Off-topic post removed.  

2 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Yeah really? 

It now costs me money to own solar.  The generous buy in scheme provided by the green zealots to encourage solar died in the bum when faced with real world economic realities. 

Don't want to use the poles and power lines running past your house? Dream on.  I make a little but of income from my modest 1.5 kw installation.  About 150 per month when the house is empty.... One fridge running.

The state governments charges me a 100 dollar service fee.

Governments HATE  any system when the tree is no taxable income. 

The wires running past your house will eventually be a tax whether you use them or not. 

 

Go off grid of you can... 

No problem.. Unless there is a service you choose not to partake og

 You will still pay. 

 

Another state in oz wanted to eat anyone who has a bore for water!!  A tax on rainfall effectively. 

 

I'll shut up now... 

 

 

 

Yes, Australian government is spineless when it comes to what you mention.  If you're not in your house for a lot of the time it's an exceptional circumstance.  Thailands system of per kwh fee only is much fairer and more ideal for solar, but they don't have a FIT system, so it seems no government can be sensible enough.  

Still your system is still providing free electricity and there is a payback period, it's just not a fair deal.  

2 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Yeah really? 

It now costs me money to own solar.  The generous buy in scheme provided by the green zealots to encourage solar died in the bum when faced with real world economic realities. 

Don't want to use the poles and power lines running past your house? Dream on.  I make a little but of income from my modest 1.5 kw installation.  About 150 per month when the house is empty.... One fridge running.

The state governments charges me a 100 dollar service fee.

Governments HATE  any system when the tree is no taxable income. 

The wires running past your house will eventually be a tax whether you use them or not. 

 

Go off grid of you can... 

No problem.. Unless there is a service you choose not to partake og

 You will still pay. 

 

Another state in oz wanted to eat anyone who has a bore for water!!  A tax on rainfall effectively. 

 

I'll shut up now... 

 

 

 

Yes, Australian government is spineless when it comes to what you mention.  If you're not in your house for a lot of the time it's an exceptional circumstance.  Thailands system of per kwh fee only is much fairer and more ideal for solar, but they don't have a FIT system, so it seems no government can be sensible enough.  

Still your system is still providing free electricity and there is a payback period, it's just not a fair deal.  

10 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Just spend two minutes of doing some research on the internet and you can find tons of evidence that sea levels are rising. But here's my source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

That graph is actually a card in the hands of those who refute man-made global warming. NASA states that the increase in sea levels is "... related to global warming", but then  the graph shows a significant increase in sea level right from the start of modern measurements, circa 1880, when global warming as we know it today was hardly an issue. One could rather argue that warming already existed but was not man-made. In fact, even the NASA document goes on to mention much older records showing that places were submerged and then lifted-up repeatedly, thousands of years ago.

 

The latest measurements are satellite-based and very accurate. They show not just an increase but an acceleration of the phenomenon in the past couple of decades, and that's the man-made contribution that we should be worried about. It's a complex issue where, unfortunately, both those who have an interest to defend a particular view and their opponents can find support arguments. Simple common sense would recommend that man-made pollution is bad no matter what, but that might be at odds with immediate economic returns.

 

btw, in another post you mentioned Kiribati. I have never been there, but I was  in a similar archipelago nearby that I shall not mention. Highest elevation 2 meters. They were the worst polluters, per capita, that I have ever seen.

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The sea is still exactly where it was? Not a centimeter higher? And you know this because the house was built exactly at the high tide level and not a centimeter higher? Kind of nonsensical what you're claiming.

If it's only 1cm higher in 50 years who gives a flying <deleted>.

Apply common sense to your posting, has California seafront property prices fallen recently?

Edited August 11, 20187 yr by metisdead
Profanity

12 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I think you are being somewhat self centred in imagining that the 'uniquely talented genius' tag belonged to you. I did not quote anyone in my post on purpose, and it relates to any of the number of people who have questioned the climate change science here.

When you say 'uniquely talented genius' I assume you are talking to me, because I am.

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I doubt that some who could write an unsubstantiated "It's not as if climate scientists are the cream of the scientific world," is himself or herself the cream of anything.

And given the disputes among climatologists about various aspects of ACC, makes your bet so unlikely as to be ridiculous. Unless of course there is some central command that coordinates apparent disagreements among climatologists with the goal of making climate science look legitimate.

I'm not the cream of anything, but I am a scientist (or rather was), and real scientists don't give a flying <deleted> about climate and openly laugh at 'climate science'. They're all locked in secret underground bunkers trying to create bigger and better weapons, or hack at DNA to create human/animal/vegetable hybrids or build 'Terminator' style robots. Real scientists like 'Nobel' and 'Oppenheimer' and 'Von Braun' make weapons systems.

Climate scientists are the guys too stupid to do real science.

Edited August 11, 20187 yr by metisdead
Profanity

On 8/11/2018 at 12:22 AM, BritManToo said:

I'm not the cream of anything, but I am a scientist (or rather was), and real scientists don't give a flying <deleted> about climate and openly laugh at 'climate science'. They're all locked in secret underground bunkers trying to create bigger and better weapons, or hack at DNA to create human/animal/vegetable hybrids or build 'Terminator' style robots. Real scientists like 'Nobel' and 'Oppenheimer' and 'Von Braun' make weapons systems.

Climate scientists are the guys too stupid to do real science.

You don't even understand the difference between applied science and scientific research and yet you claim to have been a real scientist?

At least 76 Nobel prize winning scientists say that you're  nothing but a troll.

http://www.mainaudeclaration.org/home

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You don't even understand the difference between applied science and scientific research and yet you claim to have been a real scientist?

At least 76 Nobel prize winning scientists say that you're  nothing but a troll.

http://www.mainaudeclaration.org/home

I think it's a fair and realistic ideal that some follow. Humanity is what it is.

Climate change doesn't matter because when you're dead you can't die twice or have the time to worry or do anything about it when you're dead. Basically the anti CC people don't care about future generations.  Same with the plastics.  Plastic bags should have been banned world wide yesterday, but they won't be because they make life easy now. 

3 hours ago, stud858 said:

I think it's a fair and realistic ideal that some follow. Humanity is what it is.

Climate change doesn't matter because when you're dead you can't die twice or have the time to worry or do anything about it when you're dead. Basically the anti CC people don't care about future generations.  Same with the plastics.  Plastic bags should have been banned world wide yesterday, but they won't be because they make life easy now. 

You can't predict the future.

In 1900 London people were extremely concerned about pollution caused by horse poop, who could have figured it would go away on it's own in a few years

Climate change 'believers' would have us destroy the world's industrial base in order to satisfy their fashionable belief system.

It doesn't matter to them that India and China won't play ball, they just care about destroying white civilization.

 

@Bristolboy, you have no qualifications beyond high school but feel entitled to virtue signal for the world about the future. Sums up most of the climate change 'believers' IMHO.

 

Just to point out 'Nobel' made his money through developing weapons, mainly explosives, artillery and propellants.

Edited August 12, 20187 yr by BritManToo

25 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You can't predict the future.

In 1900 London people were extremely concerned about pollution caused by horse poop, who could have figured it would go away on it's own in a few years

Climate change 'believers' would have us destroy the world's industrial base in order to satisfy their fashionable belief system.

It doesn't matter to them that India and China won't play ball, they just care about destroying white civilization.

 

@Bristolboy, you have no qualifications beyond high school but feel entitled to virtue signal for the world about the future. Sums up most of the climate change 'believers' IMHO.

 

Just to point out 'Nobel' made his money through developing weapons, mainly explosives, artillery and propellants.

Let me remind you of your quote:

"real scientists don't give a flying <deleted> about climate and openly laugh at 'climate science'. "

And once again let me remind you that 76 living Nobel Prize winning scientists back the evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change:

http://www.mainaudeclaration.org/home

I answered your evidence-free assertions with facts. And you accuse me of "virtue signaling" Here's what virtue signaling means:

"the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."

Point out where the virtue signaling was. Throwing out false characterizations like that is what one would expect of a troll.

 

'Murica!

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

they just care about destroying white civilization.

The Science of Climate Change is not based on race, religion or nationality. A 200-year storm, a F-5 tornado, a Category 5 hurricane occur with intensities, duration and frequencies without human bias.

 

But to meet the challenge and threats of adverse human effects of Climate Change (higher intensity, longer duration, more frequent) requires human intervention. Before Trump - American was the global leader for intervention. With Trump America lost its leadership and other countries are more than willing to take leadership that ultimately shifts political and economic benefits away from America.