Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
DibblyDobbler said:
OK, OK. Unintentional
I assure you.In which case swap Mumsnet for Comment is Free
As you were
hidetheelephants said:
I did read the whole thing and it lays out pretty clearly that the EROI of solar or windmills is a little over unity, so they produce very little energy over that which they cost to make. That's not a productive path to head down.
I still haven't had chance to read the article but that sounds highly plausible.hidetheelephants said:
Presumably the point you wish to make but are being coy about is that these chaps were contractors and were just paid by Google to find out whether it was possible to produce renewable energy cheaper than coal, they weren't on the google payroll. When they discovered that it wasn't possible Google understandably cut them loose.
Well no actually, as I didn't know any of that. It's a far simpler point than that. Again, I am simply asking why WUWT/TB are using an edited version of the quote. What I would consider a critical part of it has been removed, which changes the whole context.
TheExcession said:
@Durbster, please go and read some other material, not the blog based rhetoric you are puking up onto the floor of AGW for us all to pick through and examine.
I'm pretty sure I haven't linked, quoted or referenced a single advocacy blog as long as I've been participating in this conversation. I've worked hard to find and reference original research as often as possible. When links to WUWT etc. are posted pretty much every day without a single critical comment, it's really baffling to see this particular argument used against me. TheExcession said:
(I have to admit though, I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a decent response to my list of scientists that don't believe in AGW. Still I suppose Durb's response stating it was an old list wins the game, so I'll trump him with a wiki article that must be believed)
I thought I had addressed it? 
I raised several doubts about the methodology behind the petition, and also questioned why you thought it was a more convincing representation of scientific opinion than the multiple peer-reviewed studies that have been done on the subject.
TheExcession said:
I will say one thing though, at least Mr Durbster does come across as being polite...
DibblyDobbler said:
let us not resort to ad hominem attacks. In my view it is actually healthy for the debate to have Mr D around DibblyDobbler said:
Bloody hell!
Follow the money to find the truth, but not the usual angle.
"Almost half of the world's top 500 investors are doing nothing to address climate change through their investments......
.......just under a fifth of the top investors - were taking tangible steps to mitigate global warming."
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/31488811...
They don't believe - at least not enough to sabotage their own finances!
"Almost half of the world's top 500 investors are doing nothing to address climate change through their investments......
.......just under a fifth of the top investors - were taking tangible steps to mitigate global warming."
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/31488811...
They don't believe - at least not enough to sabotage their own finances!
ks in the torygraph today about how wonderful our Amber Rudd is!!! and she could be lined up to replace CMD !!!!!! turbobloke said:
durbster said:
I raised several doubts about the methodology behind the petition
Possibly what you meant to acknowledge was that you weren't sure if it was a survey or a petition. Check back, see for yourself.That's not close to "raising doubts about the methodology".
Plenty of Wells to poison.
Heidelberg Appeal (4000 signatures including 62 Nobel prizewinners)
Oregon Petition (31,000 accredited scientists)
Manhattan Declaration (600 research climatologists)
Petition to the United Nations (100 geoscientists)
Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 climate experts)
Leipzig Declaration (100 geoscientists)
Statement from Atmospheric Scientists (50)
Petition to the German Chancellor (200 German scientists)
Statement from the American Physical Society (150 physical scientists)
Petition to President Obama (100 leading climate researchers)
UN Climate Scientists speak out on Global Warming (700, many previously involved with the IPCC)
jgmadkit said:
Reading one of the links above it mentions Hydro power and it got me thinking, and I'm no scientist so probably opening myself up here but here goes....
It mentions Hydro is geography dependant, mountainous, but does it need to be? We have a long history of building down into the earth so why not start at sea level?
Would it be possible to build say 1km down to house the turbines and then build a vast underground network of tunnels to store water until such time that it can be pumped back up to the surface again? I get that hydro is not so much generation of electricity but used to smooth electrical demand at peak times but could this be used in a similar way as a non chemical storage solution to wind and solar power, build the underground water storage so vast that renewable energy could pump it back when it can, maybe made big enough to not have to rely on conventional energy to pump?
Just a Sunday morning thought but ready for a roasting
IIRC some bods have been seeking funding to re-purpose some of our old mines for this purpose - the holes are already drilled! Unfortunately mines need constant maintenance, AIUI and this makes them a bit of a bugger to use with substantial quantities of water rushing through (on the way to the turbine or on the way back). Then there is water ingress/loss and other geological challenges that cost too much (poor strata?).It mentions Hydro is geography dependant, mountainous, but does it need to be? We have a long history of building down into the earth so why not start at sea level?
Would it be possible to build say 1km down to house the turbines and then build a vast underground network of tunnels to store water until such time that it can be pumped back up to the surface again? I get that hydro is not so much generation of electricity but used to smooth electrical demand at peak times but could this be used in a similar way as a non chemical storage solution to wind and solar power, build the underground water storage so vast that renewable energy could pump it back when it can, maybe made big enough to not have to rely on conventional energy to pump?
Just a Sunday morning thought but ready for a roasting
Another idea was to pop a nuke down the bottom and boil water to drive turbines, but the nitty-gritty detail bogs down the project (some protests envisaged regarding 'nukes' and 'below water table' and HTF do we reach it when (inevitably) it goes feral and melts through the core etc etc).
IMO the original pumped storage scheme under Ben Cruachan was one of the better schemes of a similar nature, and a bargain at 1965 prices (although sadly it cost lives). They were plans for many more, but the schemes were deemed non-viable...
Anyway, Caroline Lucas has always said there will oodles of jobs in renewables, producing 100% green power, and that's good enough for me!
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
I raised several doubts about the methodology behind the petition
Possibly what you meant to acknowledge was that you weren't sure if it was a survey or a petition. Check back, see for yourself.That's not close to "raising doubts about the methodology".
The petition looked almost 20 years old and we've had a huge build-up of evidence since then that would have persuaded many doubters.
The qualifications didn't seem relevant. Just having a PHD doesn't mean you have magical insight into the science of the climate... oh wait, I'm forgetting the rules of the debate: an appeal to authority is absolutely valid when it supports the opposing view. Silly me.
The question was worded in a way that could be positively endorsed by people on either side of the argument.
It didn't state how many letters were sent out so the numbers have no context. If 50 million letters were sent and 30,000 replied endorsing it, it offers no insight into the wider view.
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Then this thread can do no more for you save wish you well and hope you find the unheated cave well above sea level that you seem to crave for 
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Perhaps because that is an exaggeration of the true situation with regards what is in any case highly biased compromised 'science', and because you are ignoring multiple peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming LACK OF support for dangerous AGW.You are willfully blind to the uncertainty and the other side of the puzzle. So what more can anyone say to you?
How many quotes from current/former IPCC scientists/authors/reviewers disparaging the state of climate 'science' and the methods etc. of the IPCC would convince you that there might just be an issue? 1,2,5,10????????
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Then this thread can do no more for you save wish you well and hope you find the unheated cave well above sea level that you seem to crave for Mr GrimNasty said:
How many quotes from current/former IPCC scientists/authors/reviewers disparaging the state of climate 'science' and the methods etc. of the IPCC would convince you that there might just be an issue? 1,2,5,10????????
Edited by TheExcession on Tuesday 3rd May 18:24
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Then this thread can do no more for you save wish you well and hope you find the unheated cave well above sea level that you seem to crave for robinessex said:
In that case Durbster, see if you can answer this one simple question. Why is the present CO2 level the 'correct' level for planet Earth ? Be careful, it's trick question !!!
Well, of course, it isn't; it's far too high because of, because of, because of... well just pay more tax Ok?robinessex said:
In that case Durbster, see if you can answer this one simple question. Why is the present CO2 level the 'correct' level for planet Earth ? Be careful, it's trick question !!!
Wow, this brilliant argument again. *slow clap*There's no correct level for planet Earth, but evidently human beings have thrived under the current conditions.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
In that case Durbster, see if you can answer this one simple question. Why is the present CO2 level the 'correct' level for planet Earth ? Be careful, it's trick question !!!
Bugger , this argument again. There's no correct level for planet Earth, but evidently human beings have thrived (been taxed built wind mills payed mongs to research a non problem and raised energy bills) , under the current conditions.
Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 4th May 09:21
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff