Can you post the adjustment protocol too please, then we can discuss
I haven't checked into the integrity of the article myself, but would agree that, like so many news articles these days, it is attempting to strongly convey a very definite opinion. Hence some discernment and critical thinking is certainly warranted.
Yea fair enough.
It's an improvement in that you have offered some reasoning. I might have even been impressed if you had highlighted which (if any), of the statistics, used to support the opinion/s, were factually incorrect. However, I am now getting the sense that this is too much to expect of those hastily decrying any contrary opinion.The article is not self-evident enough of its own bs? My words aren't enough?
But no, this was not "another" 97% consensus argument. That argument was debated a long while back where I actually read the original paper and weren't interested in a repeat.
As to noco's article... It's one of those well written, well stats piece that sounds really good and make a lot of sense, until you think about it.
Some of its point against wind power includes:
1. Wind power is so insignificant. It contribute "zero" [when you round up the numbers] of worldwide energy consumption. So it's useless, and it kill birds and sometime its concrete foundation sink into the ground a bit.
--- Hmmm... it just kinda got started. Incentives and subsidies for it (have always been peanuts but) are on and off, depending on which side of politics get in and get bought. That make it very hard to start up, attract private investment or commitment. Yet it energises on and in certain country in Europe, play a big part in making that country's energy completely renewable.
So if it's currently not contributing enough to demand, ramp up its use. i.e. build more farms.
2. Which bring us to the other point... That if wind farm are to power the world, its footprint would be larger than all the land of the UK [something like that].
--- Hmmm... Where are we going to put those ugly, noisy, bird killing turbine, right?
Not in anyone's backyard, literally.
Wind farm need, wait for it... lotsa wind. Something most metro, suburbia and generally inhabited places have very little of. Or not enough to make it worth the trouble of fighting for a turbine down the street.
Hence, you'd rather place them in places with high wind most year round. Places like offshore, up the mountain and ridges.
Here's an interesting byproduct of windfarm even I could come up with... you add a few minor structure around the base of offshore windfarm and they together will provide a series of artificial reefs. Nursing fisheries. Might be good for the world's green and renewable food supplies.
So land and space is not an issue.
3. Wind farm are not clean because beside its fibreglass blades, there's steel, there's magnets, there's copper, concrete etc. So how is that clean? Coals need to be burnt to cast steel, hence dirty; iron ore and magnets need to be mined, so how's that clean?
---- The rail that delivery the coals; the ships and pipelines that delivery the oil and gas... those aren't mined? Those aren't dirty? And guess what, fossil fuel need to be mined and delivered, new tracks and new pipelines need to be extended, all the time. With a windfarm, once the infrastructure is set up, they lasts a long, long time. And all throughout that, wind just kind of deliver itself, for free, without using any extra costs or resources.
Cool? And that's like the first few paragraphs of the article.
I too can use big words, in the wrong places] ... each time those 97% figure are raise, the emus pull their head out of the sand and point to the other 35,000 "scientists" who disagree. You know, all "scientists" are the same, they all specialise and know the same stuff so your sports science scientist is as good as climate science scientist when it comes to climate.
You funny, man.
How's that deadly tree the greens does not permit you to touch even if it kills you? Seeing how much you and noco love birds, I would have thought you would risk human lives rather than knock a tree down lest you risk a bird dying or not having shelter. BUt I guess it's screw the bird if it nests on an annoying tree on your property.
btw, remember to print that Cook paper out first before you wipe yourself with it. Tablets and smartphones aren't that smart. And under no circumstances should you use it to both wrap fish and chips and/or toilet paper.
To that other opinion piece... know how whenever those greenies point to the 97% of climate scientists' peer-reviewed papers concurring that CC does exists and is cause by anthropocentric humans [
Long story short, the paper is clever in how they give you facts and stats that in and of itself are true [I assume they are, haven't bothered to check]... but then if they're put into context, it's just rediculous. Like, stupid.
For instance... Wind energy is not clean because of all the steel and coal and mining that's needed to build the turbine.
That's true. But... but it's as dirty and poisonous as always mining for coal, drilling for oil, and also polluting the environment throughout the actual work/production of energy?
I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
That is a blatant lie which makes a liar out of you!you are.
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
