Oh, brother, MT as a judge, jury and executioner, is it? A crucial witness? A cause, no less? Jeezussss!!!
Oh, great, more comprehension issues. Correct terms would be: instigator, exciter, firebrand, fomenter, incendiary, inciter, agitator, kindler, provocateur. Of course all with "original" placed in front as Thatcher was indeed the first to make it a political agenda. I'm sure everyone else understood what Lord Lawson said. You have issues with Britt accents or is it a global English comprehension issue? I will put it here again so you can give understanding the English another go. I'll even make it bigger just for you. .
If only you could understand any language at all: it means, given her being in power, not only of the UK but also in charge of the Tory party, that she was a judge, jury and executioner of "what is best for Britain"... Go on, teach me a little bit about the parliamentary system over here...
Bah! http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-betting-against-future-planet-a7604021.html [h=1]Financial markets are now betting against the future of the planet. This won't end well[/h][FONT="][FONT="]There has been no fundamental readjustment of energy stock prices since the supposedly historic December 2015 United Nations Climate Change deal in Paris[/FONT] [/FONT]
I've seen reports of that 'secret' Shell video dozens of times now and it's BS. The video was published in 1991. The supposedly 'secret' Shell video was essentially a word-for-word plagiarization of the IPCC's 1st Assessment published in 1990. Obviously Shell is going to have training videos that tell their managers/employees what the IPCC is saying about their industry. The information wasn't 'secret' to anyone except maybe a few ignorant/irresponsible journalists. More likely it's just a vilification tactic used by anti-CO2 political groups that full well knew it's just a rehashed IPCC report. It's a mute point anyway. CO2 does not drive temp.
Here are the hidden costs of nuclear power, never included in the energy price one pays directly to the provider, deeply connected with the military, hegemony and alike: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...decommissioning-debacle-costs-government-100m
The supposed myth they are debunking is "There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature" is irrelevant. I never (ever) said anything about no correlation. What I've said is CO2 change FOLLOWS Temp change and therefore does not drive it. Further: You brought up the Skeptical Science site before and I'm going to tell you the same thing. The owner is cognitive scientist with no background in geology, meteorology, physics, chemistry nor any climate related science. His "team" consists largely of volunteers who's day job is funded by CO2 research Many of them are computer modelers who are professionals at making the answer be anything they want. Others have no climate related credentials at all. When they can't counter a point they simply delete it. (If that weren't true you would see my name in the comments on very page you linked to in 2012, it's gone..) I'm not the only one the people in this 'team' play that game with: http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2013/11/a-response-to-collin-maessens-post/ (At time of writing Collin Maessens is on Skeptical Science's team list. Note that the team list seems to change and rearrange several times a day indicating it is likely just a recently posted list.) They clearly have an agenda, don't mind cheating/lying and you would have to work really hard to find a more biased site. Many of their claims are pure fiction, such as: (Which is contained in the actual page you linked to.) - Since when does surface heat 'move' down in a body of liquid? That would be convection. - Since when does heat moving down in water cause cooling of water's surface? [ So according to gorski and skepticalscience.com the deep ocean is much warmer than the surface.] No. Cooling of water's surface is caused by evaporation which would raise humidity above the water, not lower it. Evaporation removes heat from the water and puts it into the air so the air temp goes up, not down - and that's what cools the water's surface. If a volcano erupts at the bottom of the ocean the heat doesn't stay there indefinitely (as would be consistent with Skeptical Sciences 'science') it eventually rises to the surface. Clearly Skeptical Science thinks a Lava Lamp works because hot water at the top moves down and forces the cold oil up. I see you agree with their kind of so-called "science". You are right inline with most of the Alarmists.
Margret Thatcher: She was very concerned always, even when I was secretary of state for energy, to promote nuclear power. Long before the issue of climate change came up.... because she was concerned about energy security. She didn't trust the middle east and she didn't trust the national union of mine workers. So she didn't trust oil and she didn't trust coal. Those who had to live through the national coal strike of the winter of 1973/74 as she did would be of a similar mindset. I was there, one never took the overcoat off. Just as in France when they saw their extreme dependence on OPEC oil for electricity generation The difference is that France did something about it and now 76% of their electricity is from nuclear and they are keeping the lights on throughout continental Europe ...T
No, they are not! Germany said bye-bye to it. Sweden to oil by 2050. Take note! "The owner is cognitive scientist with no background in geology, meteorology, physics, chemistry nor any climate related science." Good to know you do...
It's not quite as simple as that https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...ZRJpS9BCRPWDDuzxkaXqng&bvm=bv.151325232,d.d2s The entire power system of Europe is interconnected and the intermittent and sometimes unpredicted nature of renewable energy sources (RES), wind and solar means that someone must instantly pick up any lost generation if the lights are to be kept on. This paper by EDF R&D attempts to describe the complex problems that must be solved to integrate these energy sources. IMO any loss to date had been picked up by EDF. ...T
Yes. I do. It may come as a surprise to a Sociologist but to study Nuclear Engineering you study Physics, Math, Chemistry, Heat Transfer & Fluid Flow, Metallurgy and a sundry of other things. - Nah, just a surprise to those Sociologists that think HEAT FALLS.
I agree with Thatcher's goal. (More nuclear, less fossil.) As a short term fix. And I don't trust coal or oil that much either. What I don't agree with was the method. (Pushing CO2 as a climate driver.) I also don't consider Nuclear a permanent fix. There are good reasons to reduce fossil use. (reducing pollution, abatement of fracking, fewer oil spills, diminishing resources) - But CO2 is not one of them. Nuclear comes with it's own problems. More Nuc accident potential and the build up of nuclear waste. By going nuclear we are just trading immediate problems (pollution etc.) for a longer term problem (nuclear waste build up). So IMHO nuclear should be looked at as something to give us more time to find an alternative, not as a permanent fix. All this research money (and time) spent on proving/disproving the Red Herring of CO2 driving climate has been wasted and would have better spent finding research for a practical long term energy solution. Even building up the impractical infrastructure would be preferable to flushing the money and wasting the research time. According to Forbes just the USA spent $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. With solar panels running right around $1/watt that would have funded 32.5 Gigawatts in panels. The current nuc plants going up are ~1.1 Gigawatts so that's about 30 nuc plants worth of panels. - Flushed to study climate instead of working on a real problem. And that doesn’t count billions more spent for climate change technology research - like pumping CO2 underground.
Jeeezzzzuuuuuuuusssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!! Erm, no and no and no!!! Germany is of course not producing all of its energy needs at the moment, i.e. it is relying on its neighbours right now - but it is EU, you know... Anyway, you are not seeing wood for the trees! They said bye-bye to nuclear, their strategy is public and for anyone to evaluate. In a very short time period they went to covering up to 80+ % of its electricity needs from renewables, on its best day. Now, for anyone with some brains this is SIGNIFICANT beyond mere words. Only a seriously biased person can not see the significance of it!!! Firstly, Germany is not a small country and to do this in a short period is awesome! Secondly, it was our capacity to produce, transfer and store renewable energy that was a significant problem and there was a breakthrough there as well. This is not Luxembourg we are talking about, but Germany! So, not even the US can say "Oh, this is some silly, insignificant country, this proves nothing, there are no lessons to be learnt"! As for our resident PC genius: again, you missed the point in your fervour to sell your grand self - science has no such ABSOLUTE answers, the way you are trying to give them. That is just you. Real scientists are much more cautious. They know the limits of our knowledge. Only people who know very little are that.... ahem... confident, shall we say... That would be guys like you, TM and such like "conservatives", arrogant to the bone, "thinking" they have all the answers... Well, good luck with selling that on a properly scientific scene...
