conformation that current global warming not caused by solar activity

Originally posted by humy
I do not embrace a "suppression" of renewable technology i.e. I would not embrace policies against renewable technology. I take it you would. In fact, I would like to support, not suppress, research and development into it.
Did you idiotically mean "suppression from renewable technology..."?
If so;
What is that?
Are they now making solar panels with leg and arm constraints?

There are no policies that unfairly discriminate against renewable technologies. Ive said it before and I'll say it again: If you think solar is cost effective invest in it. Put you money where your mouth is. You will not because you know solar is not cost effective enough to compete generally. You know you are wrong. You debate purely out of stubborn pride. You know it!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There are no policies that unfairly discriminate against renewable technologies. Ive said it before and I'll say it again: If you think solar is cost effective invest in it. Put you money where your mouth is. You will not because you know solar is not cost effective enough to compete generally. You know you are wrong. You debate purely out of stubborn pride. You know it!

Solar might well be cost effective in just a few years, there are new developments in that area that if you had been following, you would know it is just a matter of time and not that much time either.

For instance, a site you probably never visited in your life, Gizmag:
Kirigami inspired solar cells that adjust to best angle with no external frame movement:

http://www.gizmag.com/kirigami-sun-tracking-solar-cells/39339/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you think solar is cost effective invest in it.

With what money? I currently don't have any money to invest in anything.
If I had the money to do that, I obviously would, moron. And then after investing in it, despite the fact my part of the would is one of the least favorable for solar power, I would start to get a net return for the investment in about 9 years time because that is about how long it currently takes to pay for itself in my part of the world. And I know this because I recently did some research on it just out of curiosity of what I could do if only I had the money. If all goes to plan after I publish my research results in ~1 years time that would revolutionize AI, I should eventually have enough money to put a solar panel on my roof, and then, obviously, I would. Unless I have greater need for spending the money on something else, I would be stupid not to. It is economically a none brainier.

Originally posted by humy
With what money? I currently don't have any money to invest in anything.
If I had the money to do that, I obviously would, moron. And then after investing in it, despite the fact my part of the would is one of the least favorable for solar power, I would start to get a net return for the investment in about 9 years time because that is about how long it curren ...[text shortened]... nding the money on something else, I would be stupid not to. It is economically a none brainier.

Even sonhouse doesn't think we are there yet even though he is hopeful. You are fooling yourself or being dishonest. I think it is the latter. If you really did the research you would know better.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Even sonhouse doesn't think we are there yet even though he is hopeful. You are fooling yourself or being dishonest. I think it is the latter. If you really did the research you would know better.

did you look at the link to the flex solar cells?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Saw that piece, and I agree, deniers are losing more and more ground each passing year.

It's not for the denyers to deny. It's for the protagonists to prove.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
It's not for the denyers to deny. It's for the protagonists to prove.

Time will tell. Time will tell.