strichener Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I find it hard to believe that H_B, Reynard etc. can deny man made climate change when the majority believe it to be the case. Surely the majority cannot be wrong? I would guess that there is even a bigger majority than 44.7/55.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Didn't hear this mate but delighted to know that the lie is beginning to be uncovered. Sook sook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I'll repeat this because you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding. I am only interested in the opinion of scientists on this issue. Nobody else can possibly have a credible opinion because they lack the necessary background to know. That right? What about the scientists who have evidence that climate change is a prefabricated lie to control the population? If you had a questioning mind you would challenge your view. you're the closed minded moron mate Sook sook. Away back to your xbox you wee bollox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 The EU has set targets but they won't be enforcing them now. That was decided the other week and is a pretty big change. Mainly driven by Germany and the UK this time. They want to continue lip service, but Germany in particular realised a few years ago it was making its industry uncompetitive thanks to high energy costs and they had the possibility of power outages too. Thats the main reason they have been firing up new coal burning plants (mainly lignite burning) as they changed course. Renewables don't deliver power as and when required. Hahahahahahah Solar and wind are dominating in Germany to such an extent that it is economic madness to run fossil fuelled power stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkston5 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Hahahahahahah Solar and wind are dominating in Germany to such an extent that it is economic madness to run fossil fuelled power stations. Please at least try not to be ridiculous. 300 square miles of wind turbines = power generated from 1 nuclear power station. Oh wait, they have a solar panel the size of Saxony do they? To capture all that solar power? The ignorance of what Germany are at in Europe is obvious but the lack of knowledge of what "alternative" energy equates to is perhaps more noticeable on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Lol, we have one group of people in this thread saying climate change is left wing conspiracy, while other saying it's a right wing conspiracy. You couldn't make this stuff up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Please at least try not to be ridiculous. 300 square miles of wind turbines = power generated from 1 nuclear power station. Oh wait, they have a solar panel the size of Saxony do they? To capture all that solar power? The ignorance of what Germany are at in Europe is obvious but the lack of knowledge of what "alternative" energy equates to is perhaps more noticeable on this forum Now, where have I heard this before??? Doesn't bother me in the slightest. F**k or sorry Forza Dundee's political views won't be welcomed by all those SNP members. Also everyone knows that Climate Change won't be solved by wind farms and the like. Do you know that 300 square miles of them still won't be enough to generate the power of a Nuclear station? That's right, most of the new membership will split because they can't all be mentally ill And, I will be asking for proof of this please. Of course, I know that you will not be able to provide it given that Scotland, in 2012, generated 29.8% of it's energy consumption from renewable sources and 34.4% from nuclear (which makes Torness approx 20.65% and Hunterston 13.75%). Quite clearly Scottish renewable power is generating more than either of our nuclear power stations and the footprint for installed renewables is significantly less than 300 square miles (Source) So any chance of you backing up your claim the second time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Apparently there's not enough wind to generate the power we need but there's an obvious solution. Build more fossil fuel power stations, generate lots of CO2, this will drive climate change and create more wind to power the wind turbines. I have a C in Higher Chemistry so this is science bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Please at least try not to be ridiculous. 300 square miles of wind turbines = power generated from 1 nuclear power station. Oh wait, they have a solar panel the size of Saxony do they? To capture all that solar power? The ignorance of what Germany are at in Europe is obvious but the lack of knowledge of what "alternative" energy equates to is perhaps more noticeable on this forum Oh dear, incompetence equalled by incoherence. I'll try to daily mail down... Power companies are switching off fossil fuel burning power stations because they can't compete with renewables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Gullible fools who accept the climate change myth I take it you have gone through the physics of radiative transfer in the Earths atmosphere and discovered some stunning flaw in the basics that has been accepted since the days of Gilbert Plass that you are just about to publish in Nature? Oh wait no, you are just repeating what the Telegraph has told you to think. These threads always turn out the same. Reynard to moan a bout graphs in 10....9...8..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Please at least try not to be ridiculous. 300 square miles of wind turbines = power generated from 1 nuclear power station. Oh wait, they have a solar panel the size of Saxony do they? To capture all that solar power? The ignorance of what Germany are at in Europe is obvious but the lack of knowledge of what "alternative" energy equates to is perhaps more noticeable on this forum You are a fucking idiot. This is about fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change. Why attack renewables with nuclear rather than attacks fossil fuels with nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Apparently there's not enough wind to generate the power we need but there's an obvious solution. Build more fossil fuel power stations, generate lots of CO2, this will drive climate change and create more wind to power the wind turbines. I have a C in Higher Chemistry so this is science bitch. I'm pretty sure my B in Higher Geography carries more weight. For a start, the wind is generated from the equator. The seas there are called the doldrums for a reason. Remember, hot air moves to cold air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 It's quite ironic because some CC nutbar in the office I was in told me that the big freeze at the tail end of 2010 was due to the cold weather fronts being pushed South due to climate change. Then in 2012, it was a hot Summer because of "rising temperatures" and yep he had "scientists" and the Railway Engineers' lunatic board pointing to inconsistencies to prove it. Man made "catastrophic" Climate Change is a load of crap. Funny how the OP celebrates this though? I know why because it's BS Occasionally as I browse this board I wonder if it's possible for you to make a bigger c**t of yourself than you have done previously, this, this goes beyond literally anything I could have reasonable imagined. What an utter imbecile you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 People who deny human induced climate change are morons of the highest order. Imagine believing that all the greenhouse gas emissions being pumped into the atmosphere by the human race is having no effect on the planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I just threw out my gas boiler and swapped my car for a horse. We can beat this scourge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I take it you have gone through the physics of radiative transfer in the Earths atmosphere and discovered some stunning flaw in the basics that has been accepted since the days of Gilbert Plass that you are just about to publish in Nature? Oh wait no, you are just repeating what the Telegraph has told you to think. These threads always turn out the same. Reynard to moan a bout graphs in 10....9...8..... No graphs this time? Have you got one showing how there's been no warming for 18 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Reynard to moan a bout graphs in 10....9...8..... Lift off. Over the past 18 years we have gone from very very strong el Ninos to a run on la Ninas. This has suppressed the warming signal. However if one looks at the trend on la Ninas and el Ninos.... Not the first time this has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Lift off. Over the past 18 years we have gone from very very strong el Ninos to a run on la Ninas. This has suppressed the warming signal. However if one looks at the trend on la Ninas and el Ninos.... Not the first time this has happened. Thats a shame. I heard all the heat was hiding in the DEEEEP ocean just waiting to pounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Thats a shame. I heard all the heat was hiding in the DEEEEP ocean just waiting to pounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Bud with all due respect, you are making the same mistake as Reynard. Your timescale is too small. You need to look at trends over a timescale which is relevant for the type of system being studied. Global warming needs to be looked at over at least 100 years - not just 40 and certainly not the ludicrous 18 years suggested by Reynard. Your final graph in terms of how people SHOULD interpret the trends and how deniers interpret them is very accurate though. It's your timescales which are the issue. You do have to wonder though why it is that when you have an area of science that Reynard has no training or expertise in where 95% of qualified scientists are saying one thing and 5% saying the opposite, that Reynard goes with the 5%. You'd really have to think hard about his motivation for that. Jon Stewart does a brilliant and hilarious job here:- The bit at 8 mins with the ice is absolutely superb. Well the reason I'll carry on bringing this up is the fact that models, presumably with the input of wonderfully trained scientists, failed to predict this. In fact it totally flies in the face of what we were told would be happening presumably as a result of scientists using information they stuck into a computer which was meant to predict global warming/climate change etc. So until they start getting it right, you'll always be hearing voices that think it's pure bullshit. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.