Emission Trading and climate change

Page 306 of 377 FirstFirst ... 206 256 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 356 ... LastLast
Results 15,251 to 15,300 of 18819
  1. #15251
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota


    "Recent technological advances have made wind power a viable source of alternative energy production and the number of windplant facilities has increased in the United States. Construction was completed on a 73 turbine, 25 megawatt windplant on Buffalo Ridge near Lake Benton, Minnesota in Spring 1994. The number of birds killed at existing windplants in California caused concern about the potential impacts of the Buffalo Ridge facility on the avian community. From April 1994 through Dec. 1995 we searched the Buffalo Ridge windplant site for dead birds. Additionally, we evaluated search efficiency, predator scavenging rates and rate of carcass decomposition. During 20 months of monitoring we found 12 dead birds. Collisions with wind turbines were suspected for 8 of the 12 birds. During observer efficiency trials searchers found 78.8% of carcasses. Scavengers removed 39.5% of carcasses during scavenging trials. All carcasses remained recognizable during 7 d decomposition trials. After correction for biases zwe estimated that approximately 36 ± 12 birds (<1 dead bird per turbine) were killed at the Buffalo Ridge windplant in 1 y. Although windplants do not appear to be more detrimental to birds than other man-made structures, proper facility siting is an important first consideration in order to avoid unnecessary fatalities."

    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1674/0003-0031(2000)143%5B0041MAWWT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

    "Migratory birds suffer considerable human-caused mortality from structures built to provide public services and amenities. Three such entities are increasing nationwide: communication towers, power lines, and wind turbines. Communication towers have been growing at an exponential rate over at least the past 6 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is especially concerned about growing impacts to some 836 species of migratory birds currently protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. While mortality estimates are often sketchy, and won’t be verified until nationwide cumulative impact studies are conducted, current figures are troubling. Communication towers may kill from 4-50 million birds per year. Collisions with power transmission and distribution lines may kill anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 175 million birds annually, and power lines electrocute tens to hundreds of thousands more birds annually, but these utilities are poorly monitored for both strikes and electrocutions. More than 15,000 wind turbines may kill 40,000 or more birds annually nationwide, the majority in California."

    In other words wind turbines are responsible for between ~0.01% to ~0.0001% of total bird deaths caused by man-made towers and powerlines. Note those figures exclude buildings and vehicles.

    http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/refe...dmortality.pdf
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  2. #15252
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    "The polar bears are dying" or "our kids will drown in a rising sea", is an appeal to emotions to the audience. True or false is irrelevant.
    Listen to a unionist speech and learn how to appeal to emotions.
    Or "eagles will die out because of wind turbines!" Have you been indoctrinated by unionist's Marc?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  3. #15253
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Wind power is a complete disaster

    Credit: By Michael J. Trebilcock, April 08, 2009, network.nationalpost.com ~~
    There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
    Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
    Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
    Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
    The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”
    The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
    Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
    The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
    A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
    In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
    Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
    This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
    Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.


    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  4. #15254
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.
    Boo hoo. South Australia generates more of its base load electricity from wind than any other source and has no coal fired power plants in operation - all have been closed over the past few years. And for the first time since the Haywood Inter-connector was installed in 1990, South Australia is exporting electricity to the eastern states.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #15255
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Wind power is a complete disaster

    Credit: By Michael J. Trebilcock, April 08, 2009, network.nationalpost.com ~~
    There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity
    If an anti wind power article can't get it's first facts right, why should we believe any of it?

    Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today a substantial share of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas and Siemens Wind Power along with many component suppliers. Wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark's total electricity consumption in 2015,[1][2] increased from 33% in 2013, and 39% in 2014.[3][4][5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

    SA has even more than that 19% nonsense:

    Wind power has become a significant energy source within South Australia over the past decade. As of August 2014, there was an installed capacity of 1,473 MW, which accounts for 27 per cent of electricity production in the state.[1] This represents around half of Australia's installed wind power capacity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_p...outh_Australia

    More bunk from Marc.

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


  6. #15256
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Ha ha, Is that all you've got?
    We need another source of energy but it is not wind nor solar in it's present state, and the "alternative" liquid fuels like biodiesel and ethanol are a complete shamble.

    But back to windmills. No one has yet measured the immense destructive trial left behind by the manufacturing of the windmill and the amount of energy required to make this wretched things. And after 15 years of poor performance they get demolished to produce yet another load of pollution and trash.

    The only reason people 'support' the idea of windmills and biodiesel and ethanol and solar hobby panels is because it conforms with their particular view of the world. An idyllic Hobbit like existence supported by the nanny state that has unlimited tax dollars to pamper all this nonsense.

    The time or reckoning is near. The global warming fraud has been exposed a long time ago, now is time to expose those who lied to benefit from it.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  7. #15257
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Honestly Marc what a load of rot, the carbon footprint of wind towers have been measured as has output and payback in both economic cost and environmental impact, sometimes you just go a bit far and shoot yourself through both feet, this is one of those times.

  8. #15258
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Ha ha, Is that all you've got?
    No, that isn't all we have, we have heaps of validated current information rather than your outdated blog post copies, but we only needed a tiny amount of real information to shine a light on your quoted false propositions.

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


  9. #15259
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  10. #15260
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The time or reckoning is near. The global warming fraud has been exposed a long time ago, now is time to expose those who lied to benefit from it.
    ROTFLMAO You've been claiming this for five years now...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    « Some climate change news you may have missed this week. | Main | Employment number you will not see on your TV tonight »
    January 07, 2011

    The Internet killed anthropogenic global warming hysteria

    Russ Steele

    Writing at Master Resource Blog, Robert Michaels suggest that anthropogenic global-warming alarmism has died and attributes this early death to the Internet:
    The end of climate science and the fall of climate politics could never have happened in a world of typewriters, faxes and three TV networks. Cheap telecom and the Internet brought it about, as any document that mattered became available with a Google inquiry and a mouse click. The East Anglia guys were still living in a world of paper journals. Nowadays all the peer reviews that matter come quickly by dozens to anyone who posts something worth (or not worth) reading. Lots of junk turns up, but that’s the freight for information that flows so cheaply and freely.
    This is really good news. It means that we will probably never see another mass hysteria that achieves the dimensions of global warming and carbon abatement policy – unless of course it’s real.
    Remember how the Internet caused the demise of Dan Rather's career as an investigative CBS Reporter when he got nailed over the “well investigated letters” about George Bush’s military career. He was busted in less than 24 hours by guys and gals in their pajamas using the Internet, because the fonts used in those "well investigated letters' didn’t exist at the time of the dates on the letters?
    In the anthropogenic global warming case it was the Internet blogs that became the alternative news sources, as the lame stream press ignored Climategate. They refused to publish the results independent investigations which had determined that the UN IPCC’s iconic Hockey Stick temperature was busted. Now, the Courts have insisted that the Hockey Stick author turn over his e-mails to the Virginia Attorney General. Those Internet e-mails maybe the smoking gun to prove that anthropogenic global warming is just scientific fraud, or worce an out right hoax. Long live the Internet.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  11. #15261
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post

    The only reason people 'support' the idea of windmills and biodiesel and ethanol and solar hobby panels is because it conforms with their particular view of the world.
    Aaaaañnnnd the only reason other people oppose them is (and I quote) "because it conforms with their particular view of the world."

    Different poo, same bucket.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  12. #15262
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The Daily Caller News Foundation:

    Green energy is so unreliable and intermittent that it could wreck the power grid, according to industry and government experts.

    The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating how green energy undermines the reliability of the electrical grid. FERC believe there is a “significant risk” of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided.”

    Except that story is as factual as anything Marc pastes. The idiots writing the faux news 'report' even linked the FERC report so you can see for yourself that the story is a load of bunk. No where in the report does the FERC say “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided”. In fact the FERC report cited has nothing to do with supply unreliability. The report is about frequency stability of the national grid, and amongst the FERC's concerns is the fact that FERC has "concerns regarding the primary frequency response performance of existing resources" AKA coal and gas fired power stations, many of which do not have the same stringent requirements as new renewable generators of electricity.

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

  13. #15263
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default




    DailyMail








    HomeTop



    In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

    By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland

    CREATED: 06:32 EST, 27 January 2011
    View comments

    This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem




    The lake of toxic waste at Baotou, China, which as been dumped by the rare earth processing plants in the background

    On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
    Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.

    ‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
    Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
    RELATED ARTICLES







    SHARE THIS ARTICLE

    Share


    Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.
    The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
    Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.

    This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.

    Wind power's uncertainties don't end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce (Pictured above, wind turbines in Dun Law, Scotland)

    Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the man-made lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build.
    The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
    For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
    Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty – a multi-coloured pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies began work in the Sixties.

    ‘At first it was just a hole in the ground,’ he says. ‘When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.’

    As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.

    ‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’
    People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.
    Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.

    Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages.
    There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated.

    Villagers Su Bairen, 69, and Yan Man Jia Hong, 74, stand on the edge of the six-mile-wide toxic lake in Baotou, China that has devastated their farmland and ruined the health of the people in their community


    Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they use, the more efficient they can be. It’s been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a long time – hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material.
    In the pollution-blighted city of Baotou, most people wear face masks everywhere they go.

    ‘You have to wear one otherwise the dust gets into your lungs and poisons you,’ our taxi driver tells us, pulling over so we can buy white cloth masks from a roadside hawker.
    Posing as buyers, we visit Baotou Xijun Rare Earth Co Ltd. A large billboard in front of the factory shows an idyllic image of fields of sheep grazing in green fields with wind turbines in the background.
    In a smartly appointed boardroom, Vice General Manager Cheng Qing tells us proudly that his company is the fourth biggest producer of rare earth metals in China, processing 30,000 tons a year. He leads us down to a complex of primitive workshops where workers with no protective clothing except for cotton gloves and face masks ladle molten rare earth from furnaces with temperatures of 1,000°C.
    The result is 1.5kg bricks of neodymium, packed into blue barrels weighing 250kg each. Its price has more than doubled in the past year – it now costs around £80 per kilogram. So a 1.5kg block would be worth £120 – or more than a fortnight’s wages for the workers handling them. The waste from this highly toxic process ends up being pumped into the lake looming over Dalahai.

    The state-owned Baogang Group, which operates most of the factories in Baotou, claims it invests tens of millions of pounds a year in environmental protection and processes the waste before it is discharged.
    According to Du Youlu of Baogang’s safety and environmental protection department, seven million tons of waste a year was discharged into the lake, which is already 100ft high and growing by three feet each year.

    In what appeared an attempt to shift responsibility onto China’s national leaders and their close control of the rare earths industry, he added: ‘The tailing is a national resource and China will ultimately decide what will be done with the lake.’

    Jamie Choi, an expert on toxics for Greenpeace China, says villagers living near the lake face horrendous health risks from the carcinogenic and radioactive waste.

    ‘There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment. Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground, and then they are processed using more acid and chemicals.


    Inside the Baotou Xijun Rare Earth refinery in Baotou, where neodymium, essential in new wind turbine magnets, is processed

    Finally they are dumped into tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained. And throughout this process, large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water. Villagers rely on this for irrigation of their crops and for drinking water. Whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities.’
    The fact that the wind-turbine industry relies on neodymium, which even in legal factories has a catastrophic environmental impact, is an irony Ms Choi acknowledges.

    ‘It is a real dilemma for environmentalists who want to see the growth of the industry,’ she says. ‘But we have the responsibility to recognise the environmental destruction that is being caused while making these wind turbines.’

    It’s a long way from the grim conditions in Baotou to the raw beauty of the Monadhliath mountains in Scotland. But the environmental damage wind turbines cause will be felt here, too. These hills are the latest battleground in a war being fought all over Britain – and particularly in Scotland – between wind-farm developers and those opposed to them.
    Cameron McNeish, a hill walker and TV presenter who lives in the Monadhliath, campaigned for almost a decade against the Dunmaglass wind farm before the Scottish government gave the go-ahead in December. Soon, 33 turbines will be erected on the hills north of the upper Findhorn valley.
    McNeish is passionate about this landscape: ‘It’s vast and wild and isolated,’ he says. Huge empty spaces, however, are also perfect for wind turbines and unlike the nearby Cairngorms there are no landscape designations to protect this area. When the Labour government put in place the policy framework and subsidies to boost renewable energy, the Monadhliath became a mouth-watering opportunity.
    People have been trying to make real money from Scottish estates like Jack Hayward’s Dunmaglass. Hayward, a Bermuda-based property developer and former chairman of Wolverhampton Wanderers, struck a deal with renewable energy company RES which, campaigners believe, will earn the estate an estimated £9 million over the next 25 years.
    Each of the turbines at Dunmaglass will require servicing, which means a network of new and improved roads 20 miles long being built across the hills. They also need 1,500 tons of concrete foundations to keep them upright in a strong wind, which will scar the area.
    Dunmaglass is just one among scores of wind farms in Scotland with planning permission. Scores more are still in the planning system. There are currently 3,153 turbines in the UK overall, with a maximum capacity of 5,203 megawatts.




    Around half of them are in Scotland. First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have said they want to get 80 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by 2020, which means more turbines spread across the country’s hills and moors.
    Many environmental pressure groups share Salmond’s view. Friends of the Earth opposes the Arctic being ruined by oil extraction, but when it comes to damaging Scotland’s wilderness with concrete and hundreds of miles of roads, they say wind energy is worth it as the impact of climate change has to be faced.
    ‘No way of generating energy is 100 per cent clean and problem-free,’ says Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth.

    ‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’
    But Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, a small but feisty campaign group dedicated to protecting Scotland’s wild lands, also points out that leaving aside the damage to the landscape, nobody is really sure how much carbon is being released by the renewable energy construction boom. Peat moors lock up huge amounts of carbon, which gets released when it’s drained to put up a turbine.
    Environmental considerations aside, as the percentage of electricity generated by wind increases, renewable energy is coming under a lot more scrutiny now for one simple reason – money. We pay extra for wind power – around twice as much – because it can’t compete with other forms of electricity generation. Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don’t, they pay a fine instead.

    One unit cell of Nd2Fe14b, the alloy used in neodymium magnets. The structure of the atoms gives the alloy its magnetic strength, due to a phenomenon known as magnetocrystalline anisotropy

    There’s a simple beauty about RO for the government. Even though it’s defined as a tax, it doesn’t come out of pay packets but is stuck on our electricity bills. That has made funding wind farms a lot easier for the government than more cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

    ‘If you want a grant for an energy conservation project on your house,’ says Helen McDade, ‘the money comes from taxes. But investment for turbines comes from energy companies.’
    Already, RO adds £1.4 billion to our bills each year to provide a pot of money to pay power companies for their ‘green’ electricity. By 2020, the figure will have risen to somewhere between £5 billion and £10 billion.

    When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown added another decade to these price guarantees, extending the RO scheme to 2037, guaranteeing the subsidy for more than a quarter of a century.
    It’s not surprising there’s been an avalanche of wind-farm applications in the Highlands. Wind speeds are stronger, land is cheaper and the government loves you.

    ‘You go to a landowner,’ McDade says, ‘and offer him what is peanuts to an energy company yet keeps him happily on his estate so they can put up a wind farm, which in turn raises ordinary people’s electricity bills. There’s a social issue here that doesn’t get discussed.’
    By 2020, environmental regulation will be adding 31 per cent to our bills. That’s £160 green tax out of an average annual bill of £512. As costs rise, more people will be driven into fuel poverty. When he was secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband decreed that these increases should be offset by improvements in energy efficiencies.

    It’s a view shared by his successor Chris Huhne, who says inflation due to RO will be effectively one per cent. Britain’s low-income families, facing hikes in petrol and food costs, will hope he’s right.
    Individual households aren’t the only ones shouldering the costs. Industry faces an even bigger burden. By 2020, environmental charges will add 33 per cent to industry’s energy costs.

    Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says that, ‘Industry is getting the worst of both worlds. Around 80 per cent of the contracts for the new Thanet offshore wind farm (off the coast of Kent) went abroad, but the expensive electricity will be paid for here.’
    Our current obsession with wind power, according to John Constable of energy think-tank the Renewable Energy Foundation, stems from the decision of the European Union on how to tackle climate change. Instead of just setting targets for reducing emissions, the EU told governments that by 2020, 15 per cent of all the energy we use must come from renewable sources.
    Because of how we heat our houses and run our cars with gas and petrol, 30 per cent of electricity needs to come from renewables. And in the absence of other technologies, that means wind turbines. But there’s a structural flaw in the plan, which this winter has brutally exposed.
    Study a graph of electricity consumption and it appears amazingly predictable, even down to reduced demand on public holidays. The graph for wind energy output, however, is far less predictable.
    Take the figures for December, when we all shivered through sub-zero temperatures and wholesale electricity prices surged. Peak demand for the UK on 20 December was just over 60,000 megawatts. Maximum capacity for wind turbines throughout the UK is 5,891 megawatts, almost ten per cent of that peak demand figure.

    Yet on December 20, because winds were light or non-existent, wind energy contributed a paltry 140 megawatts. Despite billions of pounds in investment and subsidies, Britain’s wind-turbine fleet was producing a feeble 2.43 per cent of its own capacity – and little more than 0.2 per cent of the nation’s electricity in the coldest month since records began.
    The problems with the intermittency of wind energy are well known. A new network of cables linking ten countries around the North Sea is being suggested to smooth supply and take advantage of 140 gigawatts of offshore wind power. No one knows for sure how much this network will cost, although a figure of £25 billion has been mooted.
    The government has also realised that when wind nears its target of 30 per cent, power companies will need more back-up to fill the gap when the wind doesn’t blow. Britain’s total capacity will need to rise from 76 gigawatts up to 120 gigawatts. That overcapacity will need another £50 billion and drive down prices when the wind’s blowing. Power companies are anxious about getting a decent price. Once again, consumers will pay.
    Wind power’s uncertainties don’t end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce. Many developers claim their installations will achieve 30 per cent of their maximum output over the course of a year. More sober energy analysts suggest 26 per cent. But even that figure is starting to look generous. In December, the average figure was less than 21 per cent. In the year between October 2009 and September 2010, the average was 23.6 per cent, still nowhere near industry claims.
    Then there’s the thorny question of how many homes new installations can power. According to wind farm developers like Scottish and Southern Electricity, a house uses 3.3MWh in a year. Lobby group RenewablesUK – formerly the British Wind Energy Association – gives a figure of 4.7MWh. In the Highlands electricity usage is even higher.
    Last year, a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that transforming our energy supply to produce a low-carbon economy would require the biggest investment and social change seen in peacetime. And yet Professor Sue Ion, who led the report, warned, ‘We are nowhere near having a plan.’
    So, against the backdrop of environmental catastrophe in China and these less than attractive calculations, could the billions being thrown at wind farms be better spent? Undoubtedly, says John Constable.

    ‘The government is betting the farm on the throw of a die. What’s happening now is simply reckless.’

    NUCLEAR, COAL, SOLAR, HYDRO, WIND: HOW THE ENERGY OPTIONS STACK UP


    Enlarge


    The British energy market is a hugely complicated and ever-changing landscape. We rely on a number of different sources for our energy - some more efficient than others, some more polluting than others.

    Here, you can see how much energy each type contributes, how much they are predicted to contribute in 2020, how much carbon dioxide they generate and how efficient they are.
    Renewable energy sources receive varying subsidies - which are added to our energy bills - as a result of the government's Renewables Obligation, whereas 'traditional' sources do not.

    Critically, government cost figures do not include subsidies, whereas our measure shows precisely how much money a power station receives for each megawatt-hour (MWh) it produces, which includes the price paid for the energy by the supplier and any applicable subsidy. This is an instant measure of an energy supply's cost-efficiency; the lower the figure, the less that energy costs to produce.

    Note: figures relate to UK energy production. Approximately seven per cent of our electricity comes from imports or other sources







    Read more: In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Daily Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  14. #15264
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    There are two class of mafia.
    The blue collar that sells drugs and prostitution.
    The white collar that gets subsidies for pretending to care for the environment.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  15. #15265
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Lol.

    Getting a bit off track just copy/pasting whole articles from newspapers...



    Sure looks like wind is in growth till 2020 and will definitely reduce CO2 consumption in the UK, just as it does everywhere else...

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


  16. #15266
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The latest satellite temperature update - you know, the one the deniers love..

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

  17. #15267
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    There are two class of mafia.
    The blue collar that sells drugs and prostitution.
    The white collar that gets subsidies for pretending to care for the environment.
    By Marc's reckoning, the Liberal National Coalition are the leaders of the white collar mafia. Here is the LNC government's plan for the white collar subsidies: THE COALITION’S DIRECT ACTION PLAN


    http://www.greghunt.com.au/Portals/0/PDF/TheCoalitionsDirectActionPlanPolicy2010.pdf
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  18. #15268
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The future of energy with not a wind turbine in sight:


    Oil field


    Fracking


    Gulf oil spill from space.


    Soon to be the past even if not one iota of renewable energy is harnessed. Even primary students know the magic fossil energy potato sack is a myth.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  19. #15269
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The RSS satellite record for the mid troposphere has just been corrected again for errors resulting from diurnal variations. This is the fourth major revision to the RSS data set to correct for errors.

    As a result of more accurate correction for diurnal variations the temperature record there is a trend adjustment upwards from RSS v3.3's 0.077 C/decade by a massive nearly doubling to RSS v4's 0.125 C/decade.

    The new data set removes the discrepancy between projected and measured temperatures and puts the RSS temperature record smack bang on top of the output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.

    http://journals.amet...CLI-D-15-0744.1

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

  20. #15270
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD

    Monday, February 29, 2016 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
    Tags: climate change, carbon credits, corruption




    Facebook (1,1

    Tw




    (NaturalNews) It used to be that pharmaceuticals were one of the biggest profiteering frauds in the global market (besides warmongering). But "climate change," and the ever-present fear of it, has created a whole new market for carbon dioxide "trading," that analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon say is now worth $53 billion worldwide.

    The value of global markets for carbon dioxide, says the group, rose by about nine percent last year, bringing the total to just shy of 50 billion euros. And this amount is expected to climb even further in 2016, as the United States and other North American countries are forced into the new "global warming" paradigm of carbon taxes and credits.

    North America is precisely where the biggest gains in CO2 value were seen in 2015, rising an astounding 220 percent to about 10.6 billion euros compared to 2014. This is due to the massive expansion of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) scheme, which now covers transportation fuel emissions.

    Also known as "cap-and-trade," the scheme involves government-mandated use and emissions restrictions for CO2, a concept that stems from the idea that carbon dioxide is somehow responsible for a disastrous situation known as "climate change." But rather than focus on the worst climate offenders – which include factory farming, confined animal feeding operations and industrial chemicals – cap-and-trade initiatives are targeting everyday consumers.

    The program has also been accused of making climate conditions worse, due to the fact that it's routinely abused as a way for corrupt entities to make money, while doing little to curb environmental pollution. We've been saying this all along – that, and the fact that carbon is good for the environment, when properly sequestered in soils where it should be.

    Cap-and-trade has led to more pollution, carbon emissions

    According to a report by the Stockholm Environment Institute, carbon credit schemes in Europe have already led to an increase in emissions of about 600 million tons. Particularly in Russia and the Ukraine, companies intentionally generated more "climate warming" chemicals, so that they could then "destroy" them in order to claim carbon credit cash.

    Cap-and-trade should also make people immediately think of Enron, the now-defunct energy company that just so happens to have been one of the first major traders in carbon credits. This commodity exchange, explains the report, allowed Enron's stock prices to rise to unrealistic levels very quickly, which in turn eventually led to the company's failure, along with the collapse of the coal industry.

    "We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud]; we didn't expect such a large number," stated one of the co-authors of the paper, Anja Kollmuss, to BBC News. "What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves [since] there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn't have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits."

    And yet, the carbon credit market continues to boom, despite mounds of evidence showing that it doesn't work and has no, or only negative, effects on the overall amount of emissions released into the atmosphere. It's no better than any of the other commodities scams we've seen over the years, that basically invite fraudulent activity.

    "As researchers we can not prove the fraud, we can just point to the facts," Kollmuss adds about the three projects in particular that she and her team evaluated. "[W]hen they could gain credits they immediately increased production of [polluting] greenhouse gas in order to destroy them, and that lead [sic] to them getting many more credits than if they had produced it like they did before."

    Sources for this article include:

    Trust.org

    Breitbart.com

    TheGuardian.com

    BBC.co.uk



    Learn more: Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD - NaturalNews.com
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  21. #15271
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    lol.

    Marc, so you LIKE Sweden now?

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


  22. #15272
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    It used to be that pharmaceuticals were one of the biggest profiteering frauds in the global market (besides warmongering). But "climate change," and the ever-present fear of it, has created a whole new market for carbon dioxide "trading," that analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon say is now worth $53 billion worldwide.
    LOL - Marc you break me up! That wouldn't be the same Thomson Reuters 40% owned by Murdoch who awarded the Minister for Wikipedia Greg Hunt the "Best Minister in the World". You could fit several small countries in that credibility gap FFS.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  23. #15273
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    8 posts full of hot air is not adding very much to the entertainment...nor my education.
    So the wind turbines don't kill birds??
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  24. #15274
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So the wind turbines don't kill birds??
    Sure they do.

    Every piece of human infrastructure kills something of the natural world. The question is do wind turbines kill less or more? The other question is does anyone really care about the answer?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  25. #15275
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The question is do wind turbines kill less or more?
    Good question.

    Ever driven on a country road Rod? Have you ever noticed the roadkill?

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


  26. #15276
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So the wind turbines don't kill birds??
    There have been dozens of studies worldwide - many sponsored by anti-turbine groups. Most studies attribute around one bird death per turbine per year. As I posted in a previous post the best counts of bird deaths near turbines indicate they are responsible for between 0.01% and 0.0001% of total bird deaths from manmade towers and powerlines. When vehicle and tall building deaths are factored in you can add another decimal place. I have never seen a bird carcass at the base of a turbine in South Australia and it's fairly safe to say that there is not an army of clandestine turbine kill cleaners employed in SA, even if it would lower the unemployment rate.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #15277
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default




    The expression on Hunt's face says it all!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  28. #15278
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Sure they do.

    Every piece of human infrastructure kills something of the natural world. The question is do wind turbines kill less or more? The other question is does anyone really care about the answer?
    Well that is not really the point isn't it?

    The point is that the CO2 fraud has corrupted the search for a real alternative source of energy and made almost anything that makes electricity viable at the tune of billions of subsidies. Next thing we will see is fans in public toilets generating electricity via the wind produced in there.
    A side effect is that anything negative about this absurd contraptions is masked and swept under the carpet and not subject to any scrutiny at all.
    And wind mills are not alone. See how fracking is protected from scrutiny by moronic state governments.

    The big losers are those who actually are researching real alternatives that can stand on their two feet, not hobby crap to con the votes hungry governments into throwing tax money at them.

    It will pass, but not without more damage to the environment they claim to care about.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  29. #15279
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    That's not the point...just a point of view.

    You well know that all energy is subsidised or co-invested by governments at some point in the process simply because it makes private investors feel less exposed.

    As for viable alternatives....there's nothing new out there. Just variations on the same themes and the money being invested is staggering. Just have a squiz at the books in the fusion research going on (they've just had another little success too). Couple that with energy storage research and the money going into that is nuts.

    Wind and solar research is comparatively tiny in terms of dollars because of the maturity of the technology. It's mostly infrastructure these days and governments invest a lot in infrastructure...always have.

    Governments 'protect' fracking because of the concept of royalties...what's moronic about the dash for cash? Don't you approve of their opportunity to get rich?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  30. #15280
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD
    Here's another bit of climate change profiteering going on:

    Investors in Miami Are Buying Up Land at Higher Elevations

    As developers prepare for sea-level rise, low-income residents face displacement.


    Investors in Miami Are Buying Up Land at Higher Elevations Before Sea Levels Rise - CityLab
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  31. #15281
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

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

  32. #15282
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    It seems that rather than drag underdeveloped nations out of poverty, coal is going to drag shareholders from developed nations into poverty; who wudda thort?

    Peabody Energy, World's Largest Coal Miner, Expected to File for Bankruptcy as Stock Price Tanks


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/bu...ling.html?_r=0
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  33. #15283
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    The misleading rubbish put out be groups like Peabody and taken up by dunderheads like Tony Abbott have helped lead to an over supply of coal and temporally destroyed the market. The over supply of gas probably means the end of coal anyway it was never viable for the third world and past its use by date for the first world. The denier community have just made it worse because their economic incompetence simply laid a smoke screen while technology marched on, really this is just a failure of political and business leadership the far right will be consigned to the dust bin of history to join the far left who beat them there hopefully some real talent starts to emerge soon

  34. #15284
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Coal company bankruptcies may not always be what they appear. Some have incurred sizable liabilities in the form of restoration of sites when a big mine winds up. One way to avoid having to clean up any toxic residue or restoration of the site is simply transfer the assets elsewhere then bankrupt the company. This technique also gets rid of any obligation to pay retirement benefits or cover the cost of any long term health issues of former employees.

    Not saying that Peabody is doing this, just that it is a well known strategy used in the past.

  35. #15285
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Mine reclamation in this country has long been a public issue, privatise the profits but leave the debts to the taxpayer. Pretty disgusting behaviour but a long held practice.

  36. #15286
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Yep. Look at the unfolding Clive Palmer ground and water pollution disaster in Qld.

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


  37. #15287
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #15288
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
    EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.
    Alarmist Assertion #1
    “Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”
    The Facts
    Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone. This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30% of U.S. electricity production would likely increase annual bat kills to 10-to-30 million every year. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.

    Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator. To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night.
    Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years. Indeed, Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wavethat occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.


    Alarmist Assertion #2
    “Lyme Disease Spreads” – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.”
    The Facts
    Lyme Disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions. Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientistsextensively researched Lyme Disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal EcoHealth, “the only environmental variable consistently association with increased [Lyme Disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.”
    Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally – and properly – viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists’ proclivity to claim anything and everything – no matter how beneficial – is severely harmful and caused by global warming.
    Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme Disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme Disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.” According to the CDC, Lyme Disease is a contributing factor to less than 25 deaths per year in the United States. Indeed, during a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme Disease.” Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate. Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme Disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climate’s propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme Disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving.

    Alarmist Assertion #3
    “National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”
    The Facts
    The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Objective facts refute both assertions.
    Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As this column has repeatedly documented (see articles here, here, and here, for example), global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.

    The same holds true for water supplies. Objective data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, than global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world.
    Alarmist Assertion #4
    “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”
    The Facts
    The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Utilizing 20th century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. Utilizing 21st century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise.
    Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.
    Alarmist Assertion #5
    “Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”
    The Facts
    Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth. Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme Disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen.
    Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions. For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it.
    Alarmist Assertion #6
    “Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.”
    The Facts
    Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data.
    As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters. One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists’ propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place in a truthful debate.

    Objective scientific data verify winters are getting colder, which counters the key prerequisite to EDF’s pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades. Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States.
    Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States. Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that western pine forests are “destroying iconic Western forests” when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms.

    Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska.
    Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles.
    Alarmist Assertion #7
    “Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”
    The Facts
    Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency for people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. On the contrary, global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.
    Alarmist Assertion #8
    “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”
    The Facts
    Severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Accordingly, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.
    As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and here at Forbes.com, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.
    Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.
    Regarding “the spread of disease,” as documented in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” objective evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses.
    Additionally, the alarmists’ desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions – more expensive energy sources – make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The economic consequences of Obama’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history. Remarkably, Obama’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.




    Alarmist Assertion #9
    “Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.”
    The Facts
    Outbreaks of “new or resurgent diseases” are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world. As a result, malaria has reemerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result.
    Also, as documented above in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme Disease (which, as documented above, isn’t even related to global warming).

    Alarmist Assertion #10
    “Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.”
    The Facts
    Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg – no matter how large – breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers” as EDF alleges. To the contrary, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979. Indeed, during the same year that the EDF claims “an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago” broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused “Shrinking Glaciers,” the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history. Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than any time in recorded history, and yet the EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  39. #15289
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that 'global cooling' caused the unusual snow in a notoriously warm and humid country.

    Wikipedia: Cold_waves

    Cold Waves
    A cold wave is a weather phenomenon that is distinguished by a cooling of the air. Specifically, as used by the U.S. National Weather Service, a cold wave is a rapid fall in temperature within a 24-hour period requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry, commerce, and social activities. The precise criterion for a cold wave is determined by the rate at which the temperature falls, and the minimum to which it falls. This minimum temperature is dependent on the geographical region and time of year.[18] Cold waves generally are capable of occurring any geological location and are formed by large cool air masses that accumulate over certain regions, caused by movements of air streams.[11]

    A cold wave can cause death and injury to livestock and wildlife. Exposure to cold mandates greater caloric intake for all animals, including humans, and if a cold wave is accompanied by heavy and persistent snow, grazing animals may be unable to reach necessary food and water, and die of hypothermia or starvation. Cold waves often necessitate the purchase of fodder for livestock at considerable cost to farmers.[11] Human populations can be inflicted with frostbites when exposed for extended periods of time to cold and may result in the loss of limbs or damage to internal organs.
    Extreme winter cold often causes poorly insulated water pipes to freeze. Even some poorly protected indoor plumbing may rupture as frozen water expands within them, causing property damage. Fires, paradoxically, become more hazardous during extreme cold. Water mains may break and water supplies may become unreliable, making firefighting more difficult.[11]

    Cold waves that bring unexpected freezes and frosts during the growing season in mid-latitude zones can kill plants during the early and most vulnerable stages of growth. This results in crop failure as plants are killed before they can be harvested economically. Such cold waves have caused famines. Cold waves can also cause soil particles to harden and freeze, making it harder for plants and vegetation to grow within these areas. One extreme was the so-called Year Without a Summer of 1816, one of several years during the 1810s in which numerous crops failed during freakish summer cold snaps after volcanic eruptions reduced incoming sunlight.

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


  40. #15290
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions.

    Maybe some do, but that is no excuse for the demonstrably false and deplorable assertions by James Taylor (Heartland Institute) which you unthinkingly reposted here.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #15291
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that 'global cooling' caused the unusual snow in a notoriously warm and humid country.
    Nice try Woodbe, but a person with their fingers in their ears, their eyes tightly closed, screaming "Nah, Nah, Nah...." at the top of their voice probably isn't open to reason.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  42. #15292
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Oddball claim: Plants boost extreme temperatures by 5°C

    Anthony Watts / 9 hours ago March 21, 2016
    From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES and the “temperatures are always hotter no matter what” department comes this study that makes very little sense on the face of it, especially when we have articles like this one: Hot in the City? How plants can help lower the temperature in towns.
    . Of course, you have to consider the source of the claim, the same University that launched the “ship of fools” expedition to Antarctica.
    Early greening caused by global warming may amplify heatwaves across large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. CREDIT Sunny Day by Andreas Wienemann (CC2.0)

    Improved plant types in climate model show significant impact on temperatures resulting from earlier spring greening
    Heatwaves from Europe to China are likely to be more intense and result in maximum temperatures that are 3°C to 5°C warmer than previously estimated by the middle of the century – all because of the way plants on the ground respond to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    This projected temperature increase found by Australian researchers and published in Nature Scientific Reports is more than half the change forecast by the IPCC under the business-as-usual model. The biggest temperature changes were projected to occur over needleleaf forests, tundra and agricultural land used to grow crops.
    “We often underestimate the role of vegetation in extreme temperature events as it has not been included in enough detail in climate models up until this point,” said lead author Dr Jatin Kala from Murdoch University.
    “These more detailed results are confronting but they help explain why many climate models have consistently underestimated the increase in the intensity of heatwaves and the rise in maximum temperatures when compared to observations.”
    To get their results the researchers looked at data from 314 plant species across 56 field sites. In particular, they investigated stomata, small pores on plant leaves that take in carbon dioxide and lose water to the atmosphere.
    Previously, most climate models assumed all plants trade water for carbon in the exactly same way, ignoring experimental evidence showing considerable variation among plant types. By not accounting for these differences, models have likely over-estimated the amount of water lost to the atmosphere in some regions.
    If plants release less water there is more warming and a consequent increase in heat wave intensity.
    The study is unique because, for the first time, it used the best available observations to characterise different plants water-use strategies within a global climate model.
    “These world-first results will have significant impact on the development of climate models around the world,” said one of the study’s authors, Prof Andy Pitman, Director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at UNSW.
    “However, it is the bringing together of observations by ecologists, theory from biologists, physics from land surface modellers and climate science in the global modeling, that is revolutionary.”
    The work that led to the study required investment in detailed observations, model development, and high performance computing.
    “This is a fantastic example of STEM-based science bringing together the ecological and climate modeling communities; two sectors which rarely work hand-in-hand,” said Prof Pitman.
    It was also a great example of public-good science, said Professor Belinda Medlyn, theoretical biologist at Western Sydney University and co-author of the study.
    “Our study of stomata was originally intended just to learn more about how plants work,” said Prof Medlyn.
    “We were really not expecting to find these important implications for heatwaves.”
    According to Dr Kala public good research of this magnitude can only be achieved through the strong institutions Australia has built up over time.
    “These institutions have enabled us to develop a world-leading climate model, unique observation systems and computational infrastructure that has far reaching benefits,” said Dr Kala.
    CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science developed the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) model used in this study in partnership.
    ARC Discovery funding enabled ecological researchers at Macquarie and Western Sydney Universities to put together the plant observations from around the world to develop the new vegetation model.
    At the same time the National eResearch and Collaboration Tools and Research Project (NECTAR) was key to managing the data produced by the ACCESS model. The model itself used National Computational Infrastructure supported and resourced by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.
    “This long term investment in key infrastructure is why Australian science continues to punch above its weight,” said Prof Pitman.
    “It’s an investment with many public benefits for us and the rest of the world, that every Australian can be proud of.”



    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  43. #15293
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Mr Watts is again showing the critical thinking skills of a beanbag...instead of trying to understand what the paper says or doesn't say...he just lazily says it's an odd result and probably wrong because the authors are by his reckoning damned by association.

    No doubt the findings of the paper are counter intuitive even to me but to suggest they are wrong in such terms makes him no better than useless to the ongoing discussion.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  44. #15294
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    No doubt the findings of the paper are counter intuitive even to me but to suggest they are wrong in such terms makes him no better than useless to the ongoing discussion.
    ...and makes anyone who promulgates such nonsense useless to the discussion as well.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #15295
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    ‘I used to think the top environmental problems facing the world were global warming, environmental degradation and eco-system collapse, and that we scientists could fix those problems with enough science. But I was wrong. The real problem is not those three items, but greed, selfishness and apathy. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.'

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

  46. #15296
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Apathy could be the biggest problem...but I couldn't be bothered to find out if it were true.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  47. #15297
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

    Posted on March 7, 2016 by tonyheller
    In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

    Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.


    I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

    The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.
    Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.
    NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed little net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended.
    The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  48. #15298
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    That's hardly a gotcha...in fact that is a shrill empty by my read. A long way from a CONSPIRACY. Especially since the original author seems to repeatedly confuse warming and anomaly. Regardless, most of the plots still show a positive anomaly for most observations...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  49. #15299
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The original report has been trimmed a little in Heller's article, the original is here.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf

    My issue is with the part where he combines two graphs in an attempt to show a long term trend. I don't think it is appropriate to do so; one measures ground to the 100mb level and the other is from 850mb to 200mb. That's from 0 to 53,000ft against 5000ft to 40,000ft, so not an apples to apples comparison in my book, but not my area of expertise so interested in other opinions.

  50. #15300
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Bribery and corruption in the oil industry; what a surprise!
    Unaoil | Leighton Holdings | Russell Waugh | Bribery Scandal

Page 306 of 377 FirstFirst ... 206 256 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 356 ... 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
  •