For Chef Koch: Putin says climate change not manmade Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Thursday said climate change was not caused by human activity, as the White House announced that President Donald Trump would decide by May on continued US participation in the landmark Paris Agreement limiting global carbon emissions. One day after visiting the Franz Josef Land archipelago in the Arctic, Putin claimed that icebergs had been melting for decades and suggested that global warming was not mankind's fault. "The warming, it had already started by the 1930s," Putin said in comments broadcast from an Arctic forum held in the northern Russian city of Arkhangelsk. "That's when there were no such anthropological factors, such emissions, and the warming had already started." The Kremlin strongman added: "The issue is not stopping it... because that's impossible, since it could be tied to some global cycles on Earth or even of planetary significance. The issue is to somehow adapt to it." The declaration came as the White House said Trump would make his pronouncement on the Paris Agreement before a meeting of G7 leaders in Sicily that is scheduled to begin May 26. Putin supported his argument by saying that an Austrian explorer who had a "photographic memory" visited the Franz Josef Land archipelago "in the 1930s." Twenty years later the explorer was shown photographs from another expedition there "by the future king of Italy" and concluded that "there were fewer icebergs there," Putin said. It wasn't immediately clear which explorers Putin was referring to and Italy did not have a king in the 1950s. Austrian explorer Julius von Payer discovered and mapped the archipelago during a 1872-1874 expedition. The only Italian expedition to the area was organised in 1899 by Prince Luigi Amedeo, who was also an explorer. The archipelago was declared Soviet territory by the 1930s. Putin had previously hailed global warming for exposing natural resources and transport routes which had long been too expensive to exploit. He had also once speculated that warming by "two or three degrees" could be a good thing for Russians who would no longer need fur coats. - A U-turn? - The latest declarations were a far cry from Putin's speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in November 2015. "The quality of life of all people on the planet depends on solving the climate problem," he had said, adding that Moscow had "exceeded" its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. "Russia's efforts have slowed global warming by almost a year. We were at the same time able to nearly double our country's GDP over the same period," he said. "We consider it crucial that the new climate agreement be based on the UN Framework of Climate Change and that it be legally binding." On Thursday, while his Finnish counterpart Sauli Niinisto called climate change a "serious threat" for the Arctic, Putin said that it brings "more propitious conditions for using this region for economic ends." The Russian leader also wished luck to anti-climate litigator Scott Pruitt, who was confirmed last month as the new chief of the US Environmental Protection Agency to the horror of the scientific community. Asked by moderator Geoff Cutmore of the CNBC what he thinks of the appointment of Pruitt, a climate sceptic who wants to roll back Washington's participation in the Paris climate accord, Putin said Pruitt's views deserve to be heard. "Positions and suggestions of those who don't agree with their opponents are not so stupid," Putin said. "God grant him health and success, everybody should listen to one another and only then you can find an optimal solution to the problem." Russia is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to government data, and both scientists and emergencies officials have indicated that disasters such as deadly floods and wildfires are influenced by climate change. Source
Killing the Clean Power Plan leaves Trump’s EPA in an awkward place The Trump administration's decision to terminate its predecessor's Clean Power Plan, accomplished via an executive order, would seem to be a carefully crafted decision with an air of finality about it. It neatly avoided rejecting mainstream climate science, opting instead to eliminate the only federal plan for doing anything about it... more
In chat today : John Sutherland: Denver, Co. march against global warming cancelled due to one foot snowfall. so I looked it up http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/29/peoples-climate-march-postponed-colorado-due-snow/ ...T
I truly don't understand how it is that most ppl actually believe they are causing global warming. It is the biggest scam ever to be executed in politics. Yes the Earth's climate is 'warming up' but it isn't us doing it. Co2 only contributes 1% or less to global warming. It is the Sun warming up and causing the entire solar system to warm up. The other planets all exibit the same symptoms of global warming : https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-en...eating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html There was money to be had in the 'idea' of putting the blame on people, it is that simple. Economics and politics. I never believed the scam, none of you should either. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be mindful towards preserving the Earth, au contraire. It does mean that climate change and global warming, ultimately, is a COSMIC 're'currence that cannot be stopped, nor 'caused' by people. Gobal warming occurred in the past and 're'curs throughout time. I believe there is a report of levels of Co2 HIGHER than today being found in core samples from I don't know how many thousands of years ago, which proves, or at least hints also towards the idea that even the levels of CO2 rise and fall beyond our control, and is for larger part a natural phenomenon. Iow, stop worrying, and mostly, stop believing your govmnt. All they do is lie, always taking truths and altering and abusing them to their power-hungry needs. I didn't cast a vote because I don't 'think' there is something else causing it, I know it. The other planets don't have people driving cars and smoking chimneys, poluting the place. I place my own logic before taking propaganda with their spoon. Sure we 'contribute' to the phenomenon, but at a rate of less than 1%. The other 99% goes out to our Sun. The littlest change in the behavior of our Sun always can and will have major repercussions on the Earth and all other planets spiraling behind it. Look around, the evidence of this being a 'solar' occurence is out there. Still now, some won't accept this truth staring back at us, and still prefer the 'official' BS being fed.