|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 23, 2014 16:12:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 23, 2014 16:52:12 GMT
I do too.
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Oct 23, 2014 20:28:26 GMT
hmm and hmmm no just hmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 24, 2014 0:52:04 GMT
Count me in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 24, 2014 1:04:33 GMT
Should I remove the photovoltaic panels from my roof NOW ??  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 24, 2014 1:18:33 GMT
Should I remove the photovoltaic panels from my roof NOW ?? NO Ratty......wait for the sun to start dimming. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 24, 2014 3:06:44 GMT
 It reminds me of a joke my grandfather made with me when I was a teenager and got a shotgun for my birthday. I was excited about the gun, and was in a hurry to take it hunting. My grandfather looked it over, then handed it back to me and said, "Don't shoot at anything too far away, though. It'll strain the barrel trying to reach it." Funny thing was, he was totally deadpan when he said it, and it made me think for a few minutes ... |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 24, 2014 8:28:55 GMT
I may be giving him too much benefit of the doubt here, but isn't his logic as supportable as the carbon dioxide will cause runaway warming argument - he is quoting simple correlation in just the same way and then projecting the result forward linearly. As there have been more solar panels put up, so the strength of the Sun has been going down - we cannot think of any other reason why therefore it is the photovoltaic cells that must be doing it; precautionary principle therefore demands we stop putting them in or in 2100 the Sun will be a white dwarf. Precisely mirrors the CO2 argument. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 17, 2014 17:36:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 17, 2014 23:05:20 GMT
Caitlin eh? No hidden agenda there ..... BTW, this is the last sentence in the Abstract of the PNAS reef report mentioned by IFL Science: The obligatory request for funds for more research was probably omitted by accident. |
|
