The true cost of wind...

[Terry Fields]

[Terry Fields]

Then I'll ask you yet again: why is security of fuel supply of fundamental importance to your stance?

It might be 'obvious', but I'm asking you to spell it out, and so far you seem reluctant to do so.

[bert]

In message , Java Jive writes

...in AGW, is what he actually illustrated

Not if you read it correctly.

[bert]

Don't be so pedantic. The report was in the public domain issued as a press release. This was a weekly news program not a normal bulletin.

Try BBC i-player.

It wasn't a presenter. Read what I said again. And I didn't say anything about a right wing individual. Can't you read?

[bert]

Exactly - you quoted PART of it

FFS the purpose of a reserve is to overcome short term difficulties not long term supply.

It's a secure as gas or oil, probably even more so.

[dennis]

8<

So you are a climate expert and can tell us what the weather will be in

20 years time?

You can explain it as many times as you like but as your explanation is rubbish it doesn't mean anything.

[Tim Lamb]

AOL

>

[Terry Fields]

It seems to be a case of selective reading. If JJ can't handle such a simple piece of writing, with clear concepts, it casts doubts about his ability to comprehend the totality of the AGW debate.

Quite.

[Java Jive]

In the context at the time there wasn't any need to quote it all.

In which case, as the figures I gave but you chose to ignore completely show, these reserves are inadequate for that purpose - they will support world demand for about 13 days.

See the figures I quoted in reply to Dennis.

[Java Jive]

I have already done so, as in:

By and large, I accept that there may be individual exceptions, the people in this ng who are anti-wind are also pro-nuclear. It is immaterial in this argument what I think about the electricity supply being paramount, what matters in this discussion is what these particular people think about it.

For said people, one of the many reasons they complain about wind is it's short term unreliability, which is perfectly valid. For said people, an oft quoted phrase is along the lines of "Just wait until the lights go out, then the shit'll hit the fan!", from which it can be safely concluded that, for these people, security of the electricity supply is indeed paramount.

The trouble starts when these same people then go on to claim that the answer to the unreliability of wind is to build new nuclear power stations, because, as I have repeatedly shown, supplies of uranium to use as fissionable fuel for them can't be guaranteed as being reliable beyond about 10 years from now, yet the proposed plant has a 60 year lifecycle.

Therefore, to complain about the unreliability of wind but then say we must answer that by building nuclear power stations is inconsistent, there's an inherent and hypocritical self-contradiction in such a claim.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get home, it seems such a perfectly straightforward argument to me that I can only deem the truly extraordinary resistance to it as arising from a very deep bias, so deep that it can only be called bigotry.

To a country without worthwhile >

[Java Jive]

To which you now reply even more illogically ...

There are so many errors here, that I scarcely know where to begin: - You know that I am not an expert - Climate is not the same as weather - Even a weather expert can't predict the weather 20 years on - Climate change is not going to render either wind or solar power much different in effectiveness than either are now, let alone render both of them totally ineffective, as implied by your original comment.

Because you can't win the substantive argument, you're just wasting every one's time selectively quoting and pissing about with words.

If it is rubbish, even you should be able to prove it. I note that you haven't succeeded in doing so, and consequently instead have reverted to type, denialist contradiction.

As proven before, you're a waste of time to argue with. You pretend to accept logical argument for a while, but we both know that when you've exhausted your limited capacity for that, you'll just believe what you wanted to believe anyway, regardless of the facts.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

Which I've already suggested would have been the most preferable course of action.

The fact of it being a localised phenomenon absolutely bars it from being anything to do with global climate.

[Java Jive]

Then why haven't you provided us with a link to it?

It's hopeless here, not enough bandwidth.

I've found your orig>

However, doesn't the fact that a presenter can ask those sorts of questions, even if the reply was as unsatisfactory as you claim, rather prove my original point about the BBC at least attempting, if not always succeeding, to be impartial? When do you suppose that editor of, say, the Daily Mail last reviewed the paper's output to ensure that it is impartial, fair, and balanced? Or in his editorial reviewed a report from, say, the Daily Mirror that claimed the Mail was guilty of bias?

[Terry Fields]

So, that rules out any oceanic effect on the climate, as they are all local too? Those photogenic polar bears are off the climate science radar? I don't think so.

If climate science can't incoporate this data, or other things like no warming for 15 years or increasing Arctic sea ice when it was forecast to shrink, then climate science needs to move on. It's the precession of Mercury's orbit thing, as Time Streater explained to you. What climate science needs now is an Einstein, but I don't see one on the event horizon.

[Terry Fields]

That's known as the head-in-the-sand approach.

[Terry Fields]

No, you haven't. What you wrote below is some sort of personal testament, which is mildly interesting but doesn't explain the fundamentals of your position on UK electricity-generating fuel security.

Why do you think that fuel security is paramount in the UK's generation of electricity?

It might be obvious to you, but you haven't explained it at all.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think its more like agriculture. Fisrt oa all it was all about water, then they decided actually once you have enough water, its all anbout nirorgent, then thet realised taht onec you have aenougfh water and nirrogenm its all about XYZ amdnd so on.

State of te art of agriuculture as explined by the local farm manager.

"It dont matter what we put on the fields, the crops we get are nivvah the same as wot we got the first year after leaving it fallow for 20 year"

There are at least a dozen climate drivers and a couple of dozen feedback paths that can potentially alter climate by a degree or two.

And those are the 'known unknowns'. Things we know exist but whose effect is uncertain. Of course CO2 is one of them, aand that is why pretending that the others don't exist, or have no significance besides CO2 is deeply suspicious.

[dennis]

You don't have a logical argument, you just keep repeating the same old stuff and expect everyone to roll over and agree.

You can't even understand a logical argument.

You just resort to abusing anyone that doesn't agree with you, everyone else in this tread.

[Java Jive]

Fair point. Apologies.

Rather misreading.

However, I note that it was Bert who had to intervene, you made no attempt to actually state a correction at all. You'd rather just waste everyone's time by not saying directly and unambiguously what you mean, thus generating 10-12 more unnecessary posts.

I seem to understand it a great deal better than you, as ev>

... from which it is clear that you have no idea how AGW works in actual practice.

Although I now accept that there is no logical necessity for >

And, based upon your style of argument here, I still remain highly dubious about the first.