UK energy future

[LucidDementia]

WDAS

Why oh why didn't they just ask us to be wise with our resources? That would have made sense.

[d000hg]

So you are more interested in getting people off fossil fuels than you are worried about climate change. What you "favour" is wishy washy in that it is unproven as a means to reduce or reverse CO2 in the atmosphere.

How do you get that from what you quoted?

[DodgyAgent]

How do you get that from what you quoted?

It is that old chesnut which you have failed to grasp. What people say and the louder they say it the more likely it is that they have another agenda.

[pjclarke]

So you are more interested in getting people off fossil fuels than you are worried about climate change. What you "favour" is wishy washy in that it is unproven as a means to reduce or reverse CO2 in the atmosphere.

if on the other hand you were genuinely interested in reversing CO2 then you would be pushing for trials of Ocean fertilisation using the technology that I have proposed.

I can buy your arguments about reducing fossil fuels as do so many other people but you and your fellow zealots have undermined your own arguments by trying to frighten everyone. Of course you have been written off as loons thus playing straight into the hands of the Oil companies.

I am all for more research, however what is 'unproven' right now is that Ocean Fertilisation even works as promised, can be scaled up at a cost that makes it competitive, and can make a meaningful reduction. Even if it did, there are 'quick wins', such as increasing energy efficiency, which should be given a higher priority.

[DodgyAgent]

I am all for more research, however what is 'unproven' right now is that Ocean Fertilisation even works as promised, can be scaled up at a cost that makes it competitive, and can make a meaningful reduction. Even if it did, there are 'quick wins', such as increasing energy efficiency, which should be given a higher priority.

It is like getting blood out of a stone. The manufacturer has calculated by applying it to less than 2% of the worlds oceans the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce. Fish Biomass will increase and acidification will reduce. The amount of Oxygen in the water will increase. Your solution has no evidence of having any impact whatsoever nor will it clean the oceans or feed the planet. It is also unrealistic that anyone will take it seriously enough in large enough numbers to make any difference.

My point is not that it should be used but that it should be trialled. Unfortunately those who control the Oceans and seas are like you . They want the problem to continue. There are virtually no scientists or authorities charged with the responsibility of finding solutions they are too busy studying the problem itself. It is what they are paid to do..

[LucidDementia]

My point is not that it should be used but that it should be trialled. Unfortunately those who control the Oceans and seas are like you . They want the problem to continue. There are virtually no scientists or authorities charged with the responsibility of finding solutions they are too busy studying the problem itself. It is what they are paid to do..

Sounds a lot like Cancer Research does that.

[pjclarke]

There are virtually no scientists or authorities charged with the responsibility of finding solutions they are too busy studying the problem itself

Yeah right That's why it takes a mere 1440 pages just to summarise their work.

[LucidDementia]

Yeah right That's why it takes a mere 1440 pages just to summarise their work.

Funny, a solution would be a couple of pages. 1400+ page documents? That's what politicians write to confuse the common man.
For a good example try the Income Tax Act.

What you folk need to present is an equation which explains how the human output of CO2 directly co-relates to the change in global temperature.
Then it can be tested by observation and thus broadly accepted or shown to be inaccurate, then it can be refined and the truth will out.

[EternalOptimist]

They are SO concerned about global warming, and people flying, that 40,000 of them will be flying into Paris in a week or so

to tell the rest of us to stop flying


con men, shysters and crooks the lot of them

[pjclarke]

They are SO concerned about global warming, and people flying, that 40,000 of them will be flying into Paris in a week or so

to tell the rest of us to stop flying


con men, shysters and crooks the lot of them

The French government will offset all emissions from travel of registered participants, as well as those from the conference facilities and local operations, through CERs from projects under the clean development mechanism (CDM). The carbon neutrality of the COP should be completed by March 2016.

If we all followed their example - reduce all you can and offset the rest, well, we'd have a smaller problem.

I can pretty much guarantee that the conference will not affect your freedom to fly when and where you like, you old paranoid.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-ne...ked-questions/