For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.
Perhaps if you half wits took the time to read past posts and links there to you might learn something.
You obviously did not read the post on the Global warning pause that is for sure....So further back up and evidence is there for all to read......Just take your time Rumpy and don't skip the good reading.
Can you post the adjustment protocol too please, then we can discussSo where is your evidence in view of the graphs that Junior posted ? (Not for the first time has this data been posted here, I'm surprised that you have managed to ignore it to date).
For us half wits, please back up that statement with evidence.
Wind Turbines are neither clean nor green.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
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.That's some good piece of bs there. Gotta give it to some people though, they're really good at what they're paid to do.
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.
Simply decrying it as bs, without substantiation, falls a long way short of what I would consider discerning.
Are your reasons for posting thus, perchance, similar to your reasons for decrying the criticisms of the bogus claims to scientific consensus?
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?Yea fair 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.
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.
As for the 97% scientific consensus, having read Cook's paper, I know consider myself amply qualified, having found some logical flaws within, to declare it to be unworthy for use as anything other than fish&chips wrapping and/or toilet paper.
To declare that paper to be bovine faecal matter, would be tantamount to inflicting a serious injustice on manure, which deserves much better than to be associated with a logically bereft, misleading, opinion piece, masquerading as a scientific paper.
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 [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.
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?
It's not only the fact that a lot of scientists have voiced disagreement, it is the logical flaws in Cook's approach to, and interpretation of, the collation of data.
Would you care to explain how 34% agreement, based upon interpretaion of abstracts from approx. 12,000 papers, were somehow transmuted into a near absolute consensus?
It would seem that some people's idea of the definition of 'bs' is anything that disagrees with their chosen opinion.
It would also seem that those same people believe science to be defined as anything that agrees with their chosen opinion.
I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.I seriously don't know where you got that 34% from. I have a pretty good memory and a bit of an education so I can tell when some egghead is lying or not making sense. Didn't find that with the paper. Again, I've discussed it before, noco can attest to that and you too can use the search feature on the forum right?
Come on man, a bit unfair to accuse me of not (trying) to reason why I find something to be bs. I did say that it was fair enough for you to demand that I please explain why a hit piece is actually what it is.
I did try to explain. And if you still can't see how I came to that conclusion then there's a Sydney Harbour Bridge I can sell you.
I just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.
Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?
Edit: 34.8% of authors endorse AGWI just looked at the paper again to make sure of the facts! The figure may be found in table 3.
34.8% of authors endorse CAGW.
Who exactly do you claim is lying now!?
That is a blatant lie which makes a liar out of you!you are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?