Fracking in UK given green light

[Bob Eager]

And it would affect your ill-gotten FIT gold.

[Tim Streater]

There you go with your cobblers again harry, just like we said before.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No. The resistance is coming from renewable energy and green lobbies, and it so totally threatens their narrative and cash flows that it cannot be allowed to happen.

I think it's going to be hard to

it will be fought tooth an nail by the green proto fascists and the renewable energy companies.

Its already a fact that cheap gas can halve emissions at far far less cost per tonne of CO2 saved then renewables.

Both are running out of credibility fast.

[Jo Stein]

...

Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP. Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very stupid. Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is not a stable source of energy. Now I get some money because a lot of it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm, I would give them the farm for free.

When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature. I hope that you will have a look at it:

heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only

70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about 610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me, as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous.

If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body.

1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec. Please do a google-search for "ionizations in the body from natural radiation" and then have a look at page 133 of that book.

Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science.

[Huge]

*plonk*

[The Natural Philosopher]

Thats because you have been brainwaahed.

They are not dangerous and they are not stupid.

The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy.

Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is

It is.

Now I get some money because a lot of

you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away?

I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss say.

No its because he DO understand science. Very very well. Better at the philosophical level and over a broad range than most scientists he has met.

There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument.

It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century global warming.

The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick - its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant.

Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument (if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are deeply specious.

For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY interesting study this paper:

can only reiterate the adage

The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me. The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me, and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as they can make a massive profit out of it. The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me.

Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped).

My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved.

The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into 'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than if we had no AGW theory at all.

But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup (which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand) renewable energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a low carbon or cheap or resource efficient way known to man.

And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas.

[Jo Stein]

Do you need better glasses? Here you answer harry and not me.

Now I use the farm for vacation only, and there is plenty of room for me and a nuclear power plant.

"reviewerss" is not an english word. ...

I agree that renewable is a bad ideea. We need a lot of clean energy to replace fossil fuel, and it must be available on demand.

Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story?

Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) "When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."

Our clever scientists have measured the atmospheric CO2 during the last 400 000 years and found this remarkable figure

> Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 > inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, > is nearly double that of the last century.** > ** Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in > global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, > doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

During the last 20 000 years sea level rose from -132 m to 0 m while CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 395 ppm.

large population increase came in a periode when we had stable CO2 and stable sea level, and the large spike in CO2 is made by man. When studying the figure from NASA it is not difficult to "guess" what will happen to the sea level in the future.

[geoff]

That would be a bit difficult for the thrust of the article in that well known environmental rag the Rolling Stone that Harry posted a few days ago

[The Natural Philosopher]

The reverse is equally true.

Why would ypu trust wiki when you can go to a dozen different places and find a different story.

exactly so. Which is why I pointed yopu at a competent paper from a amn who is a peer revuewed scientist publishing a paper at the royal society.

I would cross check those figures elsewhere. there is more than one story out there.

Guessing is always easy.

Being right is a lot harder.

[Jo Stein]

Have you heard about this madman?

is no more mad than you. Both of you suffer from the delusion that we have no global warming. Both of you tell lies and want us to believe that your fiction belongs to our real world. I think that Anders Behring Breivik can be cured from his delusion. You may be too old to be cured.