"And to Amicus- my last point: I developed and managed a $10M R&D support program- being a government agency, we were obliged to respond couteously to everyone- even perpetual motion machine nutters. I didn't realise how handy that experience would become"

All very nice and very droll .. but you don't answer the question, that I asked, even though I answered yours.

Do you have the physics?

I actually doubt it you know, which is why all the references to non scientific but alarmist friendly sources, and the sneering references to Sunday Magazines which you alone seem to be familiar with.

Your knowledge appears Google borne, and you bounce from site to site trying to appear knowing, the longer you post the more obvious it is you are very shallow, though you claim otherwise with lofty barbs and poisonous words .. mortals are below you, then off into a film fantasy world where once again, you are a Jedimaster, looking for a force to be with.

Fantasy suits you.

alas, I'll probably be reported now, oh well, it won't be the first time, will it?

Being an administrator is not like being a practitioner, but you know that surely?

BTW a $10M R&D budget .. is that all? Clearly you were not in the climate science business.

JM, I have only the faintest idea what you are talking about. The Dutch East India Company is an exampe of mercantilism which leads to slower economic growth, and can actually, but not necessarily, send a country broke if the misallocation of resources is bad enough.

It is an example of the sort of behaviour Spain has been engaged in with wind generation. Not really helpful to your case at all.

Interesting how you link opposition to wind power to "denialism". That would be news to Barry Brooke, for example.

Jedimaster
As you have done nothing but assume what is in issue and appeal to vested interests or absent authority, you are on the losing side.

You are only making a disgrace of yourself on the one hand boasting of your intellectual credentials, and an the other falling in with this mendacious intellectual method.

Chris Lewis
"I certainly feel that no government, after stating a certain stance, should renege without going to the people again. I spoke to several global warming skeptics at the Lord Deben address, and they indicated they would accept the people's decision."

Uh-huh? This is straight from the might-is-right school of thought. So if a majority think we should adopt policies that violate large numbers of people, or deprive them of food or their livelihood, based on government-sponsored falsehoods and fraud, then that's what we should do?

Sheesh, are you guys actually reading what you're writing? It's like a throw-back to the dark ages.

First, Amicus and Hume (seeing you asked): I have a PhD in solid state physics, a degree in library science (they call it knowledge management these days), and more than 40 years experience in many aspects of solar energy. I have researched and lectured in innovation theory and practice at Master's level (full semester) at 4 universities. I also worked as a senior executive in an economic developemnt agency for 20 years where I engaged in countless numbers of practical discussions on development strategies with economists.

As for your snide comment, Amicus, on $10M/yr research budgets- which we generally leveraged to $60-$100M/yr. About half was mining R&D. You can get a lot of R&D for that- we were paying researchers, not mining company executives. And what have you done recently to enrich the lives of your fellow Australians?

I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy.

GrahamY- the point about the DEIC was the object lesson in public infrastructure. It generally runs at a loss- its the "spillovers" that make the money. And what kind of analysis would you have made of computers 40 years ago?

Curmudgeon is aware of the colour supplement references- he used it as evidence against the viability of wind energy in China. I use Wikipedia as a starting point- not as an authoritative source per se- researchers cross-check their references.

Chris Lewis- sorry- I made a mistake getting involved with OLO. My friends warned me when they said it was more of a venue for sharpening prejudice than informed discourse. I'll leave you with it.

Vale.

Jedimaster

About the only source of Chinese wind efforts are newspaper reports. So to complain about references to newspaper reports which cast some insider light on the topic, simply because you don't like what they say, is unreasonable.

I'm well aware of the various rebuttals to the Spanish report on wind and there is some point to them. What they don't deny is the telling figure that wind costs three times more than conventional power wholesale. As I pointed out to you, you can't use Wikipedia, but you can use the sources, which you finally did.

Now I can see that your remarks are becoming wilder and nastier - you are not a person to take defeat with good grace it seems. So I'll leave it at that.

Jedimaster, your remark “I believe I have the skills to discern fact from conjecture and fantasy.” is not apposite to the discussion, it is just another evasion.

You need the skill to separate fact from spin and lies. You obviously do not have this, because if you do, it would mean that you have chosen to back the spin and lies.

OLO is a venue where you are pressed for the truth. You should not describe a requirement of truth as a prejudice. What is it a prejudice against? Liars?

If you are not prepared to admit that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any significance in climate, then you are no better than the IPCC, the mendacious puppet of the UN. But even they simply assert that it is “very likely”.

The IPCC said it would be confirmed when the “hot spot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW, was shown to exist. Their estimates were far too high, so no hot spot was found. Studies of climate cycles show that there is little room for any assertion of a contribution to global warming by human activity.

So what do the IPCC say? They still say it is “very likely”, and wonder why there is a growing public perception that they are wrong, and dishonest.

If you are looking for prejudice, then you can observe a prejudice against the truth in that parasitic body.

If you ever wish to show a tolerance for the truth, you will regard OLO very differently