[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSLUtfubOis]
h/t to Paul H
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
I really fear for the UK.
I can only see a very bleak future in the coming few years. I am really pleased to live somewhere electricity generation is 85% nuclear.
It is utterly futile to think that mankind can affect climate to any worthwhile extent. The numbers are very simple and are backed up by acceptance from a renowned UK government advisor, the US Department of Energy and many other reputable scientific minds.
Why cant we get to the nub of the problem ? with NUMBERS NOT ADJECTIVES and there is a good chance that the numbers below are in the right ballpark.
On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C.
Running the rough and ready numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Water Vapour accounts for as much as 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the remaining effect when accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C for the carbon economies of the whole world
• UK’s contribution to World CO2 emissions is ~1.8% = 1.6 thousandths deg C
Maximum efforts in the UK can only achieve an insignificant and immeasurable part of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
And whatever is said, outside Europe the rest of the world is not joining in. The non-joiners already amount to 62% of the world CO2 emissions and 48% of the world population. But the UK is the only Government that has enshrined action on CO2 into legislation.
(http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/5961/The-Utter-Futility-of-Reducing-Carbon-Emissions)
The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
So if the numbers above are even close to the right ballpark, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, as has occurred over the last century, would provide a future of greater prosperity for human development and much more food for the growing world population. This has been well proven in the Roman and Medieval pasts and would now especially benefit the third world.
continued
This is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. It remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
• environmental pollution.
• over fishing.
• forest clearance.
• farming for bio-fuels.
• and all other habitat destruction.
And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French electricity prices and CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades as anticipated by Piers Corbyn and many others. And as UK power stations face closure according to Green Euro policies, the lights may well go out in the winter 2015 if not sooner.
This is all because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
And now after “Splattergate” thanks to the 10:10 organisation everyone worldwide now knows exactly how they think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
Splattergate was classic NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION. It is probably the most egregious piece of publicity ever produced in the Man-made Global Warming cause. So any misrepresentation is valid in the Cause and any opposition however cogent or well qualified is routinely denigrated, publically ridiculed and as we now see literally terminated.
And so to carry on:
If the capital cost of Nuclear power is ~£1.4 billion / gigawatt (according to Prof David MacKay) and the newly commissioned array off Thanet cost £0.78 billion and is rated at 0.300 gigawatt but even using a generous load factor of 35% is only capable of producing on average 0.105 gigawatt , it appears that in capital cost terms alone offshore wind costs ~£7.5 billion / gigawatt or more than 5 times the cost of the equivalent nuclear production. This of course ignores all the additional costs of the essential parallel backup generating capacity as well as the costs of continuing feed-in tariffs, estimated at about a further £1.2 billion over the 20 year life of the project. Paying just for starters more than 5 times as much for an unreliable energy source must make utter economic nonsense.
Supporting renewable energy, especially wind farms, is something that this cash strapped government should re-examine very carefully.
And just to add to the nonsense, Carbon Capture and Storage can only increase electricity costs and deprive the planet of a source of increased plant fertility. It is one of many suggestions, which might reduce CO2 emissions. All are expensive and all are pretty well pointless.
So major government savings and greatly increased national prosperity could be achieved by terminating all CO2 related Government green activities and repealing the Climate Change Bill. Otherwise the UK is “standing into grave danger”.
Future Energy Security (destroyed by both the last Government and sadly continued by the current Coalition) is the foremost responsibility of a government to its citizens, probably more important than even than its Military Security.
Excellent comments, Edmh.
Bravo! – expose the eco-hypocrites!
Dr. Richard North have a very good idea about what to do with them.
What’s green and flies? For the answer: click here
For more celebrity double standards see here.
Remember that these AGW celebrities want YOU to reduce your carbon footprint. It’s not meant for them. ;>)
In line with Cristmas good will I say baaaah humbug!
along with his own private runway.
Good he has that. Otherwise he’d have to go to the airport to get on a plane. That can be so cumbersome. Reducing consumption can be so inconvenient. We all need a private runway for our five jets. Why doesn’t Al Gore have one at each of his mansions? Maybe he has that step to “reduce consumption” by building runways at his mansions in the works. As it is now he has that inconvenience of leaving home in a limo to get to his Gulfstream, parked all the way at the airport, to fly to his conferences about saving the world, which he views as being a grave task.
But he could use a web cam and do a webinar from his home. Instead of going to his conference everyone could all sit at home and watch on their computer. That would save so much greenhouse gas…… opp, sorry I mentioned that. I just made Al Gore look like a hypocrite for flying in a private jet all over the world all year long. What an inconvenient truth.
It’s people like me that are stopping the world from really doing something about reducing consumption.
are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.
Maybe he could start reducing his carbon footprint by disabling all 5 planes—not by selling them, because if he sells them someone else will use them and make pollution with them. Next, he could ride a bike to work, as he told us to do.
Thanks for this video. Just one more vivid example of how rich politicians are pure hypocrites. They continually expand their sphere of consumption while telling everyone else they need to reduce their consumption. They show by their lives they really aren’t worried about “global warming”. Shame they’re so intellectually slow to understand we see that about them.
I’m sure there’s plenty of cake around the house for the common folk to eat. No worries love.
Its a shame that all these hypocrites are so stupid that they can’t even be sneaky about their extravagance. The problem is that the average person will see these hypocrites that are in positions of power, and think to themselves, “If my country’s leaders and businessmen don’t care about the environment, why should I?”