Even a comment by a local newspaper, yes our animals and birds aren't immune but hey we could do with a few less bats the ones we have cause nuisance and disease. I expect their numbers have grown since different varieties of fruit etc have increased. I expect that report is the result of dudd environmental impact study before the windmills were allowed. It'a a big industry in South Australia which doesn't have a lot going for it at the moment so i expect they have traded eagles and bats for employment

but the cookes are out, yolkless eggs as a consequence of wind farms. They should be a boon to the slimming industry

Google is pulling the plug on its investment in renewable energy because the technology doesn't work. Now they aren't science deniers . These were scientists hired by Google for the expressed purpose to convert to renewables. Goggle invested a lot of resources into it's project. They boasted they would prove that wind and solar power were not just good for the environment, but that solar energy could be produced profitably on a mass scale to replace coal and natural gas.
Bill Weihl said that within 3 years they would be producing mega-watts from their power plants.
These plants today don't exist and Weihl is gone . They could not even generate enough energy to service their own operation let alone a town or city .

These days renewables supplement the grid ,but will not come close to a dominant role in our lifetime. Like it or not ,we will be dependent on coal ,gas ,oil (and even nukes) long past the time frame of the doom and gloomers predictions. Yes ,continue investments in research of renewables . However the engineers should concentrate on making carbon based energy as clean and efficient as it can be.

Tom we need different kinds of renewable not these highly polluting technologies where there is no net sum gain. Wave energy should be developed rapidly, the surface available for generation is emence and there can be a by-product of fresh water production, and it is base load,

It doesn't surprise me that the gloss is off solar and wind, when I was doing project evaluation it was quite apparent that these were high cost solutions. Nuclear is the only logical short term base load solution if they want to take emissions out of the equation

Quote:

---

Nuclear is the only logical short term base load solution if they want to take emissions out of the equation

---

yup ,but that well has been poisoned . Maybe more investment in fusion . The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor may be the key to unlock that door .

Quote:

---

Google is pulling the plug on its investment in renewable energy because the technology doesn't work.

---

Really?
Investments ? Google Green

Google Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Texas: Google Makes 15th Renewable Energy Investment In Texas | CleanTechnica

Bill Weihl left in 2011, did you know that? Do you know where he is now?

Yes I was aware of the timeline. The reason this became current was from this editorial last week from some of the lead scientists/engineers on the project .

Quote:

---

“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

---

What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum

But you totally lied about Google pulling the plug on it's investments. Plus you lied about why that executive left the company. This is not unexpected from us who have been here a while.

wrong again. Weihl left in failure. He did not achieve his goals.He gave the typical bs comment when he left to join Facebook , “It’s time to move on and find something new” ....This after investing $850 million of Goggle's money on renewables .After he boasted that "In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there."
CEO Larry Page ended the failed RE<C as part of and effort to eliminate non-core ventures.... what he called “spring cleaning, out of season.”

Source? I provided mine to show that Google is still investing full steam ahead.
Your lies are tiresome.

Never mind, I've found your source for you: http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2011/1...of-season.html
They closed one initiative and published the results for all. Doesn't sound like they pulled the plug on their renewable energy efforts like you posted, in fact they are pushing harder.

Why is it that you love to sound the failure alarm all the time?

Quote:

---

Your lies are tiresome.

---

by all means ignore my postings and I'll ignore your insults . I gave my source the scientists who worked on the project .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes I was aware of the timeline. The reason this became current was from this editorial last week from some of the lead scientists/engineers on the project .



What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum

---

Tom thanks for that article, it says exactly what I have been saying
To summarise;
Today's renewables aren't the annswer
Find a zero carbon technology
Replant trees
Expect the effects to last along time

Sometimes I think I'm talking to a wall

Tom, ignoring your posting is actually a good idea because it is an attempt at quote mining. Ellipsis dots are used to leave out sections of a text without altering the meaning. You misrepresented the reason why by way of false implication. As N.K. says you want to make it sound like they are pulling the plug on renewables- hence your selective quoting.

The article says what is required is a different economic. The different approach is not a ditching of the idea of renewables.

I don't see anything Google does as relevant. Anything they do would be for marketing impact anyway or have a business case that provided them benefits so you can't use their actions as a endorsement of anything. It is like saying that because I don't buy green energy I'm a Climate Change denier. Fact is I acknowledge change, I'm just not sold on the solutions proposed, or their impacts, or even the extent to which man is responsible. If I put a solar array on my roof it will be because it lowers my energy cost not because I think I can make one iota of difference to emissions.

Getting back to the main debate; why is climate change happening and what can we do about it? Deforestation is one of the great contributors, not only in emissions from burning off, but reduction of the carbon sink and enlarging the extent of arid areas and thus the accumulation of heat. It is a double wammy changing local patterns and impacting global systems. We have got to stop thinking of Climate Change in terms of co2 emissions and think about the other push factors. We can reverse deforestation, it is one positive thing we can do, and if that means the soy bean and palm oil industries go belly up. Though! We can attack methane emissions by insisting on capture technology in the extractive industries, the days of gas flares in the oil and gas industry should be long gone as should the venting to atmosphere of coal mines. These are not least cost operations and if it makes some industries uneconomic. Tough! But it is all for no avail while China roles on without dealing with its industries. Peaking in 2030, what a joke! Where were the howls of protest. Not from OBAMA, Not from the UN lackeys. This was seen as a "historic" agreement. The same sort of agreement Chamberlain made. An agreement to do nothing. In such a climate why should the rest of us do anything?

It is really hard to say with any model what exactly happens when changes occur. All we really can do is look at the past and try to determine our future based on patterns.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

Yes dad but the Climate Change lobby rejects any suggestion this is part of a long term cycle or on going warming since the Ice Age. Our God complex has kicked in and they think we can change things. I think the planet will change things, the conveyor will shut down and a refreeze will occur because Ice is the dominant weather pattern

or you can craft a hockey stick model and fix problems by " hiding the decline" and inconvenient dips of cooling periods .
Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Well I just guess we do nothing until we can't breathe the air, drink the water, or grow food before we do a damn thing! Great plan, just keep counting money until then.

Tom the inconvenient truth is not that we have runaway climate change, it is that we aren't willing to weigh all the facts, we want to grasp certain facts that will deliver commercial gain or vested environmental outcomes.

Tom I see where you get your facts from, the same place others get their facts from

Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube

that video is not available here . But yes ,there actually are climate scientists who don't sign on to the orthodoxy ..or as the Goracle calls it 'consensus' .

Really I accessed it from the same site that was running the ones you included in your post, I guess the URL isn't valid or perhaps the climate change lobby has struck again and destroyed the evidence

I found it on an alternate link . Thankfully there are some scientists with integrity .
Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube

Because of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNg7iO3db7k

Here is the link to it Tom.

Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube

Are we going to talk HAARP again, karma,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNg7i03db7k

Well resourced N.K.

I thought all along global warming was man made. So now we know for sure.

It is from a reputable source. It's undeniable.

Tutt ,surprised you are playing along with that nonsense.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me..._your_head.jpg

Maybe the semantics is what confuses the debate. I call it POLLUTION plain and simple. We all know who does that don't we?

NK The real point is that with almost 2 decades of no warming, some true climate scientists have begun to rethink their assumptions and are breaking free of the bonds of the orthodoxy that has no place in science .

You on the other hand just double down on irrelevant nonsense . But it is what we have come to expect from you . Tutt usually doesn't sink to your levels .

Tal do you believe that C02 is pollution ?

I know for FACT it is poison for oxygen breathing life on earth if in sufficient quantities, and yes humans produce this in higher quantities than nature. It is one of many pollutants, and that's just science which you can prove at home rather easily by trying to breathe it yourself.

Let me know how that works out for you. Destroying the balance of nature (in the air, water, or earth) will kill life. Another FACT. OPINIONS don't matter, and you can deny scientific facts all you want.

Carbon Dioxide Comfort Levels

dangerous co2 levels humans articles Meltdata.com

Chemical Fact Sheets -- Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

CO2 – Why 450 ppm is Dangerous and 350 ppm is Safe | Bob Willard - Sustainability Advantage

You are obviously NOT a scientist, neither am I but I would listen to them before I would Sarah Palin (drill baby drill) and her ilk.

duh yes it's toxic if we try to breathe pure C02 . However you breathe it every day and it hasn't killed you yet . It is present around 0.02 percent to 0.04 percent of the air you breathe . You falsely equate c02 with soot emission .Calling C02 a pollutant is what is unscientific .

Tal, in excessive quantities OXYGEN is poisonous to oxygen breathing life.

oxygen toxicity - definition of oxygen toxicity by Medical dictionary

What you really need to watch out for is that Dihydrogen Monoxide. That stuff'll kill you.

Drowning Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatments and Causes - RightDiagnosis.com

You are correct about the balance being the key. What most of the Eco-religionists seem to miss is that it is a DYNAMIC balance, not a static one. Increases in surface (up to the stratosphere is still surface) CO2 have largely been balanced by decreases in water vapor.

NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor | Watts Up With That?

I suppose that's why your local weather station gives out air quality warnings because it's no be deal what we breathe, nor if it's more dangerous to some than others. That's just the air, you cannot ignore the water, or earth either. All are but contributing factors of a larger environment.

Go ahead, kill the birds and bees and see what happens to flowers and trees. I don't expect you care for old folks and infants, or children either, huh? I suppose we could wear those useless facemasks like the Chinese do and go about business as usual!

air quality indexes monitor ground level ozone ,particulates ,carbon monoxide ,sulfur dioxide ,nitrogen dioxide .... not C02 . If you are saying we should reduced human emissions of those ,I quite agree . We don't need phony climate science to make that case .

We don't need phony climate scientist telling us there is nothing to see move along either Tom. The effects of man on his environment should not be so casually dismissed.

keep building them strawmen . No one is disputing the need to reduce pollution .That is why the EPA was created . They have done their jobs ,but with all government agencies ,they go looking for new dragons to sleigh . The premise of the AGW crowd ....now just known as "climate scientists " was not about pollution .It was that human emissions of CO2 were causing climate change ;specifically warming . Now 20 years of no warming ,so they shift their argument . You are learning from them as they go from 'global warming ' to climate change. They also went from % of the atmosphere to threating sounding words like 'metric tons' ..... and it's not C02 anymore ;just carbon . Carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. The alarmists would have us believe they are. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant .

Tal the Chinese wear face masks because of particulate pollution, the particals in the air. Photochemical smog will kill you and there is a good reason for controlling emissions from coal burning and it doesn't have anything to do with CO2, but their photochemical smog doesn't just come from power stations but also from antiquated industrial processes and their methods of rubbish disposal. How could you be so niaive as to think they wear face masks to prevent CO2 inhalation?

We have to get rid of the motive garbage in this debate because behind some of the "facts" is an industrial and environmental lobby on both sides of the debate. The vapours from cigarette smoke are a far greater pollutant, but we haven't banned tobacco production, and yet there are those who want to ban coal production. This is illogical and the result of skewed thinking and political interference.

Quote:

---

the Chinese wear face masks because of particulate pollution,

---

Actually most wear face masks because they are ill and do not wish to make others ill.