Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Remember that climate alarmist that wanted to use Rico laws against realists I posted a link to a while ago.
Well look at this
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/10/sc...
Pesty said:
Remember that climate alarmist that wanted to use Rico laws against realists I posted a link to a while ago.
Well look at this
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/10/sc...
I note that the article quotes from the original Shukla letter.Well look at this
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/10/sc...
“If corporations in the fossil-fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that b][America and the world can get on with the critically-important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate[/b], before even more lasting damage is done,” they concluded."
My bold.
Why would anyone (or any group) with a knowledge of climate volatility over the extended period of apparently scientifically analysed climate variability choose to use such a blatantly simplistic phrase?
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 7th October 11:00
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 7th October 11:01
LongQ said:
Why would anyone (or any group) with a knowledge of climate volatility over the extended period of apparently scientifically analysed climate variability choose to use such a blatantly simplistic phrase?
My thoughts exactly when I read that passage.I'd love to ask them, 'OK. So, assuming you've reached your objectives of "re-stabilising to earth's climate", you've therefore set the metrics of acceptability. By definition, I assume you now have acceptable levels of the following : floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat, cold, deaths directly attributable to all of the former, wind farms, solar farms, polar bear numbers, sea ice extent both Arctic and Antarctic, glacier reach and sea level? Yes? OK. Give me the numbers for each, and the supporting information as to why those numbers are satisfactory.'
Total arseburgers.
Radio 4 has gone full warming this morning, much worse than first thought, 4 or 5 degrees in the next century, death, destruction, dogs sleeping with cats..
But..... We can save the world at Paris, as long as we can put our hands in your pockets and empty them.
It seem the BBC does not have to provide balanced reporting on this subject because the science is settled.
But..... We can save the world at Paris, as long as we can put our hands in your pockets and empty them.
It seem the BBC does not have to provide balanced reporting on this subject because the science is settled.
I preface this by proclaiming that I think Ted Cruz is an utter penis who loves the sound of his own voice, but the Sierra Club drone makes him look like Abraham Lincoln here. 97% f
king percent? Really? A major lobby group is still prepared to go on public record in 2015 with this made-up st?
king percent? Really? A major lobby group is still prepared to go on public record in 2015 with this made-up st?It seems dam obvious to me that ALL the climate change devotees NEED to be put in front a such committees, and have their bks squeezed until the truth comes out. Fat chance of this happening in the UK, but I’m beginning to think that the USA may have started to bit a few arses of the climate changers. Especially now it look like it might cost the Yanks (and us) quite a few $bn (£bn)! Nothing like money to move the goal posts !!
ks squeezed until the truth comes out. Fat chance of this happening in the UK, but I’m beginning to think that the USA may have started to bit a few arses of the climate changers. Especially now it look like it might cost the Yanks (and us) quite a few $bn (£bn)! Nothing like money to move the goal posts !!And today's agenda for scaring us into submission...
Coral Bleaching Events
- not the betting chain laying on gatherings for peroxide mullet wearers, but Worldwide reef dieback. Or it could be. Perhaps. Warm oceans, pacific blob, global warming, etc etc
However, in a totally unscientific manner a quick google reveals much coral reef (around Papua New Guinea) which isn't known for bleaching, yet has some the World's highest concentrations of reef. Or I could be reading the info completely incorrectly.
At least one paper on the web includes a caveat that in the 130 years of coral observations, it is possible not many observers were recording their findings (or paying any attention at all) in the period up to 1980, since when it has become a BIG THING and we can confidently say the only three recorded Worldwide bleachings have occurred since then. They MAY have occurred before, but nobody saw it or recorded it. So there.
Anybody out there have any better knowledge of this stuff?
