Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If only Your thread here was more Progressive,
and an alternative - more efficient effective variant was launched
Agreed, images of living in the past with windmills at 40% when we have moreand an alternative - more efficient effective variant was launched
efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
There is a problem using LCOE as a metric. In itself Its a piss poor way of comparing energy producing cabability. Comparing an intermittant non-dispatchable mechanism with a reliable dispatchable mechanism is worse than comparing apples and oranges. Or to put it another way, the value of electricity from windmills is a lot less than the value of electricity from (say) gas power plants electricity.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills ?
How are they relevant to this discussion- grinding grain.
Do you think the LCOE accounts for the performance of the individual recorded Met Data and how it will generate Power?
Or Do you think it is based of 100% production.
Serious question, please answer
Windmill became a generic term a long time ago. Do you really think that the Dutch built all those windmills for grinding grain?How are they relevant to this discussion- grinding grain.
Do you think the LCOE accounts for the performance of the individual recorded Met Data and how it will generate Power?
Or Do you think it is based of 100% production.
Serious question, please answer
LCOE is too simplistic a method for comparing windmills with (say) gas power plants for the reasons I gave.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Agreed, images? of living in the past with windmills at 40% when we have more
efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
You need to read up a little more. Who said they work 40% of the time.efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
Please validate your statement.
Still, solar PV is what, 9%, so makes wind look good.
And solar panels and windmills are built with fossil fuel energy, the former unlikely to even break even in their operational lifetime!
Electricity generation methods that produce power as weather dictates, not when it is needed, are completely useless - lose/lose - not there when you want it, there when you don't - add in storage, and the economics get even more insane/impractical.
Fossil fuels create wealth and jobs, solar and wind are parasitic and destroy far more jobs than they create, because they are ridiculously inefficient/bad engineering solutions to a non-existent problem, and not economically viable.
Coal 1 job, gas 2, solar PV 79 - to produce the same amount of energy - green energy scams are just another Soviet tractor factory!
PS. 'Windmill' is used to indicate the futility of using Medieval technology in the 21st century - obviously.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Tuesday 9th May 22:45
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
s2art said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Windmills ?
How are they relevant to this discussion- grinding grain.
Do you think the LCOE accounts for the performance of the individual recorded Met Data and how it will generate Power?
Or Do you think it is based of 100% production.
Serious question, please answer
Windmill became a generic term a long time ago. Do you really think that the Dutch built all those windmills for grinding grain?How are they relevant to this discussion- grinding grain.
Do you think the LCOE accounts for the performance of the individual recorded Met Data and how it will generate Power?
Or Do you think it is based of 100% production.
Serious question, please answer
LCOE is too simplistic a method for comparing windmills with (say) gas power plants for the reasons I gave.
For the sake of good order - what makes you a better judge of the metric to measure the method of costing the various power generating methods. Actually all of them.
You also have not answered the question I asked - please do.
There are many methods of creating metrics for comparison purposes. No engineer would simply utilise LCOE alone, its merely starting point.
What exactly do you need clarification on. I must warn you I am not a teacher.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Agreed, images of living in the past with windmills at 40% when we have more
efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
You need to read up a little more. Who said they work 40% of the time.efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
Please validate your statement.
Paddy_N_Murphy said
That's also why I added the link to the paper and as I've mentioned before - generally the output is assumed at 40% for wind farms once you take all things in to account.
So the greater the total available, that 40% becomes more and fills the requirements.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Agreed, images of living in the past with windmills at 40% when we have more
efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
You need to read up a little more. Who said they work 40% of the time.efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
Please validate your statement.
Paddy_N_Murphy said
That's also why I added the link to the paper and as I've mentioned before - generally the output is assumed at 40% for wind farms once you take all things in to account.
So the greater the total available, that 40% becomes more and fills the requirements.
I have never said that Wind Turbines only work 40% of the time. Which I am 100% certain is the intended sarcastic tone and assertion you were try to make, for the sake of a cheap point.
