Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
PKLD said:
rovermorris999 said:
More than a couple of quid a year I think.
I was meaning specifically the small scale renewables, not the waste of space wind turbines and other large scale 'green' projects sorry!It's also something like 2 generations of traditional power generation plants away from us at the moment - so about 50 or 60 years. That's probably what it would take to adjust the housing stock balance to make the concept viable - if the needs were known and design regulations implemented now.
Whether there is enough accessible raw material available to allow manufacture of the storage devices currently envisioned is another matter. Those around when the time comes may need to have found some other materials than we might currently (no pun intended) imagine would be utilised. Perhaps something as yet undiscovered.
PKLD said:
Slightly bitter as although I'm not a massive believer in mankind's ability to positive or negatively change the climate, I do like to see energy & resources being used efficiently.
If you are interested in efficiency and cost effectiveness or the environment, you wouldn't touch renewable with a barge pole.Not only are they themselves inefficient and wasteful and uneconomically viable, but in distorting the energy market and the political agenda, they have prevented rational timely and efficient exploitation of other resources and the massive drops in energy prices we would have enjoyed.
It hasn't just cost us a £100s a year, it's costing enough to pay off the national debt, and we are heading for an unreliable electricity supply too with increasing probability of brow/black outs as well.
I didn't know that we had a government dept entitled with something that doesn't exist (in the way the government mean). The department of energy and CLIMATE CHANGE. Now, ignoring the fact that the climate has been changing for 4.5billion years naturally, it does show the complete stupidity and gullability of politicians to create a department named after a fictious assumption other than what nature is responsible for, and is beyond human intervention. Can we look forward to a dept of faires, or ghosts or beings from outer space soon as well ?
robinessex said:
I didn't know that we had a government dept entitled with something that doesn't exist (in the way the government mean). The department of energy and CLIMATE CHANGE. Now, ignoring the fact that the climate has been changing for 4.5billion years naturally, it does show the complete stupidity and gullability of politicians to create a department named after a fictious assumption other than what nature is responsible for, and is beyond human intervention. Can we look forward to a dept of faires, or ghosts or beings from outer space soon as well ?
It would be no less stupid than if it were called Department For Household Gods. Utterly ridiculous, and in the 21st Century quite embarrassing that many get paid because of this!Future historians will look at this period and very possibly will come to the conclusion that this was an era when humanity moved away from Reason and back towards superstition. I hope that this will be only a temporary blip in Humanity's intellectual development.
Unfortunately, I doubt that I will still be around to see this utter foolishness dismissed once and for all.
Unfortunately, I doubt that I will still be around to see this utter foolishness dismissed once and for all.
GroundEffect said:
The amount of sanctimonious horses
t in this thread is baffling. I know its a right wing forum, but I've seen more sense on Stormfront.
Such astute reasoning I'm convinced already - tax me more, Gideon.t in this thread is baffling. I know its a right wing forum, but I've seen more sense on Stormfront. GroundEffect said:
The amount of sanctimonious horsest in this thread is baffling. I know its a right wing forum, but I've seen more sense on Stormfront.
t in this thread is baffling. I know its a right wing forum, but I've seen more sense on Stormfront. Blib said:
Congratulations on bringing up the Nazis. Good first post. 
My political beliefs have no bearing on this issue whatsoever. Care to point us to some evidence of Man Made Climate Change?
Looking back I asked for this sometime around late 2002 to early 2003, still waiting. If anything comes back what odds it will be one or more of:My political beliefs have no bearing on this issue whatsoever. Care to point us to some evidence of Man Made Climate Change?
- the false consensus
- appeal to authority
- misidentifying gigo as data
- hottest (not) since evah (not)
- thinking that ice and apple pie constitute evidence because...
- causality will be ignored
- resulting in another Groundhog Day or two
And this is the politics thread anyway; given science is awol it's apt.
True belief can move mercury, we know that already, now it's joined up with Godwin.
Ahimoth said:
Blib said:
Seems that Groundeffect has made his incisive contribution and strutted off. Well, he totally convinced me. I'm off to buy a windymill. 
It's a shame he Godwinned, because otherwise he was about right.
Did a computer model tell you that, or is it a made-up consensus?
The relevant post content was totally utterly and completely wrong, but apart from that, it was OK.
Sanctimony --------> Comment Is Free.
turbobloke said:
Did a computer model tell you that, or is it a made-up consensus?
The relevant post content was totally utterly and completely wrong, but apart from that, it was OK.
You don't strike me as being a new bit of code I've not experienced before.
Ahimoth said:
turbobloke said:
Did a computer model tell you that, or is it a made-up consensus?
The relevant post content was totally utterly and completely wrong, but apart from that, it was OK.
You don't strike me as being a new bit of code I've not experienced before.
As you've been around PH for only 9 months - the chances of you lurking for 12 years before that is remote - your view is uninformed, which was obvious anyway.
If it's code you want, try searching online "Harry Read Me txt". In fact I'll save your time.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/23/the-harry-read_...
Swapping compliments with you will quickly become even more tedious than Godwinning/Godlosing. If you have something new (whether it's code, image of a vision from Gaia, or even plain Englsh) that demonstrates the unambiguous presence of a visible causal human signal in global climate data and that's data not in gigo then post it up either here or in the Science forum thread. As the IPCC have failed continuously (and they wouldn't hesitate to shout it from the rooftops) we both know you will fail just as dozens of empty vessels have done before and others will do in future. The manmadeup global warming position is baseless outside of faith/belief and politics not science, which is why this thread exists.
turbobloke said:
Swapping compliments with you will quickly become even more tedious than Godwinning/Godlosing. If you have something new (whether it's code, image of a vision from Gaia, or even plain Englsh) that demonstrates the unambiguous presence of a visible causal human signal in global climate data and that's data not in gigo then post it up either here or in the Science forum thread. As the IPCC have failed continuously (and they wouldn't hesitate to shout it from the rooftops) we both know you will fail just as dozens of empty vessels have done before and others will do in future. The manmadeup global warming position is baseless outside of faith/belief and politics not science, which is why this thread exists.
There are thousands of you out there.Not contributing anything.
I could be on the wrong end of a Turing test here, it's simply programmed schtick that could be culled from millions of pointless posts on internet forums and bunged together in a chatbot.
Edited by Ahimoth on Friday 28th August 08:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff