Comments on: Climate Conference Ends, Time to Consider Alternatives

By: janama

janama — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:27:53 +0000

lottsa gnashing of teeth in the green community today. :)

By: Hasbeen

Hasbeen — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:06:50 +0000

There was a story in a UK magazine recently about these domestic wind turbines. You know the type. Generate your own power, & make a proffit by feeding the excess into the mains.

I think it was Which Magazine. They installed one on a house, in a reasonable position for wind, & monitered the results, for 12 months.

These things draw a small amount of power, from the mains, to power the inverter. The only problem is that they also only generate a small amount of power.

Thr result was that over the 12 months, the inverter drew more power than the thing generated, giving the home owners a net LOSS for the year. They had a totally useless noise, & vibration generator on their roof, & had to pay for the privilege.

Aint green wonderful.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:13:11 +0000

SJT,

“In evolutionary terms, the current climate change will be far to quick.”

If you used an IBM XT processor your modeling results will show a far slower climate change and hence life will easily adapt.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:53:16 +0000

Wind power is not a solution. The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
Please think!
And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/

By: SJT

SJT — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:05:47 +0000

As life has been adapting for millennia, is adapting now, and will do so in the future, without any prior need for our advice, your suggestion is somewhat bizarre.

Adaptation can be a slow and difficult process. In evolutionary terms, the current climate change will be far to quick.

By: janama

janama — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:03:05 +0000

in other words he as a bet on both sides of the table, can’t loose can he.
But he also doesn’t get shut out by the pro warmers so they are happy to invite him to talk to their own. They treat him with respect yet in reality he is quietly undermining their position.

By: Neville

Neville — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:38 +0000

Yes Steve but I think Lomborg is sure that a proper fair dinkum reduction in co2 just won’t happen.
It can’t arithmetically if China and India don’t play ball so why bother? I know you’re presenting a straight up logical argument but Lomborg by implication just doesn’t buy the logic or the argument.
As I’ve said I don’t believe AGW at all so to me it’s a complete waste of time and a mountain of money, what a disgusting waste.

By: Steve Schapel

Steve Schapel — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:53:47 +0000

Thanks a lot, Neville. You are of course right, and I obviously missed Lomborg’s clear statement of the AGW position on my first viewing of the video. Ok. So let’s come from the angle of him being a warmist. That doesn’t alter my main point – though it does cause me to re-phrase it. On the one hand, he says global warming is happening, and will continue to happen, because of CO2 emissions. On the other hand, he says that *if* all countries had successfully reduced CO2 emissions according to Kyoto prescriptions, it would reduce temperatures by 0.007F by 2100. He can’t have it both ways, can he? Leaving aside for a moment the main thrust of his arguments about the idiocy of the costs. If he says that CO2 emissions are leading to global warming, then he has to say that significantly reducing CO2 emissions will significantly reduce global warming. Doesn’t he? If he says that significantly reducing CO2 emissions will only affect global warming to a degree too small to be noticed, then he has to say that CO2 is an insignificant factor in climate change. Doesn’t he?

By: Neville

Neville — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:24:53 +0000

So what’s the alternative then Ricki, or explain exactly how you can change the climate to reduce the temp and keep every country on every continent happy.
Btw our continent- come- country Australia has had some strange results over the past 100 years, e.g Adelaide and Brisbane temperatures have actually fallen over that period.
So how do you make sure that some really strange results don’t befall the climate adjusters (tweakers) as they carry out the fine tuning?
That’s if you believe this fantastic nonsense in the first place.

By: Ricki

Ricki — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:59:21 +0000

That would imply we have to increase the cost of energy by a factor of 10 to go down the non-CO2 energy path (allowing some to provide for storage to cope with night-time). This would be a shock to the average voter!

BTW, I don’t think we can expect to be able to cope if we ‘adapt’ to 5 or 6 degrees of temp rise. My guess would be population would plumet in the process — lots of misery and suffering.