She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.
Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."
Except that Joshi is LYING
Germany has much less sun than the continental US -- the only state that has comparable low solar input is Alaska and a small part of the rainy Pacific North west
I'm sure FAUX will correct this false reporting.....
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/jJN0B2RIIMI[/embed]
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video/1360282556772.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg)
From :
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html
How can you doubt Fox News? My God man they are fair and balanced, they even say so themselves............ ;D
But then they also say they report you decide. ???
I guess my question would be is solar 8) really working out great for Germany?
Yet despite those limitations, Germany has still managed to be the world leader in solar power. At the end of 2012, the country had installed about 30 gigawatts of solar capacity, providing between 3 percent and 10 percent of its electricity. The United States, by contrast, has somewhere around 6.4 gigawatts of solar capacity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/germany-has-five-times-as-much-solar-power-as-the-u-s-despite-alaska-levels-of-sun/
I really don't care what Fox News, CBS, ABC or any other network reports on regarding solar. What I'd like to know is the the true cost of industrial solar. I've looked into solar for my home for the purposes of grid-tie, hot water and heating. However, the cost is still way too prohibitive for me to consider it. I love the idea of "free" electricity, but the payback period is more than 20 years. Knowing what it costs for a homeowner, I have to wonder what it costs taxpayers for these industrial farms. So Germany supplies "between 3 and ten percent" of its power (Seems to be a vague estimation) from soar - what does this cost? Anyone know?
If solar power is cost efficient, why does it need subsidies?
Quote from: flyingvan on February 10, 2013, 11:20:37 AM
If solar power is cost efficient, why does it need subsidies?
That is a good point. Yet much of rural America was electrified via subsidies in the New Deal era and even latter. Not saying this was good nor bad it just was......
I have wondered if it would be more efficient to set up subsidy programs for smaller systems either solar or wind or both. Household systems that a portion of the saved electrical cost go back in to the program. Not so much to be independent from the grid but supplement the grid usage say down to 20 to 30% in urban areas and 40 to 50% in farm and ranch where there is more electrical used for water pumping for livestock and machinery repair ie compressors and welders. Or 20 to 30% for the farm or ranch housing and write the shop and stock water out of the equation.
Now that I have stirred up that kettle I think I will attack the shambles of the Affordable Health Care Act.
:D Rick
If nuclear and oil and gas are cost efficient why do they need almost 3 times the subsidies allocated for renewable energy.
Well, if you want to be fair and accurate, you'd weigh those subsidies against what industries paid. Oil paid $35.7 Billion in corporate taxes alone in 2009 (the most recent year where figures are available) How much did renewable energy companies pay in corporate taxes that year? Isn't it myopic to simply compare dollars out and ignore dollars in? Also---who really IS 'big oil'? If you own a pension or mutual fund, then chances are you are.
31.2% owned by pension funds
21.1% owned by individual investors
20.6% owned by mutual funds
17.7% owned by IRA's
6.6% owned by other forms of investment
2.8% owned by oil executives
I think everyone agrees protecting the environment is important. I believe that a nation with a strong economy is in a much better position to protect the environment, innovate new technology, and set aside protected areas than a weak economy. Go to Haiti. Check out where Tijuana River flows into the U.S. Look at how developing nations slash and burn old growth to get a year or two worth of crops out of the thin soil. Right now, you simply cannot run a competetive economy without energy and by far the cheapest energy available is hydrocarbon based. Importing it because we're too heavily regulated to drill our own is foolish.
Here's a pretty good article about the myths of renewable energy. If the facts here don't match your side, it's much more helpful to counter the facts as presented than it is to attack the source (Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't paint the liberal picture. Instead of point counterpoint, though, they just ry to discredit Fox news) Why is the source that supports your belief credible and unbiased, but the opposing view is 'Faux News'? I guess what I'm saying is, it refreshing when people stick to data and leave the Ad Hominem attacks out.
This article makes a good case for why renewable energy is nowhere near as cost effective as hydrocarbons and will always require heavy subsidies. Maybe someday we'll develop a truly viable clean energy source---but havinga thiving economy is a great base to accomplish this.
Here's just a little cut from the article, the comparative cost per kilowatt hour of electricity by source--
Solar---20 to 40 cents
Wind---12 cents
coal----7.8 cents.
So wind power is nore than 50% more expensive than coal, and solar can be well over 300%. It's gonna be hard to compete when we hamstring ourselves with stuff like the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill.
https://nationalcenter.org/NPA582.html
Flyingvan, thanks so much for the reasoned reply and for the illustration of who "big oil" is. Every so often an unlucky entity gets entitled "big" and then the attack is on. Big oil, big tobacco, big this, big that.. Each time, some other entity has an ax to grind and there is no reason to it. I especially liked your point of the cost of solar. It is much the same as what I have found; I really like the idea of being independent of "big oil" or "big coal" or "big nuclear", but for now I gotta stick with them as they are the most reliable and cheapest producer of the electricity I am hooked on. After all, it's what allows me to post here!
Thanks! Now, I also know the attraction to solar and wind, too---there's an area on the other side of the mountain from me that's 'off grid' and the cost to run power to there would be quite a bit more than independent systems. My friends there lose some convenience---they have to run a generator sometimes, and maintain controllers, replace batteries, etc. There's also debate about how much efficiency solar panels lose over time, and when they have to be replaced. I'd prefer to be independent from the power companies too someday but can't afford it yet.
There's another problem I have with stimulus 'invested' in green energy companies. Say Obama takes 2 billion of our dollars and invests in a company making solar panels. Meanwhile, a guy in a garage invents some technology far superior and economically feasable
than solar. In free market dynamics, that new technology will quickly get adopted---but Obama has to choose between sticking with his investment or losing the 2 billion dollars.
If someone comes along and invents a new energy source that is more cost effective than oil, I think you'll see lots of real dollars, mutual funds, and so on investing in it--no government investment is needed.
Solar power is simply not a viable way to make electricity. Yet.
The panels cost too much, they are dirty to make, and the electronics required to get them to useable AC power is cost prohibitive. Solar is great for remote areas. Putting them into an area that is served by the grid is a scam, designed to put cash into the pockets of political contributors (much like this incandescent bulb replacement nonsense).
Wind power is not much better. Look at all the thousands and thousands of abandoned windmills.
Solar is great for heating water and air. Making Electricity? Not so much.
I am not surprised that Fox has its share of morons as reporters. However, I suspect that they are simply morons, and not malicious (as opposed to MSNBC).
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/163334_434038560011714_662377157_n.png)
Co worker: And where do you get your news? Fox?
Me: Well, Fox, and Wall Street Journal, then I search stuff that's interesting for factual data
Co worker: Fox news lies about everything.
Me: I see. Like what?
Co worker: Everything. Ask anyone. Especially when it comes to the government.
Me: Where do you get YOUR news?
Co worker: (Standing straighter so she could look down her nose) I get mine from KPBS and NPR!
Me: So you get an honest assessment and report about our government from the news outlet funded by that government?
Co worker: Did you hear that on Fox?
I really think the time and energy spent on 'green' energy programs are wasteful. The real benefit is not in higher energy production---until you change the periodic table you're just never going to get there. The real benefits lie in reducing energy consumption, and we're doing a pretty good job of advancing in that regard---Wattage required for lighting keeps getting reduced more and more. Refridgerators are more and more efficient. People who long understood the efficiency of smaller cars are starting to realize the efficiency of smaller houses. Insulation, heating, cooling, even fireplaces are greatly improved.
Imagine if all the stimulus money had been spent in developing domestic hydrocarbon mining, refining and distribution, with some set aside for improving emissions. We'd have a profound effect on world gas prices. We'd have an impact on unemployment (Geez look at North Dakota!) and be competetive again.
Getting back to the original post....
To be clear, Germany's economy is doing very well, in fact much better than the US
Yet they have far fewer natural resouces (oil, gas, coal) than the US and much less solar input due to weather and climate.
Germany has made huge investments in solar energy. In fact Germany has developed, on a per capita basis, 20 times more solar-electric energy than the US.
Yet the American public is being lied to by news sources.
The message from this FAUX news report is clear --
"Just keep using your coal and gas generated electricity --- there is no viable alternative (don't even think about the success of Germany, it won't work here) just keep writing those checks to the heavily subsidised energy companies. There is just no other way, trust us we are fair and balanced FAUX noos "
It is funny tragic that a few people here seem to stupidly parrot this same propaganda.
Clearly there is another way out and Germany is leading the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
Solar looks like a better alternative in Germany because fossil fuels are much costlier there. When oil gets expensive enough here, people will start flocking to alternate energy and electric cars. Many of the advanced energy saving building techniques I looked at simply don't make economic sense. I either won't live long enough, or the materials and equipment won't last long enough to pay off. As it is, my ICF home won't pay off for me in terms of energy savings alone, but I had other reasons to go that route. I'm not saying fossil fuels are 'right', or that solar is 'wrong'; it just doesn't pay in this time and place.
