|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 25, 2019 16:44:32 GMT 1
[quote timestamp="1556018419" author=" alancalverd" I think world population is predicted by the UN to peak at about 12 billion, isn't it? We can probably cope with that, given GMOs and already improving transport. Why peak? I've never been clear about that myself, but it does seem to be the consensus in the subject - which in itself should give anyone with any sense reason to seriously doubt it. Huh? Like the demand for flint axes or whale oil? This sounds like Fing's CO2 causes warming warming causes CO2 "proof" that we should all stop breathing. There's always more afoot, Horatio. In the case of the demographics projection consensus, it goes something like: when basic needs are met, as trend projections demonstrate fairly conclusively they should do, then the drive to produce large families reduces, which perpetuates the trend to satiation, which increases the reduction in birthrate, down to where population starts to reduce. Given that this trend to basic need satisfaction does not depend on labour but technology, and efficient distribution mechanisms, this reduction should continue indefinitely. I think this logic is empirically borne out - whether we'll manage to still be around to see it play on a global scale is another question.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 25, 2019 17:23:46 GMT 1
So I bet that he is not going to tell us how AGW was proven to false, he does not provide the information, yet still says he won the bet! Yes, I did. Like yours, it was a purely private one, made with myself. I bet that you were still as childish as you always were, and wouldn't be able to enter a conversation without self-masturbatory insults. For your education, towards becoming an adult human being, if you want information from someone, all you have to do is ask them for it. There are conventions for this hopeful exchange, evolved over the centuries. See above. Yes it has, many many times. According to the scientific method, which not a one of these climate alarmist "scientists" even attempts to argue for some reason no longer applies. Mrsonde follows the subject, the arguments and discoveries from both sides of the argument, very closely, with an open and enquiring mind. You, on the other hand, know nothing about it. As you have already demonstrated. Or maybe you can tell us - point us with a link to a single scientific paper - where and how the AGW theory has not been falsified? Where indeed has it even ever been corroborated? Nowhere, ever - not a single prediction ever issued by the theory has ever been confirmed. On the contrary, every prediction has been conclusively falsified.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 25, 2019 17:37:25 GMT 1
Against whom? By bombing what? Against anyone who attacks us with wmd. By bombing the infrastructure required to destroy whatever regime perpetrates such an act. Hypothetical perpetrators like jihadis or Blofelds do not negate the justification for this doctrine against actually existing potential actors like Russia, China, North Korea.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 26, 2019 1:00:52 GMT 1
Actual or potential? Make your mind up! The likely perpetrator of my nuclear scenario is a mob like Al Quaeda (funded by our best friends and customers in Saudi Arabia) or ISIL , with its headquarters in.... probably London, possibly Wolverhampton, almost certainly not Moscow, Beijing or Pyongyang.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 2:26:25 GMT 1
Actual or potential? Make your mind up! Their potential is actual, as contrasted with hypothetical. It's not a difficult distinction to grasp. I don't think so. Thankfully, they're dimwits, and petty criminal gangsters, not masterminds. They can just about work out how to stab someone, or run them over with a car, or blow themselves up with a battery and stick of dynamite. Well, we'll agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, fortunately, even if you turn out to be right, there are wiser heads in charge of our Defence policy, who still realise they need to be prepared for the thugs in Moscow or Beijing, as well as the idiots you're more worried about.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 7:28:32 GMT 1
All of us seem to agree that we must cut our polluting emissions, though there is some dispute as to exactly how to do it. I think cutting the population, even if really possible, will only stop the rise in emissions. Nuclear energy seems a good option, except for the fact that the power plants seem so very expensive to build and (importantly) decommission at the end of their lives, hence the real cost of such electricity generation is very high But we need a guaranteed base level of power for when it's calm at night, so we must have conventional power stations, burning biomass. Apart from that, solar and wind will generate most of our power in the future. energyinnovation.org/2018/01/22/renewable-energy-levelized-cost-of-energy-already-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-and-prices-keep-plunging/
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 8:38:43 GMT 1
All of us seem to agree that we must cut our polluting emissions, though there is some dispute as to exactly how to do it. The dispute is really more about what the pollution is. It's not difficult to build fossil fuel power plants that do not emit pollutants. If for some irrational reason you consider CO2 a pollutant, then you have a problem. But before you start trying to solve that non-existent problem, you'd do better to tackle the much bigger problem of livestock farming. Not really. You could build enough to generate this country's entire supply for less than half of what Gordon Brown borrowed in his tenure in Downing Street, these days at a fraction of the long-term cost. And, unlike Brown's utterly wasteful profligacy, the investment would see a real return, a profit over their lifetime, so the cost needn't even go onto the Government's books. That used to be true, for those built last century, not any more - their design now takes that issue into account, and its very different. Nowhere near as high as that of wind turbines, or solar panels - or any other traditional kind, in fact. And biomass is the most expensive kind of all - and, laughably, doesn't even solve your pollution problem! Nope. They're already being made technologically redundant, not to mention economically. Remove their enormous subsidies and company after company goes bust. In 30 years there won't be a single one, of either kind, left in the world. You are gullible! I suppose you believe Macdonalds are good for your health because their ads say so these days? Remove the subsidies from "renewables", remove the artificial penalties from the fossil-fuel market, and coal gas or oil, fracked or traditionally acquired, is much cheaper. Quite simply, it's very basic physics, and anyone who believes otherwise simply hasn't a clue about the most fundamental facts of how the universe works.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 8:56:42 GMT 1
Your habitual insults don't take the discussion forward at all. I could call you gullible for falling for the nuclear power industry propaganda that stations won't be expensive to build and decommission, couldn't I? I have given a link showing figures for costs of various forms of energy, which was widely reported (so you think all those reporters were gullible). Where are your figures? Talking about Gordon Brown's borrowing doesn't tell us anything about whether nuclear or renewables are more expensive. Carbon dioxide may not be regarded as a pollutant but, in the same way that good food is not a pollutant, too much of it can be harmful.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 9:24:36 GMT 1
Your habitual insults don't take the discussion forward at all. What insults? Entirely imaginary and time-wasting, I call that. You could call me gullible for posting a link to an industry's lobbying site saying how cheap their product is, and of course I wouldn't blame you. I haven't read any nuclear power industry propaganda. I'm sure some must exist, somewhere, but it's not come my way. I've just passed on the facts of the matter - which if you're able to dispute in any way, please enlighten me. It depends what you mean by "expensive". At current energy prices, at that return they pay for themselves over their lifetimes - this is a fact, according to the Government's own independent watchdog, no "propaganda". And I've pointed out why those figures are false. Maybe you think the laws of chemistry and physics don't apply to the Green lobby, as they have access to some sort of Higher Law - but I'll stick to scientific knowledge, thankyou. Reporters?! Yes, they are. Another industry you don't know the first thing about, evidently. What figures? The cost of building a new nuclear power station is roughly shown by the Hinkley project at the moment, even taking into account its over-inflation due to a hamfisted attempt to lure foreign investment in a time of austerity. It wasn;t long ago that you were lauding the idea of infrastructure investment on economic recovery grounds. Such an argument isn't even needed in this case! You claimed they were very expensive to build. Expensive compared to what? For the subsdidies lavished on renewables to date the West could have built more than 70 full-size Hinkley Cs! On the contrary! The IPCC so regards it! And more can be very good. We know with fairly high precision where that turning point is, and at current projections it's centuries away.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 10:59:15 GMT 1
All that you say contains no figures to back up your claims, for example that renewable subsidies would have paid for 70 Hinckleys. I see no reason to take anything you say as being correct, I ain't gullible. You seem to imagine that by saying things forcefully and with insults, people will believe you. Here is another link where you will find costings of various forms of energy as stated by Lazard, an investment bank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_(2017)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 11:33:14 GMT 1
All that you say contains no figures to back up your claims, for example that renewable subsidies would have paid for 70 Hinckleys. More than 70 Hinkleys. Hinkley C - 20 billion. The total subsidies to the wind and solar industries exceeded two trillion dollars at the time of Miliband's and Obama's Climate Acts - it's much more now, and rising every day. Google anything I say if you're really interested. Otherwise, what you say applies to anyone. You're very gullible. I haven't insulted anyone. I will grant you that the total costs of any form of energy is extremely difficult to quantify - no figures can be wholly trusted, it's far too complicated an issue. But any putative costing that asserts that wind or solar is as cheap as oil or gas you can be utterly certain is false, and deliberately so - if it's from a business or person that is profiting from such a lie, you should take this as a matter of course in any case. But in this case, as I say, it's a simple matter of basic physics. If the day ever arrives - and if you're correct it should have done 30 or more years ago - when you can jump in a car that drives by the solar panel on its roof, or a windmill sticking out of the boot, then I'll take back my words. But that day won't arrive, will it?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 12:06:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 12:07:40 GMT 1
I'll tell you this as a certain fact too. Whether you believe me or not is of absolutely no interest to me - I really couldn't care a jot. Someone I respect, that would be another matter.
In the very near future the world's energy supply will come from water. Almost certainly, through solar splitting - the same basic principle that has produced all life on Earth, and that every plant on the planet does every second of every day. I've been deeply involved in this r&d myself for over ten years now, so I know what I'm talking about. There are to my knowledge over two dozen laboratories currently working on the problem, all of them with some growing success. It's merely a matter of time before this race is concluded. That will herald in the Age of Hydrogen - effectively, barring some virtually negligible infrastructure expense, completely free energy, from an inexhaustible source (sunshine and sea water) with no pollution whatsoever except for clean potable water, enabling free greening of any desert. That is, the end of poverty, anywhere.
If you're one of those who are worried about Climate Change, it will put a stop to any reason to blame mankind for your fears too. It will still get warmer though, if the causes of such "change" happen to continue - they're nothing to do with us.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Apr 26, 2019 12:11:40 GMT 1
You insult me by saying I am gullible Oh well, if you're that sensitive, so be it. I think it's just an observation of fact, like all the insults about you. That was thoroughly costed at the time - you can't hide Government expenditure. I don't care whether you believe me! The mere fact that you find such a figure in the least bit surprising is all the evidence required to show that you're a complete novice about the subject, and frankly I haven't the time or inclination to start such an exhausting educative slog. You need to learn the basics about a matter before you start mouthing off with your opinions - the same goes for all the Extinction protesters, stroking themselves at others' expense at how virtuous and "caring" they are. I thought you'd do something like that! That's how gullible you are, see? Now - do you believe that any car in the solar race could be bought for the cost of a petrol driven vehicle? Do you believe that any such solar car could ever win a race against a petrol driven one? Do you?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 26, 2019 12:26:34 GMT 1
You think I am sensitive yet you call me insulting for simply saying "My bet is that is that you are not going to tell us how and when this was proven" - a sentence devoid of insult. Of course, I know that your posturing about being insulted was just a cover for the fact that you have no evidence to back your assertion, which, characteristically, you just made up, just like the 2 trillion figure which you say was, without evidence, "thoroughly costed".
I never said anything AT ALL about the car I gave a link to, I only gave in reply to your "when you can jump in a car that drives by the solar panel on its roof" - you didn't (and I didn't) say anything about the cost or the whether it would win a race.
|
|