Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
krunchkin said:
and some more of her thoughts...
When temperatures raise by the projected 2 degrees, it won't stop there. Temperatures will raise exponentially to 4 - 6 - 8 degrees, at which level human beings will simply burn alive outdoors.
But well before that, what are we going to do about all the nuclear reactors heating up, without water to keep the reactors cool? Serious drought is on the doorstep and that, combined with inflated temperatures, does not sit prettily with the enormous amount of stored nuclear power all around the world.
We have probably no more than 20 - 30 years of life remaining on earth. The whole thing is going to go up, in nuclear explositoins, in unstoppable fires, in countries going underwater en masse, in a wipeout of crops and loss of water.
The end is not going to be pleasant. It's very very sad indeed.
Sun will boil us alive in 1bn years, who's going to break it to her + what will she do about it?When temperatures raise by the projected 2 degrees, it won't stop there. Temperatures will raise exponentially to 4 - 6 - 8 degrees, at which level human beings will simply burn alive outdoors.
But well before that, what are we going to do about all the nuclear reactors heating up, without water to keep the reactors cool? Serious drought is on the doorstep and that, combined with inflated temperatures, does not sit prettily with the enormous amount of stored nuclear power all around the world.
We have probably no more than 20 - 30 years of life remaining on earth. The whole thing is going to go up, in nuclear explositoins, in unstoppable fires, in countries going underwater en masse, in a wipeout of crops and loss of water.
The end is not going to be pleasant. It's very very sad indeed.
TX.
AreOut said:
Terminator X said:
Sun will boil us alive in 1bn years, who's going to break it to her + what will she do about it?
TX.
there are many people (including her) that seriously believe riding a bicycle could change thatTX.
kS SAKE - a 50 mile long wind turbine farm - and why? Why? because they can't get coal into the country fast enough! The only reason the Chinese are building windymills is because they can't get enough coal in- so what are they doing? Make bigger ships to get more coal in. (but ships take longer to make than a windymill).China, gosh China - allegedly opening 13 cinemas a day - 13 CINEMAS A DAY - 13 f
kING CINEMAS A DAY, and we're triumphening the day by reducing our carbon foot print.b
ks of the hightest order.Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winn...
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winn...
Pesty said:
Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winn...
Another head over the parapet once more, FakeClimate and SkepticalFaith will need to get more people working on new smears. The SkepticalFaith mob have already had a pop at him a couple of years ago over his valid criticisms of Gore, Pachauri and related climate fairytales.“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winn...
http://www.edie.net/news/6/Summer-Budget-2015-Geor...
"IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
"IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
dickymint said:
http://www.edie.net/news/6/Summer-Budget-2015-Geor...
"IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
Yes, critical climate talks where the luvvies plus hangers on will jet off to a nice warm place to spout a load of hot air and eventually not come to any kind of conclusion. You might think the lack of conclusion is actually deliberate, you know, so that they get another tax funded jolly next year."IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
dickymint said:
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking
The Cons have no other choice at the moment, they know the lights will go out if they keep down this green/renewables route.The only other option they have is nuclear power, unfortunately there are very few nuclear trained/experienced people in the UK anymore.
So, expect to see Universities launching new Government funded courses in nuclear power technology and management very soon.
It really does seem like the penny has finally dropped, the shackles have been broken and at last we might see some sense.
Otispunkmeyer said:
dickymint said:
http://www.edie.net/news/6/Summer-Budget-2015-Geor...
"IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
Yes, critical climate talks where the luvvies plus hangers on will jet off to a nice warm place to spout a load of hot air and eventually not come to any kind of conclusion. You might think the lack of conclusion is actually deliberate, you know, so that they get another tax funded jolly next year."IEMA’s Nick Blyth said: "This is far from a green budget and we have concern over the Government’s commitment to the green economy. The Chancellor’s clear statement that the government will not extend the Coalition government’s commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from environmental taxes to this Parliament is a backwards step."
Friends of the Earth senior economics campaigner David Powell said: "The next five years are crucial for breaking our dependency on climate-wrecking gas, coal and oil and dirty transport – so it’s appalling that the Chancellor has only added fossil fuel to the fire.
“Mr Osborne’s confirmation of huge tax breaks to North Sea gas and oil, and continuing support for deeply unpopular fracking, is particularly reckless as the world prepares for critical climate talks this December."
Will all of the delegates generate their own heatwave?
Ali G said:
Austrian Chancellor said:
"Subsidies are there to support modern technologies that lie in the general interest of all EU member states. This is not the case with nuclear power windmills,"
Edited for reality. These pricks can fk off and get back to their yodelling.hidetheelephants said:
Ali G said:
Austrian Chancellor said:
"Subsidies are there to support modern technologies that lie in the general interest of all EU member states. This is not the case with nuclear power windmills,"
Edited for reality. These pricks can fk off and get back to their yodelling.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/8/fr...
The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/8/fr...
The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
It is.The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
This (below, Booker, 05 July) isn't too bad, but I don't have a link to hand for the rest - should be easily located.
Why are greens so keen to destroy the world's wildlife?
Last week's scenes of green campaigners exulting at the decision by 10
Lancashire county councillors to reject an application to erect a
drilling rig for fracking near Preston - on the grounds that it would
have an "adverse urbanising effect on the landscape" - recalled a
piece I wrote in January, headed "Which 'environment' do
'environmentalists' really care about?".
On that occasion, the greenies were celebrating the refusal of a
previous fracking application, just when they were welcoming plans to
add a further 24 wind turbines 400ft high to whatis already England's
largest onshorewind farm, looking down from thePennines on Rochdale.
When Professor David MacKay stepped down as chief scientific adviser
to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last year, he
produced a report comparing the environmental impact of a fracking
site to that of wind farms.
Over 25 years, he calculated, a single "shalegas pad" covering five
acres, with adrilling rig 85ft high (only neededfor less than a year),
would produceas much energy as 87 giant windturbines, covering 5.6
square milesand visible up to 20 miles away. Yet, tothe greenies, the
first of these, capableof producing energy wheneverneeded, without a
penny of subsidy,is anathema; while the second,producing electricity
very unreliablyin return for millions of pounds insubsidies, fills
them with rapture.
Ever more evidence is piling in these days to show how one of the
oddest anomalies of our time is the astonishing extent to which the
dream of "renewable, carbon-free" energy is creating one environmental
disaster after another. The flailing blades of wind turbines across
the world may have been shown to kill millions of birds and bats; a
fact that their enthusiasts, including the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, do not advertise. But even more blatant is
becoming the wholesale destruction of forests, thanks to the lavish
subsidies now being offered to burn them as "biomass" to make
electricity.
A chilling recent report by the journalist David Rose showed the
ecological devastation being wrought over thousands of square miles of
hardwood forest in the US to fuel power stations in Britain such as
Drax, by a process that even some environmentalists now admit ends up
by giving off more COa than the coal it is intended to replace. In
another report, Rose used shocking pictures to show how the "biomass"
craze, heavily subsidised through Decc's Renewable Heat Initiative, is
creating a similar swath of destruction across ancient woodlands here
in Britain, even including some owned by the climate-dotty National
Trust. As one academic ecologist mourns, forests full of wildlife "are
being butchered in the name of an ideology".
It has long been known that a scandal of the age is the even greater
havoc being wrought in south-east Asia, where thousands of square
miles of rainforest, brimming with life, are being replaced by sterile
palm oil plantations to meet the EU's targets for "biofuels". Last
month, the Telegraph published a report on how, inter alia, this is
killing off the last orang-utans across a huge area of Sumatra.
turbobloke said:
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/8/fr...
The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
It is.The ugly vandalism of the green movement. Excellent article.
This (below, Booker, 05 July) isn't too bad, but I don't have a link to hand for the rest - should be easily located.
Why are greens so keen to destroy the world's wildlife?
Last week's scenes of green campaigners exulting at the decision by 10
Lancashire county councillors to reject an application to erect a
drilling rig for fracking near Preston - on the grounds that it would
have an "adverse urbanising effect on the landscape" - recalled a
piece I wrote in January, headed "Which 'environment' do
'environmentalists' really care about?".
On that occasion, the greenies were celebrating the refusal of a
previous fracking application, just when they were welcoming plans to
add a further 24 wind turbines 400ft high to whatis already England's
largest onshorewind farm, looking down from thePennines on Rochdale.
When Professor David MacKay stepped down as chief scientific adviser
to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last year, he
produced a report comparing the environmental impact of a fracking
site to that of wind farms.
Over 25 years, he calculated, a single "shalegas pad" covering five
acres, with adrilling rig 85ft high (only neededfor less than a year),
would produceas much energy as 87 giant windturbines, covering 5.6
square milesand visible up to 20 miles away. Yet, tothe greenies, the
first of these, capableof producing energy wheneverneeded, without a
penny of subsidy,is anathema; while the second,producing electricity
very unreliablyin return for millions of pounds insubsidies, fills
them with rapture.
Ever more evidence is piling in these days to show how one of the
oddest anomalies of our time is the astonishing extent to which the
dream of "renewable, carbon-free" energy is creating one environmental
disaster after another. The flailing blades of wind turbines across
the world may have been shown to kill millions of birds and bats; a
fact that their enthusiasts, including the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, do not advertise. But even more blatant is
becoming the wholesale destruction of forests, thanks to the lavish
subsidies now being offered to burn them as "biomass" to make
electricity.
A chilling recent report by the journalist David Rose showed the
ecological devastation being wrought over thousands of square miles of
hardwood forest in the US to fuel power stations in Britain such as
Drax, by a process that even some environmentalists now admit ends up
by giving off more COa than the coal it is intended to replace. In
another report, Rose used shocking pictures to show how the "biomass"
craze, heavily subsidised through Decc's Renewable Heat Initiative, is
creating a similar swath of destruction across ancient woodlands here
in Britain, even including some owned by the climate-dotty National
Trust. As one academic ecologist mourns, forests full of wildlife "are
being butchered in the name of an ideology".
It has long been known that a scandal of the age is the even greater
havoc being wrought in south-east Asia, where thousands of square
miles of rainforest, brimming with life, are being replaced by sterile
palm oil plantations to meet the EU's targets for "biofuels". Last
month, the Telegraph published a report on how, inter alia, this is
killing off the last orang-utans across a huge area of Sumatra.
http://qz.com/445330/japan-is-building-solar-energ...
Going to happen to this rather pretty site next..........
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/abandon...
What made me laugh was one of the commentators picked up a gem of a typo in the title...
"I wish I could find some Abandoned "Gold" to pay for my solar panels.... (spell check title)"
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/abandon...
What made me laugh was one of the commentators picked up a gem of a typo in the title...
"I wish I could find some Abandoned "Gold" to pay for my solar panels.... (spell check title)"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff