Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
And the canadian government at last is dumping greenwash
Senate kills climate change bill
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Wed, Nov 17 - 2:12 PM
OTTAWA — Opposition MPs and environmental activists say Canada is going into global-warming talks empty-handed after a majority of Conservative senators voted down a climate-change bill.
A snap vote in the Senate on Tuesday caught Liberals in the Upper House off guard, and not enough Grits showed up to save the bill from losing by a narrow margin of 43-42.
NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party introduced the bill, called it ``outrageous'' an unelected Senate can kill what he says is important legislation.
He said Canada now has nothing to show heading into a coming round of United Nations climate talks in Mexico.
``The government has no plan going into a conference on the future of the climate-change crisis in this country,'' he said.
``Canada will be one of the few, probably the only country, who has absolutely nothing. The only thing we had going for us was that the House of Commons had adopted the targets established by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists of the United Nations, who represent the best thinking globally.''
The bill — the Climate Change Accountability Act — had spent the last year or so bouncing between the House of Commons and its environment committee.
The Commons passed the bill in May and it went to the Senate for final approval.
The legislation calls for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
That's more stringent than the Harper government's goal of a 17 per cent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020, which is in line with the Obama administration's targets in the United States.
Delegates from nearly 200 countries will meet in the resort town of Cancun later this month and try to broker an international climate-change deal.
Environmentalists also decried the bill's defeat.
``As we head into the UN climate talks in Cancun later this month, it is unacceptable that Canada's only climate-change legislation has been defeated after years of majority support from our elected members of Parliament and their constituents,'' Graham Saul of the Climate Action Network Canada said in a statement.
Senate kills climate change bill
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Wed, Nov 17 - 2:12 PM
OTTAWA — Opposition MPs and environmental activists say Canada is going into global-warming talks empty-handed after a majority of Conservative senators voted down a climate-change bill.
A snap vote in the Senate on Tuesday caught Liberals in the Upper House off guard, and not enough Grits showed up to save the bill from losing by a narrow margin of 43-42.
NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party introduced the bill, called it ``outrageous'' an unelected Senate can kill what he says is important legislation.
He said Canada now has nothing to show heading into a coming round of United Nations climate talks in Mexico.
``The government has no plan going into a conference on the future of the climate-change crisis in this country,'' he said.
``Canada will be one of the few, probably the only country, who has absolutely nothing. The only thing we had going for us was that the House of Commons had adopted the targets established by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists of the United Nations, who represent the best thinking globally.''
The bill — the Climate Change Accountability Act — had spent the last year or so bouncing between the House of Commons and its environment committee.
The Commons passed the bill in May and it went to the Senate for final approval.
The legislation calls for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
That's more stringent than the Harper government's goal of a 17 per cent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020, which is in line with the Obama administration's targets in the United States.
Delegates from nearly 200 countries will meet in the resort town of Cancun later this month and try to broker an international climate-change deal.
Environmentalists also decried the bill's defeat.
``As we head into the UN climate talks in Cancun later this month, it is unacceptable that Canada's only climate-change legislation has been defeated after years of majority support from our elected members of Parliament and their constituents,'' Graham Saul of the Climate Action Network Canada said in a statement.
Very early days......
www.realclimategate.org
I thought I might as well jump into the blog debate first hand.
www.realclimategate.org
I thought I might as well jump into the blog debate first hand.
2 Points.
1. How is it even possible that a government, any government, thinks that chopping down tree's (eaters of Co2), and replacing them with windmills (even if they did generate the advertsied power) is a good idea? I find that story absolute un-believable, I'd laugh at the entire thought behind it, if it weren't so bloody stupid!!
2. We are very close to the next global meeting on MMuCC in Mexico and yet, the media have been very quiet about it. If we look back to the run-up to Copenhagen last year, the media, particularly the BBC was full of 5-6 articles a day on MMuCC.
Do we think the tide is finally turning?
1. How is it even possible that a government, any government, thinks that chopping down tree's (eaters of Co2), and replacing them with windmills (even if they did generate the advertsied power) is a good idea? I find that story absolute un-believable, I'd laugh at the entire thought behind it, if it weren't so bloody stupid!!
2. We are very close to the next global meeting on MMuCC in Mexico and yet, the media have been very quiet about it. If we look back to the run-up to Copenhagen last year, the media, particularly the BBC was full of 5-6 articles a day on MMuCC.
Do we think the tide is finally turning?
My cousin has a house in France and was telling me that when he flies into his local airport there is a large windfarm that he flies over. He noticed a few months ago that it appeared to have been abandoned, with turbine blades missing etc.
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down and were building another one a few miles away with a new government subsidy. So, for the hard of understanding (ie. a lot of warmists), the only reason these windfarms are being built is for the subsidies the operators get. According to all the figures I have seen the case for wind power as a reliable and consistent energy source is weak to say the least.
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down and were building another one a few miles away with a new government subsidy. So, for the hard of understanding (ie. a lot of warmists), the only reason these windfarms are being built is for the subsidies the operators get. According to all the figures I have seen the case for wind power as a reliable and consistent energy source is weak to say the least.
stevejh said:
My cousin has a house in France and was telling me that when he flies into his local airport there is a large windfarm that he flies over. He noticed a few months ago that it appeared to have been abandoned, with turbine blades missing etc.
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down and were building another one a few miles away with a new government subsidy. So, for the hard of understanding (ie. a lot of warmists), the only reason these windfarms are being built is for the subsidies the operators get. According to all the figures I have seen the case for wind power as a reliable and consistent energy source is weak to say the least.
Bryan Leyland gave an excellent talk on this subject at this year's Heartland conference. In essence, for wind or solar power to be effective, you need energy storage facilities. These storage facilities could be a pair or large resevoirs with a hydroelectric station. When the wind is plentiful, you use surplus energy to pump water to the high resevoir. When the wind is absent, you use the water to power the hydroelectric station.Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down and were building another one a few miles away with a new government subsidy. So, for the hard of understanding (ie. a lot of warmists), the only reason these windfarms are being built is for the subsidies the operators get. According to all the figures I have seen the case for wind power as a reliable and consistent energy source is weak to say the least.
He goes on to demonstrate that you could never, with today's technology, make a system like this effective. You would need vast overproduction facilities to compensate for the calm weather periods, and you would also need vast areas to site the resevoirs.
You can see the video of his 25 minute presentation here:-
http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-new...
I cannot link directly to the video, so you will have to scroll down the page to "Leyland M.Sc., Bryan". After you click his link you have to scroll back up the page to see the video.
Don
--
stevejh said:
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down
As soon as the subsidies stop, these things will be torn down for the scrap metal value. It's not like they generate any meaningful amount of electricity.Edited by grumbledoak on Thursday 18th November 12:59
grumbledoak said:
stevejh said:
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down
As soon as the subsidies stop, these things will be torn down for the scrap mental value. It's not like they generate any meaningful amount of electricity.turbobloke said:
Ace-T said:
Why the BBC cannot be trusted on 'Climate Change': the full story
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
Great read any time, thanks for the link...good job Delingpole was a bit restrained http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
Apologies if a repost, but I particularly liked this bit:
James Delingpole in the Telegraph Online said:
...no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC...
Trace 
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/16/german-scientis...
Partly translated from German
"It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of solar wind – Index “aa“ – was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the oscillation of cosmic radiation, which is controlled by Forbush– reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the solar wind and the delayed SO (K=0.8). The consequence of these observations is the postulation that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of proton-rays in the Earth ‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd sunspot-periods, reducing cosmic rays. This led to a reduction of cloudiness, increased solar rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark –Effect). As a consequence, dissolved CO2 was continuously emitted by the slowly warming ocean, providing fertilizer for the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning climate change could not be found. With the end of solar activity in 2006, a cold weather period has also started in the Southern Hemisphere.
In the paper’s conclusion, if I understand correctly, Bochert writes that the southern hemispheric temperature has followed the long-term average of the Southern Oscillation (SO) since 1980. During this warm period, the SO was enhanced by an additional especially strong solar-controlled heat source, which ended with the 23rd cycle."
As a consequence the global temperature of the Southern Hemisphere, like the Northern Hemisphere, shows a stagnation and has a downward trend since about 2009.
Borchert writes:
"Temperature increases also in the southern hemisphere from 1980 until 2009 are not caused by man, but by unusual solar activity. A control of the warmth development in the South Pacific region by increasing CO2 concentrations during this warming period is not discernible from the measured data".
And:
"CO2 is not climate-relevant; from ground-based measurements, climate change and warming cannot be shown to be caused by increasing Co2" .
And for the future:
"The weather on the earth will be characterised on average over the long-term by increased cloud cover and thus less solar radiation as a result of the slightly reduced cosmic radiation. Over the long term, a cold period is anticipated".
Borchert ends with:
"There’s no reason to expect or fear an anthropogenically caused climate catastrophe. All climate changes are due to natural causes. It does make sense to adapt to them".
chris watton said:
So, all of our taxes that pay for these 'green' subsidies are really lining the pockets of hundreds of Gordon Gecko wannabies?
Worse still, Al Gore and Jakendra Pachauri get richer every day. And, in the latter case, it's probably not royalties from his smutty book.Thanks for posting that up Pablo16v. It reinforces via the aa index that solar eruptivity (as opposed to just solar irradiance) is a major factor linking solar forcing to climate response through ocean atmosphere coupling. Yet still the IPCC and their Boy Scouts hold to their Ostrich Position over sound science from Svensmark regarding the CRF mechanism operating via LLC and albedo, and Bucha in terms of the auroral oval mechanism - at least PH has both from time to time
chris watton said:
grumbledoak said:
stevejh said:
Out of curiosity he made some enquiries and discovered that the government subsidy for this particular windfarm had finished so the company operating it had closed it down
As soon as the subsidies stop, these things will be torn down for the scrap mental value. It's not like they generate any meaningful amount of electricity.AJLintern said:
4MW expected from 27MW? That bad? I'd have expected perhaps 10-15MW average over a year which is bad enough for all that investment! When you consider a single generating set from an average power station produces around 500MW continuously you see what a complete waste of time these wind turbines are! 
none of it adds up - 27MW from 36 turbines (=small turbines) with 6000 ton bases..?sure.
Ali G said:
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bulls
t mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
If the mechanism proposed is that there is a bulk transfer of heat from the colder layer to the warmer layer whereby the cooler layer becomes cooler and the warmer layer becomes wrmer, then this would be a complete nonsense.
It's a classic example of baffling people with bulls
t. The warming is, of course, provided by the sun. Which is significantly warmer than the planet. So no issue with the 2nd law. As I keep saying the greenhouse gas theory no more violates the 2nd law than your actual greenhouse does.
don4l said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Heat/Energy/Photons/whatever are emitted by a cold layer in all directions. It is inevitable that some of these will radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground. (Unless the quantum bullst mechanism rears it's head again!).
You can do a little experiment to check if this is true.t mechanism rears it's head again!).All you need is a reading lamp, a sheet of white paper and a mirror!
Use the lamp to illuminate the paper. Hold the mirror above the brightly lit paper and reflect the photons back onto the paper (making sure that the lamp is not directly illuminating the mirror).
Does the paper get brighter? Why not? After all, these photons are the same as the ones, apart from their frequency, as the ones that you claim "radiation back and be absorbed by a warmer layer/ground".
Don
--
Which is probably why just about every torch and car headlamp has reflective backing behind the source of light.
Next?
Prof Prolapse said:
As I keep saying the greenhouse gas theory no more violates the 2nd law than your actual greenhouse does.
Yes, but my greenhouse has a glass roof that prevents convection. That's how greenhouses work.It's got f
k all to do with trace gases that are free to rise and fall. As in the atmosphere.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff