Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

After reading the following link, how stupid must Gillard be to procede with her CPRS just to appease the Greens. She is now being left out on the proverbial limb all by herself. She said before the 2010 election there would be no CPRS. The Greens wielded the big stick over her head and she relented. What will be her excuse this time if she does a back-flip once again.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ts/column_gillard_leads_labor_army_to_moscow/

 

[nioka]

Time to add you to the ignore list

Be my guest, take the easy way out rather than give even the hint that there may just be another side to the story.

Put the whole thread on ignore and just pretend that there could not possibly a problem out there that needs some attention.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Be my guest, take the easy way out rather than give even the hint that there may just be another side to the story.

Another side of the story exactly. For example, It's not carbon, steam is coming from those cooling towers, humans are good, empathy is good, the Earth's core is changing, solar activity is changing, and the list could go on.
The indoctrinated can't see the other side.

 

[nioka]

The indoctrinated can't see the other side.

Actually it is hard to work out which side is "indoctrinated". ( If it is ONLY steam coming out of the stacks then what the hell happened to the black stuff). Also why was the sky of the USA clear and blue after all the aircraft were grounded following the twin towers attack for the first time for years. Some of it is man made. The man made part could be reduced.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Some of it is man made. The man made part could be reduced

I agree. And I agree on the reduction. Direct action is how to go about it.

 

[Smurf1976]

For example, It's not carbon, steam is coming from those cooling towers

Are we talking about a specific cooling tower somewhere or just in general?

By the way, quite a lot of what you see coming out the chimney stacks, particularly where natural gas or brown coal (not oil or black coal) is being burned is also just steam.

 

[nioka]

I agree. And I agree on the reduction. Direct action is how to go about it.

Finally we have complete agreement. I wish we /they/us/them really knew how to go about it.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Are we talking about a specific cooling tower somewhere or just in general?

By the way, quite a lot of what you see coming out the chimney stacks, particularly where natural gas or brown coal (not oil or black coal) is being burned is also just steam.

Just in general Smurph. Pictures of steam billowing is filling people's heads with fear of carbon.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Finally we have complete agreement. I wish we /they/us/them really knew how to go about it.

As I do. Bureaucratic TAX is not a genuine way to go about it as I see it. Whoever controls energy controls the public.

We don't tax the neighbour (or all property owners) because his fence is falling over. We prop it up and replace it if necessary. We take action through the use of technology.

 

[Smurf1976]

We don't tax the neighbour (or all property owners) because his fence is falling over. We prop it up and replace it if necessary. We take action through the use of technology.

Look around your own home:

Space heating. Various options are available and in the majority of situations it is possible to achieve at least a 70% emissions cut compared to electric resistance heating.

Hot water. Again several options, and at least a 65% cut is achievable.

Transport. Simply switching from a petrol engine to diesel in an otherwise identical vehicle achieves a 30% cut.

Lighting. A 30% reduction compared to the old incandescent bulbs is easily achievable with virtually no downsides. A 75% cut is doable if you accept some differences in lamp performance. And the LED technologies which aren't far away will take that to an 85 - 90% cut.

TV / computer monitor. LED LCD displays achieve around a two thirds reduction in energy compared to plasma / CRT.

And so on. None of the above measures would have ANY noticeable impact on the lifestyle of the average person despite delivering very real energy savings.

One real problem however is that many people tend to "cling" to inefficient technologies. Plenty will argue the merits of old fashioned electric water heaters over solar etc. Just like many will argue about the benefits of incandescent lighting. There's even a few who still think burning wood in an open fire to be a good idea. And yet strangely, those same people ditched the dial phone, twin tub and top loading VCR years ago (anecdotally, it seems to be those most willing to embrace new technologies in some areas, are also the least willing to embrace energy efficient devices. Why I don't know, but it is something I have observed on numerous occasions).

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Ah, some rational thought from the Rational Optimist....

If you have a financial dependency on the AGW scam or simply a AGW alarmist continously preaching "doom and gloom" then you won't like this letter response to David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change as it will put an "upper" on your friday. Dang! Right before the weekend is a no no. However, for me, it was an enjoyable read...

Matt Ridley eloquently pulls apart assertions and green ideology by Mackay. Mackay even asserts that a 2C warming over 200 years is a problem for the globe.

And of course this wouldn't be a real "AGW sceptical" article unless it shows the deliberate "adjustments" made to the raw temp data by the alarmists. This time in the US, and surprise surprise the Rural data has been made to "fit" the Urban data series which exhibits UHI, poorly placed AC units and additional heat sources around measurement stations (as WUWT revealed)

As I've shown in past posts, Man Made Warming is a huge issue - but only in the manipulated temperature histories so the green ideology can be peddled to the masses.

 

[Happy]

Is there anywhere information on what Solar Panels do to Earth's temperature?

Since not all Solar energy is converted to heat, surely in some small way it removes little bit of heat from the equation.

If energy can be beamed, we could store excess heat on the Moon for example for later use or in some massive heat storage units.

Should we forget about arming ourselves to the teeth, we would have quite a few quids, for some real medium range proofing our little space speck against alleged global warming.

 

[noco]

A carbon trading scam has been broken in Europe and exposed to what could happen here in Australia if Gillard procedes with a simliar scheme.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...the_great_global_warming_scam_just_got_worse/

 

[Smurf1976]

A carbon trading scam has been broken in Europe and exposed to what could happen here in Australia if Gillard procedes with a simliar scheme.

The ETS amounts to little more than yet another means of growing the finanical industry at the expense of the real economy producting useful goods and services.

People seem to be waking up. That is not a comment on the issue, simply an observation as to what is happening. The push for an ETS, or any other system involving the financial markets as a solution, seems to be simply pushing people away from the CO2 issue altogether.

Keep going with that, plus add in soaring energy prices etc, and in due course we'll see the coal industry end up with majority public support whilst the CO2 issue is consigned to the history books (rightly or wrongly).

 

[drsmith]

Is there anywhere information on what Solar Panels do to Earth's temperature?

Since not all Solar energy is converted to heat, surely in some small way it removes little bit of heat from the equation.

This would depend on the albedo of the solar panel, relative to the surface over which it was placed.

Being dark I would imagine that the albedo of a solar panel would be lower (obsorbs more of the sun's energy) than most surfaces and thus contribute to warming. This though needs to be considered relative to warming from fossil fuel.

As for energy stored as electricity (from any source), I'm not sure exactly what percentage is dissipated as heat when used, but I imagine it would be high (Smurf ?).

Photovoltaic solar panels convert only a small percentage of the solar energy they obsorb into electricity. The rest finishes up in the atmosphere as heat.

 

[wayneL]

An excellent rant from Malcolm Roberts via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/...inst-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841

 

[Logique]

The ETS amounts to little more than yet another means of growing the finanical industry at the expense of the real economy producting useful goods and services.....and in due course we'll see the coal industry end up with majority public support whilst the CO2 issue is consigned to the history books (rightly or wrongly)

Yes fair comment Smurf. The aim being to reduce atmospheric carbon, surely it would have been more productive for the greens to work with the largest and cheapest energy sector, rather than demonize and propagandize, and generally attempt to sabotage the coal and coal-fired industry.

Again, if that is their main aim, as opposed to say, political aggrandisement.

For once the greens might have bitten off more than they can chew. Unions work in coal mines. Big powerful ones, that won't be a soft touch like the timber industry.

 

[Smurf1976]

Seems like we might have to be more worried about freezing to death than being cooked...

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/16/186371_movies.html

 

[OzWaveGuy]

An excellent rant from Malcolm Roberts via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/...inst-professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg/#more-27841

It's an interesting read esp this bit...

There is no evidence of human global warming:
....
In 1995 UN IPCC scientists reported five times that there was no evidence of human warming. Yet UN IPCC politicians reported to national governments and media, quote: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.

The scientific conclusion that there is no evidence of human global warming has been repeated many times since by UN IPCC scientists. Please refer to UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, PhD scientist Dr Vincent Gray who reviewed all four UN IPCC reports””1991, 1995, 2001, 2007. He says there’s no evidence anywhere. www.conscious.com.au​

The circus just gets better.

For the AGW alarmists - no need to read the article or any facts, or for that matter anything the IPCC published that doesn't support green ideology + tax + control eg medieval warm period or no evidence anywhere by IPCC scientists: Just act now - here's a start:

<Put on Clown Suit>
paint your roof white
<Take off Clown suit>
​

 

[moXJO]

The sci-fi action adventure movie is about a solar eclipse causing a rift in the ozone layer, allowing frigid gases to enter from deep space, sending a super-chilled fog rushing towards Hobart.

And still Tasmanians would wear shorts and thongs.