Emission Trading and climate change

Page 297 of 377 FirstFirst ... 197 247 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 347 ... LastLast
Results 14,801 to 14,850 of 18819
  1. #14801
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?
    Human society has invested heavily in ignorance for centuries. And spent even more paying the price for it.

    Though it'd be brave or foolish or even more ignorant to think it was wasted.

    Like matter, money is never destroyed...merely transformed. Therefore...even when scattered to the wind...it is never wasted. Call it a 'tangential investment in the human experience' instead!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  2. #14802
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?
    According to the International Monetary Fund: "Governments around the world will subsidise the cost of oil, gas and coal to the tune of US$5.3 trillion this year".

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7c651...#axzz3pfpE6EaZ

    To put that in perspective, "for all people on earth to have access to fresh water would cost US$190 billion, US$370 billion could cover universal access to sanitation, and US$430 billion could finance access to electricity".

    Fossil fuel subsidies? Or water, power, sanitation for all | Assemble Papers
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  3. #14803
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Oh, absolutely.
    However there is such thing as opportunity cost ... you can spend money to fuel the ego of a group of cretins that are "in charge" due to another bunch of cretins voting them, or you can spend on infrastructure that does not make distinctions between the left and the right... but not for both. Decisions decisions ...
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  4. #14804
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Human society has invested heavily in ignorance for centuries.
    The vatican should be proof enough!
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  5. #14805
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D

    'Only way to a positive scenario is innovation'

    Gates says renewables are rubbish. Probably won't win over the Linux fanciers.
    26 Jun 2015 at 15:03, Lewis Page

    Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers.

    Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be "beyond astronomical". At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable 'leccy - and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result.

    In Bill Gates' view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world.

    “The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink 'un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.”
    Gates says he'll personally put his money where his mouth is. He's apparently invested $1bn of his own cash in low-carbon energy R&D already, and “over the next five years, there’s a good chance that will double,” he said.

    The ex-software overlord stated that the Guardian's scheme of everyone refusing to invest in oil and gas companies would have "little impact". He also poured scorn on another notion oft-touted as a way of making renewable energy more feasible, that of using batteries to store intermittent supplies from solar or wind.

    “There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables," he said, pointing out - as we've noted on these pages before - that it's necessary "to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind."
    So what are the possible answers, in Gates' view?

    Gates is already well known as a proponent of improved nuclear power tech, and it seems he still is. He mentioned the travelling-wave reactors under development by his firm TerraPower, which are intended to run on depleted uranium stockpiled after use in conventional reactors. He also spoke of methods of using solar power to produce liquid hydrocarbons, which, unlike electricity, can be stored practicably in useful amounts: "one of the few energy storage things that works at scale", as he put it.
    Gates also spoke of the radical plan of high-altitude wind farming using kite-balloons flying high up in the jet stream - though he admitted that that one was something of a long shot.
    In Gates' view, decades from now a few of today's new-energy companies will have become massive and early investors will have reaped the sort of rewards that he, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer have from Microsoft. But many others won't be so lucky.
    "Now there’s a tonne of software companies whose names will never be remembered," he told the FTinterviewers.
    Analysis

    Gates has said a lot of this before. The main new thing is the firm assertion that renewable energy technology as it now is has no chance of powering a reasonably numerous and well-off human race. This is actually a very simple thing to work out, and just about anybody numerate who thinks about the subject honestly comes to the same conclusion - examples include your correspondent, Google renewables experts, global-warming daddy James Hansen, even your more honest hardline greens (they typically think that the answer is for the human race to become a lot less numerous and well-off).

    Unfortunately a lot of people aren't numerate and/or aren't honest, so it's far from sure that the colossal subsidies pumped into today's useless renewables will get diverted into R&D which could produce something worthwhile. In the UK at least this would be quite difficult, as the subsidies are not actually subsidies as such - no tax money is paid out to windfarmers and solar-panellists from the Treasury.

    Rather, the system works by artificially pumping up the price of 'leccy and gas and channelling the extra cash - minus various margins for various people involved - to the windfarmers and panel people, such that they get paid vastly more than the market price of the power they produce.

    A lot of people - including the government at times - prefer to pretend that this isn't happening at all: that prices are going up because of the gas market, or corporate profiteering, or something, and that green policy is actually saving people money in some way.

    So given that officially nobody is paying any more money and therefore there aren't any subsidies, they probably can't be diverted to anywhere. The newly-reelected Chancellor is trying to stop them getting bigger, but he probably won't manage to seriously reduce them overall, let alone re-purpose them. ®
    Bootnote

    1DUKES chapter 1 (pdf page 1) and chapter 6 (pdf page 4)


    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  6. #14806
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Gates says renewables are rubbish.
    Funny person for you to quote, Marc. I guess integrity is not a strong point for AGW deniers.

    Bill Gates: "Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’"

    http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/

    Oh, and what does Bill Gates invest in that he doesn't want everyone to know about? Geoengineering, of course - that and the $billion or so he has invested in fossil energy companies. So Bill Gates is hedging his bets, hoping to make a killing either way.

    Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  7. #14807
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Funny person for you to quote, Marc. I guess integrity is not a strong point for AGW deniers.

    Bill Gates: "Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’"

    http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/

    Oh, and what does Bill Gates invest in that he doesn't want everyone to know about? Geoengineering, of course - that and the $billion or so he has invested in fossil energy companies. So Bill Gates is hedging his bets, hoping to make a killing either way.

    Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian
    the idea that bill gates is in it for the money is laughable. He has given away a large portion of his wealth and makes no secret of the plans for large (ie govt sized) charitable donations along with Buffet. He has been extremely fortunate and is working at leaving a lasting legacy - his interest in climate change is one of those

  8. #14808
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    the idea that bill gates is in it for the money is laughable. He has given away a large portion of his wealth and makes no secret of the plans for large (ie govt sized) charitable donations along with Buffet. He has been extremely fortunate and is working at leaving a lasting legacy - his interest in climate change is one of those
    His contribution to eliminating polio alone is enough to put him up on a bit of a pedestal in my book. Gates is one of a few genuine people in the world who actually gives a stuff about others and backs it up, everyone is flawed and we shouldn't assume anyone is perfect but Gates on balance will leave a positive legacy.

  9. #14809
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Gates is one of a few genuine people in the world who actually gives a stuff about others and backs it up, everyone is flawed and we shouldn't assume anyone is perfect but Gates on balance will leave a positive legacy.
    I am not so sure that I like Gates' attitude to nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, geoengineering, etc. When you look at it closely, Gates often has strings attached to his 'philanthropy' so much so that it has been dubbed 'Philanthro-capitalism'. And I think outside of money, some of Gates' motivation is just 'conscience cleansing' after his less than noble corporate behaviour that found his company convicted of anti-trust breaches.

    The flip side to Bill Gates' charity billions -- New Internationalist
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  10. #14810
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I am not so sure that I like Gates' attitude to nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, geoengineering, etc. When you look at it closely, Gates often has strings attached to his 'philanthropy' so much so that it has been dubbed 'Philanthro-capitalism'. And I think outside of money, some of Gates' motivation is just 'conscience cleansing' after his less than noble corporate behaviour that found his company convicted of anti-trust breaches.
    I
    The flip side to Bill Gates' charity billions -- New Internationalist
    well, if he's anti GMO, then you have an argument, because anti GMO is typical anti science - no different to global warming denial

  11. #14811
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    well, if he's anti GMO, then you have an argument, because anti GMO is typical anti science - no different to global warming denial
    I cannot agree with you on that issue. There is an abundance of scientific evidence cautioning against GMO.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #14812
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I cannot agree with you on that issue. There is an abundance of scientific evidence cautioning against GMO.
    Rubbish. There's an abundance of opinion cautioning against GMO. The scientific opinion from those in the field is similar to climate science - ie the doubt is a small group. The vast majority of disagreement is from those with little scientific training, and no specifically relevant scientific education. For exactly the same reason, I don't make the assumption I know more than the majority of climate scientists.

    edit - 2 clear examples. Nature and scientific American make it painfully clear that climate change is science and not opinion. Similarly, both organisations make it clear that GMO is not bad, but good scientific method should evaluate each product, but in general the technology is excellent.

    eg
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...they-are-safe/

    http://www.nature.com/news/fields-of-gold-1.12897

  13. #14813
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Nature and scientific American make it painfully clear that climate change is science and not opinion. Similarly, both organisations make it clear that GMO is not bad.
    Er... no they do not. Re-read your links without the blinkers...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  14. #14814
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Er... no they do not. Re-read your links without the blinkers...
    Really, so the very first paragraph in scientific American article ( a magazine with proper editorial review of content) says,

    "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have met with enormous public opposition over the past two decades. Manypeoplebelieve that GMOs are bad for their health – even poisonous – and that they damage the environment. This is in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that GMOs are safe to eat, and that they bring environmental benefits by making agriculture more sustainable. Why is there such a discrepancy between what the science tells us about GMOs, and what people think?"

    what at could that possibly mean, apart from that GMOs are generally safe ?

    do you not notice, it says "many people", not many scientists? Perhaps you missed "overwhelming scientific evidence"?

    this is equally up there with anti vaccination, "organic" foods, alternative medicine etc etc. it is also incredibly close to the debate on climate change, where people with no training, experience, usually a low level of education, decide that they know best and don't seek expert advice. Then in the same way as climate science, if the expert advice disagrees with their "Belief", they tend to invoke conspiracies - eg this scientist was once paid by Monsanto or Bayer and is therefore irrelevant.

    scientific literacy is also required to an extent, in that you need to understand what probably, likely etc mean.



  15. #14815
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Perhaps you could start a new thread on GMO and leave this one for 'emission trading'
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  16. #14816
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Funny how some people here repeat the same banal hackneyed at nauseam as if it was some sharp comment.
    Bill Gates said: Renewable energy can't do the job. Governments should switch green subsidies into research and development ...
    What on earth does it matter whatever else Bill Gate may have said, where he invest his money or if he kissed his cousin?

    I post comments from people i respect when they happen to say things I agree with. If Bill Gates says communism is the answer to Global warming, or Christian Science has the answer to baldness, I don't post it and that opinion as aberrant as may be has no bearing on the opinion that makes sense.
    A drunk can state as a matter of fact that drinking is bad for your health. And then drink himself do death. His statement is still valid.

    The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT, not that his fart stink too much therefore he is wrong in relation to renewables.
    This eternal repetition of side morsels made in an attempt to discredit the messenger rather than addressing the point is absolutely stale.
    In fact it is past stale, it stinks.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  17. #14817
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT
    Bill Gates is wrong because are already examples in the world that prove him wrong - Denmark for example, and even poor old cot-case South Australia.

    Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  18. #14818
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Bill Gates is wrong because are already examples in the world that prove him wrong - Denmark for example, and even poor old cot-case South Australia.

    Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?
    How does Denmark prove him wrong?

    denmark has 6Mw of wind power, nut it also interconnects with Germany , Norway and sweden, and imports approximately 6mW as well . This of course makes sense because they are nearly completely reliant on wind power for their 40% renewable energy and the wind doesn't always blow.

    further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap.

    finally, of all the EU countries, Denmark has the best position of coastline winds versus population, yet will unlikely be able to get over 50% wind power, without faking it by selling to its neighbours on windy days then buying it back on still days but counting their total output as their %of renewables.

    bit if a buggar if they happened to be an island.........

    incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.

  19. #14819
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.
    A wind generator can be feathered, but coal fired and nuclear power stations cannot be feathered. They sit there burning fuel and heating cooling water all night waiting for the next days demand -- unfortunately that is what you have to do when you rely on 18th century 'boiling water' technology for energy. Pity about the planet and the people who live on it, though!

    Oh and since when is wind 'unpredictable'? As long as the Sun shines and the Earth turns, there will be wind.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #14820
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?
    Total nonsense as usual. I choose articles that state what I think is right. No need to add some amateurish comment. Furthermore I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character. That is my criticism. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.
    The reality is that renewable as they are today are a cash cow for crook government and mafia enterprise to buy votes and favours. An opportunity for greens and lefties to drum up allegiancy and support under the false pretence of altruism and greater good. Renewables market is a dirty and corrupt as any other energy market has ever been. To pretend it is not because it is "clean" is to believe in the faries in the bottom of the garden red riding hood, sleeping beauty and cinderella all at once.
    And we pay for it. Those who work and produce pay, those who talk hot air and ask for subsidies spend what we earn.
    The day of reckoning will be big and painful.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  21. #14821
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    66
    Posts
    3,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    How does Denmark prove him wrong?

    denmark has 6Mw of wind power, nut it also interconnects with Germany , Norway and sweden, and imports approximately 6mW as well . This of course makes sense because they are nearly completely reliant on wind power for their 40% renewable energy and the wind doesn't always blow.

    further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap.

    finally, of all the EU countries, Denmark has the best position of coastline winds versus population, yet will unlikely be able to get over 50% wind power, without faking it by selling to its neighbours on windy days then buying it back on still days but counting their total output as their %of renewables.

    bit if a buggar if they happened to be an island.........

    incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.
    Denmark started the shift to renewables when they got screwed on oil prices in the 1970's and moved to coal, not having reserves of its own it is moving to renewables so it doesn't have to import. In some ways the oil price shocks moved them to where they are today. The plan is 100% renewables and to import and export power as needed which is the smart way to operate. Grid management is very different to the old coal plants but no worse. They have always had very high power prices renewables will eventually give them cheaper power as the technologies continue to improve and capital costs are recouped. let's not get excited by Bill Gates, some of his comments are good some aren't I think that means he is human, but he doesn't indulge in wedging or other political tactics to spread miss information, what you see is what you get.

  22. #14822
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    No need to add some amateurish comment.
    I would not know if your comments would be amateurish, because you rarely add any comments to the diarrhoea of unthinking garbage you paste.

    So just more of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" it is. Thanks for the clarification, and the acknowledgement 'I choose articles that state what I think is right' - irrespective of falsehoods and inconsistencies. Integrity is not relevant to your posting activity, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character.
    What utter rot! You are trying to posit that you have never bagged, well let's see, Rudd, Gillard, Suzuki, Gore, Nye, Flanagan, Mann... Come off it Marc, your slip is showing...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  23. #14823
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap.
    Yet Denmark has much cheaper electricity for industry than most European states, and cheaper than France whose primary source of electricity is 'low cost' nuclear: Denmark 0.088, France 0.091.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  24. #14824
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Not often you see the realities before us spelled out so clearly for our climate change denier mates:



    Quote Originally Posted by Tamino
    Cover your eyes so you can’t see! Don’t look at what happened before, or what came after! Don’t even think about what’s really going to happen — believe the fairy tales that it’s all a hoax, that everything is going to be fine, that we shouldn’t interfere.
    Remind you of anyone here?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  25. #14825
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Remind you of anyone here?
    The temperature is pretty normal around Sydney, plus there's a spot on the tip of Antarctica that as cold as ever, ergo global warming is a scam!

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  26. #14826
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless


    The hard sciences are less and less fooled by the charade of sciencey fear mongering (unlike some psychologists). It is great to see scientific groups speaking out, though we know this PDF, which was first published on the 24th of August 2015, will be ignored by the ABC, BBC, and CBC science propaganda teams. Not the right message.
    The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change:
    “The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade”
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    “The battle against global warming 195 page PDF The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘“Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.”
    The English Translation of the Calculation Mathematical Society, SA web page. SCM was established in 1987, by University professor, Dr. Bernard Beauzamy. Their “first specialty” is mathematical modeling.
    A few excerpts of this long paper below
    Summary

    All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming.
    The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.
    The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?
    At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.
    But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.
    Part 1: The facts

    Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
    There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.

    Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.
    Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
    Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‗virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‗energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
    Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless
    If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way.
    This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  27. #14827
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    I. Conclusion

    On reading through this list, one has the feeling that human activity and civilization affect the climate in every possible way, and clearly in a negative sense. But after a littleconsideration one realizes that that is true for all species, both animals and plants. Everylifeform influences its environment, and to call this influence ―negative‖ is a biaseddecision.A recent article in Science et Vie [Chauveau] explains that ―French cows emit as much gasin a year as 15 million automobiles!‖ What then? Should cows be killed? Should automobilesbe banned?It is a very one-sided process to list human activities and then for each one to check itsenvironmental impact, presented as something negative. This approach is essentially dishonest.

    Any animal species modifies its ecosystem, so we see no reason why human beings should be banned from building towns because it is warmer in them. Penguins toogather in vast troops to limit heat loss – should they be banned from doing so?II. Can human beings change the climate?What would be the consequences of a sudden halt to human activities? As we have seen inthe preceding sections, human influence on the greenhouse effect and the albedo is veryweak, almost negligible. Even though this influence is negligible, many try to reduce it.However, do we have the ability to do so?

    For many environmental problems, we have a tendency to apply simple logic: once we stop the disturbance the problem will stabilize and things will get back to ―normal‖. Forexample, when there are high levels of fine particulate pollution near a highway, limitingtraffic may solve the problem.147SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09Are we in a similar situation with greenhouse gas emissions? We are tempted to think so—if the situation gets out of hand, we merely need to cut emissions drastically (assuming thatthat is possible) and the climate will ―recover‖ by itself.Unfortunately that is impossible, and there is a simple explanation: the lifespan of the greenhouse gases in question (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) is much greater than the timescales that interest us.

    The lifespans of the main greenhouse gases are given below:
    Gas Lifespan (years)Methane 12CO2 100Nitrous oxide 114Sulfur hexafluoride 3,200Perfluorocarbons 2,600 to 50,000Table 2:
    Lifespans of the main greenhouse gases (source: IPCC)

    In practice, if we completely stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow morning (including breathing), the only effect it would have would be to make CO2 levels in the atmosphere fall very slowly.There is also a fundamental error of logic in this approach, which is to believe that natureis stable and that only human activities alter this stability.
    For example, one might believe that there is a natural, stable level for CO2 which human activities have disturbed. That idea is essentially false: there is of course a CO2 cycle, in which CO2 is constantly being made, stored, and used. Human emissions are not added to this cycle; they are part of it.Even if human beings were so stupid as to want to do so, they have no technological meansto change the composition of the atmosphere. The ―carbon sequestration‖ schemes that weoften hear about are childish inanities that have no effect. Nor do they have any means toalter the composition or temperature of the oceans, the albedo of the Earth, etc.

    Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!
    Another measure in the same vein would be to implement an alternate-day traffic scheme. only people with varnished pates would have the right to go out on very sunny days. The reflectivity of their heads would be checked annually with a special instrument based on the principle of frequency-domain reflectometry. They would also enjoy a special privilegecalled the ―albedo tax credit‖. Other, hairy people, especially women, would only be allowedout at night, or on rainy days by special dispensation; they would be subject to a taxsurcharge proportional to the thickness of their hair
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  28. #14828
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless
    Ah, yes. The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA; the organisation with the name confusingly meant to sound like a the real academic mathematical representative body in France the Société de Mathématiques Appliquées, the organisation with the headquarters in a rented office on the second floor above a jeweller and a frock shop, the organisation that claims to be a "not for profit' organisation, but is in fact a public limited company doing paid work in research and development for the energy industry in France, the organisation who's CEO writes a load of pseudo scientific gibberish without attributing a single author or providing any sources for his claims and fronts it as a "science paper" - is that the one, Marc? And who gives a cr*p about what he says, other than the Boltwattanova blogdysentery denier-sphere.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #14829
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!
    Marc, you claim to be citing this a 'serious' discussion. Pasting this sort of absurdity does not help your case, it simply shows up your star writer as the dissimulator he is. But don't take my word for it; read his 'paper' for yourself: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  30. #14830
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    About 10% of Iceland's surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers. About 11 billion tons of ice per year is being lost due to global warming. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also causing the island to rise at around 35 mm per year. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across Iceland increased as much as 30-fold.

    The current pace of uplift is likely to cause an equivalent of one Eyjafjallajökull-scale volcanic blow every seven years. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere and led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe in 2010 and caused many damaging electrical storms.

    It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...

    Volcanoes and Climate Change: How They're Linked
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #14831
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I choose articles that state what I think is right. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.
    If you don’t like people pointing out the association of your 'sources' to ridiculousness, stop quoting ridiculous sources. You can’t have it both ways.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  32. #14832
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    For those interested, here are the sources for my post here: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...31/#post989786


    Here is the website of the society that is representative of applied mathematicians and academia in France: [SMAI]


    Here is the website of the similarly sounding non academic Société de Calcul Mathématique SA: http://www.scmsa.eu


    Here is the location of the registered office of the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (you can see the plaque on the door): https://www.google.com/maps/place/So...3e5266!6m1!1e1


    Here is where the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA claims to be “not for profit”: SCM, SA : présentation


    Here you can see the company’s structure and financial position: https://translate.googleusercontent....L5OM8iZzbzrT3g


    Here you can see that the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA work is almost entirely in the defence and energy industries: Les fiches de compétence de la SCM


    Here you can read the paper and see for yourself it is devoid of attributions for its claims and full of logical fallacies that even a child can see through: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  33. #14833
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    About 10% of Iceland's surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers. About 11 billion tons of ice per year is being lost due to global warming. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also causing the island to rise at around 35 mm per year. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across Iceland increased as much as 30-fold.

    The current pace of uplift is likely to cause an equivalent of one Eyjafjallajökull-scale volcanic blow every seven years. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere and led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe in 2010 and caused many damaging electrical storms.

    It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...

    Volcanoes and Climate Change: How They're Linked
    there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering. Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)

    so it's not a no brainer, it's speculative research and mostly comment.

    otoh, I seem to remember that Icelands retreat was driven by 2 local effects - Ocean currents and local environmental degradation - which effect snow fall more than anything. Glacier retreat is not simple temperature change, it's precipitation as well

  34. #14834
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering. Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)

    so it's not a no brainer, it's speculative research and mostly comment.
    Are you talking about the conclusions of the old book, or have you read the new study which has been accepted for publication (peer reviewed) but is yet to be published? Science does move on.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  35. #14835
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read.
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there. It would be twice as interesting if one can be found without the usual litany of irrelevant information like where the office is located, who is selling what at ground level (yes, support for alternative points of view is usually way less generous than the mainstream funding comfortably located in government offices funded by the usual suckers.... for now anyway) ... perhaps also omitting the name of the organisation with allusions to intentional misleading due to identity confusion, (called libel) or perhaps the culinary habits of the doorman or his wife's dog.
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  36. #14836
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Are you talking about the conclusions of the old book, or have you read the new study which has been accepted for publication (peer reviewed) but is yet to be published? Science does move on.
    Exactly as I said. I also have a great enough understanding that single papers do not evidence make. Further, the process of Peer review is not sancrosanct, and by statistical definition a large number of papers on a given subject are wrong - it works out at something over 20% for a simple chance test ( some authors estimate incorrect conclusions at only faintly better than chance).

    You seem not to know enough to have a sense of doubt?

    but you didn't link a paper, so how could I, you linked an opinionated piece written by what seems to be a journalist

  37. #14837
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering. Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)
    What is the book title and author? Is it a novel dressed up as science, a printed copy of a peer reviewed science paper, or is it a textbook?

    Usually, published science runs ahead of books about science. Well, except when the CC deniers publish, they just reshape the history to suit their ideology.

    One paper does not turn over the established science, but I don't think we are in that category. The science has been published about ice loss data ad nauseum. As we get more data, we get more accurate information and more useful predictions. See the WGMS: latest glacier mass balance data – world glacier monitoring service

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  38. #14838
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read.
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there. It would be twice as interesting if one can be found without the usual litany of irrelevant information like where the office is located, who is selling what at ground level (yes, support for alternative points of view is usually way less generous than the mainstream funding comfortably located in government offices funded by the usual suckers.... for now anyway) ... perhaps also omitting the name of the organisation with allusions to intentional misleading due to identity confusion, (called libel) or perhaps the culinary habits of the doorman or his wife's dog.
    Hi Marc, is it not relevant at all who the author is and whether they are somewhat misleading in whom they are?

    i know I'm not going to get an unbiased view from either the guardian or fox, so I throw them out straight away. What someone wants to believe always effects how they filter and seek information. Someone who privately names an organisation to give it an air of offciialdom is totally relevant.

    quite rightly you can consider that an article from Greenpeace is going to be biased, as is many other left wing organisations who also consider themselves environmentalists, but the same process should also be applied in the other direction.

  39. #14839
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    The battle against global warming:
    An absurd,costly and pointless crusade
    White Paper drawn up by the
    SociétédeCalculMathématiqueSA

    Is the battle against "global warming" absurd costly and pointless, yes or no.
    I say yes.
    Others say ... what?
    That the author suffers from tinea? Or that he is jealous of channel 1 anchorman's fame?
    An argument ad hominem is a low and useless argument that only shows lack of authority or imagination.

  40. #14840
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Is the battle against "global warming" absurd costly and pointless, yes or no.
    Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.

    For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless....

    But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)? My response is.....mostly yes. But then it is but a battle...not a war.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  41. #14841
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    but you didn't link a paper, so how could I, you linked an opinionated piece written by what seems to be a journalist
    Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected science magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  42. #14842
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    An argument ad hominem is a low and useless argument that only shows lack of authority or imagination.
    So why do you make ad hominem statements against your 'opponents' in this forum?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  43. #14843
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected science magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.
    Time magazine is a respected science magazine?

    a call to authority? Like perhaps calling time magazine a respected science magazine? You are too funny dude

    you should doubt me, then do some research

  44. #14844
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.

    For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless....

    But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)? My response is.....mostly yes. But then it is but a battle...not a war.
    Economic activity is economic activity. It doesn't much matter whether its changing to renewable energy sources or digging fossil energy out of a hole in the ground. Wealth, on the other hand, is accumulated when resources do not need to be continually consumed to maintain the status quo. One could argue that the creation of wealth is a strong argument to deal with CO2 emissions by moving to renewable energy.

    The battle against anthropogenic caused global warming has already been lost as far as the maintenance of a human habitable environment on the scale of centuries. Most people in environmental and climate science already know this but don't acknowledge it publicly, because of the derision the dominantly denier owned world media causes.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #14845
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Time magazine is a respected science magazine?
    My mistake, sorry. Mental disfunction LOL. I had in my mind that it was another journal.

    I should have written:


    Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.


    There, it's all correct now.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  46. #14846
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,627

    Default

    Ha ha good try.
    I think you must check the meaning of my words ... say Oxford dictionary ?
    Science is never settled,
    it advances one funeral at the time.
    Max Planck

  47. #14847
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read.
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there.
    It is not a scientific paper. A collection of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of other people's work and data does not warrant a scientific response, indeed one would not be possible.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  48. #14848
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    if the 'climate sceptics' are correct and know that the whole AGW thing is a scam, why don't they publish?

    I am not talking about unqualified people publishing - there is plenty of that on at Heartland and on Nova, Watts and innumerable other copycat blogs. Where are the papers from the qualified researchers who know it is a scam? They can't claim there are no journals for them to publish in, because journals have been created specifically and especially as an avenue to subvert normal scientific peer review process, such as 'The Open Atmospheric Society', 'Energy and Environment', and 'The Open journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change", plus there are journals that will publish anything for a fee: Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee : Shots - Health News : NPR

    Yet still the 'sceptical' scientists don't publish scientific articles offering alternative theories of climate change. The number of articles published (whether scientific or not) in journals such as these and others represents less than 0.01% of research papers published on climate change.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  49. #14849
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    My mistake, sorry. Mental disfunction LOL. I had in my mind that it was another journal.

    I should have written:


    Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.


    There, it's all correct now.
    ah, the edit function.....

    Hang on, didn't you just post earlier

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post

    It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...
    nb. - this is the unplagiarised part of the post that seems to be Johns thoughts

    And wasn't that on the basis of an article in Time magazine, about a paper that you haven't access to, and haven't read?

    then you have the gall to question me when I provided an opinion?

    that was no call to authority either because none was made - you are trying to sound like you are educated when clearly you are not. You seem to have little underlying understanding of what you are speaking about nor even the basics of the scientific method. Further you don't even understand the basics of fallacies - maybe you read it once on Wikipedia.

    i don't mind discussions with people of all backgrounds, but I draw the line at pompous people who don't even know enough to know they know little. Spend more time reading and learning and a little less on pretending to be smart.


    have a nice day

  50. #14850
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    And wasn't that on the basis of an article in Time magazine, about a paper that you haven't access to, and haven't read?
    Correct. And one I didn't offer an opinion on, although you did. Opinion is fine, but best reserved to things known, not unknown.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

Page 297 of 377 FirstFirst ... 197 247 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 347 ... 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
  •