The power and money is in the hands of the petrochemical industry. Scientists (including those employed by oil and gas) have been raising the alarm for decades. It's only by monitising (via subsidy and taxation) the potential solutions to global warming will our economic system actually be able to do anything about it.
What do we think of Drax?
- Thread starter Ffermer Bach
- Start date
wanton dwarf
Member
Bull sh@t.
Politicians practically dominate those who will benefit from "Climate Change". For everyone else their cost for existence is going to increase 10 fold.
Greens have been pushing dodgy Temperature graphs as proof that CO2 increases world temperatures. Yet there is no science which demonstrates how the magic 100ppm of CO2 increases world or indeed any temperature by 1.5 to 3 degrees.
"Potential Solutions" .. come back when you have "Actuall Solutions". Perhaps I would do better with the bank manager if I stated I have "Potential Money" in my bank account.
The UK creates 1% of man made CO2, that's 1% of 4% of world total CO2 emissions - in other words naff all.
wanton dwarf
Member
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has produced a summary document of the most up to date research.
www.ipcc.ch
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
www.ipcc.ch
wanton dwarf
Member
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has produced a summary document of the most up to date research.
IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Where is the Science, not the propaganda. The sicence showing and demonstrating how 100ppm increases world temperatures by 1.5 to 3 degrees.
You must know where it is and how it works to support that it actually exists as a real thing.
This takes the form of a repeatable experiment with a documented out come. For example I know how to demonstrate that Beta radiation eminates from radioactive sources. I'm looking for something like a known gas in a cube exposed to radiation, 100ppm of CO2 added and the temperature increases.
Not more BS with graphs.
I'm not actually entering this debate but "scientific concensus" really isn't solid ground to stand on. It's constantly shown to be wrong over time. This particular area of "science" is about as developed as astrology. Hopefully it'll improve over the next couple of hundred years........
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
If they're that sure, then they should claim the Augie Auer Global Warming Challenge Prize. The $10,000 prize for proving that the man-made fraction of airborne carbon dioxide is responsible for dangerous climate change is still unclaimed.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
Whack a couple of nuclear plants in, shut Drax and let the trees in the US keep growing for another decade or two. 
I'm not sure anyone serious would apply. The wording requires a direct correlation between an event and climate change and is voted on by three skeptics.
I'm very happy for my mind to be changed and for science to show that global warming isn't a problem. But at the moment it's virtually every scientist (and climate scientist) vs cranks. They might be rights but I can't presume that I know better.
It's like listening to the antivax people vs the family doctor. They might be right but I don't have the knowledge, training and experience to decide so I'm going with the doctor's opinion.
On the balance of risks, if we expend time and energy making a cleaner, more sustainable energy system but climate change didn't turn out as bad, what have we really lost?
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
The argument isn't really over the climate changing, after all, it always has. It's over the degree to which humans are responsible for part of that change. If certain scientists are so sure they're right, then they should claim that prize and smack the sceptics into the ground with irrefutable evidence.
ollie989898
Member
So the owners of Drax conned the government into letting them keep it open if they switched to burning imported biomass. It is a joke. In some counties the council get all of a lather if you so much as have a bonfire in your garden but its AOK for Drax to burn wood shipped thousands of miles using heavy fuel oil...
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
If you do away with the rest of this post and strip a bit out of the last sentence (as I've shown) then we're in full agreement.
Claiming the "scientists" are "correct" and everyone else are sceptics is why people get so hacked off with the whole "debate".
Swarfmonkey
Member
- Location
- Hampshire
They certainly haven't helped themselves by coming up with models that even Neil Ferguson would consider to be a bit iffy.
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
Is Drax any different than all these AD plants? Don't they get heaps of subsidies and con people into believing they're environmentally friendly too?
The fundamental difference is that AD plants are bringing money into agriculture whereas Drax isn't.
Then and now: Why deforestation is such a hot topic
Trees are part of the solution for climate change, but are we felling more than we are planting?
www.bbc.com
Love to know how the government squares this report with it’s paying Drax £800m a year to burn 800,000 trees a day through it’s power station, to me this is criminal!
kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
The forestry, transport, and shipping industries are making money out of suppling Drax. Is that any different?