Express: It's the next ice age!
22 December 2010, 05:24 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
There isn't a problem, just a planet doing its stuff under massive influence from its nearby star. If you think we stand a chance against the force of either then you're more delusional than you sound ! This planet has been both colder than now, and hotter, and will wax and wane between the two until the Sun eventually burns us to a crisp. Sure, deforestation isn't a good idea, and reducing pollution and waste will help things, but quite how taxing everybody eases the situation I don't know. Plenty of people will get rich I don't doubt, whilst plenty more get poorer. Don't expect big business and politics to suffer under the changes though, just the average working man.
Global warming / cooling is a natural cycle which approximately happens every 10,000 years.
Usually it happens slowly and the biosphere adapts to the change in climate conditions. However this time around its not happening slowly, its happening extremely quickly - that is the problem. We are interfering with a natural cycle by massively increasing the release of greenhouse gases. The sudden increase in warming gasses will lead to sudden (in terms of the planets history) change in climate. The change isnt necessarily bad (depends where you live) its the rate at change, which doesnt allow for adaption.
Also, intensity needs to be considered, the concentrations of warming gasses may be higher and last for longer than they would do naturally. What effect will this have?
22 December 2010, 06:01 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2010, 06:36 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
And here is the real reason you don't 'believe' in global warming being an issue.
Global warming / cooling is a natural cycle which approximately happens every 10,000 years.
Usually it happens slowly and the biosphere adapts to the change in climate conditions. However this time around its not happening slowly, its happening extremely quickly - that is the problem. We are interfering with a natural cycle by massively increasing the release of greenhouse gases. The sudden increase in warming gasses will lead to sudden (in terms of the planets history) change in climate. The change isnt necessarily bad (depends where you live) its the rate at change, which doesnt allow for adaption.
Also, intensity needs to be considered, the concentrations of warming gasses may be higher and last for longer than they would do naturally. What effect will this have?
Global warming / cooling is a natural cycle which approximately happens every 10,000 years.
Usually it happens slowly and the biosphere adapts to the change in climate conditions. However this time around its not happening slowly, its happening extremely quickly - that is the problem. We are interfering with a natural cycle by massively increasing the release of greenhouse gases. The sudden increase in warming gasses will lead to sudden (in terms of the planets history) change in climate. The change isnt necessarily bad (depends where you live) its the rate at change, which doesnt allow for adaption.
Also, intensity needs to be considered, the concentrations of warming gasses may be higher and last for longer than they would do naturally. What effect will this have?
Take a look at another paper, as you've obviously not bothered to read and digest any of the material that I and others have linked to... http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/hpriem.htm ...
"... Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that considerable fluctuations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration did occur in the time interval covered by the ice cores. In addition, the oxygen isotope composition of the ice reflects fluctuations in the global temperature during the precipitation of the snow that in time conversed to the glacial ice. The fluctuations in the carbon dioxide concentration appear to track those in temperature to a remarkable degree, but a closer look reveals that the fluctuations generally leg behind those in temperature. Never does a changing carbon dioxide concentration precede that of temperature. ..."
So, the *warmists* are trying to say that nature is now doing something that she has never done before in over 4 billion years of history, through many, many warming/cooling cycles. Strangely, this is just one other piece of the puzzle. That puzzle, when complete, is a way to extort money from the proles, such as you and I, and hand it to the corporations/politicians/etc. Plus, of course, keep them in power!
If you think that these *global warming* conferences are all about stopping global warming I'd get my head out of the sand if I was you.
Dave
Oh, ps: Harry N.A. Priem was a Professor of Isotope and Planetary Geology - now retired, so is a little interested in this sort of thing .....
Last edited by hutton_d; 22 December 2010 at 06:38 PM.
22 December 2010, 10:54 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Umm. But it's not .......
Take a look at another paper, as you've obviously not bothered to read and digest any of the material that I and others have linked to... http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/hpriem.htm ...
"... Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that considerable fluctuations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration did occur in the time interval covered by the ice cores. In addition, the oxygen isotope composition of the ice reflects fluctuations in the global temperature during the precipitation of the snow that in time conversed to the glacial ice. The fluctuations in the carbon dioxide concentration appear to track those in temperature to a remarkable degree, but a closer look reveals that the fluctuations generally leg behind those in temperature. Never does a changing carbon dioxide concentration precede that of temperature. ..."
So, the *warmists* are trying to say that nature is now doing something that she has never done before in over 4 billion years of history, through many, many warming/cooling cycles. Strangely, this is just one other piece of the puzzle. That puzzle, when complete, is a way to extort money from the proles, such as you and I, and hand it to the corporations/politicians/etc. Plus, of course, keep them in power!
If you think that these *global warming* conferences are all about stopping global warming I'd get my head out of the sand if I was you.
Dave
Oh, ps: Harry N.A. Priem was a Professor of Isotope and Planetary Geology - now retired, so is a little interested in this sort of thing .....
Take a look at another paper, as you've obviously not bothered to read and digest any of the material that I and others have linked to... http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/hpriem.htm ...
"... Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that considerable fluctuations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration did occur in the time interval covered by the ice cores. In addition, the oxygen isotope composition of the ice reflects fluctuations in the global temperature during the precipitation of the snow that in time conversed to the glacial ice. The fluctuations in the carbon dioxide concentration appear to track those in temperature to a remarkable degree, but a closer look reveals that the fluctuations generally leg behind those in temperature. Never does a changing carbon dioxide concentration precede that of temperature. ..."
So, the *warmists* are trying to say that nature is now doing something that she has never done before in over 4 billion years of history, through many, many warming/cooling cycles. Strangely, this is just one other piece of the puzzle. That puzzle, when complete, is a way to extort money from the proles, such as you and I, and hand it to the corporations/politicians/etc. Plus, of course, keep them in power!
If you think that these *global warming* conferences are all about stopping global warming I'd get my head out of the sand if I was you.
Dave
Oh, ps: Harry N.A. Priem was a Professor of Isotope and Planetary Geology - now retired, so is a little interested in this sort of thing .....
All three are warming gasses, what do you think will happen if you suddenly release millions of years worth of stored warming gas at once rather than gradually, might get a little warm, maybe a little bit more quickly than normall.
TBH I rolled my eyes when I saw what you posted, typicall anti global warming stuff. Find a 'scientist' who will stand up and go against the trend, and what do you know, its not happening, the thousands of other scientists who say it is happening must be wrong.
Open your eyes, who would benefit from doing nothing about GW - oil companies, what do oil companies make - petrol.
This is all over simplified.
23 December 2010, 12:08 AM
#37
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mb
23 December 2010, 12:12 AM
#38
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ It's a perfect system that's been running fine for billions of years 
don't worry, be happy FFS ...
TX.
Edit - did I read somewhere that the ice at both Poles is increasing
don't worry, be happy FFS ...TX.
Edit - did I read somewhere that the ice at both Poles is increasing
Last edited by Terminator X; 23 December 2010 at 12:16 AM.
23 December 2010, 12:13 AM
#39
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I could not give a monkeys chuff about all this global warming stuff.
Scaremongering by the media is a joke. It's winter FGS. We have been lucky up to now, but last year and this is sickening. I am fed up with it now.
To think, I have been wishing for a white Christmas for years, did not expect it to go on this flaming long
Scaremongering by the media is a joke. It's winter FGS. We have been lucky up to now, but last year and this is sickening. I am fed up with it now.
To think, I have been wishing for a white Christmas for years, did not expect it to go on this flaming long
23 December 2010, 12:33 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
To be honest, I could not give a monkeys chuff about all this global warming stuff.
Scaremongering by the media is a joke. It's winter FGS. We have been lucky up to now, but last year and this is sickening. I am fed up with it now.
To think, I have been wishing for a white Christmas for years, did not expect it to go on this flaming long
Scaremongering by the media is a joke. It's winter FGS. We have been lucky up to now, but last year and this is sickening. I am fed up with it now.
To think, I have been wishing for a white Christmas for years, did not expect it to go on this flaming long
23 December 2010, 12:37 AM
#41
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 December 2010, 01:17 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
America, China, Russia, and India - top four polluters of the world. And yes its a bit of a pointless effort if you cant sign this lot up to GW agreements. This is what pisses so many realistic environmentalists off. We all know there is a problem, we all know (more or less) how to fix it, but certain countries have rather short sited views when it comes to the environment and the economy.
Thankfully Britain has been moving forward with its development of 'climate friendly' tech (eventually the fossil fuels will run out) and is now at the forefront along with our European neighbours of the renewable energy market - more jobs for us!
In the Long term, countries like America will end up shooting themselves in the foot, as they will be forced (due to lack of supply) to adopt a more renewable approach to their energy needs. They will be buying the tech of the pioneering companies which will be lining british comapany pockets with some good old fashioned £ sterling.
America is currently facing the same problem with stem cell research, but thats a different discussion for a different day.
Thankfully Britain has been moving forward with its development of 'climate friendly' tech (eventually the fossil fuels will run out) and is now at the forefront along with our European neighbours of the renewable energy market - more jobs for us!
In the Long term, countries like America will end up shooting themselves in the foot, as they will be forced (due to lack of supply) to adopt a more renewable approach to their energy needs. They will be buying the tech of the pioneering companies which will be lining british comapany pockets with some good old fashioned £ sterling.
America is currently facing the same problem with stem cell research, but thats a different discussion for a different day.
23 December 2010, 08:56 AM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
America, China, Russia, and India - top four polluters of the world. And yes its a bit of a pointless effort if you cant sign this lot up to GW agreements. This is what pisses so many realistic environmentalists off. We all know there is a problem, we all know (more or less) how to fix it, but certain countries have rather short sited views when it comes to the environment and the economy. ..
We have hundreds of years of coal still under the ground in the UK. And if you think renewables have a future, you are very sadly deluded. Take a look at the thread I started here ... https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...their-way.html ... I link to the government paper 'Electricity Market Reform' on which we are going to 'renew' our generating capacity. It says we are going to massively increase our reliance on windmills BUT, because the wind doesn't blow all the time, we are also going to build *backup* capacity which will be gas or coal or nuclear, which will be running 100% of the time 'just so that we will have power *if the wind doesn't blow* ...
This is the *plan* from the people who are supposedly *realistic environmentalists*. Plus this is OUR money they're spending!Why are they building backup capacity? Why can't they rely on 'windmills' as I'm sure you'd much rather they do? Guess what? In cold conditions people die without heat. Which has to come from generated power. In cold weather, quite often. the wind doesn't blow so no power would be generated. Oh dear, lots of dead old people. Is that what you want?
As for that last paragraph I'll link, again to http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm ... This shows where our power came from recently. Look down to Generation by Fuel Type. Wind is at 0.4%. Out of a total metered capacity of 2430MW, wind managed 223MW. And you want more renewables?
Get out of cloud cuckoo land and back to planet reality!
Dave
23 December 2010, 09:26 AM
#47
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with all the ****e we have put in to the atmosphere in the last 100 years, a low in sunspot activity may well produce a real lowering of temperatures. it shows how puny our "efforts" our. Our "power" to alter our environment is no power at all.
Now I know you will probably cry "weather not climate!", but the current cooling trend could last well into the middle of this century, so that's a cooling period that's longer than the warming period people try to use to back up global warming. Now what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the old saying goes, so either way, global warming is on very shaky ground.
Whatever happens, the planet will adapt. We may or may not, but all we can do is ride the train and see where it stops. We ain't driving it
Geezer
23 December 2010, 10:43 AM
#48
..... just making the point that you can not just say that because we have had 3 very cold winters in the UK, global warming (Global) does not exist -- it must be measured globally
it is just shoddy thinking and lacks any basis in science to say that because "my road has been frozen in December for the last 3 years GW does not exist"
it is just shoddy thinking and lacks any basis in science to say that because "my road has been frozen in December for the last 3 years GW does not exist"
23 December 2010, 11:21 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend found this article from back in 2000 which shows how massively inaccurate the hysteria has been (and continues to be)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
23 December 2010, 11:42 AM
#50
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, class, only virtual snow and virtual cold. Well, perhaps the *** who wrote that should come here today and feel some very real versions of both!
Geezer
Geezer
23 December 2010, 11:46 AM
#51
Spot on Kieran!
The south of England was supposed to be a mediterranean climate by 2015, with the present Med area a desert.
And the scientists that told us this cr@p?
The same ones who were peddling the new ice age and the total breakdown of society in the mid 70's.
It's to do with the sun's cycles, nothing else.
The very fact that they've changed it's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" really says just how duplicitous they are.........ANY change can now be attributed to us.
And if you point out that it's just getting colder so how does THAT work, you are accused of "Not understanding the difference between climate and weather" FFS!
The south of England was supposed to be a mediterranean climate by 2015, with the present Med area a desert.
And the scientists that told us this cr@p?
The same ones who were peddling the new ice age and the total breakdown of society in the mid 70's.
It's to do with the sun's cycles, nothing else.
The very fact that they've changed it's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" really says just how duplicitous they are.........ANY change can now be attributed to us.
And if you point out that it's just getting colder so how does THAT work, you are accused of "Not understanding the difference between climate and weather" FFS!
23 December 2010, 12:18 PM
#52
The future is cold and bleak......
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-a-new-ice-age
http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...he-met-office/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12042733
If anything, we should be encouraging global warming, that is, if that were possible!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-a-new-ice-age
http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...he-met-office/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12042733
If anything, we should be encouraging global warming, that is, if that were possible!
23 December 2010, 12:44 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
People should be asking themselves when you hear the words Global warming,what does it mean to you or make you think about.I would say what it means to many people in the UK is,excuse for the Government to bring another tax on us or to propose an increase on tax and it's just bull crap to the average working person.A guy working in a steel factory in Sheffield or somewhere,the only time he maybe has anything to do with global warming,is probably when he comes home of an evening flicks the news on and listens to a green tax being introduced,how a load of pointless wind mills are going to be increased on the landscape costing millions,or when he has to sell his 4x4 because of the green tax rise on them..
It don't mean to say that people are not aware of global warming or the environment,but it's no wonder the subject is losing it's credibility amongst people.
The Earth is not going to remain the same forever,it's designed to go through changes as it's done in the past.I probably see some truth that mankind has contributed towards GW i wouldn't totally dismiss that,remember those who don't study the subject indepthly only know from what they read in papers etc which has been blown over the top,and is soooo many mixed messages on the subject...
It don't mean to say that people are not aware of global warming or the environment,but it's no wonder the subject is losing it's credibility amongst people.
The Earth is not going to remain the same forever,it's designed to go through changes as it's done in the past.I probably see some truth that mankind has contributed towards GW i wouldn't totally dismiss that,remember those who don't study the subject indepthly only know from what they read in papers etc which has been blown over the top,and is soooo many mixed messages on the subject...
23 December 2010, 01:59 PM
#54
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got my award for most sensible post of the day
TX.
TX.
Spot on Kieran!
The south of England was supposed to be a mediterranean climate by 2015, with the present Med area a desert.
And the scientists that told us this cr@p?
The same ones who were peddling the new ice age and the total breakdown of society in the mid 70's.
It's to do with the sun's cycles, nothing else.
The very fact that they've changed it's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" really says just how duplicitous they are.........ANY change can now be attributed to us.
And if you point out that it's just getting colder so how does THAT work, you are accused of "Not understanding the difference between climate and weather" FFS!
The south of England was supposed to be a mediterranean climate by 2015, with the present Med area a desert.
And the scientists that told us this cr@p?
The same ones who were peddling the new ice age and the total breakdown of society in the mid 70's.
It's to do with the sun's cycles, nothing else.
The very fact that they've changed it's name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" really says just how duplicitous they are.........ANY change can now be attributed to us.
And if you point out that it's just getting colder so how does THAT work, you are accused of "Not understanding the difference between climate and weather" FFS!
23 December 2010, 04:27 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Wow, so many responses, who would of thought a bunch of fast gas drinking car enthusiasts would be against global warming.
Some of the posts made contain information which is just plain wrong. Sun spots are not the sole reason for our climate / weather conditions - look it up, search through the many books and journals on the subject.
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions.
Renewable energy is not limited to just wind, if you think that is the case, then you haven't done your homework and may as well sign off now. Tidal, wave, current, and hydro are other forms of renewable energy which Britian as an Island is yet to fully exploit. No one is saying that renewables will be soley responsible for energy production. however their percentage contribution to the National Grid is woefully low compared to what it could be with full government and private support. Nuclear is an ideal (climate wise) back up for when 'the wind isnt blowing'.
People keep talking about one or two 'papers' supporting their claims - what about the thousands which argue the opposite case? Science is always evolving, improving upon itself, yes predictions from the 60's and 70's may not be accurate by todays standards, but if you think this is enough of an excuse to write off 'climate change'....
Some of the posts made contain information which is just plain wrong. Sun spots are not the sole reason for our climate / weather conditions - look it up, search through the many books and journals on the subject.
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions.
Renewable energy is not limited to just wind, if you think that is the case, then you haven't done your homework and may as well sign off now. Tidal, wave, current, and hydro are other forms of renewable energy which Britian as an Island is yet to fully exploit. No one is saying that renewables will be soley responsible for energy production. however their percentage contribution to the National Grid is woefully low compared to what it could be with full government and private support. Nuclear is an ideal (climate wise) back up for when 'the wind isnt blowing'.
People keep talking about one or two 'papers' supporting their claims - what about the thousands which argue the opposite case? Science is always evolving, improving upon itself, yes predictions from the 60's and 70's may not be accurate by todays standards, but if you think this is enough of an excuse to write off 'climate change'....
23 December 2010, 05:00 PM
#56
Wow, so many responses, who would of thought a bunch of fast gas drinking car enthusiasts would be against global warming.
Some of the posts made contain information which is just plain wrong. Sun spots are not the sole reason for our climate / weather conditions - look it up, search through the many books and journals on the subject.
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions.
Some of the posts made contain information which is just plain wrong. Sun spots are not the sole reason for our climate / weather conditions - look it up, search through the many books and journals on the subject.
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions.
Renewable energy is not limited to just wind, if you think that is the case, then you haven't done your homework and may as well sign off now. Tidal, wave, current, and hydro are other forms of renewable energy which Britian as an Island is yet to fully exploit. No one is saying that renewables will be soley responsible for energy production. however their percentage contribution to the National Grid is woefully low compared to what it could be with full government and private support. Nuclear is an ideal (climate wise) back up for when 'the wind isnt blowing'.
as for the others, they go against the environmentalists, don't they?
People keep talking about one or two 'papers' supporting their claims - what about the thousands which argue the opposite case? Science is always evolving, improving upon itself, yes predictions from the 60's and 70's may not be accurate by todays standards, but if you think this is enough of an excuse to write off 'climate change'....
WHY???????
23 December 2010, 05:05 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Damn - alcazar beat me to it .... I'll have to type faster next time ..... :-)
Right. 'Look it up' you say. We have, that's why *we* say AGW is piffle (excuse the French!).
As for the second point in bold, it's funny how the *warmists* argue that any heatwave in summer is evidence of global warming but any *cold* event in winter is just weather ..
As for 'trends over hundreds of years', I mean come on. You're having a giraffe! The *warmists* are saying that temperature increases over a couple of decades are *clear evidence* of man made global warming yet you would have us believe that we need *colder temperatures* over centuries to be evidence to the contrary.
Quite agree on other forms of renewable. Trouble is the governments favourite is windmills. Bleddy thousands of them. And as for nuclear being a 'backup' for when the wind doesn't blow, you just aren't on this planet are you??? If you build a nuclear (or gas or coal) powered station it needs to be running 100% of the time to provide backup. If it is running 100% of the time WHY have the bleddy windmills in the first place, when they are inherently unreliable - see my previous link to ACTUAL power generation figures - or do you have a problem following links to REAL data? Should I have provided links to *thousands* of such sites to satisfy your scepticism? I say it lous -WHY PAY FOR TWO FORMS OF POWER GENERATION WHEN ONE WILL DO?? It is OUR money that is paying for these political vanity projects.
Also go and Google on why Germany and Denmark are GIVING up their windmill strategies because they are a) unreliable and b) cost a fortune.
Also Google the true *CO2* cost of providing windmills, for instance, the extremely large amount of concrete needed to mount it on. What happens to that when the windmill is removed? Guess what? It stays as a large *unnatural* lump in the ground, where previously there was none! Also check the damage done to bird like by these monstrosities.
Please link to some of them? All you have done is provide your opinion, obviously after reading these *thousands* of papers. If you link to them maybe they'll convince some of us?!
As for "one or two 'papers'" linked to, people link to certain papers to reinforce the point they are making. If you'd like links to *thousands* of papers I'm sure I could come up with them. But you could also use Google to expand your mind yourself so I'll leave that as an exercise for you ....
But the main point made above that you haven't addressed in the slightest is why, if AGW is real, is the solution ONLY to tax us more?
Dave
... Some of the posts made contain information which is just plain wrong. Sun spots are not the sole reason for our climate / weather conditions - look it up, search through the many books and journals on the subject.
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions. ...
You can't judge 'climate change' on a couple of cold winters - it would take a trend over hundreads of years before you could confidently make any assumptions, if you were purely looking at the weather conditions. ...
As for the second point in bold, it's funny how the *warmists* argue that any heatwave in summer is evidence of global warming but any *cold* event in winter is just weather ..
As for 'trends over hundreds of years', I mean come on. You're having a giraffe! The *warmists* are saying that temperature increases over a couple of decades are *clear evidence* of man made global warming yet you would have us believe that we need *colder temperatures* over centuries to be evidence to the contrary. ... Renewable energy is not limited to just wind, if you think that is the case, then you haven't done your homework and may as well sign off now. Tidal, wave, current, and hydro are other forms of renewable energy which Britian as an Island is yet to fully exploit. No one is saying that renewables will be soley responsible for energy production. however their percentage contribution to the National Grid is woefully low compared to what it could be with full government and private support. Nuclear is an ideal (climate wise) back up for when 'the wind isnt blowing'. ...
Also go and Google on why Germany and Denmark are GIVING up their windmill strategies because they are a) unreliable and b) cost a fortune.
Also Google the true *CO2* cost of providing windmills, for instance, the extremely large amount of concrete needed to mount it on. What happens to that when the windmill is removed? Guess what? It stays as a large *unnatural* lump in the ground, where previously there was none! Also check the damage done to bird like by these monstrosities.
... People keep talking about one or two 'papers' supporting their claims - what about the thousands which argue the opposite case? Science is always evolving, improving upon itself, yes predictions from the 60's and 70's may not be accurate by todays standards, but if you think this is enough of an excuse to write off 'climate change'....
As for "one or two 'papers'" linked to, people link to certain papers to reinforce the point they are making. If you'd like links to *thousands* of papers I'm sure I could come up with them. But you could also use Google to expand your mind yourself so I'll leave that as an exercise for you ....
But the main point made above that you haven't addressed in the slightest is why, if AGW is real, is the solution ONLY to tax us more?
Dave
23 December 2010, 05:15 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Maybe he needs a few millions in research grants to keep his university department going, and build himself a nice house in the countryside !
23 December 2010, 05:35 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A senior civil servant told me that everyone knows APD has nothing to do with green issues and everything to do with raising more taxes.
We're being screwed left, right and centre.
We're being screwed left, right and centre.