Coral Bleaching Events
- not the betting chain laying on gatherings for peroxide mullet wearers, but Worldwide reef dieback. Or it could be. Perhaps. Warm oceans, pacific blob, global warming, etc etc
However, in a totally unscientific manner a quick google reveals much coral reef (around Papua New Guinea) which isn't known for bleaching, yet has some the World's highest concentrations of reef. Or I could be reading the info completely incorrectly.
At least one paper on the web includes a caveat that in the 130 years of coral observations, it is possible not many observers were recording their findings (or paying any attention at all) in the period up to 1980, since when it has become a BIG THING and we can confidently say the only three recorded Worldwide bleachings have occurred since then. They MAY have occurred before, but nobody saw it or recorded it. So there.
Anybody out there have any better knowledge of this stuff?
PH climate threads been swimming around coral reefs a few times.
Corals evolved around 500 million years ago, they survived recent warmer warming through the RWP and MWP which must be a miracle due to Gaia.
Previous 'extinction' events have taken place with corals, yet they're around today.
Which brings us around to the same question as always: causality. We didn't cause previous events, and we're not causing this one whatever it is (no visible causal human signal etc).
It's one of the typical non-evidence stories that believers have to focus on in the absence of warming for ~19 years and a total absence of causality. Bears, ice, corals, not evidence of climate change due to humans.
Corals evolved around 500 million years ago, they survived recent warmer warming through the RWP and MWP which must be a miracle due to Gaia.
Previous 'extinction' events have taken place with corals, yet they're around today.
Which brings us around to the same question as always: causality. We didn't cause previous events, and we're not causing this one whatever it is (no visible causal human signal etc).
It's one of the typical non-evidence stories that believers have to focus on in the absence of warming for ~19 years and a total absence of causality. Bears, ice, corals, not evidence of climate change due to humans.
Hi all - I know the scepticism is running high in here but what are the thoughts of the baying crowd about the cost of generating power?
While I've seen no evidence that convinces me either way with regards to CC, I am concerned that we are placing more and more reliance on polluting and air quality reducing power generation (unless people here don't think burning coal produces any 'bad' stuff). Equally I disagree with the locations chosen for such a divisive technology such as on shore wind turbines but this caught my attention as supposedly is now cheaper (taking into account whole project costs) to generate power with renewables compared to tradional methods (half way through article):
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/07...
What's the general thoughts on this - while many posters on here suggest that CC is not accelerated/caused/increased/affected by what we burn - do you think that's OK to continue to use natural resources at the current rate?
I'm not a blanket believer in all forms of alternative power - biomass at a large scale for example is a farce when importing wood from across oceans to burn on this little island, but I do think sensibly placed wind/tidal and solar have their place...
While I've seen no evidence that convinces me either way with regards to CC, I am concerned that we are placing more and more reliance on polluting and air quality reducing power generation (unless people here don't think burning coal produces any 'bad' stuff). Equally I disagree with the locations chosen for such a divisive technology such as on shore wind turbines but this caught my attention as supposedly is now cheaper (taking into account whole project costs) to generate power with renewables compared to tradional methods (half way through article):
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/07...
What's the general thoughts on this - while many posters on here suggest that CC is not accelerated/caused/increased/affected by what we burn - do you think that's OK to continue to use natural resources at the current rate?
I'm not a blanket believer in all forms of alternative power - biomass at a large scale for example is a farce when importing wood from across oceans to burn on this little island, but I do think sensibly placed wind/tidal and solar have their place...
A couple of months ago on this thread I posted this
hidetheelephants said:
In the UK approximately £100bn of wind power has been installed since Blair kicked off the green thing at the beginning of the century; this has notionally displaced ~4GW of coal and gas power. Even at the bandit pricing of Hinkley C the same investment in nuclear power would have displaced ~12GW; the scaling effect and the learning curve would inevitably make each plant cheaper and the chinese are building plants for half what Hinkley will reputedly cost, so it might have been as much as ~24GW, or a bit less than one third of the UK's generating capacity. I have to conclude the whole thing is a boondoggle as there is no logical explanation.
The numbers make no sense unless you are on strong recreational drugs. Industrial solar power is a special form of perversion in northern europe and will continue to make no sense until magic batteries that are 100% efficient, free and don't wear out are invented; solar on buildings makes sense but it doesn't deserve subsidy, especially given how well the chinese have done in getting the price down.Since you've probably read more than I have, why are they reporting the the net cost is greater with traditional power? It's a genuine questions as I too thought the wind was only in place due to heavily subsidised incentives, but this article reads as if, even taking that out of the equation, wind is cheaper.
It also mentions and I'm aware of, subsidies such as guaranteed minimum power purchase agreements are offered to new power stations using nuclear or coal/natural gas etc
Also the larger solar installs are now at a cost that they can be profitable without subsidies (as long as they are at a big enough scale in order to push down material cost and maintainence per MW)
It also mentions and I'm aware of, subsidies such as guaranteed minimum power purchase agreements are offered to new power stations using nuclear or coal/natural gas etc
Also the larger solar installs are now at a cost that they can be profitable without subsidies (as long as they are at a big enough scale in order to push down material cost and maintainence per MW)
Company sucking on the public teat goes under when teat is withdrawn shocker. They had no business model beyond government subsidy and profiteering.
Commercial solar doesn't make sense in the uk, and even domestic is borderline without subsidy.
Renewables are st at baseload, in fact st at grid supply. Localised, remote, non critical, go fill yer boots, but leave the grid alone.
Commercial solar doesn't make sense in the uk, and even domestic is borderline without subsidy.
Renewables are s
t at baseload, in fact st at grid supply. Localised, remote, non critical, go fill yer boots, but leave the grid alone. PKLD said:
Since you've probably read more than I have, why are they reporting the the net cost is greater with traditional power? It's a genuine questions as I too thought the wind was only in place due to heavily subsidised incentives, but this article reads as if, even taking that out of the equation, wind is cheaper.
It also mentions and I'm aware of, subsidies such as guaranteed minimum power purchase agreements are offered to new power stations using nuclear or coal/natural gas etc
Also the larger solar installs are now at a cost that they can be profitable without subsidies (as long as they are at a big enough scale in order to push down material cost and maintainence per MW)
There's been a lot of 'fraudulent accounting' when it come to costing electricity production, the green nutters have been very creative, both by adding in 'made up' costs for fossil fuels, and ignoring necessary costs for renewables.It also mentions and I'm aware of, subsidies such as guaranteed minimum power purchase agreements are offered to new power stations using nuclear or coal/natural gas etc
Also the larger solar installs are now at a cost that they can be profitable without subsidies (as long as they are at a big enough scale in order to push down material cost and maintainence per MW)
What are you referring to in that article, brief scan, I couldn't see what you meant?
Above all, coal use is set to go up massively globally, regardless of Paris. It doesn't matter one iota what the UK does, our entire fossil fuel use isn't going to be a drip in the ocean, if we heavily rely on renewables, it will cost more jobs, loss of competitiveness/industry, and more fuel poverty.
Mr GrimNasty said:
What are you referring to in that article, brief scan, I couldn't see what you meant?
Sorry it's near the end:The government has justified the moves on the grounds that these new technologies can now stand on their own feet without the past levels of subsidies.
A new report on Wednesday from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that the price of solar and other renewables is falling fast, while fossil fuel costs are going up. New onshore windfarms are now the cheapest way for a power company to produce electricity in Britain, it argued. Costs have dropped to £55 per megawatt-hour, compared with the current costs of about £75 for constructing coal or gas-fired plants, its analysis found.
The £55 vs £75 cost is what I was surprised about. Another factor with this stuff is the speed of deployment - a large 5MW solar farm can be installed with 3-6months. A power station or nuclear development takes years of planning and years of construction so once that's taken into consideration perhaps that's why some renewables are 'cheaper' when they are producing (obviously not 24/7)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff