Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

XM5ER said:

zygalski said:

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I / my career is not solely Offshore wind you do realise?
I am simply defending it as a subject line to the clarify where the braying audiences are making things up / misinformed-
I appreciate the concerns you raise however.

Well at least you've at last admitted to a vested interest.

Yep.
If I have a problem with my teeth, last person I'd go to for advice would be a dentist.
Vested interests doncha know

Dumb comparison.

A better comparison is a laser eye surgery salesman being asked about slight myopathy.

Yet odds on - the salesmen would still have a far greater understanding than the person asking the questions.

How else to counter the cheap alternative in favour of the expensive and risky option that appeals to the vanity of the individual.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

XM5ER said:

zygalski said:

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I / my career is not solely Offshore wind you do realise?
I am simply defending it as a subject line to the clarify where the braying audiences are making things up / misinformed-
I appreciate the concerns you raise however.

Well at least you've at last admitted to a vested interest.

Yep.
If I have a problem with my teeth, last person I'd go to for advice would be a dentist.
Vested interests doncha know

Dumb comparison.

A better comparison is a laser eye surgery salesman being asked about slight myopathy.

Yet odds on - the salesmen would still have a far greater understanding than the person asking the questions.

A far greater understanding of what?

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

When you say "expensive and risky option" - you are meaning Nuclear?

It's more expensive than Wind - check.
Failure of a Nuclear plant is riskier than a Windfarm - check.


Or off topic Eye Surgery ?

Can wind provide base load - no
Can wind provide reliable energy - no
Does it kill birds and bats (many belonging to protected species) - check

[zygalski]

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

[Phud]

zygalski said:

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

Please provide the proof of AGW.

Climate change and AGW are two different subject.

As for renewable s, it is interesting to see what is included in their costs against how legacy costs are cited, however please answer the AGW fact question.

[zygalski]

Phud said:

zygalski said:

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

Please provide the proof of AGW.

Climate change and AGW are two different subject.

As for renewable s, it is interesting to see what is included in their costs against how legacy costs are cited, however please answer the AGW fact question.

Pruitt said he believes AGW is a fact.
He said so the other day in his White House press conference when explaining his boss's reasons for quitting the Paris agreement.
Tsssk...
I thought you would be aware, being seemingly interested in the subject.

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am waiting for you to answer my question about about "The grid is forced to take wind energy when available at an inflated price" - more in line with the general discussions on the thread.

FITS fits the bill.

[Phud]

[/quote]
Pruitt said he believes AGW is a fact.
He said so the other day in his White House press conference when explaining his boss's reasons for quitting the Paris agreement.
Tsssk...
I thought you would be aware, being seemingly interested in the subject.
[/quote]

So as normal no proof, just regurgitating that a political person thinks AGW is fact.

[zygalski]

Well...
I am kind of assuming that Trump's main climate man has based his statement on the balance of probability after weighing all the evidence presented to him.

[Phud]

zygalski said:

Well...
I am kind of assuming that Trump's main climate man has based his statement on the balance of probability after weighing all the evidence presented to him.

\So to do this you would need proof, however nothing has ever been provided to back up any statement of AGW.

Lots of waffle, lots of selective announcements, but nothing to provide the proof of AGW, yet you accept a political dogma against proof?

Oh well each to their own.

[Ali G]

zygalski said:

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

Being pedantic - AGW is an hypothesis - not a fact.

And an hypothesis lacking much in the way of scientific evidence to support currently.

The inconvenient truth is that there are still people who will think for themelves and have the ability to form their own opinion - hence this thread!

[clyffepypard]

zygalski said:

Phud said:

zygalski said:

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

Please provide the proof of AGW.

Climate change and AGW are two different subject.

As for renewable s, it is interesting to see what is included in their costs against how legacy costs are cited, however please answer the AGW fact question.

Pruitt said he believes AGW is a fact.
He said so the other day in his White House press conference when explaining his boss's reasons for quitting the Paris agreement.
Tsssk...
I thought you would be aware, being seemingly interested in the subject.

Pruitt actually said “there's a warming trend, that climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure,” which is nothing like what you suggested he said.

Some folks either don't realise or cannot accept that what is in question is whether the warming will be CATASTROPHIC :-)
The fact you deliberately drop the Castastrophic part of CAGW above does not go unnoticed in your distorting of the facts, but nothing surprises me anymore on this thread :-)

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It seems strange to me your stance and I suspect the only possible acceptance of a WTG in the grand scheme of thing is it it simultaneously churned out £50 at the same time as producing zero emissions energy.

I understand you don’t like them - but perhaps take your personal emotion out of the subject.

to the point I am waiting for YOU to validate: “The grid is forced to take wind energy when available at an inflated price”
You've just linked to a consultant company that hooks up individuals / low volume Turbines - it does not address the real case of Power Generation for the Grid. A distraction if you will concede in the Renewables discussion.

The energy being ‘forced’ to the Grid is not sold at an inflated price is it ?- and is by the same companies producing electricity by other means generally (fossil)- the Centrica’s, SSE’s, RWE (nPower) and Iberdrola (Scottish Power), EDF - to name a couple here in the UK

So how is it a bad thing that they can supply the grid from their renewable energy sources instead of their finite source / fossil Power production on any given day when they are provided with the conditions to suit?
I am aware that Nuclear does not fall in to that category, but is pricing itself above Renewables.

A good but expensive back stop to the energy demands of the country. As I saw balanced energy.

The figures are the same as on OFGEN and they receive the FITS payments irrespective of whether the supply is needed (sometimes higher than FITS if the energy is required) . Payments are also made to shut off generation (all supplies can receive these payments to balance the grid though Wind does exceptionally well out of being paid to shut off) . This unreliability at the supply end causes additional cost, instability in the grid and is unnecessary. Cleaner coal, fracked gas and a couple of nuclear plants would meet our energy needs and make us self-reliant. Wind does nothing to help this, just causes more problems. The negative health effects of subsonic vibrations are only just being recognised in humans - how many whales will need to be washed up on the beaches before we check the effect of offshore?

[s2art]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It seems strange to me your stance and I suspect the only possible acceptance of a WTG in the grand scheme of thing is it it simultaneously churned out £50 at the same time as producing zero emissions energy.

I understand you don’t like them - but perhaps take your personal emotion out of the subject.

to the point I am waiting for YOU to validate: “The grid is forced to take wind energy when available at an inflated price”
You've just linked to a consultant company that hooks up individuals / low volume Turbines - it does not address the real case of Power Generation for the Grid. A distraction if you will concede in the Renewables discussion.

The energy being ‘forced’ to the Grid is not sold at an inflated price is it ?- and is by the same companies producing electricity by other means generally (fossil)- the Centrica’s, SSE’s, RWE (nPower) and Iberdrola (Scottish Power), EDF - to name a couple here in the UK

So how is it a bad thing that they can supply the grid from their renewable energy sources instead of their finite source / fossil Power production on any given day when they are provided with the conditions to suit?
I am aware that Nuclear does not fall in to that category, but is pricing itself above Renewables.

A good but expensive back stop to the energy demands of the country. As I saw balanced energy.

See http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/15031...

[zygalski]

Phud said:

\So to do this you would need proof, however nothing has ever been provided to back up any statement of AGW.

Lots of waffle, lots of selective announcements, but nothing to provide the proof of AGW, yet you accept a political dogma against proof?

Oh well each to their own.

You seem to think the Trump administration has a vested interest in perpetuating an AGW myth?
What evidence do you have to support that view?

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

XM5ER said:

zygalski said:

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I / my career is not solely Offshore wind you do realise?
I am simply defending it as a subject line to the clarify where the braying audiences are making things up / misinformed-
I appreciate the concerns you raise however.

Well at least you've at last admitted to a vested interest.

Yep.
If I have a problem with my teeth, last person I'd go to for advice would be a dentist.
Vested interests doncha know

Dumb comparison.

A better comparison is a laser eye surgery salesman being asked about slight myopathy.

Yet odds on - the salesmen would still have a far greater understanding than the person asking the questions.

A far greater understanding of what?

In the instance above - myopathy. But I think you knew that already.

The sales process and closing a deal for a vanity product maybe. Myopathy? Possibly but not necessarily.

You're a sales person on a target to keep your job and/or make most of your living on commission.

You know the "slight" Myopathy advice available is a grey area for decision making.

What do you do?

[zygalski]

clyffepypard said:

zygalski said:

Phud said:

zygalski said:

Nothing surprises me anymore in this thread....
Some folks here either don't realise or can't accept that the Trump administration knows AGW is a fact.
No surprise really that the brains on here can't get their stories straight on renewables, is it?

Please provide the proof of AGW.

Climate change and AGW are two different subject.

As for renewable s, it is interesting to see what is included in their costs against how legacy costs are cited, however please answer the AGW fact question.

Pruitt said he believes AGW is a fact.
He said so the other day in his White House press conference when explaining his boss's reasons for quitting the Paris agreement.
Tsssk...
I thought you would be aware, being seemingly interested in the subject.

Pruitt actually said “there's a warming trend, that climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure,” which is nothing like what you suggested he said.

Some folks either don't realise or cannot accept that what is in question is whether the warming will be CATASTROPHIC :-)
The fact you deliberately drop the Castastrophic part of CAGW above does not go unnoticed in your distorting of the facts, but nothing surprises me anymore on this thread :-)

How the sands of time shift.

First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.

Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

When you say "expensive and risky option" - you are meaning Nuclear?

It's more expensive than Wind - check.
Failure of a Nuclear plant is riskier than a Windfarm - check.


Or off topic Eye Surgery ?

I don't think he was but to answer you point.

Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.

It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.

Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.

[Ali G]

zygalski said:

How the sands of time shift.

First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.

Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?

Ritual sacrifice of virgins to Political classes to ensure Big Big Warmy starts up each morning.

[Countdown]

LongQ said:

I don't think he was but to answer you point.

Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.

It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.

Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.

"Our nuclear power stations are just TOO safe".... That's not an argument you hear every day....