Page 340 of 340 FirstFirst ... 240290330338339340
Results 5,086 to 5,094 of 5094
  1. #5086
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,393
    Quote Originally Posted by ER View Post
    Michael, the guy has lost touch with reality ...



    I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that



    That's not including major cases at Fukushima, Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island!

    Obviously not serious enough to be named in his "other issues"! Also, no mention about water pollution
    and radioactive waste generation!!

    Go figure!
    Ian's "other issues" refer to all the items you have mentioned - they don't have to be individually mentioned. The relevant part is that they don't contribute to greenhouse gases. There are a lot more issues involved in nuke power that are also not really relevant to this thread. Don't pick on Ian - he is still a champ. I think I preferred you in your hippy days.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #5087
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,393
    Quote Originally Posted by ER View Post
    You must understand the value of market stability factor and always examine the relation b/n production and exports.
    Of course, the "sluggish" phenomenon in markets can be interpreted in many different or related parameters.
    Here, it is the volume of exports as measured by the needs of importing countries for the specific product. It has stabilized, it hasn't decreased.
    This is good for my product since it is also good for the national economy, the involved company as well as personal interests for the shareholders.
    I give you a small example: when BHP merged with Billiton in 2001 the price of my already profitable shares (then $8.30 apiece) almost quadrupled to $33.50!
    During almost two decades of seemingly decreasing of production volume, according to your way of thinking, the profits. share market value, and
    general yield dividents for shareholders would have dramatically fallen, right? Wrong!! Last Friday evening, at the close it was almost $35.50!

    Don't you ever think that I don't look at the big picture of the ever changing nature of our and the world's economy.
    I understand that these days advanced automation as part of transformative technology or modern amazingly effective methods of artificial intelligence play a major role
    in the development of new and improvement of our existing ways of production.

    I have already planned and/or started investing in many of those categories, mind you that's for fun nothing serious!
    That's because my main incentive is not to follow all those simpletons who block the traffic on CBD (*) or stop the poor vendor machine
    technician of entering BHP and Rio Tinto's entry to their offices or even following blindfold the red necks who shout gung ho gimme coal! My main incentive is What's in it for Me!

    So, the main reason for me to go coal is that a) I know that as far as a source of energy in a country like Australia
    is irreplaceable for many years to come, b) I know that some good and reliable customers will keep on satisfying their
    energy requirements on Australian coal and c) because I keep on receiving hefty returns for my investments in mining companies!

    I see both you and A/C are celebrating France's approach to save the bee. In case you don't know France's energy needs are fulfilled
    by nuclear power at a rate of 75%! I wonder if A/C the ultimate "stop the bomb" figure, promoter of barter systems, paddock scarecrows extraordinaire and return to horse carts primitive
    era nostalgic, remembers that he was accusing France of nuclear bombs just a few posts ago before celebrating the bee clad morons bathing in the Art Centre fountain
    in his otherwise cute and humorous grade four approach!

    For some more info re: BHP activities and achievements please check here. (It's from a letter to shareholders but I have seen parts of it being published already so I think it's ok to post here)!

    https://www.bhp.com/-/media/document...tion.pdf?la=en

    (*) they don't only cause frustration and anger to the CBD public transport users but to the whole population of commuters in the metropolitan area because the whole
    system is paralyzed due to the fact that 99% of Melbourne's trams pass through the city!
    A person I know who sold their BHP shares years ago due to their immoral polluting activities in PNG. They were unaware of BHP's dirty record when purchasing.
    https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog...mage-from-mine

    Over fifty years there is a new generation of Frenchie that did not suffer two world wars and occupations but have to face the consequences of climate change - they are certainly busy bees. The EU seems to be preventing major military conflicts. Charles De Gaulle's flashy military suits are now being used on hippy commune scarecrows. There is no more bombing of Greenpeace protest boats and no Jim Cairns taking OZ warships into the bomb zones - those were the days of leadership.
    Last edited by antichrist; 13-10-2019 at 07:34 PM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  3. #5088
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,544
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Are the subsidies aimed at making it cheaper for fuel consumers or supporting ''evil capitalists''? Shall I google Australia's ''clean energy'' subsidies''?
    Feel free to, but I can save you the trouble:

    Vast subsidies keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat should be put to better use

    ...The IMF estimates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could free up US$2.9 trillion in government revenue annually. That amount is more than double the annual investment of US$1.25 trillion the International Energy Agency estimates is needed by 2035 in clean energy and energy efficiency to stop the world from warming by 2°C.
    meep meep

  4. #5089
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,934
    I have already suggested earlier in the thread how good it would be to remove ALL THE SUBSIDIES FOR ALL~
    And let the better/more economical solution win...due to natural market forces prevailing...
    This would certainly help the world more than some of the Rebellion-style antiques.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  5. #5090
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,848
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Ian's "other issues" refer to all the items you have mentioned
    frogshit! he presented nuclear as innocent and angelic and godsent!

    Don't pick on Ian - he is still a champ.
    My foot he is a champ! He can't even read a diagram correctly - confused its thematic reference too!
    Plus he called me a troll the other day - no that I am not!
    I told you regain control of the climate argument! Your sidekicks make the whole thing sound dreadfully boring!
    (You are full of shit too, but at least I am having a laugh reading your stuff! )

    I think I preferred you in your hippy days.
    That's unfair, I remember trying to get a snooze at Hyde Park and that stupid Ibis (aus. bin chicken) scored a bulls eye direct hit right in the hole of my guitar with half a kg of shit!
    and what about the day when that "we want Fraser" gorilla chased me down from Museum to St James Station along Elizabeth St to beat the shit out of me!
    He called me a f.... commo hippy poofter too! No class!
    Last edited by ER; 14-10-2019 at 04:19 AM.
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    https://aus2020.chesschamp.net/

  6. #5091
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,099

  7. #5092
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,544
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I have already suggested earlier in the thread how good it would be to remove ALL THE SUBSIDIES FOR ALL~
    And let the better/more economical solution win...due to natural market forces prevailing...
    This would certainly help the world more than some of the Rebellion-style antiques.
    So obviously it is rather silly to crow about how profitable the companies are when they a receiving such mind boggling subsidies.
    If just fraction of the subsidies were used to transition to renewable energy, the climate change problem would be largely solved.
    meep meep

  8. #5093
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,934
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    So obviously it is rather silly to crow about how profitable the companies are when they a receiving such mind boggling subsidies.
    If just fraction of the subsidies were used to transition to renewable energy, the climate change problem would be largely solved.
    So would you support letting the consumers choose? Or do they need to go through the ongoing harassment and disruptions to their daily activities based on their consumption choices?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #5094
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,560
    It is no accident that Time and Newsweek published stories about a coming Ice Age in the mid 1970s. They were reporting on what was being claimed. And this was long before the Internet, so these publications were much more influential than they are now.

    The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth
    Guest Blogger / 19 November 2018
    [update, reference sheet is now linked at the bottom of post]

    By Angus McFarlane,
    There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was heading into a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

    Introduction

    Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by Cook et al (2103) would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.

    Purpose of Review

    It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?

    “A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there *was* an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate *cooling* (typically, 65% for the whole period) ***but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968–1976 period***, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

    It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

    It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

    I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.”
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Evangelism and Climate Change
    By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
  2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
    By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •