Emission Trading and climate change

Page 143 of 377 FirstFirst ... 43 93 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 193 243 ... LastLast
Results 7,101 to 7,150 of 18819
  1. #7101
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    I'd love to know how much they cost initially, the installation costs and the maintenance costs. From what Ive heard over the years they are not exactly reliable - but more investigating is required. I think the main negatives with wind are 1. the blight on the landscape and 2. they send people nuts. Surely someone can harvest the oceans' power
    Some have gearbox issues but in general they are quite reliable with not a lot of downtime. They do require some incremental generation capacity but the fuel they use is free which gives many generators a hedge against rising fuel costs. They are also managable in terms of shifting wind speeds with various parts of the grid being brought in and out as they change.

    Your points one and two do seem to be the main problems rather than tower operation (generation). In terms of power station construction they are fairly straightforward from planning to operation and are certainly built more quickly per unit (not to be confused with megawat capacity)

    They are forming larger parts of the Energy chain, Denmark I think produces about 20% of its power needs from wind, and quite a few towers are being located in the sea with the benefit of being away from people and in the best place for wind.

    As part of the energy chain they are proving to be quite popular.

  2. #7102
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    I'd love to know how much they cost initially, the installation costs and the maintenance costs. From what Ive heard over the years they are not exactly reliable - but more investigating is required. I think the main negatives with wind are 1. the blight on the landscape and 2. they send people nuts. Surely someone can harvest the oceans' power
    You can find the "levelised" costs at: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian dollars per megawatt hour (2006)

    (Please excuse the formatting - tabbing doesn't seem to work)

    Technology Cost (AUD/MWh)
    Nuclear (to COTS plan) 40–70
    Nuclear (to suit site; typical) 75–105
    Coal 28–38
    Coal: IGCC + CCS 53–98
    Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS 64–106
    Open-cycle Gas Turbine 101
    Hot fractured rocks 89
    Gas: combined cycle 37–54
    Gas: combined cycle + CCS 53–93
    Small Hydro power 55
    Wind power: high capacity factor 63
    Solar thermal 85
    Biomass 88
    Photovoltaics 120
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  3. #7103
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    I guess if you chucked them in the ocean fairly close to the beach you wouldnt be able to hear them over the wave action. Put a secondary turbine in ther water and your golden. Only drama will be finding isolated, non - popular, shark infested waters in which to place them. They could not be put off any beach where people go, which rules out 60 % of the coastline - what a tourism killer that would be

  4. #7104
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Spoil sport Ringtail!!
    I can see it now.......Kinetic Bungee Jumping...there's a fortune to be made!!

  5. #7105
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Roughly diced tourists. Might provide good fishin' though.

  6. #7106
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    All the while, denegrating anyone that disputes their findings, rather than engaging in any meaningful way. By not engaging and having this "destroy, denegrate, embarass, and shout down" attitude to scientist that disagree with them, only sheds more doubt on their findings, findings base on opinion rather than facts BTW.

    It was this sort of attitude and over the top scaremongering that first made me take a closer look and not take this on face value. It is this sort of attitude that will destroy the theory. The so called experts have got to start engaging debate with oposing scientists, then prove their points. Get it out in the open, rather than slanging off. They have to stop hiding data (see climategate), they have to stop trying to SCARE people into believing them.

    YOU have to stop badgering people that does not share your point of view.

    BTW NO ONE here is disputing climate change. I have not seen one poster on this thread that disputes climate change. I DO NOT dispute climate change. I am NOT asking to see irrefutable evidence of climate change because this is not what I dispute. I want to see evidence that C02 is the main driver of warming of our climate, and that changes to our CO2 use will make significant changes to temperatures that will have a positive impact on the world. Not some guesswork from a computer model. I want to see scientists that make the claims that CO2 is the main driver of climate engage those scientist that do not and prove their point.

    Until then all they have is guess work and people that have been bullied and scared into believing. This is not science.
    FACT: I have not denigrated any scientists with opposing views on climate change. I think it is good thing that there is high level, rational debate among all scientists over climate change so that a consensus on climate change can be reach.

    FACT: I have also not engaged in a "destroy, denigrate, embarrass, and shout down" attitude towards those scientists.

    FACT: I have also not made any scaremongering claims about climate change.

    FACT (and this VERY important): I HAVE NOT STATED MY POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST IN ANY OF MY POSTS.

    If you or anyone can point out in any of my posts the particular sentence or paragraph where I supposedly have engaged in any of the above points, please do so.

    My posts on this thread have all been about the current low level debate by people with no scientific training or understanding of scientific principles, who take a position on climate change without a full understanding of the issues involved. They don't have access to all the data, do not fully comprehend any data they do have or they simply refuses to accept the scientific findings of experts. These people are engaging in a debate full of irrational rhetoric and contributing nothing of value to the real debate on climate change by highly qualified experts.

    On this thread I have not supported or agree with anyone's particular viewpoint and because of this some people automatically assume that I must have a viewpoint opposite to theirs. I did this deliberately to see how people would react to my posts. I also deliberately not state my position on climate change for the very same reason.

    The reaction that I got is what I had expected. In any debate of an emotive or irrational nature, irrational behaviour take holds and common sense goes out the window. I was misquoted, had false comments attributed to me, wrongly assumed that I was a proponent of climate change and that I oppose those who do not believe in climate change.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. All wrong. All the result of people behaving irrationally and not thinking clearly because of the emotive and irrational debate they were participating in.

    Climate change debate should be left to the expert scientists and not to the under-educated populace.

  7. #7107
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Morgan View Post
    Hello,

    Thank you for the link you supplied but that is a list of abhorrent experiments against mankind.

    It is an emotive response, not a statement that states whether the science was a success or failure.

    You said you were aware of other failed scientific cases, can you please supply a list?

    Here is an interesting article: Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  8. #7108
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Thanks for repeating this.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I take that you didn't look up the first law of thermodynamics, or perhaps you didn't understand it. Your lack of understanding of energy fundamentals is apparent.

    Just to repeat (because you didn't seem to understand it the first time)...

    Every MWh generated by renewable sources is another MWh not generated by fossil powered sources
    You obviously don't understand your own failed hypothesis, so let me help. Bear in mind, I'm doing this for your benefit and I do not subscribe to it.

    It is (falsely) based on the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions "retained" in the atmosphere (let's ignore the failed feedback fiasco for now).

    If this amount of anthropogenic CO2 goes to 1000 ppm anyway via China, USA and India burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, will having extra windmills on the Planet Earth suddenly negate your hypothesis?

    So then we need to "replace" this fossil fuel burning, or use windmills "instead of" fossil fuels, not "as well as" still burning all the fossil fuel.

    Now let's assume in your dream land that windmills actually can replace all these fossil fuels (i.e. power all transport, industry, military, electricity globally), can you please advise how many windmills we will need?

    Here's a hint while you're counting, this isn't even close, but get used to the view.


  9. #7109
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Is this rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    It is not a rational, scientific debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Stick to the factual comments, okay.
    Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an irrational and unscientific internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?

    Last edited by Dr Freud; 16th Aug 2011 at 12:12 AM. Reason: Too funny!

  10. #7110
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    So then we need to "replace" this fossil fuel burning, or use windmills "instead of" fossil fuels, not "as well as" still burning all the fossil fuel.
    You might be slowwwwly getting it.

    Yep, every MWh that is generated by renewable energy is another MWh not generated by fossil fuels.

    And, yes, we need lots of renewable energy generators - and if you care to look, just about every country in the world is presently increasing its renewable generation. It won't happen overnight (but no one said it would), so there will be fossil fuels used for sometime yet, but the need will slowly diminish over time. You may have seen this story Consumers cut back as power price climbs
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  11. #7111
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an irrational and unscientific internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?

    Your post, Dr Freud

    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.


    My response.

    "That's fine, just don't mis-quote or attribute false comments to me. Stick to the factual comments, okay."
    I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me. Maybe you don't understand English.
    Last edited by Jack-the-Hammer; 16th Aug 2011 at 12:37 AM. Reason: Who's laughing now?

  12. #7112
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default An irrational probabilistic dream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Others, it is based on the high probability of being correct.

    It is based on a probability as shown in trends in the data gathered over many years. Scientists base their conclusions on this probability after careful, detailed and logical analysis of the data and the trends.

    Presentation of any evidence of the probability climate change will be continually refuted by those who demand abolute and irrefutable evidence.
    Apparently there's a mathematical probability that's been calculated to tell us the likelihood of this farce?


  13. #7113
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Wikimpedingya, again.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    You can find the "levelised" costs at: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Coal 28–38

    Wind power: high capacity factor 63
    So your Wikimpedingya theorises that "potentially" wind power is only about twice as expensive as conventional coal power?

    How does it work out in reality?

    THE Government’s renewable energy strategy is in tatters after a report exposing the true costs of generating electricity by wind power.


    An internal document from the National Grid, seen by the Sunday Express, says wind turbine energy will at times cost over 3,000 per cent more than conventional power.


    Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: £250bn: The real cost of wind power
    This is from the reign of the last UK government:

    The revelations will make uncomfortable reading for Gordon Brown and his team, who have pinned much of their hopes of meeting carbon emission targets on wind power.

    The National Grid document, Accessing Renewable Energy, deals with the issue of “balancing the grid” to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers.


    It says wind power could cost “£300 – £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH”.


    “When they have too much power the Grid bids to shut down operators, but you can’t just switch a big power station off and then hope the wind blows. By the same measure, if the wind doesn’t blow you can’t simply start up a power station at the flick of a switch. It will cost.


    “What they are saying is that wind farms will be producing power which will not be used, and it’s the taxpayer who’ll be footing the bill. It’s a double whammy because consumers are already paying extra on their fuel bills to fund renewable energy.”
    What? You mean we have to keep the coal burning anyway to ensure base load energy supply? Who would have thought?


    I wonder if David Cameron was paying attention to this bit all those months ago:



    “Last year subsidies paid out on wind and landfill gas was £1billion. By 2020 that figure will be £30billion. That could subsidise six nuclear power stations. And they operate all the time and don’t rely on what the weather is doing.”
    Surely the current British PM wouldn't be getting away with greenwashing nuclear reactors under the noses of greenies under the guise of "saving the Planet Earth"? Surely he wouldn't dupe JuLIAR into singing his "green credential" praises to help him push his nuclear agenda? Surely JuLIAR wouldn't be so stupid to fall for this basic ploy?


    I mean, if she did, the third world carbon offset scams must be rubbing their hands with glee waiting for our tax dollars.

  14. #7114
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Let's quantify slowly.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    You might be slowwwwly getting it.
    But the question is, how slowly are we all getting this next green dream scheme?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Yep, every MWh that is generated by renewable energy is another MWh not generated by fossil fuels.
    So when we see those CO2 charts you keep posting heading down instead of up across the globe, that means this green dream scheme is working?

    Be sure and post a chart as soon as it turns downward champ. I don't suppose you want to estimate a time frame for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It won't happen overnight
    So how long till Anthropogenic Global emissions hit zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    so there will be fossil fuels used for sometime yet
    How long is "sometime" for these emissions to keep skyrocketing at current rates?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    but the need will slowly diminish over time
    Over how much time until they reach zero?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    You may have seen this story Consumers cut back as power price climbs
    Yeh, it said this:

    The 5 per cent cut in forecast demand is expected to push the need for new power stations back to 2020.
    Kinda matches this:

    But in the past six months, the Ombudsman has seen a 5 per cent increase in the number of people who have called and said they were facing disconnection, compared with the same period last year.
    Surely just a coincidence? You may have seen this story:

    PEOPLE who work, and not pensioners, the unemployed and students, are the new group who face having their electricity disconnected in NSW.



    Both the NSW Energy and Water Ombudsman and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre report that working people are increasingly facing disconnection, and it is a trend that would get worse.

    She said working people were vulnerable to disconnection because they were less likely to qualify for low-income rebates.

    Workers can't pay power bills - National News - National - General - The Examiner Newspaper
    So the "subsidised", or soon to be "compensated" are defaulting less, but the subsidisers are increasingly feeling the pinch. May have to go on the dole soon to keep the lights and heaters going?

    And while Aussies scrimp and save just to keep the lights on, Chinese citizens burn our coal Carbon Dioxide TAX FREE!

    They'll build their country massively on our coal, while we Aussies shiver in the dark.

    And then because we've set such a stirling example of a spartan existence, the rest of the world will join in.

  15. #7115
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What is it called when you "debate" yourself?

    Keep up now folks, this self-debate is getting interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer
    It is not a rational, scientific debate.
    Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer
    Stick to the factual comments, okay.

    Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an irrational and unscientific internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?

    So first, it's irrational and unscientific, as expected.

    But then it should "factual" from the irrational and unscientific uneducated populace.

    Then we're back to being irrational as expected:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    These people are engaging in a debate full of irrational rhetoric and contributing nothing of value to the real debate on climate change by highly qualified experts.

    The reaction that I got is what I had expected. In any debate of an emotive or irrational nature, irrational behaviour take holds and common sense goes out the window. I was misquoted, had false comments attributed to me, wrongly assumed that I was a proponent of climate change and that I oppose those who do not believe in climate change.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. All wrong. All the result of people behaving irrationally and not thinking clearly because of the emotive and irrational debate they were participating in.

    Climate change debate should be left to the expert scientists and not to the under-educated populace.
    So, the undereducated populace were again expected to be emotive, irrational, lacking common sense, and couldn't think clearly.

    But were then expected to stick to "factual comments"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me.
    How can such things be asked of an undereducated populace who are emotive, irrational, lacking common sense and not thinking clearly?

    Would a request such as this be irrational itself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Maybe you don't understand English.
    Je ne comprends pas. Je suis irrationnelle.

  16. #7116
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default All those wasted millions of dollars and CO2 emissions.


    A Canberra source yesterday told me:
    The Parliament House mailroom is being flooded with carbon tax propaganda being returned to the Prime Minister and the Climate Change Minister.
    On one day last week reliable sources say 17 tubs the size of large eskys came in many with personal messages written on them to the recipients. Today, another flood of returned to sender climate change propaganda- six tubs of which went to Mr Combet.
    Rod sends it back | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Tony Abbott must be pi$$ing himself laughing at this latest debacle.

  17. #7117
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's good for you, shut up!

    Even if you can afford the higher prices, they may cut your power off anyway.

    Don't you just love the "new" freedoms we will have under the Watermelons.

    Big Green Brother wants the power to turn off your heating and airconditioning at exactly the time you need it most:


    TVs, airconditioners and fridges could be switched off remotely by power companies during peak times under plans to rein in households’ demand for electricity.
    The option is among measures being considered as part of a national review of the management of domestic power use.

    The Ministerial Council on Energy has initiated the Australian Energy Market Commission review in response to the nation’s increasing demand for power.
    The council is seeking ways to ease the demand for electricity during extremely cold nights and exceptionally hot days, to avoid the need for energy companies to build more power stations.
    Building more power stations didn’t bother politicians a bit in past decades. Now it’s just too terrifying. You either upset the green fanatics by building a cheap coal-fired station, or you outrage consumers by blowing billions on solar and wind.

    The greens have ways that would make your blood boil | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Throw the spoiled food in the bin, no Carbon Dioxide footprint wasted there?

    Diesel generators everywhere will help with the emissions too?

    These people are mad.

