Not to mention Rodders' witty spelling of plurals of words ending in -y.
Fracking in UK given green light
Apr 17, 2012
49 Replies
Den 17.04.2012 10:57, skrev Nick Odell:
Your picture is completely wrong. The Earth stay in position as before, but the gas create more global warming. The sea is rising and will slowly cover the land. England need more nuclear power and should learn from France how to do it.
In message , Jo Stein wrote
Don't you mean learn from Japan on how to do it.
Well that of course is also completely wrong.
England need more nuclear power and
That however, I agree with..
Den 21.04.2012 14:58, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win. The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
What *are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any sense at all.
It all sounds scarily like Drivel.
Sounds like something from that 'Thrive' video on youtube.
formatting link
> His English is bad but he has a valid point.
My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows more about that:
formatting link
> Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, > including a detailed look at the Earth?s energy imbalance that was > made possible by data from 3000 ?Argo? floats that measure ocean > temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current > imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the > energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was > equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 > days per year.
JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.
Now, that I do agree with.
I can not find a single coherent statement of accepted scientific theory or factual data in the above sentence. In short not one statement in it is correct. So really I give up.
Phew. I thought I had suddenly had a brainstorm.
stream of pseudoscientific consciousness, or was we know it, greenDribble.
Or, conversely its an encrypted Al Qaeda instruction. Q? Can you run this through the fluffandbollox filter and see if it represents a National Threat?
A nice example of fractal wrongness, there.
James Hansen is a wanker.
Any relation to the annoying David Hansen?
apart from both being scamsters of the highest order and pimping their own interest in the guise of 'saving the planet', no.
One would imagine so, would one not.
Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to ignore ...
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required