In a company, I don't know how they'd 'book' it, because technically at current prices it's not worth anything very much, if at all. You could check in the Smith Institute link I gave somewhere up thread, there were some quite detailed costings, etc, in that.
However, IIRC waste at Sellafield doesn't bel>
For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.
'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.
How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same blinkers as you?
The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data, saying 'they'll use it against us'. A curious position to take, as if the data actually supported their position, they would be only too pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is done, in case you were wondering.
It's unlikely that he's wondering, as he's not a scientists and has no pertinent training. I expect he thinks that "scientific method" relates to how you hold a test tube.
One of Java Jive's concerns is safety of supply, and he maintains that the UK *must* have that for its energy needs, hence the use of coal.
Uranium is out because, apparently, we have no indigenous source of it.
However, no-one is likely to take the sea away from the UK, and the sea contains Uranium. This has been extracted from seawater for ~$240 per kgU. The cost of fuelling a reactor using this source is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the generating plant required to use it.
And, as Jave Jive says, technology is improving all the time, and demonstrated methods show Uranium form seawater can be recovered for about a 10th of this cost.
So, no supply problems there, then.
But my dear chap - you can't posit that! It's blue-sky thinking with
*sums*. That's not allowed, by order of JJ.
Make that the 14th, and the second time in four days ...
It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence available, one which agrees with the general understanding and agreement of the vast majority of scientists. I no more expect them to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect them to give latter day druids credence.
Because the real science has now moved beyond that.
And AFAIAA no-one has tried to deny its existence since.
I'd recognise a real scientist as one whose judgement is evidence based rather than delivered from a position on unscientific quasi-religious denialist bias such as yours.
Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you have often, but always incorrectly in your case, accused me of doing. One bad piece of science doesn't make the whole edifice rotten.
Neither is ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, as you do.
If there is total agreement then there is no need for them to ban the discussion is there? However if they need to ban it there must be opposition.
It is a well known fact that a lot of the data and the methods used to fudge it are a secret. You can prove it not to be the case, just post where to get the Met office data and methods.
There is opposition, but this opposition does not come from credible scientific quarters. We can't fritter away the rest of scientific history trying to persuade every last unscientific bigot in the world to face an unpleasant truth. Sooner or later the world has to move on, and I for one am thankful that the BBC is now doing so.
I note that you give no link in support of this claim.
First hit, and a few clicks later.
Most of their older data is archived, including this at the bottom of the page, but I see no reason why you should not contact them and ask for copies of anything that is no longer online.
Generating high-resolution climate change scenarios handbook (2004) (PDF, 3.3 MB)
That's good as the BBC has over half a million hits on druids.
The real science is still trying to make a model that works, and still gives the answer they want rather than the answer they keep getting.
So you don't accept GW caused by man made CO2 then!?
Using an unreliable mathematical model as proof is not using overwhelming evidence, in fact its not evidence at all.
It also has over 14,000 on climate change. Your point is?
The imperfections of the various models do not of themselves imply that climate change is not happening. It merely implies that we can not yet model it accurately enough to be very useful.
Again, I note that you give no link in support of this claim.
I accept AGW completely.
Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general. However much you'd like it to, the fact that the modelling in particular is not yet very useful doesn't mean that all the other general evidence of AGW somehow magically becomes invalid.
Oh nice try. You should go far.
And how are you to judge what is scientifically credible?
That sounds rather like Blair's oft-repeated plea to draw a line under Iraq and move on, largely because he, and apparently you, don't like to face unwelcome facts.
The BBC is not 'moving on', it is as biased over this topic as it ever was.
It was extensively discussed at the time. Did you miss it then, and in your later extensive research over the issue?
This is the Met Office, who freely acknowledge in at least one of their publications that of 12 forcing mechanisms, a mere 8 are known only to a 'low' or 'very low' level of understanding? Although I do concede that one of the 'very low' ones may have moved up to 'low' in the last few years.
What 'general evidence'?
This is the stuff that was fed into the so-called models, that can't even predict the past.
as a rent boy for a bent professor of biology?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.