I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[TheGoodBits]

Oh good, this should make for some entertaining reading.

[Johnny Punani]

I'm bored, I'm broke and I'm back...

[martytheman]

It's funny how the op demonizes R's and says it's big money that is keeping us burning that big bad coal and other pollutants, but is oblivious to the blatant money and power grab by the other side. The epa has it's fingers in everything, and has tremendous power, blocking plants/projects by it's "enemies" while at the same time having the power to grant their "friends" anything under the sun.

 

Coal is too dirty and scary. Nukes are too evil. Where the hell are we supposed to get our electricity from? Unicorn farts and fairy piss?

Wind is expensive and not very viable, plus it's an eyesore and costs a fortune to get the turbines up and running. Solar has the same problem as wind, if it's not sunny then you lose a good portion of your power generation ability, plus it takes up acres and acres of space, plus is expensive as well.

 

Some are making millions/billions off this ****, but it sure as hell ain't Mr. and Mrs American.. no we're funding it like everything else in this country, it ALL gets dumped on the middle class.

 

I'm not about paying more for power and gas just to satisfy some libs ideals of lining their pockets and their cronies pockets, while emptying mine.

[planter]

Republican bad, democrat good...am I doing it right?

Close ...but it's more like Republican bad Democrat almost as bad.

Most people are ignorant, shortsighted, and driven by self interest. And there are too many of us....

Edited September 23, 2014 by planter

[Mad Mike]

The superhuman ****-ups of Christopher Booker | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com

 

 

Much of his journalism consists of the reckless endangerment of the public. In a long series of articles he has falsely claimed that the danger from white asbestos is insignificant. To support his contention that innocent parents are being harassed by over-zealous officials, he relayed a partisan account which served to minimise and dismiss the serious injuries inflicted on a small baby [see paragraph 185 onwards]. The judge pointed out Booker's "significant factual errors and omissions". And he went on to say: "All of this underlines the dangers inherent in journalists relying on partisan and invariably tendentious reporting by family members and their supporters rather than being present in court to hear the evidence which the court itself hears."

 

He has published scores of articles insisting that global warming isn't caused by humans, and suggesting that we can carry on burning fossil fuels without regard for the climate. Even when the people he cites as his sources (the health and safety executive in the case of asbestos) try to correct him, he keeps repeating the myth.

[Mad Mike]

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

 

 

 

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's tohide the decline."

"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998).

 

 

 The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

 

The rest of your post is just as flawed. But using an article from over 20 years ago is just over the top moronic.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

It's funny how the op demonizes R's and says it's big money that is keeping us burning that big bad coal and other pollutants, but is oblivious to the blatant money and power grab by the other side. The epa has it's fingers in everything, and has tremendous power, blocking plants/projects by it's "enemies" while at the same time having the power to grant their "friends" anything under the sun.

 

Coal is too dirty and scary. Nukes are too evil. Where the hell are we supposed to get our electricity from? Unicorn farts and fairy piss?

Wind is expensive and not very viable, plus it's an eyesore and costs a fortune to get the turbines up and running. Solar has the same problem as wind, if it's not sunny then you lose a good portion of your power generation ability, plus it takes up acres and acres of space, plus is expensive as well.

 

Some are making millions/billions off this ****, but it sure as hell ain't Mr. and Mrs American.. no we're funding it like everything else in this country, it ALL gets dumped on the middle class.

 

I'm not about paying more for power and gas just to satisfy some libs ideals of lining their pockets and their cronies pockets, while emptying mine.

 

WTF are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to claim that NASA and the EPA is warning us about climate change for the money? Really? How about these guys?....

 

Four-Star Warning: Generals Dub Climate Change a Security Risk - NBC News.com

 

 

A new report from a panel of former Pentagon leaders calls climate change a direct threat to national security and the U.S. economy, as extreme weather stands to stretch troops thin, spark unrest in unstable regions, and unravel global networks of trade and resources.

The authors –- 16 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals who compose the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board (MAB) -- blame a warming planet for, in part, aggravating tensions among some nations.

Their study, released Tuesday night, dubs climate change “a catalyst for conflict” against a backdrop of increasingly decentralized power structures around the world.

 

Robert Rubin: How ignoring climate change could sink the U.S. economy - The Washington Post

 

 

I recently participated in a bipartisan effort to measure the economic risks of unchecked climate change in the United States. We commissioned an independent analysis, led by a highly respected group of economists and climate scientists, and our inaugural report, “Risky Business,” was released in June. The report’s conclusions demonstrated the significant harm that climate change is causing now and that will almost certainly be far more severe in the future — to the agricultural, energy and coastal-property sectors, as well as to public health and labor productivity more generally.

By 2050, for example, between $48 billion and $68 billion worth of current property in Louisiana and Florida is likely to be at risk of flooding because it will be below sea level. And that’s just a baseline estimate; there are other scenarios that could be catastrophic.

 

If you are going to make the claim that the people warning us about climate change are in it for the money, perhaps you can show us all the money trail? 

 

So when Congressman Larry Bucshon says:

 

 

 

Of all the climatologists whose careers depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.

 

You believe him right?

 

Rep. Larry Bucshon: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

Top three contributors:

 

Total Indivs PACs

Murray Energy $19,700 $9,700 $10,000

Koch Enterprises $14,000 $14,000 $0

Peabody Energy $12,250 $10,250 $2,000

 

Nah, he couldn't POSSIBLY be in it for the money. 

 

I strongly recommend you use Greenhouse or simply visit Opensecrets.org to see who is financing politicians who deny climate change.

 

Install Greenhouse | Expose Political Corruption

 

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

 

Edited September 23, 2014 by Mad Mike

[Hersh]

It's funny how the op demonizes R's and says it's big money that is keeping us burning that big bad coal and other pollutants, but is oblivious to the blatant money and power grab by the other side. The epa has it's fingers in everything, and has tremendous power, blocking plants/projects by it's "enemies" while at the same time having the power to grant their "friends" anything under the sun.

 

Coal is too dirty and scary. Nukes are too evil. Where the hell are we supposed to get our electricity from? Unicorn farts and fairy piss?

Wind is expensive and not very viable, plus it's an eyesore and costs a fortune to get the turbines up and running. Solar has the same problem as wind, if it's not sunny then you lose a good portion of your power generation ability, plus it takes up acres and acres of space, plus is expensive as well.

 

Some are making millions/billions off this ****, but it sure as hell ain't Mr. and Mrs American.. no we're funding it like everything else in this country, it ALL gets dumped on the middle class.

 

I'm not about paying more for power and gas just to satisfy some libs ideals of lining their pockets and their cronies pockets, while emptying mine.

 

Have you actually done any research on solar energy? It's overcast here in Raleigh, NC today which means it's cooler out. Even though my solar production is less when it's overcast, I'm easily producing more power than I'm using with the panels on top of my house.

 

As far as space goes, there are miles and miles of shopping centers that would be a good place to start. It's not always about 100% replacing all other forms of electic production right away, but if you increase clean electricity, less of the dirty electricity would need to be produced.

 

Do you think energy created from coal doesn't take money of the pocket of people through health issues from air pollution for instance?

[martytheman]

 

WTF are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to claim that NASA and the EPA is warning us about climate change for the money? Really? How about these guys?....

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. You said in your op that "republican denial of scientific evidence stems from monetary ties to the energy industry"

do you not see the D ties to the "green" industry and the hundreds of millions and billions flowing in that direction?

Do you honestly mean to sit there and say the epa does everything they do out of the goodness of their hearts and for nothing else?

Any government agencies first order of business is protect the agency, whether it's for funding or power, that is rule #1.

The epa has seen it's reach extend exponentially and you don't think that this climate change nonsense is not a way to further their agenda and power?

What happened to global warming? Hole in the ozone layer? Acid rain? 

It's funny how those fearmongering tactics are no longer en vogue, now it's "climate change"

 

Weather warmer than normal? climate change.

Weather colder than normal? climate change.

It really is a brilliant strategy, anything can be twisted to fit the narrative.

[Predicto]

Just for clarification - no one is suggesting that we rely exclusively on solar or wind power.   You combine solar and wind with a network of "peaker" plants, which are natural gas-fired plants designed to ramp up quickly when demand spikes, or when solar and wind aren't providing enough power.  That way you maximize the use of solar and wind, but rely on traditional sources when you have to.  

 

It's not unicorn farts and fairy dust, nor is it about "libs" lining their pockets.  It's sad how effective GOP propaganda has become.  There is literally nothing that 50 percent of the country won't oppose automatically, as long as you connect it to those evil libs.

 

What happened to global warming? Hole in the ozone layer? Acid rain? 

 

 

 

We actually took action and fixed the hole in the ozone layer.  We actually took action and reduced acid rain.  Were you asleep?

[martytheman]

Just for clarification - no one is suggesting that we rely exclusively on solar or wind power.   You combine solar and wind with a network of "peaker" plants, which are natural gas-fired plants designed to ramp up quickly when demand spikes, or when solar and wind aren't providing enough power.  That way you maximize the use of solar and wind, but rely on traditional sources when you have to.  

 

It's not unicorn farts and fairy dust, nor is it about "libs" lining their pockets.  It's sad how effective GOP propaganda has become.  There is literally nothing that 50 percent of the country won't oppose automatically, as long as you connect it to those evil libs.

 

 

We actually took action and fixed the hole in the ozone layer.  We actually took action and reduced acid rain.  Were you asleep?

 

That is exactly what obama was and is saying:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/14/ohio-coal-association/ohio-coal-industry-says-obama-promised-bankrupt-co/

 

Solar and wind are nowhere near effective enough to meet this country's growing power needs, and unless we see a multi-fold increase in their capabilities in our lifetimes, they will continue to be a non factor in the grand scale. The costs associated are way too high right now, and throwing good money after bad does not make sense to me.

 

And to be clear, I'm not saying repubs aren't tied to big oil/coal, that is absolutely the case. But for you guys to sit there and say that this climate change nonsense mostly stemming from the left is out of everyone's concern for the earth and not their own well being, you're deluding yourselves and trying to delude others.

You can't sit there and decry the millions/billions going to big oil and coal, and deny that they are not huge sums going the other way to "green" power and energy. All that money has to end up in someone's pocket, does it not? So yes it is "libs" (in a loose sense) lining their own pockets using their own delivery method, same as the r's.

 

Have you actually done any research on solar energy? It's overcast here in Raleigh, NC today which means it's cooler out. Even though my solar production is less when it's overcast, I'm easily producing more power than I'm using with the panels on top of my house.

 

Yes, I lived in CA for awhile in a house with solar, I'm well aware of how much a decent solar system can create, and for the days when nobody was home and everything was off, we would make more power than we used. Some days were the other way around. I would not base all my energy needs on that solar being available when I want/need it, because I'd be up **** creek with no power some days.

 

As far as space goes, there are miles and miles of shopping centers that would be a good place to start. It's not always about 100% replacing all other forms of electic production right away, but if you increase clean electricity, less of the dirty electricity would need to be produced.

 

Do you think energy created from coal doesn't take money of the pocket of people through health issues from air pollution for instance?

 

Too many variables to be able to conclusively say that coal fired plants are the sole reasons that people have air related health problems. Could it cause health issues? if you have enough exposure to dirty air, yes. But there are tons of air pollutants out there, and they all have a hand I'm sure.

Edited September 23, 2014 by martytheman

[Predicto]

Dude.  Seriously.  That link does not say anything of the sort.