  18. #7118
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And you thought wind was expensive?

    Tony Windsor is excited, and the Sydney Morning Herald is supportive - but spot the critical fact missing from this report on the new solar energy future:
    AUSTRALIA should concentrate its clean energy funding on research, the federal independent MP Tony Windsor says…
    Mr Windsor, a member of the government’s multi-party climate change committee, spent last week researching clean energy facilities and policy-making in Europe, including an inspection of Torresol Energy’s 20 megawatt Gemasolar power station near Seville, Spain.
    Gemasolar uses 2650 mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays on to the top of a central ‘’power tower’’ and heat salt to more than 500 degrees. The molten salts store heat that is slowly released to power a steam turbine, generating enough electricity for 25,000 households.
    Last month, Gemasolar became the first solar thermal power station to supply electricity into the grid for 24 hours - including throughout the night - a key test for solar energy’s ability to provide baseload power.
    Mr Windsor visited the facility with Ross Garnaut, a climate change adviser, and Matthew Wright, head of Beyond Zero Emissions, a think-tank which proposed last year the extensive use of baseload solar power in its stationary energy plan to re-power Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy.
    Mr Windsor said the Gemasolar plant was ‘’an incredible sight’’…
    “I made the point, ‘we’re driving into our future here’, and we really are!
    ‘’I have no doubt that this sort of stuff is where we should be going.’’
    This missing fact? This solar project to supply just 110GWH of electricity a year cost 230 million euro - or $316 million.
    Let’s be generous and round that figure down to $300 million, and do some sums to see how such a plant would compare with some old coal-fired power station such as Hazelwood, which produces 100 times more power:

    Therefore, it would take more than 100 plants similar to Gemasolar, costing more than $30 billion to replace the Greens’ pet hate dirty coal fired plant, Hazelwood.
    To replace all of Australia’s electricity capacity with CSP plants like Gemasolar would cost something in the order of $680 billion!
    That’s our future?
    No wonder no one talks of the price.
    Next question: if you really were mad enough to replace a Hazelwood with solar plants, where exactly would you build 100 plants of the size of Gemasolar?:





    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...r_lots_of_red/
    Lucky we've got a lot of land.

    And we still need the fossil fuels running for the cloudy days.

  19. #7119
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Your post, Dr Freud

    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.


    My response.

    "That's fine, just don't mis-quote or attribute false comments to me. Stick to the factual comments, okay."
    I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me. Maybe you don't understand English.
    Looks like fabricated quotes are all Dr Freud can manage, along with the behavior of like minded dills who think returning or on forwarding mail somehow achieves anything beyond revealing their own ignorance.

  20. #7120
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    That image of the windfarm in post # 7108 makes me want to .

  21. #7121
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Turbine_Blade_Convoy_Passing_through_Edenfield.jpg

    Whoa. Just to give an idea how enormous these thing are. Hope the link works.

  22. #7122
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Hello,

    Thank you Chrisp for putting that article on the forum. It explains why so many people have a vested interest with biased views..

    Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com

    This line seem to explain it.

    "The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."

  23. #7123
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    That image of the windfarm in post # 7108 makes me want to .

    I suppose this'll be more to your liking??



    Maybe you'd like to read up a little more on the old turbines shown in the photo posted by the Doc. They'll be from California, so, have a read here Wind power in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  24. #7124
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Hello,

    Thank you Chrisp for putting that article on the forum. It explains why so many people have a vested interest with biased views..

    Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com


    This line seem to explain it.

    "The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."

    If you have a look at the graphic in that article, you'll see that it is the medical fields that seems to have the most retractions.

    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  25. #7125
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.

  26. #7126
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,246

    Default

    Re the windfarms, we saw some recently near Ballarat and noticed that only about 20% were spinning.

    I'm guessing that they don't generate without spinning, so what would be the reason for not utilising the potential of all of them?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  27. #7127
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Whoever is managing the grid decides where the power is coming from, if there are a large number of turbines stationary and about 20% spinning you can assume they simply don't want the power supplied to the grid. If it is one or two it is probably maintenance or repair. Because coal fired generators are slow to respond in terms of building up or reducing pressure they provide power continually while other sources may be stood down between peaks in power. Not all coal generators run all the time either they are regularly shut down for a number of reasons.

    Supply to much power to the grid and you cause problems with the over supply and they have to load shed to ensure nothing fails.

  28. #7128
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default SBS Documentary - tonight

    With all the discussion of late on renewable energy, it might be worthwhile having a look at a documentary on SBS-one tonight.

    8:30 pm POWER SURGE

    Can emerging technology defeat global warming? The United States has invested tens of billions of dollars in clean energy projects as their leaders try to save their crumbling economy and the planet in one bold, green stroke. Are we finally on the brink of a green-energy power surge, or is it all a case of too little, too late? This program travels the globe to reveal the surprising technologies that just might turn back the clock on climate change. (From the US) (Documentary) G CC

    SBSONE TV Guide for today
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  29. #7129
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.
    There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases.

    Do we need another controversial thread here so that the lunatics can take over the asylum.

  30. #7130
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,225

    Default

    [QUOTE=Jack-the-Hammer;852377]There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases.

    QUOTE]

    Good one, you will find the above group of deniers are the exact ones following the
    " green dream "
    regards inter

  31. #7131
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    [QUOTE=intertd6;852388]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases.

    QUOTE]

    Good one, you will find the above group of deniers are the exact ones following the
    " green dream "
    regards inter
    Tru dat

  32. #7132
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Looks like a top road for a hill climb to me. Win win. Motorsport and fossil fuel, what could be better ?

  33. #7133
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Goodness me...

    I have been absent from this forum for a little while and we are about 50 pages further into discussion. Wow.

    I see there are still the Boltists carrying on... amazing.

    I remember having a discussion with someone (can't remember who - as I have actually been having a life as opposed to flooding this forum with Bolt and The Australian propaganda) and telling the person to do the numbers and that the Bill will be passed. Guess what? The Bill will be proclaimed and will be law.

    Get some sense Tory's - stop arguing what is now redundant and shift your focus to the counter-attack. Read the Workchoices / Fair Work High Court challenges and start thinking about how you will return policy. It's already through Parliament - move on.

  34. #7134
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Goodness me...

    I have been absent from this forum for a little while and we are about 50 pages further into discussion. Wow.

    I see there are still the Boltists carrying on... amazing.

    I remember having a discussion with someone (can't remember who - as I have actually been having a life as opposed to flooding this forum with Bolt and The Australian propaganda) and telling the person to do the numbers and that the Bill will be passed. Guess what? The Bill will be proclaimed and will be law.

    Get some sense Tory's - stop arguing what is now redundant and shift your focus to the counter-attack. Read the Workchoices / Fair Work High Court challenges and start thinking about how you will return policy. It's already through Parliament - move on.
    And to add - the Tax is so unbelievably Constitutionally valid, it is impossible to challenge. For all those who are unhappy with it; you will just have to wait until the next federal election. Sorry but, do something more constructive with your time.

  35. #7135
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Aussies should look forward to going this alone:



    But we'll feel really good about ourselves sitting in the dark, having short cold showers and sleeping with our pets to keep warm.

    While China and India burn all our coal at will to become even bigger economic powerhouses.
    Adding a graph that has been plucked from god knows where does not make your argument more persuasive or your ridiculous assertions easier to digest. "Not Joining-in" one; should not be hyphenated and two; displays the bias in the research. Please... Where did you get the 'research'?

  36. #7136
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Even if you can afford the higher prices, they may cut your power off anyway.

    Don't you just love the "new" freedoms we will have under the Watermelons.



    Throw the spoiled food in the bin, no Carbon Dioxide footprint wasted there?

    Diesel generators everywhere will help with the emissions too?

    These people are mad.
    Sorry, is the above Andrew Bolt? God forbid! My point exactly.

    Please people, move with the times, be independent, and most of all, be yourself.

    (Also - be intelligent about how you may wish to approach the issue in the years to come. You can't change the Act. Want to focus some discussion on how the other side of the Chamber will rally the policy?)

  37. #7137
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Anyway, that is my little rant. Back to work (burning IT at both ends) and speak to the Tory's once the policy is in! In the intervening period, would any one of them like to get creative about policy, or just pluck Bolt?

  38. #7138
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    This is the kind of journalist Bolt is

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic

    and not to mention the recent action against him for racism... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.



    EDITED POST
    Last edited by watson; 17th Aug 2011 at 10:41 AM. Reason: deleted personal reference

  39. #7139
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    ozed110621.jpg

  40. #7140
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Tony Abbott must be pi$$ing himself laughing at this latest debacle.

    Really... again???? Andrew... just stop it! Naughty boy...!

  41. #7141
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    thread closed temporarily for admin reasons


    Open again........well that was an hour's work that we really bloody needed

  42. #7142
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Shame when we have to edit factual statements.

    While on Mr Bolt it isn't hard to find blogs pointing out his lies, as with this early 2010 link. Hardly current but there are plenty more, we could fill several pages from them along with the nongs that like to reference his fairy stories.
    http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw...r-than-melted/

  43. #7143
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    Shame when we have to edit factual statements.
    Nope....not factual as it was written.

    We cannot say what sort of Person Mr. Bolt is.......only what kind of Journalist we think he is.
    Otherwise, we'd be going through the courts as per the reference quoted.

    Just a reminder, that you must be a little more careful in what you post here.

  44. #7144
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    Some people think that Bolt is a journalist!!!!!

  45. #7145
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Some people think that Bolt is a journalist!!!!!
    Who is Bolt?

  46. #7146
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    If you have a look at the graphic in that article, you'll see that it is the medical fields that seems to have the most retractions.
    Hello, why would that be?

    I would think that would be the most important one to get right.

  47. #7147
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Hello, why would that be?

    I would think that would be the most important one to get right.
    Complexity is the reason, the more complex and less certain the greater the chance of running down the wrong burrow.

  48. #7148
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Hello, why would that be?

    I would think that would be the most important one to get right.
    Who knows? Your guess would be as good as mine.

    I can only speculate that there are great pressures to be seen to be successful and high-profile in the medical fields. There aren't too many fields where "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money"!

    Maybe the medical fraternity needs to improve its act? i.e. review its peer-review system; perhaps its major research institutions need to improve their internal review procedures (many reputable research organisations internally review papers before they are formally submitted for publication); and perhaps, improve their 'sign-off'/approval procedures (many organisations require a senior researcher to vouch for the findings).

    I suppose the 'system' works in regard that these papers were 'caught out'.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  49. #7149
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Useless benefit at what cost?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I suppose this'll be more to your liking??

    Sure is!

    A big hole in the ground that you have to specifically drive to to look in suits me fine.

    But you don't seem to want to calculate how many windmills we need to replace these fossil fuels:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Now let's assume in your dream land that windmills actually can replace all these fossil fuels (i.e. power all transport, industry, military, electricity globally), can you please advise how many windmills we will need?

    Here's a hint while you're counting, this isn't even close, but get used to the view.

    See, here's another photo of just part of a farm with only about 4000:



    So how many? 4 billion? 4 trillion?

    Better get used to that view, plus the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noises.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Maybe you'd like to read up a little more on the old turbines shown in the photo posted by the Doc. They'll be from California, so, have a read here Wind power in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Yeh, enough of the useless benefit, what's the cost?

    Don't suppose you could dig up the economic situation in California?

    We'll be there soon with the greenies running the country now.

  50. #7150
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Who are you people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.
    So you believe there is no empirical evidence in medicine?

Page 143 of 377 FirstFirst ... 43 93 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 193 243 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •