Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
motco said:
Apropos the Christopher Brooker revelation, an apocryphal tale from the 1970s said that a saloon car race at Brands Hatch had such a high attrition rate through bad weather (I seem to recall) that only two cars passed the finish line: a Mini Cooper and Moskvitch. The 1.5 litre Russian cars sometimes did well against the smaller engined cars if the style of circuit was kind to them, and they raced in multi-class races as 'under £xx list price - along with Minis of the day. The Mini Cooper crossed the line first with the Moskvitch some distance behind it. This was reported in USSR as a race in which the glorious Moskvitch came second while the 'wonderful' Mini managed only second to last. So this windfarm's publicity comes from the USSR School of Distorted Reporting.
Amusing but chilling similarities there! On a trip behind the iron curtain when it was still in place, I went on a sight-seeing tour of a famous city with a wartime past and could hardly contain the mix of annoyance and admiration arising from the way in which our comrade tour guide was rewriting history. One chap asked a pointed question by way of exposing one of the taller stories, her reply was that he had been propagandised living in the west.turbobloke said:
motco said:
Apropos the Christopher Brooker revelation, an apocryphal tale from the 1970s said that a saloon car race at Brands Hatch had such a high attrition rate through bad weather (I seem to recall) that only two cars passed the finish line: a Mini Cooper and Moskvitch. The 1.5 litre Russian cars sometimes did well against the smaller engined cars if the style of circuit was kind to them, and they raced in multi-class races as 'under £xx list price - along with Minis of the day. The Mini Cooper crossed the line first with the Moskvitch some distance behind it. This was reported in USSR as a race in which the glorious Moskvitch came second while the 'wonderful' Mini managed only second to last. So this windfarm's publicity comes from the USSR School of Distorted Reporting.
Amusing but chilling similarities there! On a trip behind the iron curtain when it was still in place, I went on a sight-seeing tour of a famous city with a wartime past and could hardly contain the mix of annoyance and admiration arising from the way in which our comrade tour guide was rewriting history. One chap asked a pointed question by way of exposing one of the taller stories, her reply was that he had been propagandised living in the west.turbobloke said:
Amusing but chilling similarities there! On a trip behind the iron curtain when it was still in place, I went on a sight-seeing tour of a famous city with a wartime past and could hardly contain the mix of annoyance and admiration arising from the way in which our comrade tour guide was rewriting history. One chap asked a pointed question by way of exposing one of the taller stories, her reply was that he had been propagandised living in the west.
When I was in Prague, the Tour Guide went through an astonishing list of things, including Shakespeare stole his plays from a chap he stayed with in Prague, electricity was discovered there and mathematics was invented there... You keep telling people things, they might start to believe it. Similarities here no?
The complete dishonesty about the contribution of wind has become standard, from planted letters in the DM to regional news program reports on proposed wind farms, the cherry picking of some instantaneous a-typical contribution % delivered to give the impression it was sustained, ignoring the recent 3 months when the entire UK farm barely once scraped above 1.5GW .
Mr GrimNasty said:
The complete dishonesty about the contribution of wind has become standard, from planted letters in the DM to regional news program reports on proposed wind farms, the cherry picking of some instantaneous a-typical contribution % delivered to give the impression it was sustained, ignoring the recent 3 months when the entire UK farm barely once scraped above 1.5GW .
it's a joke, at our expense..like right now, demand approaching 50Gw, and our wondrous turbines making 0.35Gw 0.7%
stunning, just stunning.
so, remind us again how these POS white elephants are replacing conventional power stations?
US researchers say political beliefs affect our view on the weather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-285...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-285...
turbobloke said:
US researchers say political beliefs affect our view on the weather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-285...
The linked video with the MP exposing Australian temperature record inconsistencies/adjustments is worth a listen, as we know, similar tricks are afoot world wide.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-285...
Scuffers said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The complete dishonesty about the contribution of wind has become standard, from planted letters in the DM to regional news program reports on proposed wind farms, the cherry picking of some instantaneous a-typical contribution % delivered to give the impression it was sustained, ignoring the recent 3 months when the entire UK farm barely once scraped above 1.5GW .
it's a joke, at our expense..like right now, demand approaching 50Gw, and our wondrous turbines making 0.35Gw 0.7%
stunning, just stunning.
so, remind us again how these POS white elephants are replacing conventional power stations?
Is the constant exaggeration about the contribution from renewables actually a deliberate political policy to prevent us being hit with EU fines for failing to meet targets? If the truth was published and accepted by all, would we then be liable for anything based on previous promises?
It's just a mixture of vested interests making a fortune one way or another, and green nutjobs.
If you have a massive number of turbines you are going to generate a significant amount of energy, but at stupid costs, and intermittently.
What use is an intermittent power supply, especially one that is a dead on certainty to fail under maximum cold winter demands (winter anticyclonic weather = maximum cold and no wind).
A core of Scotland's pseudo-independence aims seems to be to go hell for leather with renewables, and no doubt stitch up other UK energy users with the cost.
If you have a massive number of turbines you are going to generate a significant amount of energy, but at stupid costs, and intermittently.
What use is an intermittent power supply, especially one that is a dead on certainty to fail under maximum cold winter demands (winter anticyclonic weather = maximum cold and no wind).
A core of Scotland's pseudo-independence aims seems to be to go hell for leather with renewables, and no doubt stitch up other UK energy users with the cost.
Britain’s Energy Policy Is A Catastrophic Mess
The story of how the Labour Party destroyed Britain’s system of financial regulation, launching the ill-fated Financial Services Authority, is now well known. The tale of how it wrecked the pioneering energy market painstakingly introduced by its predecessor, a process tragically continued by the present coalition, is far less well understood. The unfashionable truth is that the privatisation of the electricity industry in the 1980s and the introduction of genuine competition in the 1990s was a triumph. The real hero was Lord Lawson of Blaby, energy secretary in the 1980s. The system evolved and improved over time, with a key duopoly eventually broken up, with the pro-competition drive led by Stephen Littlechild, the brilliant economist who was in charge of energy regulation in the 1990s. Prices fell significantly, delivering large benefits to consumers and companies and helping to deliver a significant boost to competitiveness.
Labour's reforms ended the free market that had been introduced by the Tories and which had worked far better than many people realised at the time. The green quotas meant that the Government had to retake control of all electricity generation: given that it started to subsidise heavily certain forms of electricity, it also had to create artificial incentives to make that enough investment remained in other sources, rigging other markets, too. It’s all a giant mess.
Allister Heath, The Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2014
Energy Policy And The Return Of The State
Energy policy represents the biggest expansion of State power since the nationalisations of the 1940s and 1950s and is on course to becoming the most costly domestic policy disaster in modern British history.
Rupert Darwall, Reform, 27 November 2014
The story of how the Labour Party destroyed Britain’s system of financial regulation, launching the ill-fated Financial Services Authority, is now well known. The tale of how it wrecked the pioneering energy market painstakingly introduced by its predecessor, a process tragically continued by the present coalition, is far less well understood. The unfashionable truth is that the privatisation of the electricity industry in the 1980s and the introduction of genuine competition in the 1990s was a triumph. The real hero was Lord Lawson of Blaby, energy secretary in the 1980s. The system evolved and improved over time, with a key duopoly eventually broken up, with the pro-competition drive led by Stephen Littlechild, the brilliant economist who was in charge of energy regulation in the 1990s. Prices fell significantly, delivering large benefits to consumers and companies and helping to deliver a significant boost to competitiveness.
Labour's reforms ended the free market that had been introduced by the Tories and which had worked far better than many people realised at the time. The green quotas meant that the Government had to retake control of all electricity generation: given that it started to subsidise heavily certain forms of electricity, it also had to create artificial incentives to make that enough investment remained in other sources, rigging other markets, too. It’s all a giant mess.
Allister Heath, The Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2014
Energy Policy And The Return Of The State
Energy policy represents the biggest expansion of State power since the nationalisations of the 1940s and 1950s and is on course to becoming the most costly domestic policy disaster in modern British history.
Rupert Darwall, Reform, 27 November 2014
At the moment I'm reading a book that caught my eye in the library a few days ago.
It's one of the 'Teach Yourself' series: the title is 'Save Energy & Cut Your Bills' and it's written by a bod called Nick White.
One of the first things he says is that "Personal car travel accounts for 13 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions." That sounds a wildly high figure to me. I understood it to be nearer 4%, but I've no idea what a true figure might be.
Anyhow I don't like the book, and I'm glad I didn't buy it. As far as I'm concerned it quotes far too many figures that can't possibly be accurate, in which case they are likely to be seriously misleading.
Does anybody else here know this book and have a view on its merits?
It's one of the 'Teach Yourself' series: the title is 'Save Energy & Cut Your Bills' and it's written by a bod called Nick White.
One of the first things he says is that "Personal car travel accounts for 13 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions." That sounds a wildly high figure to me. I understood it to be nearer 4%, but I've no idea what a true figure might be.
Anyhow I don't like the book, and I'm glad I didn't buy it. As far as I'm concerned it quotes far too many figures that can't possibly be accurate, in which case they are likely to be seriously misleading.
Does anybody else here know this book and have a view on its merits?
p1esk said:
At the moment I'm reading a book that caught my eye in the library a few days ago.
It's one of the 'Teach Yourself' series: the title is 'Save Energy & Cut Your Bills' and it's written by a bod called Nick White.
One of the first things he says is that "Personal car travel accounts for 13 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions." That sounds a wildly high figure to me. I understood it to be nearer 4%, but I've no idea what a true figure might be.
Anyhow I don't like the book, and I'm glad I didn't buy it. As far as I'm concerned it quotes far too many figures that can't possibly be accurate, in which case they are likely to be seriously misleading.
Does anybody else here know this book and have a view on its merits?
I haven't read the book so can't comment on its overall merits, but from the above sample I'm interested to know if the author gets round to pointing out that buildings emit more tax gas than the entire transport sector, if so does the author recommend living in tents or caves?!It's one of the 'Teach Yourself' series: the title is 'Save Energy & Cut Your Bills' and it's written by a bod called Nick White.
One of the first things he says is that "Personal car travel accounts for 13 per cent of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions." That sounds a wildly high figure to me. I understood it to be nearer 4%, but I've no idea what a true figure might be.
Anyhow I don't like the book, and I'm glad I didn't buy it. As far as I'm concerned it quotes far too many figures that can't possibly be accurate, in which case they are likely to be seriously misleading.
Does anybody else here know this book and have a view on its merits?
mybrainhurts said:
Article intro said:
People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception
Lovely, more tea vicar?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff