Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts

[Rich_P]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm

Surprise surprise! I'm surprised all the adverts weren't pulled for being misleading and ill informed propaganda.

"What is the job of the government? It is to lead. Sitting in the position I do, meeting the scientists I do, who tell me about their great fears about climate change and the impact it will have on peoples' way of life and the very high likelihoods we will see the events we were talking about in those ads.

To lead? No it bloody well isn't. The job of the Government is to do as the public tell them to. DT_Xtremez_32:

It's all scaremongering and propaganda that they're dishing out, in dire attempt to rape the population for more revenue to then waste in failed projects. DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[John Lloyd]

I recently had a heated discussion with a 'Greeny' who kept spouting climate change values and who just could not get it into their thick head that the scientists are being paid and research is funded to prove climate change is happening.

If you have either a cynical or opposing view you are either "thick, blinkered, misguided or ignorant'.

Greenies are fascist puppets.

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

I was one of the many that complained about those misleading and biased adverts.... pity they didn't listen to what was said about that shocking TV advert but decided it fitted in with the IPCC says is true, therefore we must believe it..
It does look like the Man Made Global Warming house of cards is starting to collapse..... if it does will Mr Broon give back all the cash he's collected in 'Green' Taxes!
C02 is 0.03% of the atmosphere, in the past it has been higher than now by 1000s of % and we still had glaciers and icecaps... It's being used as another excuse to tax us, end of!

 

[Realist78]

If there was a total belief and truth in it, wouldn't the Green taxes raised be invested to combat global warming rather than be tossed into general coffers? By using the subject as a revenue raiser, it exposes the lies IMO.

 

[theladf]

There has been a ban on the use of nursery rhymes in adverts proclaiming climate change

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100317/tuk-nursery-rhyme-climate-change-adverts-45dbed5.html

As usual though the mash has it bob on!!!!!!!!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

 

[Tashy_Man]

There has been a ban on the use of nursery rhymes in adverts proclaiming climate change

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100317/tuk-nursery-rhyme-climate-change-adverts-45dbed5.html

As usual though the mash has it bob on!!!!!!!!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Read the Mash this morning...really good !!

Crack on..............DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

It's all a load of tosh!

It's all a load of tosh!

Can't see any 'unprecedented manmade' warming here!

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

Obviously it looks better like that not just the last couple of hundred years that the 'Warmists' like to show.
I know which one i prefer to show.

DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[GD on Wheels]

Here's one for the windfarm plaudits. So far in the US they have built 10,000 of them. These things averaged out to around 3.9 Giggawatts over the year. That was no more than the output of a single large coal-fired power station.
So imagine how many it would take to replace all our powerstations, not forgetting when the wind does not blow we will be sitting in the dark.

 

[metimmee]

Can't see any 'unprecedented manmade' warming here!

I havent studied climate change sufficiently to form an informed opinion, however I would caution using graphs like the one you have. Just look at the x-axis scale! The modern era is compressed to the extent that it is unusable. Also, it doesnt detail the mathematical method of producing the smooth green line in the graph.

In my view, the way scholars proclaim fact and absolutes is at fault and has undermined the debate and the public trust in science.

 

[metimmee]

Here's one for the windfarm plaudits. So far in the US they have built 10,000 of them. These things averaged out to around 3.9 Giggawatts over the year. That was no more than the output of a single large coal-fired power station.
So imagine how many it would take to replace all our powerstations, not forgetting when the wind does not blow we will be sitting in the dark.

Wind farms and any other renewable energy sources will only be part of the solution. This is a really good read. It talks about making the UK unreliant on fossil fuels. If you take one thing from this critically acclaimed free-book, its the scale of the undertaking.

He talks about the mass adoption of electric vehicles. The neat thing about his blended solutions (a significant nuclear element to this) is that he advocates electric vehicles with replaceable power packs. There will have to be an excess of power packs since they take hours to charge to allow vehicle usage in the same pattern as today. Since the charging stations are on the national grid, during periods where there is high demand on the grid, those same packs are used to supply power to the grid, acting as accumulators. Remember...only part of the solution making renewables like wave, wind and hydro more practical.

 

[Stevienics]

Al very well, providing we don't figure in the transformation energy losses in turning DC from the batteries back to AC in the grid, and these batteries having already been charged from an AC source.

 

[metimmee]

Al very well, providing we don't figure in the transformation energy losses in turning DC from the batteries back to AC in the grid, and these batteries having already been charged from an AC source.

Go on then, figure out the net losses!

His idea is that by investing in large scale renewables on a national scale (more predictable output than local scale), you have to be able to deal with short-term shortages in output. You are in fact buying-off the conversion inefficiencies that you have mentioned with the renewable source. (FYI direct to grid inverters can have 95% efficiency, and are local...so have less transmission losses).

If you actually read the book, he brings up another problem with this plan and its the amount of Lithium required to implement it.

There is no single bullet to kill off this problem, it will have to come from a blended approach with many single big-hitting solutions. I mention big hitting because he discusses the often cited problem of mobile chargers being left plugged in and other "every little helps" myths. If you want a synopsis of the book, download it from here.

 

[GD on Wheels]

Wind farms and any other renewable energy sources will only be part of the solution. This is a really good read. It talks about making the UK unreliant on fossil fuels. If you take one thing from this critically acclaimed free-book, its the scale of the undertaking.

He talks about the mass adoption of electric vehicles. The neat thing about his blended solutions (a significant nuclear element to this) is that he advocates electric vehicles with replaceable power packs. There will have to be an excess of power packs since they take hours to charge to allow vehicle usage in the same pattern as today. Since the charging stations are on the national grid, during periods where there is high demand on the grid, those same packs are used to supply power to the grid, acting as accumulators. Remember...only part of the solution making renewables like wave, wind and hydro more practical.

Now you will have to persuade the CND lot to have nuclear power stations, which will take some doing, so good luck with that one.
Then you will have to have car charging points all over the place, as the new Nissan they want to build only has a range of 140 odd miles. No good to me if I travel more then that, and if I do how long will it take to charge? Thus adding more time to my journey. They will need a much longer range to persaude me to invest in one.
As you say they will compliment each other thus you cannot get rid any of the power stations in case one or of the other sources is off line, so as I see it no money will be saved.
More money will need to invested in the railways to get ALL the freight off the roads, as I have yet to see the electric verson of an artic.

 

[Barch]

Now you will have to s

I don't get it, what do you mean?

 

[GD on Wheels]

I don't get it, what do you mean?

I pressed submit by mistake DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[metimmee]

Now you will have to persuade the CND lot to have nuclear power stations, which will take some doing, so good luck with that one.
Then you will have to have car charging points all over the place, as the new Nissan they want to build only has a range of 140 odd miles. No good to me if I travel more then that, and if I do how long will it take to charge? Thus adding more time to my journey. They will need a much longer range to persaude me to invest in one.
As you say they will compliment each other thus you cannot get rid any of the power stations in case one or of the other sources is off line, so as I see it no money will be saved.
More money will need to invested in the railways to get ALL the freight off the roads, as I have yet to see the electric verson of an artic.

Indeed, all that and much more. It truly is a staggeringly huge problem to deal with. As stated in the book, the only practical means of having electric cars is to be able to swap the batteries out at the charging station.

None of it is easy. The question is, do you deal with it while its not urgent to do so or when the world is scrambling for resources? In this country, I suspect the latter since short termism rules.

Forget about saving money, any alternative sources of energy are bound to be more expensive...for now.