BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 180 181 182 183

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.
By Adam Piggott - XYZ.NET.AU
February 7, 2017

quote:
It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?

I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.

But money talks and bulls— walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.
...
Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the centre of the table and said, “all in,” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out, but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear-based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda, we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you any more. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse.
...
And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?

You can all go f— yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin.

You’re welcome.

http://www.xyz.net.au/dear-cli...ever-forget-forgive/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Letter: Climate-change deniers are playing with our lives
First Published Dec 28 2016

"Our climate is changing, which is resulting in more extreme weather. Unprecedented floods in Louisiana were followed by extreme drought, devastating fires and 14 deaths in Tennessee. Property losses topped tens of millions of dollars.

It is naïve to think that climate-related disaster won't affect Utah. Utah taxpayers and homeowners should care about the mounting costs of fighting fires and mitigating floods resulting from climate change. Utahns will indirectly help pay for Southeast fires because massive amounts of federal dollars have already been spent and will continue to pour into recovery for the affected states. As most property owners are insured by companies that do business across the country, rates in Utah will go up to compensate for the losses incurred paying claims in other states.

While the incoming Trump administration promises to undo U.S. progress to counter climate change, Canada's federal government and most of the provinces agreed to fight climate change, pledging to reduce their carbon output by 30 percent below 2005 levels before 2030.

It is unconscionable to allow climate change deniers to populate the next administration's Cabinet in the U.S. They are playing with our money and our lives. Oppose Donald Trump's climate-change denier nominations.

Jean M. Lown"






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Australia’s Renewable Energy Target Already Costing $3 billion a Year, with Much Worse to Come
February 12, 2017


Australia’s economic hopes go up in smoke.

***

With fear, loathing and recriminations playing out in Canberra about South Australia’s electricity debacle and the skyrocketing power prices mass blackouts and routine load shedding its obsession with wind power has delivered, Sabine Schnittger and Brian Fisher of BAEconomics have thrown the spotlight back on the Federal government’s family, job, growth and business killer: the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target.

As STT has repeatedly pointed out, the LRET operates as a $3 billion a year tax on all Australian electricity consumers, designed to be funnelled to wind power outfits as a subsidy: the largest single industry subsidy scheme ever in the history of the Commonwealth.

We’ll start with this wrap up from The Australian.

Bill to prop up green power hits $3 billion a year
The Australian
Simon Benson
6 February 2017

The true cost of subsidising ­renewable energy generation is estimated to have almost doubled since 2011.

Taxpayer subsidies to meet state and federal renewable energy targets have reached $3 billion a year and include spiralling hidden subsidies paid for by business and household electricity customers which go unreported in government balance sheets.
more at:
https://stopthesethings.com/20...-much-worse-to-come/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump
by Joe Ryan, Chris Martin, and Jim Polson
23November,2016, 10:01 am AEST

On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour.
In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour.
Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal.

Environmental rules and government subsidies are no longer the key drivers for clean power. Economics are.

That’s why Donald Trump will have limited influence on the U.S. utility industry’s push toward renewable energy, according to executives and investors. Companies including NextEra Energy Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and others that invest billions in power plants are already moving forward with long-term plans to generate electricity with cleaner and more economic alternatives.







 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Australian fossil fuel subsidies put at $5.6bn a year in new report
By Sophie Vorrath on 12 November 2015

As the Prime Minister heads to Turkey to attend this weekend’s G20 Summit in Antalya, a new international report has revealed that Australia is still subsidising fossil fuel production to the tune of a massive $A5.6 billion a year.

The report, ‘Empty promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production’, also highlights how Australian companies have received billions of dollars from other G20 governments to develop liquefied natural gas sites.

And it notes that Australia also funds the industry with a further $A292 million ($US262 million) a year in public finance, as it expands fossil fuel production on multiple fronts.







 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
[Q Big Grin UOTE]Originally posted by Tilly:
Economics to Keep Wind and Solar Energy Thriving With Trump
by Joe Ryan, Chris Martin, and Jim Polson
23November,2016, 10:01 am AEST

On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour.
In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour.
Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal.

[[/QUOTE]

Yee Haw Roll Eyes Big Grin. Send me to the website where I can get a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks. That would be awesome.

Last time I looked, big windpower was around a buck/KWHR (1 Meg = $1,000,000) and solar was around 4 bucks.

You really should not be reading fake news.

Bill


91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten
89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces)
84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky)
94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it)
 
Location: Manotick, Ontario Canada | Registered: July 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Yee Haw Bill,

quote:
Originally posted by Bill McD:
Yee Haw Roll Eyes Big Grin. Send me to the website where I can get a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks. That would be awesome.
Yee Haw Roll Eyes
Don't recall anyone saying that you could "get a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks" Yee Haw Roll Eyes Big Grin
You probably need to go back and re-read the article. Yee Haw Roll Eyes Ride 'em Cowboy Eek



quote:
Last time I looked, big windpower was around a buck/KWHR (1 Meg = $1,000,000)
Yee Haw, you better have another look at your maths here! Roll Eyes Ride 'em Cowboy Big Grin


quote:
You really should not be reading fake news.
You mean like the ones Mike uses! Roll Eyes Yee Haw Cool






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
On the plains of West Texas, new wind farms can be built for just $22 a megawatt-hour . In the Arizona and Nevada deserts, solar projects are less than $40 a megawatt-hour. Compare those figures with the U.S. average lifetime cost of $52 for natural gas plants and about $65 for coal.


Maybe its my Canadian perspective but I read this as being able to construct a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks. Please enlighten me.

As far as the math, I stand corrected. Large wind farm prices run around a dollar per watt and Solar farms are now down to around 4 bucks per watt, not kilowatt. I guess I was so excited to learn that I could get a 1 meg wind turbine for what amounts to an expensive lunch that my math went out the window. Yee Haw Big Grin

Bill


91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten
89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces)
84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky)
94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it)
 
Location: Manotick, Ontario Canada | Registered: July 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yee Haw Bill,

quote:
Originally posted by Bill McD:
Maybe its my Canadian perspective but I read this as being able to construct a 1 meg windmill for 22 bucks. Please enlighten me.

As far as the math, I stand corrected. Large wind farm prices run around a dollar per watt and Solar farms are now down to around 4 bucks per watt, not kilowatt. I guess I was so excited to learn that I could get a 1 meg wind turbine for what amounts to an expensive lunch that my math went out the window. Yee Haw Big Grin
Bill
I could tell you were excited. Big Grin Ride "em cowboy

As Our good mate Mike often tells people.
Don't complain to me about the content of the article, I only posted it.
If you have a concern take it up with the people who published it. Wink Come a ti-yi yippy, yippy yay






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
New reports highlight bright, low-cost future of wind
John Hensley
August 18, 2016

A number of recent reports paint a bright future for the U.S. wind industry thanks to continuing cost declines, with reductions of more than 60 percent since 2009. This cost trajectory is attributable to, among other things, advanced manufacturing techniques, improved construction methods, larger turbine blades, economies of scale, and other advances in turbine technology.

While manufacturers and construction companies continue to bring down the cost of building and installing wind turbines, innovative technology enables turbines to access better wind speeds at higher elevations, capturing more of the wind’s energy and turning it into electricity with greater efficiency.
In an equity research note dated June 30, Goldman Sachs concluded that “when compared to other incremental sources of power, wind provides the lowest cost source of new capacity.” The investment bank calculated current wind levelized cost of electricity at $29/Megawatt Hour (MWh), compared to $38/MWh for natural gas combined-cycle plants and $57/MWh for utility-scale solar PV projects.

Macquarie Research also looked at levelized cost of electricity comparisons in 2016 including the PTC. With the tax credit in place, Macquarie projects electricity from new wind projects to cost around $23/MWh compared to $50/MWh for new gas plants. Given U.S. wind energy’s cost position, Macquarie finds the U.S. to be the most attractive wind market in the world, surpassing both China and Europe. Big Grin
Whoop-ee-ti-yi-o get along little doggies
You know that Wyoming will be your new home






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out
http://business.financialpost....science-to-speak-out
Lawrence Solomon | February 16, 2017

Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.

Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?

Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation.

Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data.

Whistleblowers now know they will no longer be silenced.

Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet.

None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud.

Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals.

The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down.

Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.

In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced.

One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account.

The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
South Australia Falls Victim to Green Hubris
http://instituteforenergyresea...victim-green-hubris/
February 16, 2017

Over the past two weeks, the state of South Australia was confronted by a heat wave of record strength and its wind-reliant grid failed miserably.

Temperatures soared to nearly 110°F in the capital city of Adelaide on Wednesday, February 8, and did not fall below 86°F until after midnight. Extraordinary temperatures, of course, require an extraordinary effort by the electricity sector to power air conditioning units along with all other demands. When put to the test, South Australia’s wind-heavy electricity mix showed us yet again that variable sources of electricity cannot be relied on when needed most. Fear of complete system failure—as was experienced in September of last year—forced grid operators to resort to load shedding, i.e. rolling blackouts, leaving South Australians withering in the mid-summer heat.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
A 3 megaWatt wind turbine uses 2 tonnes of rare earth metals for magnets, every Prius has 11 kg of rare earth metals in it's batteries.

TT Adelaide | Poison Wind

Poison wind power – the shocking environmental damage they don’t want you to see. Hendrik Gout reports.
https://www.todaytonightadelai.../stories/poison-wind



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Authentic Italian pasta dishes require, at most, a quarter cup of red spaghetti sauce per serving, while traditional American versions of spaghetti call for about 1/2 cup of sauce centered on top of the spaghetti.
Therefore, anywhere from 2 to 4 ounces of spaghetti sauce for each serving is needed






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 8000 years since the Holocene Optimum has been cooling.
The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 400 years since the Little Ice Age has been warming.
The trend of average global temperature measured over the past 20 years shows no significant change.

Pick whichever time frame supports the political agenda you prefer; the planet doesn't care. Neither do earth scientists who are not beholden to any political masters.

The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

These links explain it well.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...04578217621593679506

https://youtu.be/j5M1qtN62yk



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:

Originally posted by johnny

Neither do earth scientists who are not beholden to any political masters.


Then posts an opinion piece by a politician, good one. why not talk to the scientist who is actually doing the work

Establishing the Earth’s Atmospheric Record, One Air Flask at a Time

quote:
Pieter Tans has presided over the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group for 32 years, bearing witness to the immense changes happening in our atmosphere. He discussed with us his career, the acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and why monitoring Arctic air is so important.


quote:
Arctic Deeply: Why do you want a variation of sites? How might what you’re getting from Arctic sites differ from a site like, say, Mauna Loa in Hawaii?

Tans: The Arctic is warming faster than other places on Earth and there’s a lot of speculation surrounding permafrost melt. To give you an idea of the magnitude, the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 800 billion metric tons (784 billion long tons) of carbon. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was more like 600 billion metric tons. We have burned slightly more than 400 billion metric tons of fossil fuels. The amount of carbon stores in the Arctic’s organic matter has been estimated to be as large as 1,500 billion metric tons. It’s many times everything we’ve burned so far. There is potential for huge positive climate feedback – where warming causes additional CO2 and methane to be emitted to the atmosphere. We want know, in our network, can we see something that indicates this is already happening on a large scale? We know that these things are happening in specific places, but we don’t know how much is being released in the entire Arctic. We can look at the air and compare, for example, concentrations of methane in the Arctic and compare them with mid-latitudes. If methane starts to be emitted in huge quantities in the Arctic, the Arctic measurements will be pumped up a little bit compared to the mid-latitudes. We look for that in our Arctic flasks. Eventually, these emissions will make their way to the South Pole, but it takes about a year. So far, the good news is we have not seen a measurable enhancement in the Arctic relative to the mid-latitudes.


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 180 181 182 183 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014