Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 14 Nov '10 06:30
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8131383/The-climate-change-scare-is-dying-but-do-our-MPs-notice.html

    By Christopher Booker 7:26PM GMT 13 Nov 2010

    Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.

    A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a "cap and trade" bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that "carbon" would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless.

    Here in Britain, as the first snows fall, heralding what may be our fourth cold winter in a row, it is time we addressed one of the most glaring political "disconnects" in our sadly misgoverned country.

    ...
  2. 14 Nov '10 06:31
    ...

    It was recently reported that farmers are rushing to cash in on the ludicrous subsidies which could earn them £50,000 a year for covering 35 acres of their fields with solar panels bought from China. These yield, on average, only 8 per cent of their capacity. Last year, all the solar panels in Britain generated an average 2.3 megawatts, barely 1/500th of the output of a single medium-sized coal-fired power station. Yet our Government wants us to pour billions of pounds into this scheme, just when Spain, Germany and Australia have drastically reduced their own solar subsidies, because the billions they lavished on them turned out to be a total waste of money for virtually no return.

    ...
  3. 14 Nov '10 14:40
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8131383/The-climate-change-scare-is-dying-but-do-our-MPs-notice.html

    By Christopher Booker 7:26PM GMT 13 Nov 2010

    Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.
    Ahem. Three points.

    One, the Torygraph is about as trustworthy as the Daily Hate. It's no less idiotic; all it is is more eloquent.

    Two, Booker is one of the worst of its idiots. He wouldn't recognise a valid scientific argument if it proved him human (not that any ever will).

    Three, yes, carbon trading is a scam. But not for this reason.

    Richard
  4. 14 Nov '10 19:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    ...

    It was recently reported that farmers are rushing to cash in on the ludicrous subsidies which could earn them £50,000 a year for covering 35 acres of their fields with solar panels bought from China. These yield, on average, only 8 per cent of their capacity. Last year, all the solar panels in Britain generated an average 2.3 megawatts, barely 1/500 ...[text shortened]... s they lavished on them turned out to be a total waste of money for virtually no return.

    ...
    Why is there 'virtually no return'?
    In most cases, solar pays for itself in a few years. Was it mismanaged?
  5. 15 Nov '10 06:35
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why is there 'virtually no return'?
    In most cases, solar pays for itself in a few years. Was it mismanaged?
    pays for itself with tax credits?

    pays for itself in sunny Africa?
  6. 15 Nov '10 08:12
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    pays for itself with tax credits?

    pays for itself in sunny Africa?
    I think the last I read about it was in California.
    What are the economics of it for Europe?
  7. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    15 Nov '10 08:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think the last I read about it was in California.
    What are the economics of it for Europe?
    In Australia here ... I read about a recent scheme where the people who got solar cells were not eligible for a separate low cost electricty offer, so they not only paid for the cells, but also paid more after the cells were installed! Guess that's equitable: the solar cell subsidies were mostly taken up by wealthy segments of our society anyway.
    A great case of smoke and mirrors ... makes for good entertainment, and the corporatocracy can keep on profiteering.
  8. 15 Nov '10 08:47
    Originally posted by flexmore
    A great case of smoke and mirrors ... makes for good entertainment, and the corporatocracy can keep on profiteering.
    You start by saying it was equitable, then talk of profiteering. Which is it?
  9. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    15 Nov '10 10:03 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You start by saying it was equitable, then talk of profiteering. Which is it?
    It is both.
    There are many actors in these dramas ... each has their own part to play, and their own point of view.

    Regardless of equitablilty and profiteering, I think the entertainment element is more relevant to the big picture: people believe the climate issue has been addressed because it has been spectacularised in the media: "Bread and circuses".
    Now that rising CO2 levels and their impacts have been analysed by the media, there is diminished concern about the warnings from climate scientists.
  10. 15 Nov '10 13:51
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    ...

    It was recently reported that farmers are rushing to cash in on the ludicrous subsidies which could earn them £50,000 a year for covering 35 acres of their fields with solar panels bought from China. These yield, on average, only 8 per cent of their capacity. Last year, all the solar panels in Britain generated an average 2.3 megawatts, barely 1/500 ...[text shortened]... s they lavished on them turned out to be a total waste of money for virtually no return.

    ...
    Very interesting zeeblebot, could you cite your sources?
  11. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    15 Nov '10 21:18
    Originally posted by jonevery
    Very interesting zeeblebot, could you cite your sources?
    He did - the URL he included. It's an article on the telegraph.
  12. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    16 Nov '10 08:56
    Originally posted by joneschr
    He did - the URL he included. It's an article on the telegraph.
    Yes, and it considers current solar power in UK as though that was the only alternative. A nice circus; or is it bread?

    Of course the UK is far north and surrounded by wind (and waves) ... wind is much more powerful: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union> calculates more than 100 times more powerful at present output.
  13. 16 Nov '10 09:57
    As shallow blue implies, you should no more listen to Booker on climate change than you should seek the advice of Paul Gascoigne on fine art.

    Read George Monbiot on Booker for why
    start with this, but there are others (do a search)
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/23/the-patron-saint-of-charlatans/

    Two things about his article. (i) he focuses solely on the US market. There is a functioning carbon market in the EU (and beyond) in which carbon is currently trading at 15 Euros a tonne. Now don't get me wrong, the EU ETS is highly flawed, it is far from an ideal solution, but it is there and he chooses to ignore it for the purposes of his argument.
    (ii) In talking about snow arriving in Britain, heralding another cold winter (where's his evidence for this?), he virtually resorts to the classic "it's cold today, so global warming must be a myth" argument.
  14. 16 Nov '10 11:29
    llyOriginally posted by zeeblebot
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8131383/The-climate-change-scare-is-dying-but-do-our-MPs-notice.html

    By Christopher Booker 7:26PM GMT 13 Nov 2010

    Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading ...[text shortened]... ne of the most glaring political "disconnects" in our sadly misgoverned country.

    ...
    Edit: ..."collapse of the great global warming scare..."

    It was the Chinese engineered collapse of Copenhagen that has changed the picture, for the interim, in carbon trading.

    Global warming and climate change are not equivalent. Evidence of global warming enough to persuade and still persuade the great majority of scientists is but part of the total picture. Global warming can bring all sorts of strange effects as the global climate adjusts, including not only heating and drought, but unseasonal and deep winters and excessive weather patterns including devastating cyclones.

    Those stating on the basis of a few short years the end of the climate change is now before us fail to recognize that a decade in climate statistics is the very minimal to make any statements above the purely speculative.

    Here in Australia we are having much improved rainfall following a serious prolonged period of drought, similar to that which has occurred in Asia, Europe and parts of the Americas. Here the rainfall at present is related to what is known as the Southern Oscillation to do with the warming and cooling of the surrounding seas. There might even be some local benefit hopefully from the changing weather patterns caused by climate change.
    But it is more than likely when the drier oscillation shifts in again in a few years it could be worse than ever and the nay sayers will be faced with new evidence of the seriousness of what is happening. I do not understand how people can continue to ignore the constant reports from all over the globe of seriously effecting climate changes.

    The variability of change is evidenced by the two polar areas, one is seriously melting the other is showing little change, no doubt because the planet has a larger water surface in the Southern Hemisphere. The melting away of the Himalayan glaciers will mean firstly floods but then a huge drop in water supply for many millions of people. General supply of water is becoming a real issue in many places globally. Don't you read anything except popular rags?

    Popular selective press items are not serious sources of evidence of climate change because they are only interested in profits and to increase readership everything is hyped to the max and concern for accuracy of reporting is nil. To fire up emotions and spurious debate is good to sell papers.

    Global warming and climate change is happening, possibly not only because of man but certainly made more dangerous by pumping enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to huge population increases and the large populations of India and China now becoming highly industrialized. If the warming melts more of the tundra of the northern areas, huge amounts of methane from the thawing rotting plant-life accumulated over millions of years will be released to add to it. Species after species are becoming extinct or seriously threatened. Diseases like malaria are now occurring in places that have never known them.

    It is deadly serious and you laugh and point to scant evidence of nothing as against serious scientific data of varying disciplines. One day sadly, you will not laugh, for it will eventually effect you or your children directly. We really do need to get our act together and quickly, but I don't think we will. Ah, well.

    As you can tell, I am one of the highly convinced. I think there might be a few others out there too.
  15. 17 Nov '10 11:28
    Originally posted by rja211077
    As shallow blue implies, you should no more listen to Booker on climate change than you should seek the advice of Paul Gascoigne on fine art.

    Read George Monbiot on Booker for why
    I would add that you should add Monbiot to the same list. Just because he's a maniac on the diametrically opposite side of the matter to some previous maniac, he is no less a maniac himself. More so, rather. In complicated, not yet fully understood matters, the people on the extreme ends of the spectrum are not only nearly always wrong, they're nearly always nutjobs as well. As in this case - Monbiot and Booker belong in the same straitjacket.

    Richard