wind’

A newspaper reporter noticed that one particular model of a Volvo came with options of petrol, diesel or electric propulsion, and asked Volvo where the break even costs were in terms of mileage. Volvo's reply was that taking maintenance and replacements for wear and tear into account the diesel version was cheaper up to about 78,000 miles after which the EV would be cheaper until it needed a battery replacement.

I sometimes look at the click-bait on MSN, so maybe that's where I saw it?

If you search for Golfech valve, there are quite a few links on google and bing. But, I accept that the fact I saw it misled me into think that it had more coverage than it actually had.

But that is monetary cost, not CO2 emissions.

Yeah. Water vapour and cloud dominates global temperature, not CO2

I wish all the people who think CO2 emissions are somehow dangerous would just stop breathing out .

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Spike snipped-for-privacy@mail.com writes

The accountancy is a bit suspicious, because there is a cost of bribi ^H paying the keeper of the wind turbines to switch off , then there is the cost of the energy from the gas turbines. However this energy is sold on and used so, it's not wasted . It does say specifically "buying energy elsewhere "

What is wasted is the bribe (and possibly the fee to switch on the gas turbines) and the difference in cost between wind generated energy and gas generated energy; essentially an opportunity cost. I'd need to see a balance sheet of income and expenditure.

Some one with a finger in both pies however is maybe on to a nice little earner.

Brian

I'm sure Vladimir would be happy to help out there. Delivered by airmail.

Isn't there also a problem with paying for the generated electricity that cannot be used because the wind/solar farm is not yet connected to the grid?

If so, why not learn from the requirements for new housing estates in that the roads and sewers must in place before any houses are built, and they are paid for by the developer? This would stop the blame game and probably give the true cost of all this wind and solar development.

Ah yes, that old trope. Of course climate change deniers love to trot this one out as is it appeals to the “nothing can be done, so why bother?” attitude and that it has to be mud huts or nothing in between.

Tim

Its not a question of the ArtStudent™ question 'is it happening' ? its much more of a question of 'How *much* is it happening? Does it matter? and if so can we do anything about it?

And this is where science diverges completely from the alarmist narrative

It is clear that the pudding is being over egged by interested parties. Its not that serious, none of the most dire predictions have come true, and in general its been pretty beneficial. What is alos clear looking at te CO2 curves from Mauna Loa is that nothing we have done has made any difference whatsoever, so echoing the old Frost report 'why not do nothing, instead?'

Sure. But we aint in a battle for brownie points. We are - allegedly - in a battle for survival of civilisation.

Surely te effort should go in helping e.g. India and China deploy vast amounts of nuclear energy, not putting up pissy little windmills.

The question is 'but how much'

A reduction in braking distance as you throw out grandma before hitting a concrete wall at 30mph instead of 35mph is not really useful

And your calculations seem to ignore

Well of course, but so does everyone else. The fact that we are covering vast area of land with housing and roads, doesnt seem to enter into it.

We are also flying aircraft that leave contrails in the upper atmosphere.

We have reduced particulate pollution thus clearing the world of cloud and smog.

All of this has happened in the same time frame of 'rising CO2' but no one seems to care about it.

Yes. It's called Net Zero. And the Renewable Obligation

I doubt that would stop continental drift...

Look, in the end the point is not 'climate denial' - it is question of coming to the conclusion that the current focus on national CO2 emissions is simply illogical, even *given* the premises of the climate alarmists.

Even the Doom Pixie managed to suss that one out...

"Why aren't you doing something?"

Indeed, why aren't we?

We spend trillions on renewables that neither generate reliable or cheap electricity, and nothing on nuclear, which does.

And anybody who raises the perfectly logical question of 'is this really the best way to address this problem?' gets shouted down as a 'climate denier'..

No, there is something deeply political and commercial going on here, instigated by people who either do not believe in climate change as it is portrayed, or don't care if they destroy Western civilisation.

An excellent response. However I think it is an "and" rather than an "or" before "die".

Birth is a terminal condition, or - The human heart lasts a lifetime. Both are demonstrably true, yet one sounds pessimistic and the other optimistic.

The other fun thing is the list published in 2011 (I think it was the notickszone website) of peer reviewed papers where climate studies predicting the future covered the same subject but forecast contradictory results. There were over 30 of these contradictory pairs.

For instance "Indian monsoons will be wetter" (IPCC report in 2007) and "Indian monsoons will be drier (American Meteorological Society in

You can't prove that because it isn't true. The vast majority know that AGW is a political con, but they also know that if they raise their heads above the parapet they will kill all hopes of getting their future scientific papers published or their research plans funded by grants.

It wasn't long ago that a respected magazine bravely published that the number of scientists who started off as AGW believers and then did their own investigations into the source data because what was being published didn't ring true, has now exceeded 1000 who had publicly gone from believers to deniers, just because they found that the results published could not be produced from the historical data records.

Do you remember that famous "hockey stick" graph giving the message that the temperatures are out of control and it is all mankind's fault? The mathematics are faulty. Someone ran that calculation many times with widely variable inputs, and discovered that it didn't matter what the input was, the outcome was always exactly the same graph.

Do you remember the forecast that global warming would melt so much of the Antarctic ice that it would drown acres of coastal lands around the world? Sea levels have risen less than a centimetre in the last 100 years, and the amount of Antarctic ice has INCREASED despite the Industrial Revolution. The bit of Antarctica that IPCC has focused on as "proof" of melting ice has 21 small volcanos underneath and that is what is melting that ice, not the (fictitious) higher air temperature.

Perhaps if you look at the publication timetable you will see that the IPCC publish its executive summary first with the position they want the world to see, and then the source papers some months afterwards, which gives them time to modify (falsify?) the work actually done so that it does support the conclusions published earlier. Also it is worth noting that the "disastrous" rise in temperatures since the previous report is in fact about a fortieth of a degree Fahrenheit in the original research paper, which is well within the margin of error which is a tenth of a degree. However the actual temperature difference was not made public until it was seen in leaked e-mails.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but that doesn't automatically make someone wrong when they take a different view.

And that is why the invented the precautionary principle that showed we should spend trillion on concrete pillars *in case* the sky fell on our heads, which would be catsrophic if it happened

That's not climate it's weather!

The wonder technology for the net that is going to be installed on those pillars and is going to catch the sky when it falls hasn't been found yet, but I'm sure that will be found just in time to save us.

You've never heard of Svante Arrhenius? Benjamin Franklin? Francis Galton?

Mind, those three are dead, and not relevant to this discussion.

Andy

I'm not certain whether man generated CO2 is affecting the climate. I think it quite likely is, and it's a damn dangerous experiment we are carrying out.

But...

One of the ways the UK is reducing emissions is to export manufacturing to other countries, so that the UK emits less and they emit more.

And the UK reducing emission is going to make **** all difference to global emissions. And it will wreck the UK economy.

Andy

Not as climate scientists, no I haven't

In fact very few in that wiki page are 'climate scientists' at all. A marine biologist is not a climate scientist. A specialist in evolutionary biology and eugenics, is not a climate scientist Nor is a physical chemist. Its just climate science lying again and trying to appear more eminent than it really is.

They have managed to get in Judith Curry.

I am certain it is affecting it, but far far less than its been affected in the past by other things like volcanic eruptions.

Historically temperatures are very low at the moment. We still have permafrost and ice caps.

And its not an experiment. Its people trying to stay alive.

Indeed. Once you stop listening to the ecobollox™ it's abundantly clear that renewable energy is a total fraud, and we actually need nuclear power instead.

And if we actually give a s*it about global emissions so called, the best thong we could do was bung all the subsidies going into 'Nut Zero' into Rolls Royce nuclear power instead, and have a reactor as globally significant as the Trent Jet engine, and sell it world wide.

And also bung a lot into a rapid reaction force, that is essentially a peace time Army, that can cope with natural disasters and civil unrest, and make it compulsory for any able bodied person on the dole for more than a year.