Solar ... In the news

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

There are vested interests on both sides of the argument ... those connected to industries which would see their position weakened if AGW was universally considered as being correct, and on the other side stand representatives of renewables industries, governments interested in increased tax-take or using a 'terrible foe' approach, scientists themselves hoping that the research 'gravy-train' will spill more gravy towards their area of interest ...

George Monbiot has got it right again!


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

Please read to the end of the article -

The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival. But those of us who seek to explain its implications and call for action must demand the highest possible standards from the people whose work we promote, and condemn any failures to release data or admit and rectify mistakes.

We do no one any favours – least of all ourselves – by wasting our time promoting false claims.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi M (/All)

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change the 'fact' that as the result of a period of cooling, schools were actively including the possibility of entering a new interglacial 'cooling' period within the curriculum that I and others were being taught at the time.

Z

Hiya Z, no argument from me on that. In fact I'd go as far as to suggest that the majoritive view (IMO) of the public will still be that the scientific consensus was one of cooling, not warming. Probably a large majority at that. And to repeat, I wasn't suggesting, or meaning to suggest that you were spreading mis-information, I just thought that this was a very important issue, and also that you'd be quite interested given your experiences.

I certainly don't claim to have always known this, I only read about it a few years ago, before which I also thought it was fact. New Scientist mentioned it further back, but I don't recall reading this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html#.Uk0Nn4akrLm

I did doubt, that there was any mischief involved in this odd situation, just one of those things that happen, and once out there may never be reversed, but I've just found this interesting article, where a Time Magazine contributor shows how a pretend 1977 magazine cover is actually a doctored 2007 cover, produced to help maintain the cooling consensus belief:

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

I don't think I need to tell you how strongly I feel about the deliberate use of mis-information, as opposed to the accidental!

Mart.

bungyboo

Anyway, back to solar....

spgsc531

Strong rumours that the green levy will be moved from energy bills to the taxpayer. Heard it here first

Martyn1981

bungyboo wrote: »

Anyway, back to solar....

Fair point. The big news recently is probably the growing demand for PV, and the estimates going ahead.

Whilst more and more European countries are rolling out PV, they are starting to be overtaken by China, America and Japan.

Global solar installations to hit three-year high in 2014, say IHS

The analysts estimate that 41 GW of solar power will be installed next year, generating global revenues in excess of $86 billion.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/global-solar-installations-to-hit-three-year-high-in-2014--say-ihs_100012928/#axzz2gb9ZqeJK

Also, India's roll-out may start to accelerate, with one of their ministries recently stating that PV was now cheaper than domestic coal.

Mart.

MoneyMate

At least we now have IKEA Flat pack Solar Panels as an option.

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Strong rumours that the green levy will be moved from energy bills to the taxpayer. Heard it here first

Source please.

jimjames

spgsc531 wrote: »

Strong rumours that the green levy will be moved from energy bills to the taxpayer. Heard it here first

Cardew wrote: »

Source please.

I've not got a source but in some ways it would make sense for the govt to be able to find a way to reduce bills without freezing prices as Labour have proposed. Not sure how they could do it but if they are imposing regulations that increase prices beyond raw fuel costs then you could see why those might be paid from taxation.

EricMears

jimjames wrote: »

if they are imposing regulations that increase prices beyond raw fuel costs then you could see why those might be paid from taxation.

Apart of course from the fact that the present government are very keen to be seen trying to reduce direct taxation.

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

Apart of course from the fact that the present government are very keen to be seen trying to reduce direct taxation.

Surely moving funding for the 'green levy' from electricity customers to the Treasury would be indirect taxation.