 

That link is talking about the effect on the use of coal.  Peaker plants are fired by natural gas or oil (coal is useless because it takes too long to get fired up and producting electricity, so you have to run coal plants 24/7).  There will still be natural gas and oil plants.

 

You quite literally are letting your anger at the libs obscure your reading ability.  

Edited September 23, 2014 by Predicto

[martytheman]

Dude.  Seriously.  That link does not say anything of the sort.

 

That link is talking about the effect on the use of coal.  Peaker plants are fired by natural gas or oil (coal is useless because it takes too long to get fired up and producting electricity, so you have to run coal plants 24/7).  There will still be natural gas and oil plants.

 

You quite literally are letting your anger at the libs obscure your reading ability.  

 

That link is talking about obama promising to kill coal by making it too expensive to operate.. basically tax them out of business.

If coal is gone, and nukes are too evil to use/build, what does that leave exactly???

 

It leaves "green" energy. solar, wind and ng.

Edited September 23, 2014 by martytheman

[Predicto]

That link is talking about obama promising to kill coal by making it too expensive to operate.. basically tax them out of business.

If coal is gone, and nukes are too evil to use/build, what does that leave exactly???

 

It leaves "green" energy. solar, wind and ng.

 

Oil and NG are still major components of the mix, and if I had my way, nukes would be too.  We are in the midst of a NG boom in this country.   Reducing the use of coal does not mean "unicorn farts and fairy dust goddam libs blah blah blah."   

[Hersh]

That is exactly what obama was and is saying:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/14/ohio-coal-association/ohio-coal-industry-says-obama-promised-bankrupt-co/

 

Solar and wind are nowhere near effective enough to meet this country's growing power needs, and unless we see a multi-fold increase in their capabilities in our lifetimes, they will continue to be a non factor in the grand scale. The costs associated are way too high right now, and throwing good money after bad does not make sense to me.

 

And to be clear, I'm not saying repubs aren't tied to big oil/coal, that is absolutely the case. But for you guys to sit there and say that this climate change nonsense mostly stemming from the left is out of everyone's concern for the earth and not their own well being, you're deluding yourselves and trying to delude others.

You can't sit there and decry the millions/billions going to big oil and coal, and deny that they are not huge sums going the other way to "green" power and energy. All that money has to end up in someone's pocket, does it not? So yes it is "libs" (in a loose sense) lining their own pockets using their own delivery method, same as the r's.

 

 

Have you actually done any research on solar energy? It's overcast here in Raleigh, NC today which means it's cooler out. Even though my solar production is less when it's overcast, I'm easily producing more power than I'm using with the panels on top of my house.

 

Yes, I lived in CA for awhile in a house with solar, I'm well aware of how much a decent solar system can create, and for the days when nobody was home and everything was off, we would make more power than we used. Some days were the other way around. I would not base all my energy needs on that solar being available when I want/need it, because I'd be up **** creek with no power some days.

 

As far as space goes, there are miles and miles of shopping centers that would be a good place to start. It's not always about 100% replacing all other forms of electic production right away, but if you increase clean electricity, less of the dirty electricity would need to be produced.

 

Do you think energy created from coal doesn't take money of the pocket of people through health issues from air pollution for instance?

 

Too many variables to be able to conclusively say that coal fired plants are the sole reasons that people have air related health problems. Could it cause health issues? if you have enough exposure to dirty air, yes. But there are tons of air pollutants out there, and they all have a hand I'm sure.

 

Do you actually read what people write or is your response going to be the same regardless? As I clearly stated, using solar isn't about replacing all other forms of energy production at least certainly not in the immediate future. I also never said coal power plants were the sole reason for health issues, but you are being willfully ignorant if you don't think they play a large role.

 

While I can't speak to everyone's motivations for pushing green energy, I can tell you mine wasn't about lining my pockets but saving money is certainly a benefit.

[Hersh]

What happened to Hole in the ozone layer? Acid rain? 

 

 

Do you know that in 1990 the government began using a maket based approached to reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to reduce the amount of acid rain and started banning CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals?

 

By 2005, levels of sulfer dioxide were 40% less than they were in 1980.

 

For the last several years, it's been reported that the Ozone layer is on the mend.

 

So to answer your question, actions where taken to lessen/stop the these two problems.

 

(Now I'm waiting for you to tell me how they weren't really problems to begin with)

[Larry]

That is exactly what obama was and is saying:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/14/ohio-coal-association/ohio-coal-industry-says-obama-promised-bankrupt-co/

Your link says absolutely nothing of the kind.

But then, you knew that when you posted it, which was why you didn't quote any of it. Right?

 

That link is talking about obama promising to kill coal by making it too expensive to operate.. basically tax them out of business.

Actually, no, your second attempt is as false your first.

He proposed putting taxes on new coal plants.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Larry

[martytheman]

Do you actually read what people write or is your response going to be the same regardless? As I clearly stated, using solar isn't about replacing all other forms of energy production at least certainly not in the immediate future. I also never said coal power plants were the sole reason for health issues, but you are being willfully ignorant if you don't think they play a large role.

 

While I can't speak to everyone's motivations for pushing green energy, I can tell you mine wasn't about lining my pockets but saving money is certainly a benefit.

 

Maybe using solar to replace other forms of energy isn't YOUR goal in the immediate future, but I guarantee if YOUR president and many others could get away with it they'd ban coal and nukes right now. Remember obama's "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" speech?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/obama-admitted-energy-prices-would-skyrocket-under-his-policies/

 

I get what you're saying, but what I was saying is that the cost is way too much for that stuff right now with the tech as it stands, and I don't want to pay for their failures. We have a cheap, plentiful resource that we should be able to use, which will save us money and keep it in OUR pockets vs lining someone elses.

Remember Solyndra? 535 million flushed. That's what I mean by chasing bad money with good.

and at the time of this article, 2011, they had guaranteed an additional $400 million in loans for two more solar plants.. God knows how much has been squandered on that endeavor alone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277271/obama-s-solar-scandal-michael-barone

[twa]

 

 

While I can't speak to everyone's motivations for pushing green energy, I can tell you mine wasn't about lining my pockets but saving money is certainly a benefit.

 

but does solar really save money at this point?....or just shift higher costs thru subsidies to another?

 

I've bought green (wind) energy here at a discount, but the overall higher costs are being paid by someone.

 

there is a limit somewhere to bleeding money(despite our ever increasing national debt)

[PeterMP]

Have you been to Germany?  Comparing them to the US is a silly comparison.

 

I have been to Germany, and if you aren't going to compare the US to Germany in general, I'm not sure what country you could compare the US to.

 

But, in this particular context, I'm not the one that's actually trying to compare them.

 

Go back and look at who brought up Germany.

but does solar really save money at this point?....or just shift higher costs thru subsidies to another?

 

I've bought green (wind) energy here at a discount, but the overall higher costs are being paid by someone.

 

there is a limit somewhere to bleeding money(despite our ever increasing national debt)

 

It isn't like we don't put money elsewhere from fossil fuels with various tax breaks/subsidies, our national defense budget, and things like higher health care costs.

 

The costs of fossil fuels are just harder to see and more entrenched into the system.

 

That doesn't mean they are actually lower.

That link is talking about obama promising to kill coal by making it too expensive to operate.. basically tax them out of business.

If coal is gone, and nukes are too evil to use/build, what does that leave exactly???

 

It leaves "green" energy. solar, wind and ng.

 

Just pointing out that Obama is more supportive of nuclear energy than any President since Jimmy Carter.

 

I don't know any politician on the national level that is more supportive of nuclear energy than Obama currently.

[Larry]

Just pointing out that Obama is more supportive of nuclear energy than any President since Jimmy Carter.

