Jane Turner
Well-known member
level seven said:
I do hope for his sake he wasn't on the Gulf coast at the time
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Wind farms (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter oceans
- Start date
I do hope for his sake he wasn't on the Gulf coast at the time
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:yeah, that stuff by Terry was barking wasn't it?
Tim
Ciao
I actually meant you!! LOL
Edward woodwood
Member
yeah
i realised
it was humour, which i think 99% of people will realise
never mind
Tim
i realised
it was humour, which i think 99% of people will realise
never mind
Tim
Edward woodwood
Member
Jane Turner said:
Hi Jane
it was Myron Ebel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute - an anti-intellectual muppet. He is not a scientist at all
he actually thinks GW is a good thing!
so, yeah Jane, he's nowhere near there!!!
still, he made Jon Snow laugh
Tim
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
As I said Tim,the first time GW is allotted to our cause then I will take notice.
Terry O'Nolley
Cow-headed Jaybird
No, I "reckon" that if scientists are allowed to throw out the scientific method because a cause they believe in can't be proven with the scientific method then it opens the door for all sorts of dogma-driven "facts".Tim Allwood said:
I notice you continue to ignore my "what if" re: civilization beginning 10,000 years earlier. Admit it - you would be blaming industrialization for the global warming that occurred after the last ice age.
I am merely pointing out that these "beliefs" are unprovable. It has long been a tenet of science that you cannot draw sound conclusions from a system when you are a part of the system and do not know the limits of the system.
All you can do is plot past occurances, look for patterns and guess about what will happen next. Absent of a controlled experiment you cannot state as fact anything related to that system as a whole.
I have never stated whether or not I believe humans are causing this current climate shift. I am merely pointing out that anyone that claims to be offering anything more than their personal opinion is deluded.
Quite.Tim Allwood said:
Mark Duchamp
Guest
Urban Island Heat Effect
Heard on September 21st on French TV , channel TF1, evening news, anchorman Patrick Poivre d'Arvor:
"This year is the second hottest on record. Not that the day temperatures are hotter, but they don't come down at night."
If this isn't the Urban Island Heat Effect! - i.e. the ever increasing masses of concrete, bricks and asphalt that trap the heat of the sun during the day, and release it at night. It makes average temperatures go up - that and the slow warming of the earth's climate that started 15,000 years ago, as it does after each ice age.
If the CO2-induced global warming was real, temperatures in the past 30 years would have shown an increase in the atmosphere as well (the famous "greenhouse" effect). But they did not. Both weather balloon and
NASA satellites measurements concur on that: there was no corresponding temperature increase in the atmosphere. The warming only occurred on the surface of the earth, proof that it is caused by the UIHE.
So CO2 is not the problem (at least at this stage - it is, on the contrary, beneficial to plant growth). Therefore windfarms are not the solution. And in any event, even if GW was caused by CO2, windfarms could not be part of the solution - because of their need to be backed-up at all times by fossil fuel power plants spinning in stand-by.
The solution is: less concrete, less brick and mortar, less asphalt. And I would add: less engines creating heat all around us. In a nutshell: it is time to start talking seriously about less population growth, less transport, more conservation of energy, and everything else we all know about. All, EXCEPT windfarms. For they are a loss of money, totally wasteful, useless, and destructive of birds, landscapes, and quality of life.
Mark
Heard on September 21st on French TV , channel TF1, evening news, anchorman Patrick Poivre d'Arvor:
"This year is the second hottest on record. Not that the day temperatures are hotter, but they don't come down at night."
If this isn't the Urban Island Heat Effect! - i.e. the ever increasing masses of concrete, bricks and asphalt that trap the heat of the sun during the day, and release it at night. It makes average temperatures go up - that and the slow warming of the earth's climate that started 15,000 years ago, as it does after each ice age.
If the CO2-induced global warming was real, temperatures in the past 30 years would have shown an increase in the atmosphere as well (the famous "greenhouse" effect). But they did not. Both weather balloon and
NASA satellites measurements concur on that: there was no corresponding temperature increase in the atmosphere. The warming only occurred on the surface of the earth, proof that it is caused by the UIHE.
So CO2 is not the problem (at least at this stage - it is, on the contrary, beneficial to plant growth). Therefore windfarms are not the solution. And in any event, even if GW was caused by CO2, windfarms could not be part of the solution - because of their need to be backed-up at all times by fossil fuel power plants spinning in stand-by.
The solution is: less concrete, less brick and mortar, less asphalt. And I would add: less engines creating heat all around us. In a nutshell: it is time to start talking seriously about less population growth, less transport, more conservation of energy, and everything else we all know about. All, EXCEPT windfarms. For they are a loss of money, totally wasteful, useless, and destructive of birds, landscapes, and quality of life.
Mark
walwyn
Here today, gone tomorrow
Incorrect! The heat is not expected to be seen in the upper atmosphere the CO2 acts as a blanket stopping the heat from escaping that is what 'the greenhouse effect' is all about. Additionally the depletion of ozone has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere. Finally most of the heat is transfered into the oceans.
Try the American National Academy of Science report:
http://tinyurl.com/dw5hb
Try the American National Academy of Science report:
http://tinyurl.com/dw5hb
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
If something cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny then it should be condemned as 'junk science' like crystal healing etc. If not then we will allow ourselves to be mislead by any crank conspiracy theorist that gets any air time on the TV.
If the world is going to be held to ransom by the threat of GW then it should be OK to ask simple questions to challenge the mainstream thinking of GW protagonists.
I ask just simple questions like
'What has caused GW in the distant past in the absence of human derived GHGs?"
"Can you prove a causal link between the exhaust fumes of my car and the depletion of the glaciers?"
"Can you discount that the observed GW in recent years is not just part of a grand climatic cycle?"
Simple really, there are others though.
If the world's scientific community wants to convince the world's leaders then they should start by proving their answers to those questions.
What I really take offence to is being bullied into being silent by people who do not like to hear an opposing view. Just because 99.9999% of a population have been brain washed into believing anthropogenic GW is happening doesn't actually mean that it is actually happening.
It's the Emperor's clothes....totally
If the world is going to be held to ransom by the threat of GW then it should be OK to ask simple questions to challenge the mainstream thinking of GW protagonists.
I ask just simple questions like
'What has caused GW in the distant past in the absence of human derived GHGs?"
"Can you prove a causal link between the exhaust fumes of my car and the depletion of the glaciers?"
"Can you discount that the observed GW in recent years is not just part of a grand climatic cycle?"
Simple really, there are others though.
If the world's scientific community wants to convince the world's leaders then they should start by proving their answers to those questions.
What I really take offence to is being bullied into being silent by people who do not like to hear an opposing view. Just because 99.9999% of a population have been brain washed into believing anthropogenic GW is happening doesn't actually mean that it is actually happening.
It's the Emperor's clothes....totally
Edward woodwood
Member
yawn
anti-intellectual crap
censor this post if required mods but this is drivel!
Tim
anti-intellectual crap
censor this post if required mods but this is drivel!
Tim
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
Oh that is very intellectual, plus how intellectual is believing in something that is truly on a Global scale without any proof whatsoever?
Edward woodwood
Member
give up mate
you're embarrassing yourself
read all the 'big' journals for the proof
Tim
you're embarrassing yourself
read all the 'big' journals for the proof
Tim
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
I have read a lot of the journals, in fact I studied environmental science. All they spout is that the glaciers are depleting, sea levels are rising and the cause and proof of it is that CO2 has risen over the last 100 years or so. etc
That is not proof, that is suggestion.
An analogy, you have a fish tank with several species of fish. Over time species A is disappearing and B is getting fatter. What is happening?
Ah, if we can get enough people to say that B is eating A then it is true yeah?
No, you later find out that B is a grazing species. But in the meantime you have spent a fortune on fixing a problem that has never existed.
The same goes for windfarms, we are putting up eyesores that scar the landscape and kill birds that won't reverse a problem even if it exists.
That is not proof, that is suggestion.
An analogy, you have a fish tank with several species of fish. Over time species A is disappearing and B is getting fatter. What is happening?
Ah, if we can get enough people to say that B is eating A then it is true yeah?
No, you later find out that B is a grazing species. But in the meantime you have spent a fortune on fixing a problem that has never existed.
The same goes for windfarms, we are putting up eyesores that scar the landscape and kill birds that won't reverse a problem even if it exists.
Edward woodwood
Member
first class science there mate
proves it all!!!
of course the problem exists - or you know better than all the world scientists, which of course you don't...
proves it all!!!
of course the problem exists - or you know better than all the world scientists, which of course you don't...
Reay_Bonxie
Well-known member
Tim Allwood said:
I don't claim to know better, I just know scientific proof when I see it.
I read not that long ago(newscientist) that there was an ice age in the Cambrian period. The CO2 levels were way way above that of today, proof of that is in the evidence of the coal measures and limestone strata that was laid down in the much later Carboniferous period.
So if CO2 levels were in the % levels then why was there not a runaway Greenhouse effect rather than an ice age?
walwyn
Here today, gone tomorrow
The Cambrian period was one of the warmest on record, the average temperature being 22ºC compared with the current period beeing around 12ºC.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69828
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69828
Grousemore
Senior Member
None of which is relevant to the Thread;
Wind Farms (in the context of alternative forms of energy)
Most people agree that alternatives are needed,
Is it that difficult to justify the building of these things?
Wind Farms (in the context of alternative forms of energy)
Most people agree that alternatives are needed,
Is it that difficult to justify the building of these things?
Last edited:
Edward woodwood
Member
Grousemore said:
course not trevor
that's why they're spreading like wildfire :t:
Tim