Well, if Germany has spent on capita "20 times" more than we have and they only have "between 3 and 10 percent" of their electricity realized from solar, than I guess we dum Mericans are either especially prescient or are maybe soothsayers? I always cringe when anyone characterizes the watchers of Fox News, NPR or any other news outlet as "stupidly parroting" what they read, see or hear. These blanket assertions only lead to the death of debate. There has been lots of good information set forth here (Van, Shooter, Rick and others) that may actually help. From Windpower's moniker I would expect hard data, not blanket statements of prejudice. I've looked into the possibility of solar and windpower, but simply can't afford it, so does this make me a solar denier?
Plenty of facts in Wiki article
I said that Germany has 20 times more solar electric capacity per capita -- not sure about the costs
because power companies have to buy back power from private solar installations --- I think I read the payback in Germany was on the order of 5 years (yes their power is about 2 times our rate )
and it is not in the form of a tax credit so they don't have to pony up the total cost up front
the point is that the buisiness analyst in FOX news lied
it was not a mistake it was a lie
are you comfortable that a news outlet with a genuine FCC license lies and spews propaganda with impunity
I am picking on FOX here but most broadcast 'news' is heavily influenced by " somebody"
I drive alot 35 to 40 thousand miles per year
I listen to different radio stations
it is incredible how nearly identical news stories are --- it could be NPR, ABC CBS NBC etc etc -- they are all reading from the same script, they use the same phrasing and words
must be a coincidence
My intent of my Fair and Balanced and We Report You Decide was not to really jab Fox News any more than the liberal news. It is all spun, slanted and doctored. Fox is a standard for us right wingers. We love it and Drudge. Me I have to have Drudge and my coffee in the morning. Yet some of us - hopefully most of us also know they twist and pull and manipulate. If you are a real news junky you have to be willing to open your eyes to the whole arena. None is Fair and Balanced - I will agree with their 'we report you decide'. And here true they reported and you all decided it was BS. Sort of like PBS and their more dignified approach and crafting the mellow conversation with a person they deem worthy of interview. You could almost call them buds as they craft their interviews.
However back to solar power:
I must wonder how much farm land and usable areas Germany has taken out of service to do such. If so were people willing to sell land for such or was it 'Oh by the way were taking your land of course for a 'fair price'......'
Where is China in this race for solarfaction of the electrical grid?
Do these large farms work the same as a few panels like MD, Jarhead, Glenn and others use?
We are now traveling in the desert southwest and I have talked to several in the RV Parks that are working construction on huge solar farms down here in Az, Ca, and Nv areas. Last such place was an RV Park in Blythe, Ca. A group of solar workers were staying there. Great place for solar down here. It can be located away from ranch and farm ground and public view. I will hardly call it waste ground as it has been said. However there is not a lot you are going to do with it either. It can't be farmed or grazed. Basically it can not even grow enough vegetation to have a decent wild fire. But in talking to this crew they are talking cooling towers and a panels and on and on with part going on line this year. But another next year and all in all there is several years work there. Now I wish I would have asked them more questions because it was not sounding like I assumed it was like and I hate to pry too much though I doubted they would have minded. Great bunch to be set up by.
Hello Windpower you have never caught CNN or PBS - (BS is in their name.) in a lie? By the way I like PBS but it is not all honest and pure but they report on some interesting features, items, issues and ideas that make the news nowhere else.
News has always been slanted and spun. Really what the power of the press was. Not always fair and honest often far from it. Way, way more than the simple Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of Journalism 101.
I especially enjoy the assumption that there's a cause and effect between Germany's economy and their investment in solar. Germany had a (much criticized) national pride campaign, the exact opposite of the self hating class warfare our current administration keeps fostering. Germans, for the first time since WWII, took pride in themselves and their national identity as hard working innovators, while we lose ourselves as a nation to open borders, redistribution of the benefits of success, no national language, and a government that plays of itself with partisan politics while the role of the citizen is increasingly marginalized.
Germany has more solar because their economy is thriving. We kill out economy and borrow money to invest in money drains like solar instead of infrastructure that would make us competetive with Germany.
QuoteI especially enjoy the assumption that there's a cause and effect between Germany's economy and their investment in solar.
Good point! We could also likely find many other things that we correlate to the economy in Germany and prove those as well.
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.
P.S. And why do people keep saying that the German economy is doing better than the US economy when that is simply not true.
"Germany has more solar because their economy is thriving"
not exactly correct they are having huge issues along the same lines as the UK with the New EU eastern russian all comming over to stay and milk the system.
You'll find that the germans are quite far down the green road.
I lived there back 20 years ago- and was surprised about many things they did at the time.
The supermarket had re-cycling desks behind the tills- the packing you removed in the store- never even getting the rubbish home
Beer was delivered to the house by the local brewery in bottles which got used time and time again
They had 4 dustbins in the houses to again divide and re-cycle just about everything- even one was for food waste only and went straight to the local pig farmers.
Green building - insulation etc etc lots of good ideas come from germany
Sun forget it ! always grey and dismal when i visited !
Lots of solar- yep probably electricity costs in europe are way higher than the US
Small economical diesel cars yep 10000's of them fuel 4-5 times higher than the US
The results and take up of technology differ through financial restraints and needs.
everyone in my family in the UK has a diesel car that does arround 60MPG
This is a financial nessesity rather than them being hippies and looking for a tax write off
Thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point, Archimedes-----you're attacking Fox news instead of whether or not solar energy is fiscally viable. My claim is, solar and wind energy are, in most cases, too expensive. I've provided data and sources; can you counter those? Can you make a case for why renewable energy, from a financial standpoint, is a good sustainable investment? We're certainly all entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts.
I completely agree that Germany's economy really isn't doing better than ours---it really depends on what metrics you use. They are on an upswing, and have lower unemployment figures. Only reason I used Germany was Windpower, the original poster here, claimed "To be clear, Germany's economy is doing very well, in fact much better than the US".
Arguing that one way or the other would take a whole 'nuther thread and really isn't relevant to (what I think) is the meat of the issue here--whether or not solar energy investments make sense. I find attacking news sources (Faux news? Really?) pointless. They all report some facts, leave some out. Mainstream media is certainly much easier on Obama than they were on Bush---would they ever have stood for the drone program under Bush? Where's all the outcry about Afghanistan? Where's Obama's equivalent to Helen Thomas? Why no reporting about Obama's time with the socialist 'New Party'? If Melendez were a Republican, he'd be all over the main stream media.
What I've found most, (not all), liberals do though is, when facts don't support their argument they attack the source instead. Makes it really hard to have a productive debate. It's so much easier to attack Fox News or Wall Street Journal than to defend global warming as temperatures fall, Obamanomics as workforce participation plummets and foodstamp recipients skyrocket, and the national debt triples.
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.
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]
Do you believe MSNBC has a higher accuracy rate?
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.
Quote from: Windpower on February 11, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
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.
Quote from: archimedes on February 11, 2013, 02:40:37 PMThere 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.
again false equivalency
Just because no one is perfectly innocent, doesn't mean everyone is equally/i] guilty
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.
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
Quote from: archimedes on February 11, 2013, 03:11:55 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Windpower on February 11, 2013, 06:36:00 PM
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.
Quote from: flyingvan on February 11, 2013, 06:36:58 PM
If you're telling me the planet is warming, I expect it to be--i don't know, warmer?
Quote from: flyingvan on February 11, 2013, 06:36:58 PM
......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?
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.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7UaKc2k_Heo/S1jB2lQxc1I/AAAAAAAABKE/Dcxte0dTUTc/s400/225px-James_Clark_Ross.jpg)
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).
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7UaKc2k_Heo/S1jB-cyEcqI/AAAAAAAABKM/nqH0Z-15sxE/s400/bbc-dead.jpg)
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.
In hindsight, I shoulda chosen a less contentious topic like religion or screws versus nails
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.
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.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on February 12, 2013, 12:20:12 AM
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
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.
Quote from: Windpower on February 12, 2013, 06:59:24 AM
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.
Quote from: flyingvan on February 11, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
In hindsight, I shoulda chosen a less contentious topic like religion or screws versus nails
Now that made me LOL. ;D
Quote from: Windpower on February 12, 2013, 06:59:24 AM
You embarass yourself Shooter
Quote from: Windpower on February 12, 2013, 06:59:24 AMblah 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.
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.
QuoteDidn'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
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?
The very second solar power is more cost effective than hydrocarbons, people will gravitate towards it. For many industries energy costs are one of their biggest expenses. With Cap-and-trade, you require those businesses to spend 50% or more for those energy costs than they'd spend if they move their business overseas.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on February 12, 2013, 09:44:12 AM
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.
Proof ?
Are you assuming that the question about Germany was 'off the cuff' and poor Joshi was completely 'blindsided' by the question....
I don't think any intelligent person would buy this
She sure had an answer to the question right there ready ......
Best case she was just reading the script her handlers gave her
Since you admit you had an opinion about a video you didn't watch maybe you didn't watch this one either
It is proof that FAUX NOOS lies
reposted here for your convenience
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/JL1pKlnhvg0[/embed]
Boy, if this is the level of 'lie' that gets you upset, I sure hope you don't read the fact checks of Obama's State Of The Union Address. Not that job gains, auto fuel efficiency or healthcare costs matter as much as Germanic cloud cover, but still---a lie is a lie, even if it only comes from the President. 'Course once you tell the nation a big lie like Al Queda and Benghazi, the little ones are easy.
Windpower---since your clever sluicing caught Fox News in an obfuscation, please tell us where you get your news so we can be sure they've never lied, or showed any partisan bias. I would love to find such a news outlet. But from Chris Matthews getting a tingle up his leg to Main Stream Media failing to look at our President's college record, 'New Party' involvement, drug use, papers written as a Constitutional Scholar, and so on---I'm betting your sources aren't impartial either. I only speak for myself when I say that grabbing this teensy tidbit then bloviating about 'Faux Noos' over it really doesn't give you much credibility. I do, however, appreciate the set up and sounding board here---it's a great opportunity to expose the hype and weakness of the liberal viewpoint.
This sort of rhetoric probably plays better in a forum NOT full of self reliant people that believe in themselves more than the government.
I, for one, hope you keep posting stuff like this.
Don't forget that Obama promised to "not rest" until he had the unemployment problem fixed. That was almost 60 vacation days for him ago. Not counting afternoon golf outings ;D
Liberals overlook their own lying, and thrust that term upon their opponents at every chance...factual or fabricated. Sort of like they do with racism. But that is a different topic. (What is the psych term for this sort of hypocricy? Projection?)
Looking on the web, the attention that this Germany statement has gathered from liberals is hilarious. It's huge. What's really funny is that this seems to be the biggest thing they have to gripe about.... fox news and their lying about the amount of sun that Germany gets. Seriously? Let's compare that to the list of things we conservatives have, shall we? Kill lists, gun control, acceleration of collapsing economy, Benghazi, proven repeated doctoring of anti-conservative MSNBC video, polling corruption, Fast and Furious, ACORN, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Dang. We have enough to re-write "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel just on liberal shenanigans and constitution trashing during the Obama administration.
Yeah.... screws vs. nails. That was funny.
Quote from: flyingvan on February 13, 2013, 11:22:58 AM
Boy, if this is the level of 'lie' that gets you upset, I sure hope you don't read the fact checks of Obama's State Of The Union Address. Not that job gains, auto fuel efficiency or healthcare costs matter as much as Germanic cloud cover, but still---a lie is a lie, even if it only comes from the President. 'Course once you tell the nation a big lie like Al Queda and Benghazi, the little ones are easy.
upset ? I am not upset at all -- but based on comments from some here, bashing FAUX Noos (there I said it again, it feels so good to type that) certainly seems to generate some upset
IMO the killing of the BST story in FL is a much more egregious abuse of the airwaves than poor little Joshi inexpertly reading her propaganda --
Since you asked, I primarily get information from internet sources and books. I listen to the radio while driving including scanning for news, usually on the hour. Not to listen to the packaged 'news' for facts or information but to get a handle on what is coming next....
e.g. yesterday on that pretty old propaganda whore's NPR's Diane Rheem Show, her guests were talking about how dangerous the internet was becoming -- with company secrets being stolen by 'hackers' and what if and blah blah blah and OMG what if they hack into infrastructure etc etc'
so from that, I understand the the propaganda is supporting the tighter control of the internet --through monitoring licensing etc.
A few weeks ago it was all gun control all the time and demonizing the NRA and anyone that chooses to stand up for the 2nd Amerndment etc etc ad nauseum on virtually every NPR show (well maybe not Car Talk) lots and lots of factoids and made up numbers etc etc --- propaganda
If I want good journalism I go to some favorite websites that seem to report facts
RT is fairly good IMO. Abby Martin for example while clearly biased is just plain easy on the eyes and she calls bullshit on much of the MSM reporting -- I like that
Others might be Informationclearinghouse, Whatreallyhappened
Writings by Paul Craig Roberts, Chris Hedges, Lew Rockwell
FromtheTrenches has some good material
Naturalnews.com
for economic insights I like Urbansurvival he has helped me make/save some serious money
A lot of which has gone into (of all things) solar energy equipment
Books : I highly recomend 3 books that do an excellent job of framing what the American middle class and the world is running up against
"Changing Images of Man" by O W Markley and Willis Harman
(if you can find/afford a copy -- -- our owners don't like us useless eaters to get too much information --- see comment on control of the internet above)
"The Committee of 300" by Dr John Coleman (contrary to what many rating comments say at Amazon the book is highly documented)
"The Limits to Growth" by Donella H and Dennis L Meadows copyright 1974 (again if you can find a copy )
CISPA is back
Save the world from the Internet Cyber Armageddon !!
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/pWZX1ohYMZw[/embed]
Here's CNN giving an example of what journalism ought to be. Take note, Fox.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/parody-or-does-she-believe-it-cnn-anchor-blames-asteroid-global-warming
I am a big supporter of solar energy and I hope that the value becomes manageable in the near future, however that does not seem plausible. Many liberals must imagine that these solar panels are delivered by storks apparently ignoring the facts that quartz sand, metal ore and a few other raw materials must be mined and then processed; not exactly the green friendly image they try to present. Then, the very researchers all of a sudden omit, forget and apparently try to blatantly mislead since the never mention in even the newest studies like this one http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q that fail to point out the fact that the power consumed to produce the panels may outweigh all benefits of using the panels even assuming that they will work for as long as 30 years, which appears unlikely. Speaking of honesty and liberals...hard to use both terms in the same sentence.
I'd like to tack on to the first part of that----
I don't know anybody that hates the idea of renewable energy and gets turned on by the thought of burning more and more oil. It's a classic misrepresentation----just like accusing someone of loving war because they want a strong military.
For the sake of national security, domestic prosperity, future innovation, and opportunity we must have a strong economy that's competetive on a global scale. There is currently no financially viable option to meet the energy requirements available except for hydrocarbons. Here as in Germany, any wind or solar program was only made possible by sapping off the profit made possible by burning oil.
The current administration is moving us in the opposite direction of improving the efficiency of alternative energy, a goal everyone supports. Here's why---
Without government interference, we can drill our own oil, we can hire and fire who we choose, we can keep businesses here. The prosperity that comes from liberty and free market dynamics is the engine that runs innovation---better solar panels, wind turbines, ground source energy, and so on. In this free market, the company that develops the best solar cells for the lowest cost gets the contracts, further refines their product, expands, hires, thrives.
Obama, however, takes away what little profit there is and takes OUR money, chooses whatever green company will kick back the most to his campaign, and dumps gobs of it into these random companies. They are not chosen by efficency of production or superior product. There is no incentive to innovate--the money pours in regardless. It isn't sustainable.
I can't say I agree with the honesty/liberals generalization. Here on the left coast, I'm surrounded by liberals, and I haven't found them as a whole to be dishonest---just quick to hear what they want to hear from an eager media and unwilling to free their minds and scrutinize the input. Intellectually lazy, maybe, but not dishonest.
Subsidized or not, I am living on my property in my RV with my solar panels charging my batteries during the day. However, as I type I fired up the generator because I have to scan some documents and I'm afraid if I used my scanner on my inverter I would discharge my batteries too far for my solar to make up tomorrow (since it's supposed to rain). I can't speak for what the subsidies are, but I'm having to pay thirty-some cents per gallon tax on the gas for my generator. :-\
My point is that solar intrigues me. I would love to power my builders' cottage off solar, but I'm afraid it's just not cost effective. If I were way off the beaten path and had to pay thousands to string power to my property, it would probably make the comparison a little different.
Someone made a good point earlier in the debate that the electricity we now enjoy in rural America was once subsidized. I'm generally against subsidies, but I have to admit that some really beneficial good has come from some subsidies.
However, at this point I think solar is not ready for prime time. I'm basing that on a lot of research I put into the cost of solar when deciding how to power my cottage. I didn't use my political bias in that decision, as I really really WANTED solar to work. The whole idea of getting power from the sun is really awesome, but for most it just doesn't add up.
Now as for solar farms in the southwest, I wouldn't be opposed to federal research grants going into certain academically-driven projects such as this. Perhaps through research one day solar will be within practical reach for the masses.
Peace,
Ray
And then there is this famous Charles Jaco CNN 'live' news cast from Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/jTWY14eyMFg[/embed]