 

I don't know any politician on the national level that is more supportive of nuclear energy than Obama currently.

Can't be. Because he's a lib. And all libs hate all forms of energy other than riding bike (if the bike is made from recycled water bottles).

My Sound Bites Tell Me So. (If that's not a song, it should be.)

[PeterMP]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You said in your op that "republican denial of scientific evidence stems from monetary ties to the energy industry"

do you not see the D ties to the "green" industry and the hundreds of millions and billions flowing in that direction?

Do you honestly mean to sit there and say the epa does everything they do out of the goodness of their hearts and for nothing else?

Any government agencies first order of business is protect the agency, whether it's for funding or power, that is rule #1.

The epa has seen it's reach extend exponentially and you don't think that this climate change nonsense is not a way to further their agenda and power?

What happened to global warming? Hole in the ozone layer? Acid rain? 

It's funny how those fearmongering tactics are no longer en vogue, now it's "climate change"

 

Weather warmer than normal? climate change.

Weather colder than normal? climate change.

It really is a brilliant strategy, anything can be twisted to fit the narrative.

 

I love to talk about the ozone hole.

 

Industry went around screaming for years it would cost us billions of dollars to eliminate CFCs.  We wouldn't be able ship and refrigerate food.  People were really really going to die.  And lot's of them.

 

The rest of the world wouldn't go along with it.  It wouldn't do any good for us to do away with them.

 

Reagan unilaterally essentially banned them in the US.

 

All by ourselves the great conservative said this is something that needs to be done, and we are going to do it.

 

Shortly after that, many other countries joined in.

 

The end result is that the amounts of CFCs in the atmosphere have declined and at least the rate at which the ozone hole is increasing (over time not year-to-year) has also declined.

 

With respect to acid rain try and do a little reading on the Clean Air Act, and the amount of money it has actually saved.

Edited September 23, 2014 by PeterMP

[Larry]

I love to talk about the ozone hole.

 

Industry went around screaming for years it would cost us billions of dollars.  We wouldn't be able ship and refrigerate food.  People were really really going to die.  And lot's of them.

 

The rest of the world wouldn't go along with it.  It wouldn't do any good for us to do away with them.

 

Reagan unilaterally essentially banned them in the US.

 

All by ourselves the great conservative said this is something that needs to be done, and we are going to do it.

 

Shortly after that, many other countries joined in.

And, as I understand it, after the change was all over, DuPont, one of the companies who was yelling about all the disasters that would befall us if we changed, wound up with a bigger market share than they had, before the change.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Larry

[Predicto]

 

 

Maybe using solar to replace other forms of energy isn't YOUR goal in the immediate future, but I guarantee if YOUR president and many others could get away with it they'd ban coal and nukes right now. 

 

OUR president openly supports nuclear power.   And from what I have read, I "guarantee" that all your opinions on this stuff are skewed by reading too many editorials in the conservamedia.  

 

Increasing use of solar and wind does not mean the end of natural gas and oil.  It does not mean relying entirely on solar and wind.  I explained how it works.  California is pushing more renewables into the power mix, but has also approved the building of dozens of new natural gas and oil fired plants in the past few years.   Will you at least acknowledge that fact?

 

twa is correct when he says that the overall cost and effectiveness of the effort always must be evaluated.  That is a legitimate issue.   But the stuff you are saying is just Daily Caller nonsense.

[Hersh]

but does solar really save money at this point?....or just shift higher costs thru subsidies to another?

 

I've bought green (wind) energy here at a discount, but the overall higher costs are being paid by someone.

 

there is a limit somewhere to bleeding money(despite our ever increasing national debt)

 

I'm certainly saving money over the long run as the solar panels will pay for themselves in 6-8 years depending on the weather. The state and federal governments will get less money from me over the next couple of years as I take advantage of the tax credits but I don't consider that someone else paying for it since I'll still be paying taxes.