UK energy future

[LucidDementia]

After you accused me of ad hom. I fail to see what my date of birth adds to the discussion.

It will tell me if you are a mature person who has been swayed by the science or if you have been fed this garbage growing up and don't know any better.

I can forgive one of these.


Oh and if you can't figure it out I use ad hom for humour as opposed to a defence mechanism.

[pjclarke]

I graduated in Physics some decades ago. I can read and evaluate a scientific case.

None of which is relevant to the ability of increasing greenhouse gases to heat the planet.

[DodgyAgent]

I graduated in Physics some decades ago. I can read and evaluate a scientific case.

None of which is relevant to the ability of increasing greenhouse gases to heat the planet.

[pjclarke]

[QUOTE=LucidDementia;2172170I also asked your age, which you have declined to offer.[/QUOTE]

And, rather more relevantly, I asked for an example of a failed IPCC prediction (there are some, but nothing fundamental)

[pjclarke]

Oh dear, you've caught whatever EternalOptimist has.

I am cut to the quick by the detailed, well-researched, unanswerable and dare I say, witty riposte.

[DodgyAgent]

Oh dear, you've caught whatever EternalOptimist has.

I am cut to the quick by the detailed, well-researched, unanswerable and dare I say, witty riposte.

It is the arrogance of thinking that just because you understand technology you are right about everything. Your fellow scientists like you are clever enough to analyse science and data to try to make a convincing enough case to control human behaviour. I showed you a technology some time ago that you failed to (having tried your hardest) to disprove could work. In the end you ignored it because it not fit with the narrative of what you are attempting to achieve.

Of course anything that doesn't fit with your imperious view is subjected to the ad hominen treatment.

[pjclarke]

It is the arrogance of thinking that just because you understand technology you are right about everything. Your fellow scientists like you are clever enough to analyse science and data to try to make a convincing enough case to control human behaviour. I showed you a technology some time ago that you failed to (having tried your hardest) to disprove could work. In the end you ignored it because it not fit with the narrative of what you are attempting to achieve.

Of course anything that doesn't fit with your imperious view is subjected to the ad hominen treatment.

I have a graduate level scientific training but I certainly would not describe myself as a scientist. This post is at several removes from reality. You pointed to a technology currently used, if memory serves, to clean aquariums and treat sewage, the producers of which were making claims it could upscaled to sequester carbon from the oceans. I pointed out that many further steps were required to prove it could be viable, and such research has been done into ocean fertilisation indicates that on the scale required to make a difference -Gigatonnes - it is not cost effective, not to mention the fact that fertilising one area of the ocean tends to defertilise other areas, which tends to p*ss people off.

The IPCC assigns its main conclusions a probability, for the conclusion that most recent warming is anthropogenic they assign a likelihood of 95%, in other words they estimate that there's a 1 in 20 chance that they're wrong, and it is being driven by something else. Pixies maybe.

I apologise unreservedly to anyone I have upset with my imperious ad hominem remarks. Must be my age, but I don't remember making any.

[DodgyAgent]

I have a graduate level scientific training but I certainly would not describe myself as a scientist. This post is at several removes from reality. You pointed to a technology currently used, if memory serves, to clean aquariums and treat sewage, the producers of which were making claims it could upscaled to sequester carbon from the oceans. I pointed out that many further steps were required to prove it could be viable, and such research has been done into ocean fertilisation (12 projects all less than 6 months is hardly conclusive) indicates that on the scale required to make a difference -Gigatonnes - it is not cost effective (rubbish - tiny sized particles float in the ocean for a long time and easy to consume) , not to mention the fact that fertilising one area of the ocean tends to defertilise other areas, which tends to p*ss people off ( this is what you want to believe because the last thing you want is a solution - the argument is nonsense anyway) .

As I say just as the appearance of god would upset a lot of preachers so would a solution to climate change upset the zealots.

[pjclarke]

Any technology must compete with other methods of reducing CO2 (or preventing it being emitted), the driving market mechanism being carbon credits. The trouble with Carbon Dioxide Removal is that CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere - you have to process a lot of air to get a tiny amount of carbon. Looks like the market has decided that the prospects for ocean fertilisation are less good that plain old emissions reduction. I would perhaps have expected a champion of the free market to welcome this.

That's not to say CDR cannot play a part or that the public and private sector research should stop, far from it, its just that we have little time to lose, and resources need to be focussed where we get most bang for our buck. CDR is discussed in the book from the US National Academy

Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration | The National Academies Press

Ocean fertilisation is on p56. Estimated cost is $457 for each tonne of CO2 removed.

[LucidDementia]

The main problem is actually that it's a load of tulip.

And that the IPCC is not in the business of impartial climate research but in trying to terrify the world with the spectre of man-made climate change with a view to furthering the efforts of a would-be global government.

We were told in 2007 that we had "little time to lose" and within 7 years the polar ice could be almost gone. What a load of crap that was. Then there's Gore telling us all we need to make massive changes and pay taxes to save the planet - this from a man who dropped depleted uranium on Yugoslavia.

Just ******* can it will you, please?