Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[tomw2000]

turbobloke said:

Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Maybe their models were wrong? But it's ok, they've fixed that now and everything is settled.....

[turbobloke]

tomw2000 said:

turbobloke said:

Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Maybe their models were wrong? But it's ok, they've fixed that now and everything is settled.....

If their inadequate gigo models were accurate, they'd have to close up the shop and do something else instead! Armageddonism is believers' bread and butter.

It's worth listing those seven sane and sensible seventies predictions

Environ Mentalism 1970 vintage...

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”
4: “... Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World ... Will Be In Famine”
5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
7: “By The Year 2000 ... There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”



It's amazing that there are still any credulous souls left anywhere who are willing to swallow the modern version of this hogshine.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

To save everyone the bother of clicking, here's a summary:

Some people made some crazy predictions that didn't turn out to be true.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

To save everyone the bother of clicking, here's a summary:

Some people made some crazy predictions that didn't turn out to be true.

Durbs, all the catastrophic predictions have been shown to be nonsense so why do you believe them enough to want to cause mass hardship and death to the developing nations (cheap energy would bring the majority out of abject poverty)?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

To save everyone the bother of clicking, here's a summary:

Some people made some crazy predictions that didn't turn out to be true.

Yes. And we're still making them. And spendng $Trillions to do it. Talk about a lesson never learnt!!!

[robinessex]

Wobbegong said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-0...

Trump gets started on climate change

Whatever you think about Trump, it's time someone shook the CC 'apple tree'. Lets see how much rotten fruit drops out!

[robinessex]

Re all the discussion about the cost/subsidy of windy mills. The answer is how long is a pieces of string!!

[wc98]

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Oh the original ?



From Thursday :

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.

Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single as there will be more to follow.

Fancy a Tenner it will be within 10 years?

I'll take the bet happily.

A few now becomes ten!

I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.

so after all this - a fking Tenner is all you will gamble ?

YOU offered a bet.
YOU changed it from "a few years" to TEN.
YOU then also demanded massive odds on in YOUR favour.
YOU started name calling as in "welcher"

YOU then made this statement......"Dicky, WC - say what you like- but I think, and judging by the 9 personal messages received , most here think :
You're full of bulsst and bluster and your arses have fallen out, and carefully stepping backwards"

It was YOU that "stepped backwards".

And to top it off you're now willy waving at my "fking tenner"

i see this is still running,and p+m is still at the obfuscation game. i will give him his due,he has done a sterling job of of avoiding answering 90% of the questions asked and insulting anyone that disagrees with him. between 2002 and 2030 the renewable industry will have sucked up around 100 billion of tax payer subsidies.

i do understand one of the jobs of government is to ensure the populace has access to reliable energy supplies and to that effect due to cost most new energy projects will need public support up front to get them off the ground. the problem is and always has been are they value for money,in the case of wind there are thousands of people that say they are not .i tend to agree.

as for my arse falling out over a bet ,considering i was the only person of the forum to take up the bet offered on ukip getting at least one mp i have already shown where there is a defined metric to bet on i will take that bet. the £1000 bet with jim hunt of the great white con regarding arctic sea ice also shows i don't mind betting a reasonable amount on something to find out how strong someones personal conviction is . paddy is way off the mark here .i reckon i could name several of the people that have e mailed paddy regarding this topic,just look back over the posting history of this thread and see who supports the cagw narrative, eh durbs

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Anyways - EA1 £119/MWh




Numbers floating around are expecting low eighties. Lets be prudent and say £85/MWh

Progress in two years as a percent from EA1 to my guess.....

See my point ?

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 27th March 23:26

ahhh ! finally a number. ok, do you fancy a bet on this number ? £85/mwh . more than that i win,less than that or equal to it you win . up for that ?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

To save everyone the bother of clicking, here's a summary:

Some people made some crazy predictions that didn't turn out to be true.

Durbs, all the catastrophic predictions have been shown to be nonsense so why do you believe them enough to want to cause mass hardship and death to the developing nations (cheap energy would bring the majority out of abject poverty)?

I don't.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Anyways - EA1 £119/MWh

Numbers floating around are expecting low eighties. Lets be prudent and say £85/MWh

Progress in two years as a percent from EA1 to my guess.....

See my point ?

ahhh ! finally a number. ok, do you fancy a bet on this number ? £85/mwh . more than that i win,less than that or equal to it you win . up for that ?

No - no bet, because I don't know what The Number will be for Triton Knoll / Hornsea, possibly but unlikely Moray Firth.

It will be less than £100/MWh as a certainty, so a healthy reduction cost over two years by anyones barometer.

I am saying that indications / trends are to say it will be about that, to validate my point of progress and being in five years further down the line, to a price where the Offshore Industry will no longer require the CFD type process / contribution.

so you only want to bet on certainties ? no fun in that. 85 turning into less than 100 looks to be the same as a few years turning into 5 or ten . good to hear costs are reducing , i look forward to the drop in my energy bills in the next couple of years.
your contributions to this thread have been both entertaining and illuminating , i hope you continue to contribute

[powerstroke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

And I apologise. I got a fact or two wrong, according to the Daily mail, on the diameter of the London Eye :


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-434...

Is the Daily Mail reporting on the Offshore Wind industry with such positivity the equivalent of dividing by Zero ?

"Dong has a target to drive down costs of offshore wind power to £89.93 ($112.48) per megawatt hour (MWh) by 2020."


(cracking images however)

How much does gas cost per MWH ?????

[robinessex]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

robinessex said:

Re all the discussion about the cost/subsidy of windy mills. The answer is how long is a pieces of string!!

continue to mock what you don't understand.


just not to me

Have it your way. The cost of electricity from various sources is determined by not much more than a number plucked from the sky. Change it, and all the previous calculations are bks

[turbobloke]

Dr Patrick Moore letter:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2017/03...

Snip
"It was a breath of fresh air to read Jeff Jacoby’s column on Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt’s remarks about carbon dioxide, a tiny component of our atmosphere without which life on earth could not exist (“Climate science far from settled,” Opinion, March 15). As a lifelong ecologist and environmentalist, I have seen much of the environmental movement hijacked for the purpose of alarming us about the future of the climate. All manner of horrific prospects are invoked to strike fear into the hearts of the citizenry and, most disturbingly, our children. Yet no weather event or change in climate during the past century is anywhere near out of the ordinary with the climate of the past 10,000 years since the great ice sheets melted after 80,000 years of glaciation. That was climate change, as the sea level rose 410 feet between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. It has barely budged since. Finally we are seeing the house of cards begin to fall as the fabrication called catastrophic human-caused global warming is unmasked."

Rupert Darwall in Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/23/fal...

Snip
"The Committee on Climate Change was established by the 2008 Climate Change Act to act as the climate policy equivalent of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. Ministers and Parliament are required by law to rely on its advice. Arguably this role gives the committee more influence over Britain’s long-term prosperity than anyone else. A public body, funded by the taxpayer to the tune of £3.8m a year, discharging such a crucial role requires competence, honesty and objectivity. The committee’s recent report on energy prices is deficient in all three, instead displaying similar ethical standards to Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth."

[robinessex]

Trump to make major change to US climate change narrative

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3941...

In the middle of that lot

"Back in 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide gas was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act."

Protect us from the bloody law makers !!!

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

As to the rest: "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong" (Rousseau) then again Jean-Jacques wasn't an insider and had never heard of peak renewables.

Yes.

Insults make up a large proportion of your follower's posts.

You feeling down because you don't have followers?

PS...nobody's following anybody, we all came here from different places, already knowing what was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.

HTH...

[Terminator X]

tomw2000 said:

turbobloke said:

Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Maybe their models were wrong? But it's ok, they've fixed that now and everything is settled.....

Ah but that was back then, it's so different when they make crystal ball predictions in 2017. Rock solid certainties, you will look back in 50 years ... ah no, you will have caught fire by then it will be so hot.

TX.

[robinessex]

'Fake science used to justify badger culls'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3941...

A senior researcher has accused the UK government of using "fake science" to justify its policy of culling badgers to control cattle TB.
Prof Rosie Woodroffe has told BBC News that minsters were creating an "illusion" of success to justify the policy.
She was speaking ahead of a scientific symposium on controlling cattle TB.
Ministers say their approach is supported by its scientists and leading vets.
Prof Woodroffe, a wildlife expert at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) who carried out the scientific assessment of culling badgers to control Cattle TB on which the current policy is based, said the government risked losing trust on how it used evidence - not just on its policy on controlling cattle TB but also on other important scientific issues.

"When evidence is being cherry-picked and presented in the best possible light, it ceases to be evidence. It is fake science.
"When it comes to (other policy areas) such as climate change and bee pollination, issues that have a big impact on lives and livelihoods of people, it is important that we can rely on the government to provide good evidence to stand up to scrutiny."

Get the last paragraph(s) guys !!!

[grumbledoak]

Trump ends "war on coal" and more to come:
https://www.rt.com/usa/382609-trump-climate-change...

[Gandahar]

Not read too much about Trumps first stab at altering the US political scene on climate change but some initial thoughts -

Having lost a congress vote on health care, which is a hard get, he has resorted back to executive orders which are a quick fix and easier but then can be more easily overturned, as per his and Obamas other executive orders. Rather than going for tax reform in the house which might be another bleeding battle it seems like a side adjourn to something where he can get a quick win and a photo opportunity to show the "can do, make the deal man" is back in the driving seat.

It's actually quite a good move; his staff and he must have talked a lot about this in the last 12 to 24 hours to right the ship. So good thinking and the Captain is in charge again. Problem is this is rather a knee jerk reaction to the loss on healthcare. Does it mean an iceberg ahead for them?

Sorry for using the word iceberg, something warmer and more rocky if you do want.