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 > Trump is right: climate spending is damaging to the economy and will achieve little > Comments

Trump is right: climate spending is damaging to the economy and will achieve little : Comments

By Nicola Wright, published 28/11/2016

Worldwide there are 350 gigawatts of coal projects currently under construction, and 932 gigawatts of pre-construction coal proposals in the pipeline.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Baygon, after stupidly closing its nuclear power plants because of a tsunami in Japan (unbelievable), Germany has now turned to the highly-polluting lignite (brown coal) for baseload power, along with importing nuclear-sourced power from France.
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 12:40:04 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
Relax Agronomist

chances are you will die from cold rather than heat.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 29 November 2016 1:29:41 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
Confused fellow, aren’t you Taswegian?
You advocate support of the global warming fraud, which falsely asserts the baseless human effect on climate, and then tell us that the shocks will come from natural warming, and fuel price rises, which rises would be caused by action based on the climate fraud. You have a tenuous grasp of reality, Taswegian, and no ability to make logical or truthful statements.
What else would we expect from a fraud promoter?
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, which makes your ridiculous definition of insurance look very stupid.
Climate fraud support can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty. Which of them is your basis, Taswegian?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 November 2016 2:05:49 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
The Duck, as a climate fraud supporter, has nothing to rebut this well written, factual article.
In standard fraud promoter procedure, since there is no science or facts to back the assertions of the fraud, the Duck baselessly smears the author of a book to which Nicola refers.
Fancy a lefty, like the Duck, having the temerity to stigmatise anyone for being “amoral”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 November 2016 1:49:24 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
In the the world of lies are truth; and truth means lies, the world did stop warming in 1998 ( fake reporting).

BUT, in the world of science warming did continue. Matthew Holland et al have written about Oceans warming; and now, a new NASA study has come to the same conclusion. So, while temperature over land did not show large increases in temperature, warmth was taken up by the marine environment.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2521/study-sheds-new-insights-into-global-warming-trends/

We continually hear from deniers about how temperature is fraudulently manipulated ; in the US a series of weather stations were set up a number of years ago; each set up to measure temperature in a number of ways, virtually set up as datum points.
Weather stations set up years ago have been moved, the time temperature is measured has changed, the environment around them has changed, as have techniques of obtaining data changed. Meaning that consideration has to be taken in comparing current temperature, with temperature taken many decades ago.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf
Posted by ant, Saturday, 3 December 2016 7:28:32 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
There's a lot here I agree with! Yes, the WRONG energy spending increases the cost of energy to business with the oh-so-fatal intermittency of renewables. But it doesn't have to be that way. France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, is the largest exporter of electricity in the world, and has some of the lowest emissions in Europe.

Nuclear is the answer. Breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 year storage problem into tomorrow's energy solution. Yes, they are still being commercialised but 400 reactor-years experience with them shows that the physics works, and they can be built CHEAPER and SAFER than today's Light Water Reactors. (Water is an expensive safety issue as it runs under explosively high pressure in reactors. Other coolants run at just above room pressure).

$60 billion? I'd pump it into 30 AP1000 reactors (at the very high price of $5bn / GW, which would probably come way down if we built an AP1000 factory). Then without coal's nasty health effects on society, those nukes would be cheaper than today's coal fired electricity. It makes economic sense to deal with climate change, and that's not even COSTING climate change but just the public health purse!
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 3 December 2016 10:23:10 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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