Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Lest we forget, they also said this.
Yes, but, with faith, everything becomes possible...IPCC said:
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2) p774.
rolando said:
To make this clear, nuclear is low carbon – virtually zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
I did some fag packet calcs about the quantities of concrete used per kW for whirligig foundations and for nuclear power stations on another thread and concrete use for whirligigs came out between 3 and 5 times more pro rata, depending on which tonnage figures you use for windmill bases. The quantities of steel, wiring, gubbins and special alloys are probably roughly equal pro rata, but they're less important as most would be recovered by recycling at the end of life, compared with the concrete being left in the ground.Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
hidetheelephants said:
rolando said:
To make this clear, nuclear is low carbon – virtually zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
I did some fag packet calcs about the quantities of concrete used per kW for whirligig foundations and for nuclear power stations on another thread and concrete use for whirligigs came out between 3 and 5 times more pro rata, depending on which tonnage figures you use for windmill bases. The quantities of steel, wiring, gubbins and special alloys are probably roughly equal pro rata, but they're less important as most would be recovered by recycling at the end of life, compared with the concrete being left in the ground.Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
The reinforcing steel will never be recycled, just left in the concrete to rust away.
mybrainhurts said:
Canned greens 
Typical bias, typical haughty beeb response.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/18/d...
Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/18/d...
Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
Not to the same degree, other areas aren't extensively Manned by climate types. Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
The climate believer bunch still expect the public to grant them maximum
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/18/d...
Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
Hmm.Do all the duff scientists end up in climate, or are we under threat in other areas?
Someone I know who was in a senior position in the academic production line expressed a fear some years ago that a number of his department's more mediocre students were being offered places in pharmacy companies. The companies wanted numbers of graduates. There were not so many who were good at research but they also need those who could be slotted into to management roles yet could claim enough related qualifications to be described as, for example, "Chemists" even if they were really bureaucrats.
One of the potential problems was that these people would then end up well paid (compared to the researchers) and thinking that it was they who come up with the successful products - or killed those that looked like they might fail. Thus the potential for promoting incompetence was extremely high and the chances of spotting a few more of the good new research products that needed a little more creative thinking and allowing them to progress was rather low.
Once or twice in conversation he expressed concern about individuals who seemed to have landed a job in a well known company and who he considered to be well below any required standard to be classed as mediocre even on a good day.
My conclusion, therefore, is that it is extremely unlikely that only the Climate Science tribe have managed to recruit the duffers. However they do have the funds and supporters to put these duff individuals on the world stage.
Naomi Klein Admits in Her Climate Change Screed that ‘Global Warming’ is All About Anti-Capitalist Polemics, And Has Nothing to Do, Really, With Science
http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
rolando said:
Naomi Klein Admits in Her Climate Change Screed that ‘Global Warming’ is All About Anti-Capitalist Polemics, And Has Nothing to Do, Really, With Science
http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
Somewhat ironic then that this "climate change" industry churns through trillions of dollars a year. A capitalists wet dream.http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
Is it really about over throwing capitalism or is it about overthrowing a capitalism they don't like and can't get in on for a brand of their own capitalism where they pull the strings and make all the money?
rolando said:
Naomi Klein Admits in Her Climate Change Screed that ‘Global Warming’ is All About Anti-Capitalist Polemics, And Has Nothing to Do, Really, With Science
http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
Thanks for the link.http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admi...
Every self-confession is worth keeping on file but it's not as though we didn't know already.
In 1996 Onetime Soviet Supremo Mikhail Gorbachev said:
The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.
Kyoto delegate on 05 December 1997 said:
The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve.
Christine Stewart as Canadian Environment Minister in the Calgary Herald on 14 December 1998 said:
No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.
In 2010 UN IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/green-is-the-new-red/
From today's Grauniad (Ellie Mae O'Hagan) -
"And finally, we need to urgently address the current strategies western governments are using to deal with migration, and the almost rabid commentary that often accompanies those strategies. There is a strong case for Britain to take a substantial number of climate refugees: as the first country to industrialise, we need to take historical responsibility for climate change, and should take into account our historical carbon emissions and their effects when responding to mass climate migration."
It really is all our fault.
I wouldn't mind, but can we not also extract a charge from other industrialised economies for having got the ball rolling? Say a tiny 15 - 20% levy on their GDP for every year since the introduction of the first mill?
"And finally, we need to urgently address the current strategies western governments are using to deal with migration, and the almost rabid commentary that often accompanies those strategies. There is a strong case for Britain to take a substantial number of climate refugees: as the first country to industrialise, we need to take historical responsibility for climate change, and should take into account our historical carbon emissions and their effects when responding to mass climate migration."
It really is all our fault.
I wouldn't mind, but can we not also extract a charge from other industrialised economies for having got the ball rolling? Say a tiny 15 - 20% levy on their GDP for every year since the introduction of the first mill?
As the former leader and co-founder of Greenpeace has pointed out, science and logic have been abandoned. The environ mentalist movement is now used to promote class struggle and anti-corporatism.
The blame comment from O'Hagan is baseless and idiotic but it will be seen by believers as gospel.
Anyway, what mass climate migration?
The blame comment from O'Hagan is baseless and idiotic but it will be seen by believers as gospel.
Anyway, what mass climate migration?
rolando said:
hidetheelephants said:
rolando said:
To make this clear, nuclear is low carbon – virtually zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
I did some fag packet calcs about the quantities of concrete used per kW for whirligig foundations and for nuclear power stations on another thread and concrete use for whirligigs came out between 3 and 5 times more pro rata, depending on which tonnage figures you use for windmill bases. The quantities of steel, wiring, gubbins and special alloys are probably roughly equal pro rata, but they're less important as most would be recovered by recycling at the end of life, compared with the concrete being left in the ground.Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
The reinforcing steel will never be recycled, just left in the concrete to rust away.
Fracking back in the news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
The interesting thing here is not so much the issue of fracking and whether or not it is economically viable - a reasonable point to debate.
Rather it is the the comment flood from the usual "green" sources about damage to the environment and an observation that wherever fracking has been proposed local people object to it.
Self evident of course since people never like change especially if it is of unknown or maligned provenance.
However how about these quotes form the article linked above:
" But Greenpeace’s Daisy Sands said: ‘This is the starting gun to the fight for the future of our countryside. Hundreds of battles will spring up to defend our rural landscapes from the pollution, noise and drilling rigs that come with fracking.’
Andrew Pendleton, of Friends Of The Earth, said: ‘Opening up huge swathes of northern England to a fracking blitz will only provoke more anger and controversy, because wherever fracking has been proposed, it has been opposed by local people.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
One might observe that Daisy fails to point out that the drilling is relatively short term.
They both fail to point out that wind "farms" and to some extent solar estates have the same problems, are in the long term far more intrusive for the amenity of the countrysied and, most importantly, often attract opposition from locals which they, guardians of the planet all, are more than willing to see ignored.
Double standards of social morality? Surely not ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
The interesting thing here is not so much the issue of fracking and whether or not it is economically viable - a reasonable point to debate.
Rather it is the the comment flood from the usual "green" sources about damage to the environment and an observation that wherever fracking has been proposed local people object to it.
Self evident of course since people never like change especially if it is of unknown or maligned provenance.
However how about these quotes form the article linked above:
" But Greenpeace’s Daisy Sands said: ‘This is the starting gun to the fight for the future of our countryside. Hundreds of battles will spring up to defend our rural landscapes from the pollution, noise and drilling rigs that come with fracking.’
Andrew Pendleton, of Friends Of The Earth, said: ‘Opening up huge swathes of northern England to a fracking blitz will only provoke more anger and controversy, because wherever fracking has been proposed, it has been opposed by local people.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
One might observe that Daisy fails to point out that the drilling is relatively short term.
They both fail to point out that wind "farms" and to some extent solar estates have the same problems, are in the long term far more intrusive for the amenity of the countrysied and, most importantly, often attract opposition from locals which they, guardians of the planet all, are more than willing to see ignored.
Double standards of social morality? Surely not ....
Apoligies if I've said this before but the greniies will always support junk technologies like windmills & solar farms and will oppose anything that is proven technology such as nuclear and gas/oil obtained by hydraulic fracturing. It's their way of attempting to destroy modern society. If they want to go back to living in caves with no heat or light, let them.
rolando said:
Apoligies if I've said this before but the greniies will always support junk technologies like windmills & solar farms and will oppose anything that is proven technology such as nuclear and gas/oil obtained by hydraulic fracturing. It's their way of attempting to destroy modern society. If they want to go back to living in caves with no heat or light, let them.
Difficult to let them do that without their influence dragging the rest us into the same morass.However they are smart enough, focused enough and with more than plenty of PR psychological nous to take the politicians and a fair number of the population for a ride with little or no concern for facts or reality.
Thus the only way to counteract their double standards for the wider "I just do what the influencers tell me to do" audience is to bring it to people's attention.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff