Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
mybrainhurts said:
Is that the Aussie who does a guest radio phone-in on Radio 5 in the middle of the night?
If so, he's hilarious, blustering through many answers he doesn't have a clue about. Airflow over a wing section, creating lift, as an example. Among hundreds...
Or is it someone else? I don't do Apple.
Yes it is the same guy. He's entertaining enough, but I was disappointed to hear he buys into the global warming religion.If so, he's hilarious, blustering through many answers he doesn't have a clue about. Airflow over a wing section, creating lift, as an example. Among hundreds...
Or is it someone else? I don't do Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki
motco said:
alock said:
I laughed out loud when I heard this on the radio this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
Yes me too! Just as I thought the depths of insanity couldn't be deeper, up this pops!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
BBC said:
Getting ships to generate smaller bubbles as they sail across the oceans could counteract the impact of climate change, a study suggests.
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
hidetheelephants said:
motco said:
alock said:
I laughed out loud when I heard this on the radio this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
Yes me too! Just as I thought the depths of insanity couldn't be deeper, up this pops!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
BBC said:
Getting ships to generate smaller bubbles as they sail across the oceans could counteract the impact of climate change, a study suggests.
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
S7Paul said:
hidetheelephants said:
motco said:
alock said:
I laughed out loud when I heard this on the radio this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
Yes me too! Just as I thought the depths of insanity couldn't be deeper, up this pops!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3054...
BBC said:
Getting ships to generate smaller bubbles as they sail across the oceans could counteract the impact of climate change, a study suggests.
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
...
If we were to successfully put these generators on to these ships, and the ships just went about their normal business, we did find there was potential to reduce the surface temperature by about 0.5C
Oh that would be that big smelly diesel generator on deck 3 of the engineroom
RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AreOut said:
"Scientists from University of Leeds, UK, say this would create a brighter wake behind a vessel and reflect more sunlight back into space.
However, it could also increase rainfall in some areas."
Any other things this wonder idea can do? Clean the streets of Dunstable or renovate a Constable?However, it could also increase rainfall in some areas."
Rearrange the following words in a more applicable order. Oil. Snake,
regards,
Jet
king BIG the Atlantic is?
Mr GrimNasty said:
They'll probably experiment with high pressure bubble generators along the entire length of the hull, and then wonder why their ship sank, probably concluding that the expanded warming oceans can no longer be safely used by shipping.
The ultrasound from the bubblers on thousands of ships will unexpectedly focus downward and fluidise clathrate deposits on the seabed, sinking many ships and causing runaway greenhouse effect from the released methane. 
Mr GrimNasty said:
They'll probably experiment with high pressure bubble generators along the entire length of the hull, and then wonder why their ship sank, probably concluding that the expanded warming oceans can no longer be safely used by shipping.
Would that be Good/Bad/No Change in terms of the ecology of Whales/Dolphins/Polar Bears/Penguins/Etc?Could they achieve the same result with, say, sails?
At the risk of annoying sun worshipers, why not simply use a contrail effect and seed the upper atmosphere. Sure, our skies may never look the same again .... but do they anyway?
LongQ said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
They'll probably experiment with high pressure bubble generators along the entire length of the hull, and then wonder why their ship sank, probably concluding that the expanded warming oceans can no longer be safely used by shipping.
Would that be Good/Bad/No Change in terms of the ecology of Whales/Dolphins/Polar Bears/Penguins/Etc?Could they achieve the same result with, say, sails?
At the risk of annoying sun worshipers, why not simply use a contrail effect and seed the upper atmosphere. Sure, our skies may never look the same again .... but do they anyway?
But they're already doing it! Mind controlling drugs being sprayed over everyone, every day by the airlines! Lizards, chem-trails, the illuminati, Bilderberg, EUSSR, etc.
[/tinfoil hat]
Life Is Not A Gas
As we look back over the past 12 months and forward to the next, I regret that there is one story I reported two months ago to which I didn‘t begin to do justice. It‘s one that, when the penny finally drops, will be blazoned in shocked headlines across every newspaper in the land. How many people realise that, within a few years, our government is planning to phase out all use of gas for cooking or heating our homes?
We shall be forced to rely for this and much else, including powering our cars, on a vastly expanded electricity supply, generated almost entirely by tens of thousands of hopelessly inefficient windmills; by new nuclear power stations we are unlikely to see built; and by power stations fitted with a technology that does not yet exist, and is unlikely ever to work.
Forget last week‘s reports that, by 2020, our energy bills are likely to rise by another £250 a year. The far bigger story is hidden away in a 244-page report in which the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) sets out how it hopes to meet our legal commitment under the Climate Change Act to cut Britain‘s emissions of CO2 by four fifths within 35 years.
DECC‘s ”2050 Pathways Analysis" envisages a future in which, within five years, we shall be embarking on a wholesale switch away from gas and other fossil fuels to electricity. Out will go all cooking and heating by gas, and using petrol or diesel to power our transport. Instead DECC hopes that, by the 2040s, we will have more than doubled our electricity supply, by building up to 40,000 offshore and up to 20,000 land-based wind turbines; having a new fleet of ”zero carbon" nuclear reactors; and only allowing gas or coal-fired power stations if they are fitted with ”carbon capture and storage" (CCS), to bury their CO2 in holes in the ground.
As a telling passage in DECC‘s report frankly puts it: ”Demand for electricity would double by 2050, as a result of electrification of much of industry, heating and transport. Decarbonisation would mean that all of the UK‘s electricity would come from low-carbon sources by the 2040s, making significant use of the UK‘s wind resource. It further assumes that we can build a ”new nuclear plant at a rate of 1.2 gigawatts a year, and that CCS can be ”rolled out at a rate of 1.5GW a year after 2030.
Apart from the prospect that millions of us will have to ditch our gas cookers and central-heating systems and buy electric cars, none of these idle dreams can be successfully realised. When we have so far only built 5,500 giant wind turbines, there is no way we can build another 55,000 by 2040, at an estimated cost of more than £500 billion.
When we are unlikely to get even one new nuclear plant within 10 years, to produce just 3.2 GW of incredibly costly power at a cost of £24 billion, there is no chance we could build 20 or 30 more by 2040. It is equally unthinkable that we could all be forced to switch to inefficient and ludicrously expensive electric vehicles, or that CCS is any more than another fantasy, when, even if it could be made to work on a commercial scale, it would more than double the cost of its electricity.
Yet this is the nearest thing the Government has yet given us as to how it hopes to meet our statutory target under the Climate Change Act. The only real question is when people will cotton on to this, provoking such disbelieving national outrage that the Act will have to be repealed – and whether this happens before it does our country such damage that we will be rapidly heading to join the Third World.
Will 2015 be the year when we finally wake up to the scale of the insanity that has possessed all those who rule over us?
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 21 December 2014
As we look back over the past 12 months and forward to the next, I regret that there is one story I reported two months ago to which I didn‘t begin to do justice. It‘s one that, when the penny finally drops, will be blazoned in shocked headlines across every newspaper in the land. How many people realise that, within a few years, our government is planning to phase out all use of gas for cooking or heating our homes?
We shall be forced to rely for this and much else, including powering our cars, on a vastly expanded electricity supply, generated almost entirely by tens of thousands of hopelessly inefficient windmills; by new nuclear power stations we are unlikely to see built; and by power stations fitted with a technology that does not yet exist, and is unlikely ever to work.
Forget last week‘s reports that, by 2020, our energy bills are likely to rise by another £250 a year. The far bigger story is hidden away in a 244-page report in which the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) sets out how it hopes to meet our legal commitment under the Climate Change Act to cut Britain‘s emissions of CO2 by four fifths within 35 years.
DECC‘s ”2050 Pathways Analysis" envisages a future in which, within five years, we shall be embarking on a wholesale switch away from gas and other fossil fuels to electricity. Out will go all cooking and heating by gas, and using petrol or diesel to power our transport. Instead DECC hopes that, by the 2040s, we will have more than doubled our electricity supply, by building up to 40,000 offshore and up to 20,000 land-based wind turbines; having a new fleet of ”zero carbon" nuclear reactors; and only allowing gas or coal-fired power stations if they are fitted with ”carbon capture and storage" (CCS), to bury their CO2 in holes in the ground.
As a telling passage in DECC‘s report frankly puts it: ”Demand for electricity would double by 2050, as a result of electrification of much of industry, heating and transport. Decarbonisation would mean that all of the UK‘s electricity would come from low-carbon sources by the 2040s, making significant use of the UK‘s wind resource. It further assumes that we can build a ”new nuclear plant at a rate of 1.2 gigawatts a year, and that CCS can be ”rolled out at a rate of 1.5GW a year after 2030.
Apart from the prospect that millions of us will have to ditch our gas cookers and central-heating systems and buy electric cars, none of these idle dreams can be successfully realised. When we have so far only built 5,500 giant wind turbines, there is no way we can build another 55,000 by 2040, at an estimated cost of more than £500 billion.
When we are unlikely to get even one new nuclear plant within 10 years, to produce just 3.2 GW of incredibly costly power at a cost of £24 billion, there is no chance we could build 20 or 30 more by 2040. It is equally unthinkable that we could all be forced to switch to inefficient and ludicrously expensive electric vehicles, or that CCS is any more than another fantasy, when, even if it could be made to work on a commercial scale, it would more than double the cost of its electricity.
Yet this is the nearest thing the Government has yet given us as to how it hopes to meet our statutory target under the Climate Change Act. The only real question is when people will cotton on to this, provoking such disbelieving national outrage that the Act will have to be repealed – and whether this happens before it does our country such damage that we will be rapidly heading to join the Third World.
Will 2015 be the year when we finally wake up to the scale of the insanity that has possessed all those who rule over us?
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 21 December 2014
Merry Hell more like! While the principles of energetics and the unavoidable limitations of renewables show that wind et al cannot ever be an adequate source of energy for civilisation to persist (a costly bit-part player at the outside) the UN and EU and similar other-worldly instutions run by post-marxist fantasists truuuuuly belieeeeve that renewables can be the answer - to a non-existent problem.
turbobloke said:
The only real question is when people will cotton on to this, provoking such disbelieving national outrage that the Act will have to be repealed – and whether this happens before it does our country such damage that we will be rapidly heading to join the Third World.
I wouldn't hold your breath! Exibit A: Greece. Membership of the doomsday machine known as the Euro truly has sent Greece back to the Third World. Being in the Euro has destroyed a third of their economy, industrial production is back to the levels of 1976, health care has been slashed, and there's social and economic austerity hitherto unseen in sixty years ... and yet still the braindead populus cling desperately to the Euro as their saviour. Greeks still completely fail to accept Euro membership carries a cost, namely a 50% reduction in wages.
Look at the latest polls, even the loony left Syriza want to cancel the debt but stay in the Euro. They just don't get it, and nor seemingly do the vast majority of Greeks. They're paying the price of a) worshipping a false God and b) refusing to see logic even when lined up in the cold outside a soup kitchen.
I certainly don't think the British are in any way intellectually superior compared to the Greeks, so the only conclusion I can draw is the Government's climate change panpipes are going to lead us all over a cliff, and what is more the British public will gladly follow headfirst like so many lemons.
Edited by Andy Zarse on Monday 22 December 14:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff