Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
nelly1 said:
groucho said:
LongQ said:
It seems the Himalayan glaciers may not be under quite as much imminent threat as previously thought....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....
Reading the comments; not one in support of MMGW, and they still spout this crap. Will they still go on about it when the only support they have is little Jimmy (7) down Acacia Avenue?http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...
Oh well, we all make mistakes as the Dalek said climbi....
millions of our money going to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
Just read james Delinpole's latest blog, and he uses the term 'Activist scientists". This is exactly what they are, and all should be purged from their public tax funded jobs.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
odyssey2200 said:
Methane is also generated my decomposing landfill sites and yet it is just vented to the atmosphere.
Maybe we should
a, use the rubbish to fuel furnaces adn generate power.
b, pipe the vents to a collecting tank and use the gas?
Already being done, there is a large landfill to the north of Glasgow with it, I think it is electricity they generate from it.Maybe we should
a, use the rubbish to fuel furnaces adn generate power.
b, pipe the vents to a collecting tank and use the gas?
One night they were flaring off gas for some reason and it was very spectacular to see.
Piss boiler of the day!
Sky news weather man showing us their new "climate index charts" daily weekly and monthly charts of how much we're emitting. Sounds like it's going to a regular thing. WTF!!
Tip of the day - turn your c/heating stat down
edited to say Guam got in before me (again)
Sky news weather man showing us their new "climate index charts" daily weekly and monthly charts of how much we're emitting. Sounds like it's going to a regular thing. WTF!!
Tip of the day - turn your c/heating stat down
edited to say Guam got in before me (again)
Edited by dickymint on Sunday 17th January 11:33
dickymint said:
Piss boiler of the day!
Sky news weather man showing us their new "climate index charts" daily weekly and monthly charts of how much we're emitting. Sounds like it's going to a regular thing. WTF!!
Tip of the day - turn your c/heating stat down
edited to say Guam got in before me (again)
That announcement from Sky News if close to the above wording is a non-sequitur.Sky news weather man showing us their new "climate index charts" daily weekly and monthly charts of how much we're emitting. Sounds like it's going to a regular thing. WTF!!
Tip of the day - turn your c/heating stat down
edited to say Guam got in before me (again)
Emitting (anything) is one thing.
Climate Index relates to mean global temperature, another thing.
Guam said:
Anyonew else just seen that Toad of a weather presenter on Sky with his Greenhouse Gas index?
Summattion you bad people the cold means that you turned your heating up get a grip on your thermostat havent enough f
king Died so far this winter?
We should be giving pensioners more money to turn their heating ON (let alone up) but no Murdochs fking empire is focusing on the fictitious bks rather than the true area of concern.
Message for him, Murdoch you Rich slimy Australian Scroate at least give us an impartial news channel!!
Cheers
His (Murdoch's) daughter in-law is a director of Clinton Climate Initiative. Summattion you bad people the cold means that you turned your heating up get a grip on your thermostat havent enough f
king Died so far this winter?We should be giving pensioners more money to turn their heating ON (let alone up) but no Murdochs f
king empire is focusing on the fictitious bks rather than the true area of concern.Message for him, Murdoch you Rich slimy Australian Scroate at least give us an impartial news channel!!
Cheers
Guam said:
Nope no hypocrisy present in the modern Green movement, perhaps because they are all PSEUDO environmentalists living in West Ken and have no idea where the COUNTRYSIDE is.
As if the scam on windfarms wasnt bad enough this article clearly illustrates the morons tendency to DESTROY the planet in a pathetic attempt to SAVE it (albeit from a fictional threat)!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/pla...
Actually that was quite an interesting article - Friends of the Earth seemingly not entirely approving of certain windmill locations. Hmm. Whatever next?As if the scam on windfarms wasnt bad enough this article clearly illustrates the morons tendency to DESTROY the planet in a pathetic attempt to SAVE it (albeit from a fictional threat)!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/pla...
The on-shore wind-farm land grab will surely happen and in the least populated (therefore 'most beautiful, of course) places since they tend to be quite windy. Only by allowing a few places to be severely damaged will there be a chance to bring it all to a halt, at least in the short term. Sad, but it's the way we tend to do things.
So the problem become - how do we ensure that, long term, the damage will be minimised? Well, at least with windmills you can dismantel them and remove the most visible evidence. The larger problem would the the work donme to create the infrastructure, especially the concrete bases and roads. Whoever constructs the places should be made to have the responsibility to 'make good' after use and to do so without creating further damage.
Since the infrastructure life is unlikely to be more than 25 years this should give them reason to stop and think. However expect the costs to be passed straight back to consumers, though that would still be better than having to pick up an unplanned cost 30 years out after the arguing about who is to blame comes to an end.
Given the likely changes in technology even if windmills survive as a commonly used means of generation well into the future the potential for re-utilising existing bases for new installations may be small. So even replacement considerations point to the potential for needing to rip out infrastructure used for previous devices. Much more likely, in my mind, is that old bases will be abandoned and new ones installed, slowly covering areas of natural visual beauty with concrete blots.
Of course this may come not to matter if people are herded into cities for efficiency and have not the means to travel for leisure. Perhaps that is what is behind the 'planning' mentioned by Miliband and similar clowns.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 17th January 20:09
LQ
I think you will fnd that the panning stipulates reinstatement to as before.
Does where I work! Mind you that's a NASTY oil business!
Anyway!
What about micro wind generation??
I'm waiting for a subsidy to fit a small 1 KW gen on my roof!
19,000,000 home eligible (?) that makes 19GW of energy! Well only when the wind blows!
But hey! Every little helps!
I think you will fnd that the panning stipulates reinstatement to as before.
Does where I work! Mind you that's a NASTY oil business!
Anyway!
What about micro wind generation??
I'm waiting for a subsidy to fit a small 1 KW gen on my roof!
19,000,000 home eligible (?) that makes 19GW of energy! Well only when the wind blows!
But hey! Every little helps!
As a Daily Mail reader, Knuckles very near terra firma
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
69 coupe said:
As a Daily Mail reader, Knuckles very near terra firma
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
It doesn't say they're not melting.thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
Met Office computer accused of 'warm bias' by BBC weatherman
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243846/Me...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243846/Me...
herewego said:
69 coupe said:
As a Daily Mail reader, Knuckles very near terra firma
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
It doesn't say they're not melting.thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
As you were carry on
69 coupe said:
herewego said:
69 coupe said:
As a Daily Mail reader, Knuckles very near terra firma
thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
It doesn't say they're not melting.thought I'd throw another link about Glaciers "NOT" melting.
Daily Mail said :-
"Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were tonight exposed as nonsense.
The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
At the time, the IPCC boasted that its report contained the latest and detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
But scientists behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.
That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243963/UN...
As you were carry on
The ice mass is not getting smaller.
The general public would consider a statement that the glacier is "melting" to be saying it's getting smaller, a bit like their ice cube in that Rum & coke!
Of course some recede and some extend, but overall the mass of ice is not melting in lay-person terms of thinking!
It's that perception that eco-loonies play on!
Steve996 said:
Steve996 said:
Here's my quickly cobbled together message to my MP...
Dear Robert Smith,
As you can see from my address I am one of your constituents and have in the past voted for you. I have been reviewing a summary of your voting and note that you have been a strong advocate of policy to address man made global warming issues in parliament and indeed I note that you serve on a subcommittee relating to climate change.
With this in mind I would like to know if you have been keeping yourself up to date on the latest insight that we now have on the "science" that underpins the theory that man is adversely impacting the global climate system through burning of fossil fuels.
I strongly advise that you take a short while to click through the link below and read through the analysis of the leaked correspondence between the key players who were charged with creation and presentation of the temperature record database upon which the IPCC policy maker guidance documents are based.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
I am extremely concerned that I frequently hear politicians and a relatively small, but very vocal, group of climate scientists continually stating that AGW "science is settled". From my own fairly rudimentary reading of available information I had formed the opinion that this was certainly not the case even before the "Climategate" email record surfaced. The insight that can now be gained from reading through and understanding how "unscientific" the group were who masterminded the temperature records only serves to reinforce that there are some very serious policy decisions being based upon analysis that is at least unscientific and flawed and at worst downright manipulated and fraudulent.
On a similar subject there have been some interesting articles recently relating to the business interests of the head of the IPCC. It certainly seems to flag some serious conflict of interest issues
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-...
The impact of the impending stepped reduction in CO2 permits through the EUETS will undoubtedly result in a significant reduction in viable lifespan of many, if not all, North Sea Oil and Gas fields. I have seen data suggesting that as a minimum some fields COP (cessation of production) will be brought forward by several years as a result of the operating cost increases imposed by this. Given that this industry provides employment for the vast majority of the constituents that you represent I would be interested to hear your views on the impact that current AGW CO2 policy will have in this area.
I welcome your response in relation to this very important topic.
Had a response from Robert Smith, has come in paper copy (which I will scan and post asap). From first read certainly not a generic response and comes with quite a few pages of backup in relation to his recent speeches and questions on the subject. Recovery from Laser Eye Surgery so will post when I am able to use the computer (wife is typing this for me)Dear Robert Smith,
As you can see from my address I am one of your constituents and have in the past voted for you. I have been reviewing a summary of your voting and note that you have been a strong advocate of policy to address man made global warming issues in parliament and indeed I note that you serve on a subcommittee relating to climate change.
With this in mind I would like to know if you have been keeping yourself up to date on the latest insight that we now have on the "science" that underpins the theory that man is adversely impacting the global climate system through burning of fossil fuels.
I strongly advise that you take a short while to click through the link below and read through the analysis of the leaked correspondence between the key players who were charged with creation and presentation of the temperature record database upon which the IPCC policy maker guidance documents are based.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
I am extremely concerned that I frequently hear politicians and a relatively small, but very vocal, group of climate scientists continually stating that AGW "science is settled". From my own fairly rudimentary reading of available information I had formed the opinion that this was certainly not the case even before the "Climategate" email record surfaced. The insight that can now be gained from reading through and understanding how "unscientific" the group were who masterminded the temperature records only serves to reinforce that there are some very serious policy decisions being based upon analysis that is at least unscientific and flawed and at worst downright manipulated and fraudulent.
On a similar subject there have been some interesting articles recently relating to the business interests of the head of the IPCC. It certainly seems to flag some serious conflict of interest issues
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-...
The impact of the impending stepped reduction in CO2 permits through the EUETS will undoubtedly result in a significant reduction in viable lifespan of many, if not all, North Sea Oil and Gas fields. I have seen data suggesting that as a minimum some fields COP (cessation of production) will be brought forward by several years as a result of the operating cost increases imposed by this. Given that this industry provides employment for the vast majority of the constituents that you represent I would be interested to hear your views on the impact that current AGW CO2 policy will have in this area.
I welcome your response in relation to this very important topic.
VPower said:
LQ
I think you will fnd that the panning stipulates reinstatement to as before.
Does where I work! Mind you that's a NASTY oil business!
Anyway!
What about micro wind generation??
I'm waiting for a subsidy to fit a small 1 KW gen on my roof!
19,000,000 home eligible (?) that makes 19GW of energy! Well only when the wind blows!
But hey! Every little helps!
I wouldn't bet on required restitution work for 'green' things. After all, they are green. And nothing must be set up as an obstacle to the initial investment.I think you will fnd that the panning stipulates reinstatement to as before.
Does where I work! Mind you that's a NASTY oil business!
Anyway!
What about micro wind generation??
I'm waiting for a subsidy to fit a small 1 KW gen on my roof!
19,000,000 home eligible (?) that makes 19GW of energy! Well only when the wind blows!
But hey! Every little helps!
As for micro wind generation. Hmm. http://www.habitat21.co.uk/wind30.html
Make sure your insurance is well defined.
And you may also find this interesting.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#generation_by...
Enjoy.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 17th January 20:38
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff