Climate change

[TopGun]

I think all the global warming sceptics have passed out with the heat, they're so quiet ;-)

[MongoNeil]

It's summer, it's going to be warm. Notice we haven't broken any records as predicted though ;-)

[Mole]

Global warming and cooling is a natural.

 

Man made global warming is a myth.

[mack rill]

 

Man made global warming is a myth.

 

And a stealth tax:mad:

[Saint George]

I think all the global warming sceptics have passed out with the heat, they're so quiet ;-)

 

You mean the ever increasing gap between 'reality' and the fantasies of the IPCC and the other alarmist wack jobs?

 

 

 

 

 

The facts are clear for all to see

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/may_co2_report.pdf

[hamster]

I think all the global warming sceptics have passed out with the heat, they're so quiet ;-)

 

Funny as ****.

I love you TopGun

x

hamster

[Mole]

Top Gun if you feel so strongly i suggest you take it up with your local MEP Nick Griffin.

[saintwarwick]

Good to see Saint George come back with his version of events and believing it's the only official version which is the truth. You have to laugh at him, plus it won't let me see the link anyway.

[Thedelldays]

Good to see Saint George come back with his version of events and believing it's the only official version which is the truth. You have to laugh at him, plus it won't let me see the link anyway.

to be fair..

 

saint george regulalry..no constantly points posters in the direction of sites that are backed by very credible people who are suggesting that climate change and the what we are being told is not accurate..

and in response...saint george gets called names

 

it is a fact that more top scientists are distancing themselves from the default view that the government share...

[Baj]

For me the juries still out, however, it doesn't mean that we shouldnt attempt to all live cleaner lives, not because of global warming, but because, blatantly, its the right thing to do.

 

For example, I don't reuse carrier bags because im worried about rising sea levels, I reuse carrier bags because if everyone did they wouldnt need to make as many.

[Hatch]

I just can't believe that the world has been here for millions of years, surviving all sorts , then we come along and foook it all up in about 30 years just with a few old fridges and a can of lynx deodorant

[stevegrant]

I just can't believe that the world has been here for millions of years, surviving all sorts , then we come along and foook it all up in about 30 years just with a few old fridges and a can of lynx deodorant

[Baj]

Also, what the hells the Indepedent Police Complaints Commission got to do with it?

[Um Bongo]

Also, what the hells the Indepedent Police Complaints Commission got to do with it?

 

It's clearly the Police's fault, as is everything in this day and age.

[Baj]

Ah, yeah, fair point.

[Sheaf Saint]

I just can't believe that the world has been here for millions of years, surviving all sorts , then we come along and foook it all up in about 30 years just with a few old fridges and a can of lynx deodorant

 

The point about climate change though is that the earth survived perfectly well for billions of years before us, and it will still be here long after mankind has become extinct.

 

We need the planet more than the planet needs us. Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet, but our species is like a parasite draining it of all of its resources. It's no surprise the planet is making it harder and harder for us to exist here - just like the immune system of the human body does what it can to repel viruses and other infections.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

i laughed

[badgerx16]

The other side of the debate :

 

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-myths

 

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

 

The question is, given that any major catastrophe would not occur until all those on here are dead, do we care about something we would never experience ?

[Special K]

The point about climate change though is that the earth survived perfectly well for billions of years before us, and it will still be here long after mankind has become extinct.

 

We need the planet more than the planet needs us. Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet, but our species is like a parasite draining it of all of its resources. It's no surprise the planet is making it harder and harder for us to exist here - just like the immune system of the human body does what it can to repel viruses and other infections.

 

Resources for what? Has the earth "produced" these resources for any purpose at all? No. Are we nicking them from anything else? No. They have been utilised by us to make our lives better, progress if you will, from hairy apes scratching each others arses to intelligent humans. And before anyone whinges on about hardwoods, deforestation, etc, the earth has performed far more extinction events of it's own than we will ever perform or will happen within the next "apocalyptic" 50 years or so that any ****-scared tree hugger will have us believe is all we have left before we fry to death.

[Sheaf Saint]

Resources for what? Has the earth "produced" these resources for any purpose at all? No. Are we nicking them from anything else? No. They have been utilised by us to make our lives better, progress if you will, from hairy apes scratching each others arses to intelligent humans. And before anyone whinges on about hardwoods, deforestation, etc, the earth has performed far more extinction events of it's own than we will ever perform or will happen within the next "apocalyptic" 50 years or so that any ****-scared tree hugger will have us believe is all we have left before we fry to death.

 

OK point taken, but do you really believe that we can extract all of the natural resources this planet has to offer (ie gas, oil, wood, coal) without in any way affecting the natural balance of our environment?

 

The latest idea regarding coal-fired power stations is carbon capture and the proposal to bury that carbon that is reclaimed deep underground where it cannot enter the atmosphere. Does anybody actually believe that this will have no negative impact on the Earth at all?

[TopGun]

OK point taken, but do you really believe that we can extract all of the natural resources this planet has to offer (ie gas, oil, wood, coal) without in any way affecting the natural balance of our environment?

 

The latest idea regarding coal-fired power stations is carbon capture and the proposal to bury that carbon that is reclaimed deep underground where it cannot enter the atmosphere. Does anybody actually believe that this will have no negative impact on the Earth at all?

 

No reason why carbon capture would cause damage. Carbon is injected into vast saline aquifers in liquid form where it is trapped. Over years it reacts chemically to form solid carbon compounds. Just putting back what was taken in essence.

[benjii]

I love the absurd teleology of the green brigade.

[Special K]

OK point taken, but do you really believe that we can extract all of the natural resources this planet has to offer (ie gas, oil, wood, coal) without in any way affecting the natural balance of our environment?

 

The latest idea regarding coal-fired power stations is carbon capture and the proposal to bury that carbon that is reclaimed deep underground where it cannot enter the atmosphere. Does anybody actually believe that this will have no negative impact on the Earth at all?

 

The extraction doesn't really matter, it's the burning of them that does

 

For me it comes back to starting points. I don't believe there is a status quo, a defining natural balance so that all species currently alive will remain, as they are, for eternity. The earth, it's climate and it's inhabitants are constantly changing and it has always been thus. I find too much of the current hysteria on climate change to be more about those scared of change than anything else.

[Smirking_Saint]

It's just a natural trend, warming and cooling that the earth has done for years, we are currently between two ice ages, waiting for the next that WILL happen eventually though not in our lifetime.

 

It all makes me laugh, the only real scientists that are backing the climate change idea are very often in some way linked to governments. Does this mean we should forget about living cleaner ?? No, not at all but it makes you wonder about all the new stealth sorry i mean green taxes we are getting.

 

Also, i don't agree with all this fossil fuels running out malarky, so your telling me we are 100 years from the end of fossil fuels ?? Then why are the major power producing companies not going f'n mental to protect the future of their own product ?? Simple, they are not really worried.

[mack rill]

The point about climate change though is that the earth survived perfectly well for billions of years before us, and it will still be here long after mankind has become extinct.

 

We need the planet more than the planet needs us. Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet, but our species is like a parasite draining it of all of its resources. It's no surprise the planet is making it harder and harder for us to exist here - just like the immune system of the human body does what it can to repel viruses and other infections.

 

Thanks Bexy:( Now i feel im just a Wart!

[Weston Super Saint]

Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet,

 

Try telling that to the Dodo's :shock:

[badgerx16]

Originally Posted by Bexy

Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet,

 

 

Try telling that to the Dodo's :shock:

The Dodos were quite happily maintaining an equilibrium with the planet until man turned up on their islands. Similarly all those species listed here :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recent_extinctions.

 

And moving forward 10 or 20 years, there is a good chance that Tigers, Blue Whales, Rhinos, and many more would have joined them, other than the few resident in zoo parks, ( obviously not the whales ! ).

[Weston Super Saint]

Well, you can't blame the dinosaurs - how many thousands of species?? - on mankind

[Thedelldays]

the wooley mamoth FFS...who stopped them from breathing..?

[Ponty]

the wooley mamoth FFS...who stopped them from breathing..?

That was man, actually, and I'm the biggest "Man made Climate Change" denier you'll meet (after St George).

 

Primitive man discovered that hunting Woolly Mammoths was easier if, instead of spearing them, they drove the herds towards cliffs and ravines. The whole herd would fall to their deaths and the hunters would scavenge what they needed from the corpses. Obviously they killed far more than they needed, or could use, and the species was wiped out quite quickly.

[Block 18]

That was man, actually, and I'm the biggest "Man made Climate Change" denier you'll meet (after St George).

 

Primitive man discovered that hunting Woolly Mammoths was easier if, instead of spearing them, they drove the herds towards cliffs and ravines. The whole herd would fall to their deaths and the hunters would scavenge what they needed from the corpses. Obviously they killed far more than they needed, or could use, and the species was wiped out quite quickly.

 

 

Bit like the primive version of the weekly tesco's shop

[saintwarwick]

the wooley mamoth FFS...who stopped them from breathing..?

 

The dodo.

[TopGun]

I posted the below on the Guardian website earlier as a comment about the Drax protesters but thought it fits here too!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/drax-coal-train-trial-guilty?commentpage=3

 

Whether you are a climate change believer or denier the simple facts remain that the UK has to sort its energy policy out pronto.

 

The new nuclear stations being proposed by the likes of EDF & RNE N-Power at sites now under consideration at Sizewell, Hinckley Point et al have many hoops to go through:

 

1. Any new nuclear power station will have a 10-year build time as against three years for gas and about the same for a new coal plant.

2. The new nukes being proposed are likely to be twin reactors of about 800MW each meaning a new nuke will be 1600MW, 2.5x smaller than the Drax output of 4000MW.

3. It is very possible that a Tory government and the new Infrastructure Planning Commission that is being set up presently to oversee all new projects of national importance will actually recommend a new public inquiry into the concept of new nukes thus adding another three years minimum before any new nuke construction might start.

4. In the time it takes to get new nukes built and online a number of the current nukes will go out of service. For example, the 1,000MW Wylfa nuke on Anglesey is due to go offline at the end of 2010 though it is fighting for a four-year stay of execution.

5. The older coal power stations such as Kingsnorth and ****enzie and many others without flue gas desulphurisation technology that is deemed too costly to fit to older plants will have to go offline by 2015 under EU regs and can only be used for a further 20,000 hours between now and 2015.

6. A gas power plant can be fired up from cold to full capacity in 20 minutes; a coal plant takes a day; a nuke takes about a week. To overrely on nukes would be foolish unless we had so much overcapacity to ensure unplanned outages do not cause power cuts. France has 76% of electricty in place from nukes but has older conventional plants ticking over and can import from Germany and Spain if required.

 

These points alone make it imperative that newer coal plants like Drax with flue gas desulphurisation technology stay online until other plants as well as new nuclear can be built. Therefore quite a few IGCC (gas) power stations are being planned as well as CCS-coal plants (which will likely also take until 2020 to get online if the technology proves economically viable and the present and future governments get a shift on). The Tories may also stop CCS technology investment anyway.

 

All of this means the UK will face power shortages by 2015. It's time for people to stop being petty and work pragmatically to ensure that the UK has diverse and secure electricity projects coming online asap. That includes more gas, more renewables such as wind, biomass and tidal and a more efficient National Grid that includes long distance DC lines that can transport power from one end of the country to the other far more effectively than is possible at the moment. It also means that the nimbys who will stop any form of new power where they live have to be brought onside with new energy developments far better.

 

You can see there are many power issues the UK needs to address. And as such, climate change can be viewed as a diversion from more pressing pragmatic needs! Although it shouldn't be mocked IMO!

[Smirking_Saint]

I posted the below on the Guardian website earlier as a comment about the Drax protesters but thought it fits here too!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/drax-coal-train-trial-guilty?commentpage=3

 

Whether you are a climate change believer or denier the simple facts remain that the UK has to sort its energy policy out pronto.

 

The new nuclear stations being proposed by the likes of EDF & RNE N-Power at sites now under consideration at Sizewell, Hinckley Point et al have many hoops to go through:

 

1. Any new nuclear power station will have a 10-year build time as against three years for gas and about the same for a new coal plant.

2. The new nukes being proposed are likely to be twin reactors of about 800MW each meaning a new nuke will be 1600MW, 2.5x smaller than the Drax output of 4000MW.

3. It is very possible that a Tory government and the new Infrastructure Planning Commission that is being set up presently to oversee all new projects of national importance will actually recommend a new public inquiry into the concept of new nukes thus adding another three years minimum before any new nuke construction might start.

4. In the time it takes to get new nukes built and online a number of the current nukes will go out of service. For example, the 1,000MW Wylfa nuke on Anglesey is due to go offline at the end of 2010 though it is fighting for a four-year stay of execution.

5. The older coal power stations such as Kingsnorth and ****enzie and many others without flue gas desulphurisation technology that is deemed too costly to fit to older plants will have to go offline by 2015 under EU regs and can only be used for a further 20,000 hours between now and 2015.

6. A gas power plant can be fired up from cold to full capacity in 20 minutes; a coal plant takes a day; a nuke takes about a week. To overrely on nukes would be foolish unless we had so much overcapacity to ensure unplanned outages do not cause power cuts. France has 76% of electricty in place from nukes but has older conventional plants ticking over and can import from Germany and Spain if required.

 

These points alone make it imperative that newer coal plants like Drax with flue gas desulphurisation technology stay online until other plants as well as new nuclear can be built. Therefore quite a few IGCC (gas) power stations are being planned as well as CCS-coal plants (which will likely also take until 2020 to get online if the technology proves economically viable and the present and future governments get a shift on). The Tories may also stop CCS technology investment anyway.

 

All of this means the UK will face power shortages by 2015. It's time for people to stop being petty and work pragmatically to ensure that the UK has diverse and secure electricity projects coming online asap. That includes more gas, more renewables such as wind, biomass and tidal and a more efficient National Grid that includes long distance DC lines that can transport power from one end of the country to the other far more effectively than is possible at the moment. It also means that the nimbys who will stop any form of new power where they live have to be brought onside with new energy developments far better.

 

You can see there are many power issues the UK needs to address. And as such, climate change can be viewed as a diversion from more pressing pragmatic needs! Although it shouldn't be mocked IMO!

 

A DC link across the country is not needed IMO, National grid and the indepentent GO's are ok at the moment using AC links and also DC links would never work (in respect that all subs would have to install rectifiers etc) Other than that the points you make are valid, however Nuke stations again IMO are 100% the way forward, backed up with gas and also the likes of Hydro due to the need of demand spikes etc as they can come online far quicker. It would help to have links to europe so that we could sell excess (in future) and also buy the extra (as we do now from france's excess). Wind is ok, in Britain we have a very windy nation and so 'should' gain the efficiency needed however 'green' energy is actually very inefficient when you study it.

[TopGun]

A DC link across the country is not needed IMO, National grid and the indepentent GO's are ok at the moment using AC links and also DC links would never work (in respect that all subs would have to install rectifiers etc) Other than that the points you make are valid, however Nuke stations again IMO are 100% the way forward, backed up with gas and also the likes of Hydro due to the need of demand spikes etc as they can come online far quicker. It would help to have links to europe so that we could sell excess (in future) and also buy the extra (as we do now from france's excess). Wind is ok, in Britain we have a very windy nation and so 'should' gain the efficiency needed however 'green' energy is actually very inefficient when you study it.

 

Stored hydro is a good point for spikes and SSE is one company looking into it. Although it is probable that it is a net user of energy than provider in some cases. It has a role to play though for quick energy release.

 

Most energy generation except for nukes is pretty inefficient so it is unfair of anyone to put a particular focus on wind as being more inefficient per se. After development costs are paid back to investors, most wind farms can create "free" energy for half their anticipated 25-year lifetimes. So as there are lower fuel costs the inefficiencies are less important, as with stored hydro. The subsidies like ROCs that people moan about with wind have applied in one form or another to every other form of fledgling energy also previously. In time wind can standalone and be a valuable supplement to baseload power.

 

I'd disagree with your point Smirking about DC lines though see your perspective. Not every substation would need to be adapted as you would only run a few big lines, akin to motorways. A few substations in each region could then convert to AC for short haul distribution of end user power. In any case, you would not want to use the potential all the time, just have it there for good wind generation periods in a particular area, unexpected problems and unusual spike times. Scottish wind could easily supply Newcastle for example for much of the time. When the wind isn't there, Newcastle falls back on less intermittent power sources. For example, the Moray wind farms could supply AC power into a central substation hub that would send DC distributed energy south taking in power plants like Longannet along the route.

 

Your point about importing and exporting power from France is also interesting. Although this will change as our North Sea gas supplies diminish, we have exported gas in the summertime for years to France who have far better underground gas storage facilities than we have. We have then re-imported gas or gas-derived electricity from France during higher demand winter periods at far higher prices. Which is just ridiculous. We don't have sufficent on-shore underground gas storage as every scheme proposed is opposed by local people. An example is in the north west where a company called Canatxx has tried for years to get consent to store gas in vast underground non-porous aquifers. Each winter the huge industrial users of power in Runcorn and Warrington are forced to pay top-notch price for power when gas bought and stored nearby at lower cost in the summer could be used instead. That means all the chemicals and other industrial products produced are sold on at higher prices to the ultimate cost of every one of us. Admittedly Canatxx have done a shabby job of convincing local stakeholders of the benefits of their proposed scheme.

 

I like your understanding of the issues though Smirking! The Guardian comments are a ****fest of baboons arguing "principles" with no knowledge or understanding of the issues. One up to the Saintsweb!

Edited 4 July, 2009 by TopGun

[benjii]

That was man, actually, and I'm the biggest "Man made Climate Change" denier you'll meet (after St George).

 

Primitive man discovered that hunting Woolly Mammoths was easier if, instead of spearing them, they drove the herds towards cliffs and ravines. The whole herd would fall to their deaths and the hunters would scavenge what they needed from the corpses. Obviously they killed far more than they needed, or could use, and the species was wiped out quite quickly.

 

I'm not sure if I believe this.

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm not sure if I believe this.

 

According to National Geographic Woolly Mammouths died out because of, yep, you guessed it, climate change

 

I'm pretty sure we didn't have motor cars and planes and fridges and all those other things that get the blame for climate change, but it still managed to wipe out a whole species

 

http://www.ngcafrica.co.za/programmes/baby-mammoth-frozen-in-time/feature-articles/why-did-the-woolly-mammoth-die-out/1

[TopGun]

According to National Geographic Woolly Mammouths died out because of, yep, you guessed it, climate change

 

I'm pretty sure we didn't have motor cars and planes and fridges and all those other things that get the blame for climate change, but it still managed to wipe out a whole species

 

http://www.ngcafrica.co.za/programmes/baby-mammoth-frozen-in-time/feature-articles/why-did-the-woolly-mammoth-die-out/1

 

National Geographic is a well known naysayer of climate change. It is edited by Saint George FFS.

 

Woolly mammoths died out as Ponty says 10,000BC. An enclave on Wrangel Island north of Siberia shivered their way through until 1,700BC because seemingly there were no hunters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth

[Thedelldays]

what the fuk was the ice age about..?

must have been man made

[TopGun]

what the fuk was the ice age about..?

must have been man made

 

 

Shut it. You've caused enough issues about woolly mammoths.

[TopGun]

They do look more like elephants than dodos though.

 

[mack rill]

Kin-ell i thought they only had black n white photos back then,8-[

[Colinjb]

The point about climate change though is that the earth survived perfectly well for billions of years before us, and it will still be here long after mankind has become extinct.

 

We need the planet more than the planet needs us. Most wildlife lives in perfect equilibrium with the planet, but our species is like a parasite draining it of all of its resources. It's no surprise the planet is making it harder and harder for us to exist here - just like the immune system of the human body does what it can to repel viruses and other infections.

 

Gaia theory on Saints Web, bloody hell!

[TopGun]

Kin-ell i thought they only had black n white photos back then,8-[

 

Only in Portsmouth.

[Mole]

Climate change is just another excuse for a Labour stealth tax and another excuse to invent jobs for leftwing mongs.

[TopGun]

Climate change is just another excuse for a Labour stealth tax and another excuse to invent jobs for leftwing mongs.

 

A shame you didn't bother reading the posts above then about the probable effects of a Tory government.

 

But I'll let you look like a tool.

[Thedelldays]

when you go abroad and see what little they are doing about the so called climate change,,,it makes you think our effort is like bringing a dust pan and brush to an earth quake...

[Weston Super Saint]

National Geographic is a well known naysayer of climate change. It is edited by Saint George FFS.

 

Woolly mammoths died out as Ponty says 10,000BC. An enclave on Wrangel Island north of Siberia shivered their way through until 1,700BC because seemingly there were no hunters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth

 

So, basically what you're saying is that the Wooly mammouths in Siberia died off because of some other reason than being hunted to extinction by man?

[Thedelldays]

i have been to many many countries and see how serious they take this climate change malarky by the little they do...

 

makes our effort like bring a dust-pan and brush to the aftermath of an earthquake

[Saintandy666]

What a stupid thread. One hot summer doesn't mean global warming is correct just as one cool summer doesn't mean it is wrong. Global warming is a gradual trend overtime, the fluctuations between years will still exist, the range will just be higher up the scale in temperature.