Daily Mail banned from Wikipedia

[LongTimeLurker]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Anyone not worried about climate change doesn't understand it.

That may sound condescending but too bad.

Largely agree given it's not sensible to do an irreversible experiment with the only habitable planet we have available to us, but what you usually don't get told by the more radical environmentalists is how elevated CO2 levels and slightly warmer temperatures boost plant growth in a way that significantly improves crop yields (shouldn't be a surprise given that's how a greenhouse works) and limits desertification in areas like the Sahel. If you look at it on a geological timescale, CO2 levels have been critically low in recent times from the point of view of the efficiency of photosynthesis that we depend on for our food supply. A bit of a boost in CO2 levels was not necessarily a bad thing as long as we don't go completely mental on emissions over the next century, which we will probably be constrained from doing by the size of the available easily exploited fossil fuel supply.

[Granny Danger]

19 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Largely agree given it's not sensible to do an irreversible experiment with the only habitable planet we have available to us, but what you usually don't get told by the more radical environmentalists is how elevated CO2 levels and slightly warmer temperatures boost plant growth in a way that significantly improves crop yields (shouldn't be a surprise given that's how a greenhouse works) and limits desertification in areas like the Sahel. If you look at it on a geological timescale, CO2 levels have been critically low in recent times from the point of view of the efficiency of photosynthesis that we depend on for our food supply. A bit of a boost in CO2 levels was not necessarily a bad thing as long as we don't go completely mental on emissions over the next century, which we will probably be constrained from doing by the size of the available easily exploited fossil fuel supply.

Radical environmentalists will never control the policies but they have an important role in directing the agenda.

[Bishop Briggs]

30 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Radical environmentalists will never control the policies but they have an important role in directing the agenda.

The environment lobby in Brussels has a huge influence on policy. WWF and Greenpeace have huge budgets and resources. They have massive influence on the EU's environment policies, especially on climate change.

One example is the EU emissions trading scheme (EU-ETS) that has imposed large financial burdens on European companies. The traded market value of the credits is IIRC over €80 billion.

And there has been huge fraud, theft, scams and corruption linked in EU-ETS scheme too! See - http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=478. The UN's carbon trading scheme has also had massive fraud and corruptions, especially in Russia, too.

[LongTimeLurker]

The other problem has been politically-motivated subsidies to renewables where they didn't make any financial sense in terms of EROEI e.g. solar panels in Scotland (sometimes installed north facing) and onshore wind in middle England. I'll know the SNP are really getting serious about renewables rather than just appeasing the Greens when there is a massive programme of pump-storage hydro unfolding to balance supply from all the wind power farms that have been installed with demand and they start making use of the Pentland Firth tidal race. Until then it all has to be backed up by natural gas. Won't happen easily because the usual suspects will kick up a fuss about some rare lichen being inundated and marine mammals colliding with turbines or something or other and then there will be lots of NIMBYism over the electricity pylons needed to get the power to the central belt.

[LongTimeLurker]

Are you even properly reading my posts before hitting reply? First you patronise me with a spiel about listening to scientists when you know nothing about my education level and now you completely miss the point of my two latest posts probably because you are responding to some "denialist" stereotype that you have rather than what I am actually writing. I know all about wind power and solar energy and the latter isn't just in research mode in areas that are closer to the equator and have a drier climate than Scotland and hence get a decent amount of sunshine and are actually suitable terrain for that technology:

5 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Solar power is going through a massive boom at the moment as the numbers are starting to make sense in investment terms.

 

The pump-storage hydro technology exists to back up the wind farms in Scotland and has done so for decades. The problem is that the capacity that is available isn't close to what is needed, but although we have the mountainous terrain needed to be able to do it  the political will is lacking to take on the environmental and NIMBY lobby that would oppose turning the Great Glen and other areas of the Highlands and Southern Uplands into the giant storage battery that is needed to balance supply with demand. All the SNP care about is independence so they do the easy part of the job that can create a point of difference for some virtue signaling relative to Westminster, but leave the difficult part alone.

[WaffenThinMint]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Solar power is still in research mode. Just three years ago I sat in on a presentation where solar panels have been designed which do not need direct sunlight at all.

Um, actually that's very old news:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-solar-video-ap.html

September 14, 2009—A "green" technology company has developed jewel-toned solar panels that capture different parts of the sun's light spectrum and don't need direct sunlight to work

The technology is getting better & better, although still more for commercial use than domestic, but that you can now get up to 20% conversion is excellent.

[LongTimeLurker]

Sure the science is settled or whatever and anybody from other fields pointing out flaws in the models because they actually know about the application of statistics like McIntyre and McKitrick did are denialists/heretics. I know the difference between people peddling religious dogma as opposed to rationality. We are running out of easily exploited fossil fuels because they are a non-renewable resource, but you guys are still acting like conventional peak oil never happened and we are still in the late 90s when people acted as if fossil fuel use could increase exponentially with demand to the point that ice caps would actually melt, because they ignored the reality that the availability of any non-renewable resource is constrained by its supply.