Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Silver Smudger]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

PRTVR said:

...biomass that is only viable using waste wood at a lumber yard, definitely not when you ship it half way round the world, the whole thing is a joke a bad joke.

No worse than Shipping coal from China or South America, Gas from Russia ?

The problem is that there is an idea that it is actually better / greener than shipping coal, when it patently is not, and that coal stations are being converted and labelled as a renewable, when it is (at best) 'no worse than coal'.

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Should keep the childish braying quiet for a spell.

[PRTVR]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

PRTVR said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

As previously - look at any Weather forecast for the UK, Europe. Out 100miles to sea.

Is it ever still, everywhere at the same time ? No.

There is always wind blowing, in different places as the Low's and Highs pass over - if we have a spread across, you'll always have generation 'somewhere'

But having wind producing somewhere on the continent doesn't help, if it's still on the continent but not here we do not have excess to give away, you would need massive numbers of turbines or one coal fired power station, what makes more sense ?

Economic sense or other sense!

Generally folks aren't fans of big power stations being built near by, and the infrastructure they demand (trains / motorways) are not cheap.

When was the last coal fired power station built in the U.K?

Common sense and economic sense , expensive electricity costs jobs but does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, take the coal fire station that was closed down when alcan shut down the aluminium plant in Northumberland, the aluminium is still needed and still produced, probably from electricity from coal fired power stations, no change in CO2 production just the location of production.
A coal fired power station could be built on the old Redcar steel site, a deep water berth plus all the coal handling equipment is still there no train,trucks or complaints about the locations, it might actually improve the area
We need a reliable electricity supply, coal provides this over the variability of wind.

[durbster]

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-den...

Funny, but probably true in some cases here.

[zygalski]

durbster said:

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-den...

Funny, but probably true in some cases here.

This could be a PH N,P&E devout denialist:
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”

[PRTVR]

zygalski said:

durbster said:

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-den...

Funny, but probably true in some cases here.

This could be a PH N,P&E devout denialist:
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”

I thought we had moved on from this rubbish, but apparently not,
Nobody is denying that the climate changes, just how much can be attributed to a small change in a trace gas, but if it gives you a chuckle to ignore the fact, please carry on living in your fantasy land.

[robinessex]

CC due to us Humans is 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of sweet fk all. Call me back in a 1000 years, and I'll see if that correct!

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

durbster said:

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-den...

Funny, but probably true in some cases here.

This could be a PH N,P&E devout denialist:
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”

I thought we had moved on from this rubbish, but apparently not,
Nobody is denying that the climate changes, just how much can be attributed to a small change in a trace gas, but if it gives you a chuckle to ignore the fact, please carry on living in your fantasy land.

If you'd read it...

The Onion said:

Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

durbster said:

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-den...

Funny, but probably true in some cases here.

This could be a PH N,P&E devout denialist:
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”

I thought we had moved on from this rubbish, but apparently not,
Nobody is denying that the climate changes, just how much can be attributed to a small change in a trace gas, but if it gives you a chuckle to ignore the fact, please carry on living in your fantasy land.

If you'd read it...

The Onion said:

Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.

My response was to zygalski who was associating it to PH and the poster's within.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

My response was to zygalski who was associating it to PH and the poster's within.

Er, that doesn't change anything.

Put simply: if you don't think AGW is real, that article from The Onion is ridiculing you. Oh, and the marches yesterday were protesting against you too.

It may seem obvious to most but some don't seem to realise they're the ones being laughed at here.

[jjlynn27]

robinessex said:

You shouldn't be linking pictures that you don't understand. Maybe this will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plReQcO6sz0

[dickymint]

jjlynn27 said:

robinessex said:

You shouldn't be linking pictures that you don't understand. Maybe this will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plReQcO6sz0

For clarity..... NOBODY ON HERE DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE FFS

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

My response was to zygalski who was associating it to PH and the poster's within.

Er, that doesn't change anything.

Put simply: if you don't think AGW is real, that article from The Onion is ridiculing you. Oh, and the marches yesterday were protesting against you too.

It may seem obvious to most but some don't seem to realise they're the ones being laughed at here.

How strange, I would imagine most of the people protesting have little or no idea about the science of AGW, having discussed the subject with quite a few believers it always shocked me how little they actually understand when asked to explain how it works, they are also unwilling to listen to anything that conflicts with their beliefs,even when provided with a logical explanation.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

For clarity..... NOBODY ON HERE DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE FFS

Some do.

But that's beside the point. You deny human caused climate change which is what that video (and the protest) is about.

PRTVR said:

How strange, I would imagine most of the people protesting have little or no idea about the science of AGW, having discussed the subject with quite a few believers it always shocked me how little they actually understand when asked to explain how it works

What a bizarre argument - you could say that about absolutely any field of expertise. I can't say I know much about aerodynamics but I'm happy to accept that planes fly.

The question is: why don't you accept the findings of all the people who do know what they're talking about?

PRTVR said:

they are also unwilling to listen to anything that conflicts with their beliefs,even when provided with a logical explanation.

Not serious, surely. Every single objective source agrees with AGW, so how on earth can denying AGW be logical?

[jjlynn27]

dickymint said:

jjlynn27 said:

robinessex said:

You shouldn't be linking pictures that you don't understand. Maybe this will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plReQcO6sz0

For clarity..... NOBODY ON HERE DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE FFS

Watch that video again, and again, and try to comprehend it.

[sidicks]

durbster said:

Not serious, surely. Every single objective source agrees with AGW, so how on earth can denying AGW be logical?

Blatantly untrue. However I suspect you have a very strange interpretation of the word 'objective'.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 20:31

[grumbledoak]

I don't think it is interpretation. I just think the activists don't care about truth or science. Just results.

So we're in the right thread.

[dickymint]

jjlynn27 said:

Watch that video again, and again, and try to comprehend it.

I have and I do

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Every single objective source agrees with AGW

The gospel according to Schneider in action ^ ^.

Coolist turned warmist Schneider said:

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Schneider also said:

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Being objective, the data doesn't agree with agw so faith and simplified dramatic porky pies are needed.

Unless durbster or one of the faithful can point us to a visible causal human signal in global climate data. There's more chance of Corbyn being PM.

[durbster]

sidicks said:

durbster said:

Not serious, surely. Every single objective source agrees with AGW, so how on earth can denying AGW be logical?

Blatantly untrue. However I suspect you have a very strange interpretation of the word 'objective'.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 20:31

OK, back that up then; please show an objective source that doesn't accept AGW.

Edited by durbster on Sunday 23 April 21:32