Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
worth having a read of this. as much as i think trump is a bit of an arse there is nothing i could argue with in this statement. i have to admit had i been an american i would have voted trump purely on this one single issue. one thing is for sure, the man does not do virtue signalling .
“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.
“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.
“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.
“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.
“The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”
“Fourteen days of carbon emissions alone would totally wipe out the U.S. contribution to reduction by 2030”
“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord… could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”
“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.”
“We need all forms of available American energy or our country will be at grave risk of brown-outs and black-outs.”
“Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work… We’re going to grow rapidly.”
“No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
“Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, & across the world should not have more to say w/ respect to the US economy than our own citizens.”
“Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”
“It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal which protects the environment, our companies, our citizens.”
Scott Pruitt: “America finally has a leader who answers only to the people.” “This is an historic restoration of American economic independence.”
“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.
“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.
“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.
“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.
“The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”
“Fourteen days of carbon emissions alone would totally wipe out the U.S. contribution to reduction by 2030”
“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord… could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”
“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.”
“We need all forms of available American energy or our country will be at grave risk of brown-outs and black-outs.”
“Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work… We’re going to grow rapidly.”
“No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
“Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, & across the world should not have more to say w/ respect to the US economy than our own citizens.”
“Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”
“It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal which protects the environment, our companies, our citizens.”
Scott Pruitt: “America finally has a leader who answers only to the people.” “This is an historic restoration of American economic independence.”
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
(Come on - Daily f
king mail is your source? )
Secondary source?king mail is your source? )Link said:
According to research by the ornithological society SEO/Birdlife, each wind turbine kills between 110 and 330 birds a year.
This means that worldwide, wind turbines kill at least 22?million birds a year.
The RSPB has disputed these figures, insisting: ‘Our own research suggests that a well-located wind farm is unlikely to be causing birds any harm.’
The DM cites research independent of the DM, from SEO/Birdlife, while the RSPB can only cite their own. What a surprise.This means that worldwide, wind turbines kill at least 22?million birds a year.
The RSPB has disputed these figures, insisting: ‘Our own research suggests that a well-located wind farm is unlikely to be causing birds any harm.’
One dodgy source but t's not the DM.
The wind industry kills 22 million birds per year, and heaven only knows how many bats.
Then there are pensioners freezing to death over cold snowy winters, which were meant to be wet and mild.
Nice work if you can get it.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
(Come on - Daily fking mail is your source? )
Secondary source?king mail is your source? )Link said:
According to research by the ornithological society SEO/Birdlife, each wind turbine kills between 110 and 330 birds a year.
This means that worldwide, wind turbines kill at least 22?million birds a year.
The RSPB has disputed these figures, insisting: ‘Our own research suggests that a well-located wind farm is unlikely to be causing birds any harm.’
The DM cites research independent of the DM, from SEO/Birdlife, while the RSPB can only cite their own. What a surprise.This means that worldwide, wind turbines kill at least 22?million birds a year.
The RSPB has disputed these figures, insisting: ‘Our own research suggests that a well-located wind farm is unlikely to be causing birds any harm.’
One dodgy source but t's not the DM.
The wind industry kills 22 million birds per year, and heaven only knows how many bats.
Then there are pensioners freezing to death over cold snowy winters, which were meant to be wet and mild.
Nice work if you can get it.
In 2014 wind turbines were already killing more birds of prey in Scotland than deliberate poisoning or shooting,
Nice work if you can get it.
2013 article said:
It is now a year, however, since a report for the Renewable Energy Foundation by Prof Gordon Hughes, a former senior energy adviser to the World Bank, dropped what should have been a further huge bombshell into the energy debate.
Using official data from the UK and Denmark, Prof Hughes showed that we have now been building turbines long enough to see that, due to wear and tear on their mechanisms and blades, the amount of electricity they generate very dramatically falls over the years; so that a turbine that initially produces on average at 25 per cent of its "capacity" can degrade over 15 years to produce less than 5 per cent. With offshore turbines, the effects of weather and salt corrosion are so damaging that output falls from 45 per cent to barely 12 per cent.
This means, as Prof Hughes observes, that either we will have to build many more turbines than the Government is allowing for, to comply with our EU requirement to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020; or, within a decade, we will have to pay tens of billions of pounds more for most of those turbines to be replaced. I gather that Prof Hughes showed his research to David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who could not dispute his findings. So DECC is fully aware of this devastating flaw in its projections, but presses on with its insane policy regardless.
We're heading out of the EU as the USA heads out of Paris, excellent.Using official data from the UK and Denmark, Prof Hughes showed that we have now been building turbines long enough to see that, due to wear and tear on their mechanisms and blades, the amount of electricity they generate very dramatically falls over the years; so that a turbine that initially produces on average at 25 per cent of its "capacity" can degrade over 15 years to produce less than 5 per cent. With offshore turbines, the effects of weather and salt corrosion are so damaging that output falls from 45 per cent to barely 12 per cent.
This means, as Prof Hughes observes, that either we will have to build many more turbines than the Government is allowing for, to comply with our EU requirement to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020; or, within a decade, we will have to pay tens of billions of pounds more for most of those turbines to be replaced. I gather that Prof Hughes showed his research to David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who could not dispute his findings. So DECC is fully aware of this devastating flaw in its projections, but presses on with its insane policy regardless.
Not new news but a reminder why we will continue to need reliable cheap energy in future, not relying on expensive and intermittent renewables.
Applied Physics Research
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Abstract
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time periods will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From the early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years in 2055±11.
Buy Damart and candles if you're likely to be around for the (probable) fun ahead, but we need to keep a close watch on solar and T data.
Applied Physics Research
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Abstract
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time periods will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From the early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years in 2055±11.
Buy Damart and candles if you're likely to be around for the (probable) fun ahead, but we need to keep a close watch on solar and T data.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Jinx said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Removing the personal insults.
Would you like to validate your claim on this please, industry and politics suggest you are wrong. Please elaborate
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/Would you like to validate your claim on this please, industry and politics suggest you are wrong. Please elaborate
So much land wasted, so many birds and bats killed, so much cost for so little energy produced.
Please put some stats to your statements, as I always have.
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Jinx said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Removing the personal insults.
Would you like to validate your claim on this please, industry and politics suggest you are wrong. Please elaborate
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/Would you like to validate your claim on this please, industry and politics suggest you are wrong. Please elaborate
So much land wasted, so many birds and bats killed, so much cost for so little energy produced.
Please put some stats to your statements, as I always have.
......... and goodnight 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff