More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Keith

Moderator
Climate change/drought is starting to drive even more migration northwards though....and in that movement there is huge potential for terrorist exploitation. Perhaps that's what he meant..
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
That's exactly what he meant. Most European leaders agree. This isn't some off the wall concept, except to a certain slice of the American political spectrum.
 

Keith

Moderator
Easy there now Jeff. That will only garner a predictable response. It would be shame to have to close this one too as I think we can learn from it providing we keep open minds...
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I'm just stating a fact. The American right is aghast at the idea that climate change might be a contributor to terror. THey don't believe it and squawk about it endlessly over here.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
P.S. -- I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I think it is a worthy topic of discussion. At least in the US, the right is adamant that climate change isn't happening and even more so that it isn't helping to breed more terrorism. I see some of what they are saying but on the whole think they are missing some key points.

THat seems to be a relevant area of discussion. For example, the Mali terrorists were supposedly part of groups squeezed out of central Mali by drought.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Oh, please. Give me a break. Radical Islamic terrorists don't need an external excuse like "climate change"...or droughts, famine, plague, floods, earthquakes or whatever may be happening as individual events anywhere around the world in order to whip themselves into blood lust. THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS do that completely independent of any of that! The Earth could be in a state of absolute perfection and harmony climate-wise and those dirt bags would still be doing their thing.

And here's another 'clue' as to just how BOGUS that whole 'climate-change-is-causing-terrorism' crapola is:

"Most European leaders agree. This isn't some off the wall concept, except to a certain slice of the American political spectrum (IOW conservatives...of course)." - J. Y.

Those same "leaders" have all been on the "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" BANDWAGON practically from the get-go! They wouldn't admit they've been wrong even if they were handed absolute, undeniable, demonstrable, incontrovertible PROOF. Instead, they'll back/support/attest to the validity of A-N-Y theory that creates/provides more fuel (sorry - "fuel" is a bad word) to power their "climate change" legislation agenda no matter HOW 'off-the-wall' it may be. IOW, any 'theory' that backs/supports their C.C/G.W. agenda and thereby makes them look like geniuses is immediately accepted as undeniable FACT by these "leaders"and the rest of the 'global warmer faithful' everywhere. They have faaaar too much invested in their little scam to do otherwise. And, of course, as we've seen right HERE for instance, a-n-y-o-n-e who DARES to disagree with any new-found 'proof' that climate change is affecting/will affect our lives in some horrendous way is IMMEDIATELY labeled a clueless moron...or you supply the pejorative(s).

The fact all those "European leaders" themselves (as well as the 'experts' who come up with all these 'theories') may be the ones who are completely 'out to lunch' isn't even considered a possibility by 'believers'...not even for a moment...and this is true regardless of the fact that outright fraud on the part of 'researchers' has been uncovered as many times as it has and so many C.C./G.W. "predictions" have failed to materialize.

Follow the m-o-n-e-y, people. Follow the money...

I goin' to me room now...<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
 

Keith

Moderator
Open again...

But let it remain constructive. While there appear to be conflicting & strongly held political views in the United States, it isn't necessarily so in the rest of the world. Certainly not here in the United Kingdom. This is an international board, so please remember that..

In other words, this is not an election forum...


Thanks...
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Unfortunately it seems that one cannot seperate Global warming from politics, note I use the term global warming rather than climate change, it originally was called global warming until the earth stopped cooperating and started to cool which it has been doing for the last decade or so. Those with vested interests cleverly changed the name to climate change, as we all know the climate is changing all the time so now the canals freezing in Venice can be blamed on climate change...get my drift. In fact you can blame just about anything on climate change and the warmist's have, including now Islamic terrorism.

Here is a list of things that have been blamed on Global warming/climate change.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man

I'm assuming that was tongue in cheek. Nothing is perfectly "green" when it comes to energy conversion, but every "con" in this article could also be applied, to a much greater degree, to "non-green" fossil fuel mining, fossil fuel power plant construction, and fossil fuel plant operation. I have difficulty in understanding who the target audience would be for such an article. Who would take that much slanted bias without asking questions? If only wind opponents are the targeted audience, it is preaching to the choir. If targeted to the wind proponents, it falls far short of being a valid argument. In the end, it's a bunch of useless 0s and 1s filling up the internet world (like I'm doing right now).

The comparison of "green" electric cars is more complicated. They require energy from power plants in which the emissions comparison of gasoline vs coal indicates that the gasoline burning car is less polluting (considering all emissions) than the power plant that powers the "green" electric car. Not sure about that one though.

I guess I'm an idealist in expecting balanced facts from the same source (person, publication, media), rather than cherry picking only what supports the targeted audience. That's the problem with being so partial to science...it has spoiled me into an unrealistic expectation that I can trust other's technical opinions in terms of rational thought, and being void of political and religious ideologies. Instead, I must always be on guard as to the bias or slant provided by any thing/one outside of a pure science publication. Anyone who intentionally avoids both the pros and cons in their technical discussion, and attempting to sway me to "believe" their one-sided un-scientific argument, is no different than someone intentionally trying to lie to me.

Getting back to "Wind", although it is not "free power" as many are convinced it should be, we have an unusually large penetration of wind in our footprint (it has been as high as 36% of our load in the low-load periods of the day, and we're seeing many more >30% periods "on peak". With that said, after taking out congestion costs and other costs that could be added to any other type of generator, we've actually seen a system marginal price of <$0. With that said, this included the production tax credit they currently enjoy. The point is, wind had a rough start, as would any new technology that forces people to think differently. But I think it's here to stay, especially when looking at air quality deterioration in China and India.
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
Nicely balanced and informative article Pete:) I must say I am quite appalled at the amount of infrastructure our North Sea wind farms require for maintenance. For example, there are as many as 2 dozen high speed cats ranging in size from 20 - 30 metres making regular runs to and from the pylons in the North Sea & Englsih Channel. They drive Hamilton water jets from massive Caterpillar type diesel engines and are on the go 24 hours a day. Not exactly carbon neutral, and that diesel adds up.

I'm not a fan of wind power personally, at least not in the large farm type development. However, I can see some kind of future in smaller domestic installations where rural householders or businesses can generate their own electricity.

As with everything, it is a range of strategies which will eventually wean us off oil & gas, wind is only a small part of that process.
 

Charlie Farley

Supporter
Can I combine what I have gleaned from two active threads in The Paddock ?

Popular threads relate to :

Terrorism
Global Warming

Why not combine the two ?
It seems that the vast majority of the terrorism problem emanates
from the Middle East. We also seem to be confronted by the need
to produce clean, cheap energy.

STEP FORWARD DAVID MORTON & BOEING..

Put in orbit thousands of solar reflectors
Use a bucket of light repeatedly...

Jesus, it's so simple...
I'm running for President next year ( Citizenship application in the post..
as we speak. )
 
'Jesus, it's so simple...
I'm running for President next year ( Citizenship application in the post..
as we speak.'

Sadly you have to be born a US citizen to be President - so no President Arnie etc.
 

Keith

Moderator
'Prairie' farming here in the UK has caused all sorts of issues with the ecostructure (removal of hedges and drainage ditches) but fortunately, we get enough rainfall to counter the potential for a drying topsoil as has happened in in the US. Not read the article but I remember the huge dust storms in the American Midwest and how the sun could be blotted out for days. Does that still happen?
 
Back
Top