The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bluff and bluster: The campaign against wind power > Comments

Bluff and bluster: The campaign against wind power : Comments

By Mark Diesendorf, published 23/2/2005

Mark Diesendorf argues the campaign against wind power comes from those with vested interests.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All
I find it interesting that people are quite happy to believe that the vast majority of climatologist and atmospheric scientist are all completely wrong. The people who really know how the climate works are people who have either never studied it or have very limited experience. The link you provided is to a page written by a travel writer! Please explain to me we should listen to a travel writer instead of the climate scientist? The internet is a wonderful thing it allows us access to all sorts of information. However the internet can do little to improve the intelligence of the people using it. When I’ve got a plumbing problem I get a plumbing not a electrician and when I want to know about the climate I go to a climatologist not a travel writer.

Here is the link to the newspaper story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/nwind130.xml

Here is a link to a far more informed source on global warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

Sonwman how far away is the nearest power station to your house?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

You are being mischievious by not mentioning my other area of expertise, namely as a computer consultant.

I've worked in analysis and logic for more than 25 years and I can tell you that many of the claims about global warming are simply not supported by the evidence (for which I refer you to my page of links to data sources).

Yours is the typical attitude of proponents of global warming - you don't look at the evidence presented by the sceptics but simply attack them for what they are. I consider that to be foolish and very immature because it is only the evidence that matters!

People with your attitude probably believed that white Europeans were the superior people and that no-one else was capable of achieving anything.

I see from a letter in today's "Australian" that Greenpeace is implying thet the Tsunami was caused by global warming. How about you go and ask them for evidence of this.
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 24 February 2005 2:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m a senior computer scientist with a one of the largest IT service provider’s in the world so whoopee duck.

I’m not a proponent for or against the global warming issue what My beef with you and other of your kind is your are not climate scientist. Most anti-global warming “experts” are economist! http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500

In the end it boils down to this. If we do what the climate scientist are saying and reduce our output of green house gas and they were wrong we will have had a large but short term impact on the world economy. But if we don’t do what they are saying and they are right then we will have a very large long term impact on the worlds economy and it may even be a fatal one.

As for your comment about me thinking that white people are superior on this site you can look at peoples other posts have a look at mine.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

If you are a senior computer scientist then should have the analytical skills to look at the data and draw your own conclusions. You will find that carbon dioxide has steadily increased since about 1953 and yet temperatures have bounced around. (see bottom of page http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm)

Does it really take a climatologists to say that the correlation is weak?

Try plotting temperature data from Greenland's ice-core? (see the top of the same page.) Does it take a climatologist to say that temperatures have been higher than today?

If you cannot do these things for yourself then I would regard you as rather incompetent.

Most sceptics of global warming are NOT economists, at least not those that I associate with. (New Scientist is very much pro-GW and distorts its reports accordingly.) I belong to a discussion group that is sceptical of GW. There is a mixture of practising and retired climatologists and meteorologists, a number of physicists, geophysicists, paleoclimatologists, geologists, paleobiologists, astrophysicists and so on. In fact I am not even sure that there are any economists among the 245 members.

I notice that you have never disputed the evidence that I produce. Why is this? Is it because you can't dispute it (at least not honestly)?

Have you in fact looked at the web pages that I've indicated?

Or is it that you are just like many pro-warming people and base your position on religious-like belief and don't want to know about anything that contradicts your position
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 24 February 2005 11:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read your whole website I like your photo’s. As for your climate pages well what can I say. You argues your point with the zeal of a “creation scientist” and use much the same tactics as them. You appear to be using the same simplistic logical reduction technics used to discredit evolution. I use my analytical skills to realise that I have deficient in knowledge of the subject to form a informed valid opinion I’ll leave it to the experts in that field. What knowledge I’ve got of this subject is this irrefutable.
The amount of Co2 gas is higher then it has been for at least 400,000 years.
The amount of energy radiating back into space has been decreasing since measurement began.
You’re a travel writer not a climatologist therefore it is certain that you don’t know what your are talking about.
That the number of scientist actively working in this field who don’t think global warming is caused by human activity is very small.
New Scientist last editor is a proponent of solar activity having a impact in this issue he held that view while editor.
This thread is about wind farms not global warming.

Who do you receive your funding from?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 25 February 2005 10:44:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman,

The argument for or against climate change is off the topic. Even if we disregard the abundantly documented case linking greenhouse gases with global warming, coal and other fossil fuels are finite resources. Even if you are quite happy to pollute the earth until we have no choice left, an alternative must be found.

You say that the people of Toora have “constraints placed upon what they can do with their land”. Those people signed up to have turbines there with full knowledge of what portion of land they would be giving up to access roads and foundations. They are generously compensated for this; far beyond the profits they would have made farming those small areas. People I know in South Australia will be doubling their annual income (contracted for a minimum of 20 years) when a wind farm is erected on their property later this year.

You also claim the people of Toora deal with the “unfettered access” to their land by the wind turbine company. This is totally exaggerated, once again the people were made aware of the need for occasional maintenance before they signed up for the money.

You claim that “surely noise will bounce around the valleys”. It is true that noise does reflect off hard surfaces such as the ground. This does not mean however, that the noise will surpass strictly enforced guidelines at residences. Local developers do not want to generate more negative press by upsetting land owners. Both the CONCAWE and the ISO9612-3 methods commonly used throughout the acoustic analysis community were derived in conjunction with practical experimentation and were established on a conservative basis. This means that the data they produce is generally a worst case scenario.

My main argument with your article however, is that you have COMPLETELY missed the point of wind turbines. Unless you want to switch off the power supply to your house and workplace, you MUST agree that an alternative to coal fired power stations is needed. Wind power may not be perfect, but it’s the best alternative we have. What’s your brilliant plan, Snowman??

Alicia
Posted by Alicia, Friday, 25 February 2005 10:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy