX Noos BST investigation in FL. 

"We lie, you believe" my new proposed tag line for FAUX Noos

No, I used your text to get to the bottom of the issue, knowing that your arguments were full of crap as usual. 

Hey, I just watched the video and I was right about your opinions.  Go figure.  You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  She was clearly nervous, and the vast majority of her reporting was spot on.  Failed solar companies.  Stimulus money (that worked its way ultimately into the exec's pockets) failed the industry, jobs that didn't stick around.  The new focus on natural gas, and doubting if that is a long term solution. 

She was wrong on one point.  Wrong.  Not lying.  For you to declare it as that is disingenuous. 

Let's cut to the chase. 

In order for your statement that Joshi were lying to be true, then you must have proof that she knew otherwise. 

Evidence that a person is wrong is not proof of their lying.  If she maintains that position, then you have a case that she is currently lying. 

So Windy, show YOUR proof.  Now that you have been corrected by quite a few on this board, if you don't, and you continue with this nonsense... you know what that means?

You'll be the liar. 

[archimedes]

In hindsight, I shoulda chosen a less contentious topic like religion or screws versus nails

Now that made me LOL. 

[mgramann]

You embarass yourself Shooter

blah blah FAUX Noos blah blah FAUX Noos

Actually, based the dialogue above, I don't think it is shooter that should be embarrassed.

I'm sure you are intelligent Windpower, but the kindergarden-esque dialogue you inject into this discourse only serves to discredit your point by debasing that.  It isn't becoming, and I would hope that someone would call me on it should I be guilty of the same.

[flyingvan]

Yeah, well, facts are funny things.  It's impossible to both seek the truth of the matter and cling to a belief.  Me?  I'd rather be corrected than be right.  If my moniker were 'BigOilBob', wouldn't that automatically imply a bias in my opinion?  If you moniker is 'Windpower', I'd expect you defend renewable energy---but reserve my judgement of you until I see how you react when presented with facts.  Dispute the facts with other facts, you get my respect.  Hit me instead with great examples of classic fallacious arguments and your opinion loses credibility.  Here are some examples---

Non Sequitur:"If nuclear and oil and gas are cost efficient why do they need almost 3 times the subsidies allocated for renewable energy".  It does not follow.  Side by side comparisons of subsidies is a poor measure for cost efficiency since there are so many other factors involved.  We could run our entire economy on oil, not so for solar. 
          Another non sequitur is Germany's use of solar and their economy.

Poisoning The Wells: "Faux News Lying Again".   This four word title contains THREE 'Appeal to the Peoples' concepts 1) 'Faux' is a clever at eighth grade level play on words implying 'fake' (If you watch Maher, Colbert or Stewart, though, you're a hypocrit there) .2) 'Lying'---though you never clearly state said lie---what fact did they knowingly misrepresent?  You have to prove they new A to be true and reported negative A instead. and 3) 'Again'---you've concluded for us this is a pattern of lying.  No proof required.

Ad Hominem Attack: "It is funny tragic that a few people here seem to stupidly parrot this same propaganda. "  Here, you take the argument "To The Man".  Unless you believe what Windpower believes, even lacking proof, you are a stupid parrot.   Ironically, that leads to this next one:

Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): --Also--
Apeal to False Authority: 
"So if it's not warmer in your neighborhood than all the data that have been collected over decades don't mean anything?   "   The data collected over the decades mean a lot.  The data extraploted over eons means even more.  You imply a conclusion here that can't be drawn---Yes, data has been collected.   Then, "98% of all climate scientists are wrong because you sense that it isn't warmer in your neighborhood?" Well, where'd you get 98%?  And your point of authority is 'Climate Scientists'?  It's as if I say "L. Ron Hubbard was a divinely inspired prophet.  98% of all Scientologists agree" You've provided no facts, just a list of believers who might be biased.

Argument From Personal Astonishment: "FAUX Noos has earned this moniker IMO"  (At least it's hinted through abbreviation it's an opinion.  Also it's Windpower's thread in the first place)

Psychogenetic Fallacy: "Is it a surprise that Fox news gives short shrift to solar energy when the number two stockholder in News Corp. (the owner of Fox News) is a member of the Saudi royal family?  Fox News gives the same "balanced" coverage to global warming for the same reason"  Factual bias implied based on some funding stream.  (I'm not denying there can be influence here--just keep in mind who funds 'Climate Scientists' as well)

Argument By Gibberish:  Windpower copied/pasted a very large amount of figures defending Germany as a stronger economy. The miscalculation here, though, was Archimedes took the time to actually look at it.  You can't draw a definitive conclusion from that comparison, only by being selective in your data points.

  What gets me is what the big lie was in the first place.  A gross misrepresentation of the comparative cloud covers of two nations.
   
   Meanwhile, mainstream media glosses over Benghazi---where Americans died---and our President claiming it was due to a Youtube video and Al Queda was no factor, even with intelligence officials testifying he was briefed otherwise before speaking to U.N.  THAT is a lie---it's proven Obama knew THIS, but stated THAT.  It's a lie that matters more than weather trending, in my opinion. 

[Alan Gage]

Didn't they weasel-word it into 'climate change'?

A couple years ago I was reading a book, the name slips my mind (Abstract Wild?), and the author was talking about climate change. I thought that "climate change" was a new term as well and found it interesting that in this book, written in the late 1980's, he was complaining how the press had grabbed ahold of "global warming" and wouldn't let go of it. He said that the scientists preferred "climate change."

Alan

[John Raabe]

It is hard to be objective about solar as it is so quickly politicized. Germany has done so much solar because of their political and economic commitment, not because they have ideal solar exposure. These subsidies are often criticized.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html

Of course we all know that the oil and gas industry is also (still) subsidized in the US. And a big unknown is what is the cost of NOT moving to more sustainable electrical generation?