Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. I haven't finally acknowledged anything. Any scientist will tell you that science is inherently uncertain. Theories stand until they are disproved or improved. There are no final answers in science. For someone who reads so widely, you seem to have a remarkably limited understanding of the scientific process.

    In that case, I would expect you to acknowledge that questioning the scientific consensus does not make someone an idiot.

    I would also like to point out that since the last mega thread on this issue your position and arguments have noticeably shifted, in order no doubt to reflect the fact that reality has been going in the opposite direction to the theory.

    :)

  2. It's a very good example. Although we are a little more civilised nowadays, those scientists currently trying to convince us that human emissions are affecting the Earth's climate, such as Hansen, Mann and Phil Jones, are routinely ridiculed and pilloried on the internet and in the popular press and receive regular death threats.

    Poor example, because the consensus is that Global Warming is fact

    and any scientist who questions this is treated as a pariah.

    Trying to suggest that the opposite is the case is pretty desperate TBH.

    :blink:

  3. Only religion and mathematics deal in certainties. Science is inherently uncertain and must make do with probabilities, I'm afraid. It's a shame so many people don't understand this.

    I'm glad you have finally acknowledged this, because this is why I question the theory.

    Many of the most ardent fanatics believe that if a scientist tells them something it is a fact.

    It is because I have read so widely about science, technology and history that I understand the opposite is more often the case.

    :)

  4. So you reject the conclusions of decades of modern scientific research on the basis of a 37-year-old "largely unsourced" magazine article. Well that's about par for the course for the deniers, I guess. How do you feel about the heliocentric solar system? Convinced yet, or still pooh-poohing it after Ptolemy told us all that the Earth was the centre of the universe?

    By the way, even in the 70's, when climatology was still a young science, it was quickly realised that despite the last couple of decades of cooling, the warming effect of CO2 would win through. The extent of the warming to come was well predicted by Hansen in 1981.

    That's a very poor example, given that the scientific consensus at the time was an Earth centred universe

    and Galileo and Bruno, as geocentrism deniers were respectively imprisoned and executed for their beliefs.

    And last time we had a mega thread on this subject - 'your lot' were denying that we have had 2 decades with no warming at all

    which explains why Global Warming was rebranded as Climate Change

    which, as I keep pointing out, is undeniable.

    :blink:

  5. The globally averaged temperature now almost certainly exceeds the maximum seen during the MWP, and the underlying trend will almost certainly continue to be steeply upwards for the foreseeable future unless humans quickly stop burning fossil fuels.

    Very scientific.

    Judging by the precision of this argument I would say that my IQ almost certainly exceeds yours

    a statement which is impossible to refute but at the same time proves absolutely nothing.

    :)

  6. Wasn't the MWP a period of massive clearance of forests across Europe and Asia and to a lesser extend North and South America? Would appear even back then man had an ability to make major changes to ecosystems.

    Last time you were arguing that the MWP was a figment of my imagination.

    Vikings in Greenland and all.

    Well it wasn't and neither was the Little Ice Age.

    If you look out of the window you may spot a huge object in the sky

    It's call 'the Sun'

    and its energy output varies over time

    hence the Earth's climate gets warmer and cooler

    this has been happening for millions of years and will continue to happen after the next extinction event asteroid strike wipes out humanity.

    :)

  7. There is speculation (theory would be over-egging it) that population increases and iron-age forest clearance (to make iron..) did cause a modest CO2 rise (+albedo changes) which would make the MWP an example of global warming. And that the Black Death et al lead to depopulation, CO2 drawdown and hence the LIA.

    Last time we had a mega thread on this subject

    the reality deniers were arguing that the MWP was an entirely localised event

    how times change.

    :)

  8. @ Game_Over

    Ok, I understand that you don't accept ACC AKA MMGW... a couple of quick questions, if I may?

    1) Do you accept that measured atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing?

    2) If so, to what process(es) do you attribute the cause (if any)?

    Atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to humans burning fossil fuels I would imagine.

    Given this process has been happening for a considerable period of time, you would expect global temperatures to have risen consistently and in line with this increase in CO2 - they have not.

    Also it is known that levels of atmospheric CO2 have been considerably higher in the past than they are now without Global temperatures rising catastrophically.

    The thing is, many of the people who believe in MMGW are in their 20's and 30's and were brainwashed at school and possibly university. When these people are in their 50's and 60's, they will realise that most of what they are told is hogwash and they may even post on sites like this in order to pass this experience onto the younger generation who will no doubt believe they know everything.

    This is just the nature of things.

    :)

  9. The UK isn't particularly sunny but it is the windiest Country in Europe with higher wind speeds in winter rather than summer ;)

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/when-the-north-wind-doesnt-blow/

    On that particular winter day, wind power was contributing 0.7% of our electricity requirements.

    When it is very cold the wind tends not to blow

    because wind requires energy which comes from heat derived from the Sun

    energy_030212_1.jpg?w=500

    :)

  10. you said:

    "What the guy can't understand is the people at the top get paid more because they are harder to replace. The man that pumps your gas or works the mines are 10 a penny. It all comes down to supply and demand. Everybody is not equall economicly. "

    I said, the guys at the top are as ten a penny as those at the bottom.

    I have laid out my case. as have others.

    I beleive ENTITLEMENT is rife in all levels of society.....its not about S+D, its about people measuring themselves against another measurer measuring themself against you. People try very hard to ensure there are differentials in pay according to the work...it follows that once you have reached a certain level, you are naturally better than the person who isnt.

    Id like like to read your views on why people HATE their work, and Entitlement, and reward for failure.

    I agree the whole thing is wrong, but there we have it....perhaps we can slowly change the hearts and minds of men....I doubt it...5000 years of biblical knowledge of the spirit of men and nothing has changed.

    You are missing the point entirely.

    It is about hard work and innovation, not wealth

    People work hard and innovate because they want to be wealthy

    If the state then takes all their income they simply don't bother, unless you hold a gun to their heads.

    This is why all states where income is claimed by the state, are police states which always end in murder by the state and total economic failure.

    I won't bother to list any of the numerous examples of this in the 20th Century and it is still happening now in countries like North Korean and Zimbabwe.

    :)

  11. Yet another pathetic, pointless discussion.

    Socialism and its many illegitimate offspring were tested to destruction in the 20th Century.

    The defining aspect of this period was the hundreds of millions of people murdered by these utopian states and the millions who were prepared to risk death escaping from them.

    How many millions fled the United States??????????

    :blink:

    edited to substitute illegitimate for b*****d

    what a weird profanity filter

    :blink:

  12. The PM said there is to be a future debate. He didn't say there would be an end to wind developments.

    Germany is building 16 coal fired power stations to replace the nuclear power stations they are prematurely closing

    India and China are building lots of coal fired power stations. They are also building loads of wind, solar, hydro and some nuclear

    a minority of scientists, most of whom are not expert in the relevant fields - primarily climatology, physics, and geology

    Climate Change - see my previous comment <_<

    You are being given prior notice Kurt

    It is up to you if you choose to ignore it.

    A few years ago Cameron was riding behind a team of huskies

    he isn't now and neither is the Labour Party.

    The Lib Dems are irrelevant because they will be wiped out at the next election.

    :)

  13. How many times....the reason global warming is commonly referred to as climate change is to account for brain doners like you who look out of their window in July and see its raining and conclude GW must be ******** (because you can't differentiate between climate and weather).

    No it isn't - it's because we were told we were going to have mild winters and long hot dry summers

    And we have had the worst winters for generations and the wettest summers

    so they can hardly keep describing it as blo*dy Global warming can they?

    The Guardian article I quoted earlier even stated that Global surface temperatures had not risen since 1998.

    So now the fact that the Climate demonstrably constantly changes is being substituted for the myth of MMGW

    The Climate changes

    See, I am not a climate change denier.

    And that fact that we have been moving out of a particularly cold period would tend to suggest that it might actually get a bit warmer because this is what has happened on a regular basis for millions of years.

    In addition, history also shows that in periods of warming life flourished and in periods of cooling life got incredibly difficult.

    If we are heading for another mini ice age, as scientists predicted in the 70's, the UK, in particular Scotland would become virtually uninhabitable.

    :)

  14. Why did you post that comment in repsonse to my post about Utility scale water desalination (something you obviously know little or nothing about) and using renewables to run the plant? It seems to me that RO units are ideal for intermittant renewable power. Lots of wind / sun - run plant - and store 'power' in the form of treated water. Lots of wind and sun coinciding with peak grid demand - sell all or some onto the grid to alleviate pressure. No wind or sun - draw water from storage.

    Whats not to like? :)

    It's a bit pointless arguing that using solar energy in desert countries to desalinate water proves that it makes sense to use solar or wind power to heat our homes when the temperature falls below zero.

    Really.

    If I lived in Saudi Arabia I would be quite happy to have a few hundred square miles of solar panels because they can afford to lose a few hundred square miles of sand and the sun shines quite a lot in deserts.

    :blink:

  15. Game Over don't do facts.

    So I didn't watch the PM the other day state that wind turbines in the pipeline would be built, but that all parties would have to enter into a serious dialogue about the future of energy policy in this country?

    because that is what he said.

    And everything that Damik is telling you about Germany is lies is it?

    And Germany is not building a new generation of coal fired power stations.

    And India and China have not built and are not continuing to build hundreds of coal fired stations.

    These are all facts, as is the fact that thousands of scientists do not support the theory of MMGW

    which has now mysteriously be rebranded climate change - which is undeniable.

    :)

  16. That's fairly patronising, given your continued demonstration of a lack of knowledge of the facts.

    No, they haven't

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9645160/Energy-Secretary-slaps-down-minister-who-called-for-end-to-wind-farm-sprawl.html

    http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-energy-mix-2012-8

    No, India is increasing nuclear and looking at hydroelectrics, China's construction of low carbon energy now outstrips fossil fuels.

    http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cabs/india/full.html

    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1803183/china-low-carbon-sources-supply-quarter-electricity-2010

    Believe when I see it, particularly when Labour gets in in 2015.

    Sigh. I am simply observing that governments (the majority of the planet isn't the West, don't know if you know this) are moving away from fossil fuels to the alternatives. If you had said that the move is to low carbon energy and this might involve nuclear, you'd have a point. But you didn't, so you don't.

    Anyway, I'll let you get back to reading your oil industry/banking shill propaganda.

    I am just pointing out what is actually happening in the real world.

    Of course unpopular politicians will no doubt congregate at some fantastically expensive location sometime in the near future and claim they have saved the planet by setting meaningless targets that will never be met

    but they will then return home and as quietly as possible get on with the task of trying to bury the whole embarrassing episode.

    Tell me, why did Man Made Global Warming suddenly become Climate Change?

    Climate change has always happened and always will.

    If you do not understand the significance of such a change in the propaganda then you are unlikely to understand anything that is going to happen in the next 20 years or so.

    And if Labour win the next election, which is possible

    NOTHING WILL CHANGE

    BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SAME REALITIES

    :)

  17. There is absolutely not a consensus on this issue

    Its just that scientists who disagree have largely decided that discretion is the better part of valor

    And that is because of the absolutely fanatical behavior of MMGW disciples

    as displayed daily on this very forum.

    The theory of MMGW is not science - it is a cult

    but the high priests have a very different agenda to the ideological suicide bombers

    :blink:

  18. Now had a quick look at the first article that was written in 2009

    Obviously when this was written the authors were unaware of the problems that Germany is now having which have resulted in them deciding to build a new generation of coal fired power stations.

    Also it is misleading to say that pumped storage is not required - here is a short extract of an article examining the reality of wind power in Denmark which nominally gets 20% of its electricity from this source

    In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."

    Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

    A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.

    Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe.

    :)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.