I said that the average output or performance often considered for an entire "Windfarm" site based over a year (so higher energy production in Winter 'generally' than summer, accounting for being off line for maintenance, etc) is circa 40% of maximum performance in a simplistic understandable term.
National Wind Watch said:
Wind turbines do not generate near their capacity. Industry estimates project an annual output of 30-40%
As to "see the difference" do you see that multiplication is distributive over addition? Do you even see the relevance?Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Agreed, images of living in the past with windmills at 40% when we have more
efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
You need to read up a little more. Who said they work 40% of the time.efficient electricity production methods available are backward,
Would you accept a car that would only work 40% of the time ?
Please validate your statement.
Paddy_N_Murphy said
That's also why I added the link to the paper and as I've mentioned before - generally the output is assumed at 40% for wind farms once you take all things in to account.
So the greater the total available, that 40% becomes more and fills the requirements.
I have never said that Wind Turbines only work 40% of the time. Which I am 100% certain is the intended sarcastic tone and assertion you were try to make, for the sake of a cheap point.
I said that the average output or performance often considered for an entire "Windfarm" site based over a year (so higher energy production in Winter 'generally' than summer, accounting for being off line for maintenance, etc) is circa 40% of maximum performance in a simplistic understandable term.
So in simplistic terms - a Windfarm of 100 Turbines each with a maximum rating of 5 MW will not produce 500MW/h x 24h x 365 days. (4.3GW a year) .It would produce nearer 1.75GW.
And - this is also the crucial part - this is the site output that is considered by the designers / owners / utilities when weighing it all up to calculate their sites LCOE. So in other words - its factored in
And is seemingly looking to still be cheaper than the new build Hinkley Point
As I mentioned before. Your car may have a 300hp power output. Do you use it at '300hp' / Maximum performance at all times ?
(ever?)
A 5MW turbine is rated so that when conditions allow, it harnesses the wind energy for want of a better description - and outputs 5MW of electricity.
That is why your statement needed correcting.
Do you see the difference?
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
0.4 gw wind production, Hinkley point may look expensive but it will keep the lights on, something wind will not.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
TurboBloke - your memory is as poor as your subject knowledge.
I was led to believe it was clear on 8th May
From somebody who can't even remember what they posted, that's rich, like wealthy landowners with turbines on their grassy plains.I was led to believe it was clear on 8th May
Your view of your own importance is as inflated as your view of the benefits of renewables. Presumably a vested interest is at work.
Anyway...to get back to where your understanding fails you...
1
Take a windfarm where the windymills are 'working' at 40% capacity (generous) for 100% of the time. In other words, they 'work' all of the time. This is for the sake of discussion, of course, since that situation doesn't exist. Also to help with typing let's assume there are 5 windymills in the farm. The number doesn't matter but 5 saves me more typing.
2
Take another windfarm where there are also 5 windymills but they are operating at 100% capacity for 40% of the time. In other words they do all they can when working, but they're only working 40% of the time. There will of course be situations inbetween these examples but they serve a purpose.
1
1 x (0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4)
2
0.4 x (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
These two situations are essentially equivalent, meaning PRTVR was correct and your armwaving waffle was a waste of time.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR,
Please ignore the above (facetious, and irrelevant) calculation offered - his simplistic approach unsurprisingly does not capture the subject.
On the basis that LongQ has 'vetted' the Catapult as a point of reference, perhaps page 9 of the following document for the Crown Estate might helpfully explain better that the misdirection offered by the resident troll.
.
Please ignore the above (facetious, and irrelevant) calculation offered - his simplistic approach unsurprisingly does not capture the subject.
On the basis that LongQ has 'vetted' the Catapult as a point of reference, perhaps page 9 of the following document for the Crown Estate might helpfully explain better that the misdirection offered by the resident troll.
.
Resident popper of green delusional buibbles more like.
The general example I gave shows clearly that what PRTVR said was correct in terms of the numbers.
If basic skill levels across the renewables industry are reflected in what we see from you then the country's predicament is worse than previously thought.
According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, one of the balancing tactics used by the National Grid involves paying wind farm operators to switch off when it's windy.
This cost is called a constraint payment. In 2015, UK consumers were milked to the tune of £90 million to pay subsidy-driven wind farms to switch off.
The amount of UK wind that is constrained is growing with the level of renewables penetration. At 10% wind penetration, 6% of available wind power available is constrained.
Is that cost an irrelevant decimal % of the market? If so then we as a country accept £90 million being spent in only one year to pay heavily subsidised companies to not do what they are established to do is reasonable.
Soviet economics strikes (!) again. £90 million, in one year only, was transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich in order to sustain an unsustainable failure.
It's an ill wind.
This cost is called a constraint payment. In 2015, UK consumers were milked to the tune of £90 million to pay subsidy-driven wind farms to switch off.
The amount of UK wind that is constrained is growing with the level of renewables penetration. At 10% wind penetration, 6% of available wind power available is constrained.
Is that cost an irrelevant decimal % of the market? If so then we as a country accept £90 million being spent in only one year to pay heavily subsidised companies to not do what they are established to do is reasonable.
Soviet economics strikes (!) again. £90 million, in one year only, was transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich in order to sustain an unsustainable failure.
It's an ill wind.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Still, solar PV is what, 9%, so makes wind look good.
Coal 1 job, gas 2, solar PV 79 - to produce the same amount of energy - green energy scams are just another Soviet tractor factory!
By the way - the PV industry probably has the greatest opportunity to reduce its effective LCOE due to the nature of the componentry and industrial approach to production.Coal 1 job, gas 2, solar PV 79 - to produce the same amount of energy - green energy scams are just another Soviet tractor factory!
Compare the technology and advancements in the Microchip as an equivalent to the technology and advancements to the PV.
RAM ten years ago? Today ? what has changed in the factory, production, manpower, delivery, packaging costs that made the 32MB usb stick back then, versus the 64GB or more USB stick today ?
Nothing much in reality. Technology advancements, R&D are essentially all that has changed, and more than likely the price of a 64GB USB stick today versus the 32MB or yesteryear is cheaper unit for unit - never mind MB for MB.
Developing that to the PV industry, the deployment and maintenance of PV Energy, comparatively speaking to wind, coal, nuclear - anything - is peanuts. The FEED and optimisation of the PV cells themselves is an easy win.
Of course - deployment in the UK is not necessarily a viable power source, but perhaps if you'd like to think of the bigger, broader picture you could understand that the soundbite and bitterness you have for the energy source is, unsurprisingly, ill informed.
(it would help us understand more your views if you back up the figures you gave, with viable sources. )
dickymint said:
Ok I'll bite
"cheaper Offshore Wind source"
"cheaper Offshore Wind source"
Now there's talk of turning off conventional power - when the turning off is purely because the Grid decides to do so....the fuel is still there to be used so conventional power is capable of being switched back on again, whereas nobody in the renewables industry has yet perfected a technique for making the wind blow (but not blow too hard!) when it's meteorologically calm.
According to Wind Watch numbers, from monitoring over a period of 83 days, wind power produced 10% or less of capacity on 12 of those days. The monitoring took place during a time when the UK might be expected to have a bit of wind parping about the place (autumn).
Equally, when it's too windy, even John Presclot couldn't reduce wind strength at will, no matter how quickly he served those G&Ts or how much tax he levied on car owners.
Those types of intermittency and uncontrollability situations don't arise with conventional power generation as the fuel contains energy all the time and the plant simply needs to be switched on to the required supply level.
It will come as no surprise to hear (again) that the Head of Information for the West Denmark Transmission Authority compared the operation of the Danish electricity network to driving a giant articulated truck with no accalerator and no steering wheel. Even the brakes have to be used at times (too windy) rather than only selected.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
On the basis that LongQ has 'vetted' the Catapult as a point of reference, perhaps page 9 of the following document for the Crown Estate might helpfully explain better that the misdirection offered by the resident troll.
Generation figures. Not Algebra.
:https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5462/ei-offshore-wind-operational-report-2016.pdf
<snip>
It also conveniently highlights the point that I have been trying to elude to the soundbite types on this thread, that generally speaking wind does not stop in its entirety.
Fortunately, the wind blows harder in the winter months when our power requirements are higher
I do however agree with the message seen by the observation of the Gridwatch - a mixed power resource is a requirement to fill in the shortfalls of the cheaper Offshore Wind source.
Paddy,Generation figures. Not Algebra.
:https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5462/ei-offshore-wind-operational-report-2016.pdf
<snip>
It also conveniently highlights the point that I have been trying to elude to the soundbite types on this thread, that generally speaking wind does not stop in its entirety.
Fortunately, the wind blows harder in the winter months when our power requirements are higher
I do however agree with the message seen by the observation of the Gridwatch - a mixed power resource is a requirement to fill in the shortfalls of the cheaper Offshore Wind source.
Just for clarity I would not claim to have "vetted" the Catapult information thus far.
I'm merely suggesting that the source seems to match the numbers you quoted and therefore likely represents a good starting point for further consideration and link discovery.
The Crown Estates document, which I did re-discover, seems to be, basically, a sales pitch to likely investors suggesting they coould have a great return on thier investment when compared to other locations if they choose to go with a development from which Crown Estates can take revenue.
In the main that seems to be touting the idea that there is a greater possibility of a good return offshore, due to higher and more persistent wind levels and, thus far historically with a little time to go, subsidies too, if they go offshore. However I have no doubt there are some nuances in the wording that would be further discussed in private rather than in public. There always are. Commercial confidentiality and all that.
There are plenty of assessments around that point out the details of problems with the level of wind energy availability and it is a subject for discussion (having been fully accepted as a potential issues) by both promoters of and objectors to an extensive wind penetration being pretty much the only "policy" of governments as their "solution" to reducing "carbon" based generation. (i.e. coal to star with, gas to follow if possible within a generation.)
There are those that argue that a mix of Wind and solar over a very wide area and with suitable interconnections in what would be a complex grid would be fine and ensure that electricity generation can always be satisfied across the entire wide area no matter what weather conditions are prevailing at any time.
Given out current reliance on dependable and adequate generation of electricity for our lives to operate at all - something that seems likely to be ever more important if proposed future energy policies are to be realised, it seems wise to consider the proposals from several angles.
The consideration should include but not be limited to;
- technical practicality based on what currently exists and what might reasonably be expected to develop in the very foreseeable future.
- the political likelihood of a working multinational, multi-regional "plan" being feasible in the required time scale.
- how to cover and emergency shortfall in supply. There has not yet been a year, afaik, when the entire area of Europe (to take an example) has not been subjected to either extreme storminess (requiring generation to be curtailed) or extreme lack of wind (meaning nothing much is being generated) over multi-day periods. In an ever more electricity dependent future plan that is a high risk to accept and recovery from any major failure will more than likely have extreme social consequence over weeks rather than days.
- how to ensure that the above scenario is not critically disruptive. i.e. the investment cost of backup generation plant (or some sort of storage facility) and its continuing maintenance.
A few weeks back I posted a link to a discussion about a report from a clearly Pro renewables source that set out to describe how Europe might be able to become a 100% renewables sourced electricity generation zone by, iirc, 2050.
http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-e...
This link is to the post in which the people who generated the report respond to questions and critique. As I recall there were about 3 prior posts in the week or two before this one that should be easy enough to find.
There are a number of similar reports around and all discussion come to the same conclusions that the theory and the practicality of the solutions are extremely unlikely to match in the proposed periods.
From memory ( I really should be doing something else right now so I'll come back to it later) the "solution" was to build and maintain a wind capacity base that could function for Europe (at least most of the time with only a couple of gaps per year) an that required something like 2 to 3 times the potential demand as a target output capacity (output not turbine rating as I recall) in order to deliver against most, but not guaranteed to be all, low output periods. On the current life expectancy that entire "fleet" would need to be replaced every 20 to 25 years. Or every 30 years if one accepts the basis of some of the most recent LCOE calculations.
The trouble with LCOE taken in isolation as a measure of potential success of a strategy is that whilst it is meaningful for plant that can generate on demand subject to fuel availability it is less useful for intermittent supplies which merely become disruptive.
Wind could have an LCOE of £0 but if alternative source of electricity production are required to be available, intermittently, when the zero priced source is not delivering they will still have a cost that needs to be covered and maintenance that needs to be undertaken and a workforce to keep them ready to be used on demand.
As the "free", but not reliably available, service becomes favoured, thus making existing plant investment less economic or, indeed, uneconomic whether by political intent or commercial pressure, the LCOE of the backup facilities heads in the other direction. So plant is closed and no new plant is built - unless Government determines there is a social need to cover periods of low or no generation from renewables and agrees to subsidising non-renewable plant .... and so the vicious circle of overpriced energy develops with consumers of all types ending up paying a lot more for their energy that they would need to on the basis of .... what?
What is the real rationale?
CO2 reduction? Indeed URGENT CO2 reduction to avoid a "tipping point"?
Pray tell me how early closure and demolition of existing facilities, money spent, CO2 already expended in construction work, makes sense?
How is CO2 being immediately reduced by making billions of tons of steel and pouring huge amounts of concrete or running hundreds of "dirty" marine diesel ships and boats to build wind turbine facilities (and the distribution systems to go with them) right now?
What will be the perpetual overhead of entirely replacing the "fleet" every 20 years or so? I'm thinking both fiscal and CO2 overhead here.
To put this in very simple terms before I have to head off to do something else ...
In ones everyday life if one was investing for the future with a view to getting the best day to day real usage from the investment with the longest life expectancy and the best end of investment value, would one buy house or a new car (especially a diesel car ....)?
And back to my question of some weeks ago.
If "success" if defined as adding 100,000 units of expensive additional overhead in order to deliver the same or less product, why do most commercial organisations operating without any form of subsidy or expectation of Government support, seek to keep headcount under control and as low as possible rather than expanding and increasing prices?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 11th May 03:12
UN examines fossil fuel influence in climate talks process
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3986...
Campaigners say there should be greater scrutiny of industry bodies that are involved in UN climate talks.
Environmental groups allege that fossil fuel industries are funding a number of business and industry participants in these talks.
These groups should be restricted, say the campaigners, because they say their goal is to slow down or derail progress.
Business representatives say that the discussion is an attempt at censorship.
At this meeting in Bonn, the UN has convened a special workshop on the role of observer organisations that make up a significant proportion of the attendees at these events.
Some countries including India, China, Indonesia and Ecuador are calling for clearer and tighter rules around potential conflicts of interest....continues
The blood audacity of the CC and AGW crowd! Perfect angels are they, no skulduggery by them? I think there are more skeletons in the cupboard on their side, and blatant lies, false/bent statistics, probably fraud and much more that is also worthy of critical examination. Anyone got a bin full of dodgy e-mails ? False accounts ? Dubious expenses? Dubious CC reports? I could go on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3986...
Campaigners say there should be greater scrutiny of industry bodies that are involved in UN climate talks.
Environmental groups allege that fossil fuel industries are funding a number of business and industry participants in these talks.
These groups should be restricted, say the campaigners, because they say their goal is to slow down or derail progress.
Business representatives say that the discussion is an attempt at censorship.
At this meeting in Bonn, the UN has convened a special workshop on the role of observer organisations that make up a significant proportion of the attendees at these events.
Some countries including India, China, Indonesia and Ecuador are calling for clearer and tighter rules around potential conflicts of interest....continues
The blood audacity of the CC and AGW crowd! Perfect angels are they, no skulduggery by them? I think there are more skeletons in the cupboard on their side, and blatant lies, false/bent statistics, probably fraud and much more that is also worthy of critical examination. Anyone got a bin full of dodgy e-mails ? False accounts ? Dubious expenses? Dubious CC reports? I could go on.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Please don't unless you want to substantiate accusations
Very true... however the same could be said on the https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/sites/default/f... that is linked in the puff piece:examples:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents 3 million American businesses, making it the largest business organization in the world.48 The Chamber is funded by major corporate polluters and is currently receiving millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil. Even when directly asked, its executives have not admitted that human activity is the cause of climate change. The Chamber has criticized both the targets set out in the Paris Agreement as well as the measures proposed to meet them, and yet it is still granted a seat at the table at the UNFCCC. Further, it does nothing to promote the cutting of emissions and has aggressively sought to stop domestic climate policies in their tracks.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) represents 6.5 million members in 130 countries.96 It is the “business ‘focal point’ for the U.N. climate talks.”97 It is governed by the World Council, a group of its member business executives,98 and is made up by sub-chapters, or national committees, from around the world. Even though it is governed by the very individuals that are in charge of ensuring that the fossil fuel industry continues to grow its profits, the ICC is an admitted observer of the UNFCCC. It publicly calls for urgent action on climate change and has praised the Paris Agreement, but its track record shows that its priorities and recommendations operate on the premise of “business first, everything else second.” As an observer to the UNFCCC, it offers corporations around the world a way to directly influence climate policy efforts, leaving the door wide open for corporate interest to continue to interfere in the U.N.’s climate proceedings.
Really? So bodies representing Business may have a 'conflict of interest' which may include 'those with vested interests accountable for their attempts to unduly influence and undermine climate policy'. Alternative view: that they are organisations representing the views of their members. That may include a varying spectrum of views of their membership.
And That's Alright. Really it is. And even if it wasn't, what they are being called out for is failing to fall in line with the group think. Seriously 'business first, everything else second'?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I heard some of the CEO's of the Tobacco companies says that there is absolutely no link whatsoever between Smoking and Lung Cancer.
I was waiting for that one. The passive smoking thing has been given the old heave ho though. How about there's no such thing as human mad cow disease. Oh hang on, yes there is ! Government this time. Prooves nothing of course.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I heard some of the CEO's of the Tobacco companies says that there is absolutely no link whatsoever between Smoking and Lung Cancer.
That's an interesting one, albeit a well worn discussion, from a number of points of view.Lung cancer, an illness of older people usually, affects some people very young, and some people never despite being heavy smokers for most of their lives. For the majority it could be claimed to perhaps knock a few years off an ever increasing life expectancy and they amy see that as a problem or not, depending on their own view of expectancy.
Smokers suffer higher life insurance premiums or lower payouts (the Insurance industry likes those games) but on the up side a healthy retiree will be offered a lower annuity payment than a smoker because their life expectancy is, in the opinion of actuaries, longer and the "invested" cash has to work harder and last longer if one is expected to live longer even if there is no guarantee that one will have an extended life span.
In their life times the average smoker in many countries, notably the UK, will have provided significant additional tax income compared to a non-smoker, all other factors being equal. In addition they are, one assumes, not expecting extended life spans to be part of their future despite society's seemingly endless obsession with longer or shorter life spans being indicative of something.
So there are no guarantees and down sides and a few upsides all around. In addition people who have never smoked may be diagnosed with ling cancer before they pass away - so smoking is not a sole cause either.
Nevertheless there are few who would argue these days that the statistics used to make the statement about the link nearly 60 years ago were not notably "robust" compared with most statistical results. They also had the benefit of being something that could be re-examined frequently in subsequent decades based on real information reasonably accurately recorded.
Would that all even vaguely relate "health" policy decisions, which seem to stretch deep into climate change territory these days with the concomitant relationship to taxation, had anything close to the level of statistical justification that the tobacco epidemiologist were able to derive and justify.
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 10th May 17:07
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Perhaps a simile drawn to whether Man causes Climate Change?
What smoking ,inhaling into your lungs a vapour that contains tar and various other nasty things, or a colourless inert gas that is crucial for life on earth as part of photosynthesis, similar? Would you like to explain.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff