UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,688
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Jo Stein wrote:

I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908

an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).


I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!

  #122   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,188
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Apr 24, 7:28*am, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Following on from another thread...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light


Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to
ignore ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i...


Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut
back elsewhere.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...100.S.60689951
  #123   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,076
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:29:22 -0700, harry wrote:

* *the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in
* *the sea?


* *What*are* *you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
* *makes any sense at all.


*It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_and...

His English is bad but he has a valid point.


My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea
level rise caused by the increased level of CO2. James Hansen knows
more about
that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201.../james-hansen-

ted-t...
* Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
* including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
* made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
* temperature at different depths. *Dr. Hansen said that the current
* imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
* energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
* equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day,
* 365 days per year.

JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear
energy. --
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * jo
* "Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
* *or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide
* *quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English. I don't see what
you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


And it would affect your ill-gotten FIT gold.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor
  #124   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Fracking in UK given green light



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:





On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:

...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going
to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can
only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been
stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the
sea?


What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
makes any
sense at all.


It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and...


His English is bad but he has a valid point.


My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about
that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.


JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.


Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.


I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.


I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


More fool you.

And the mining of it causes problems too.


Mining of anything can, stupid.

Uranium is not clean energy.


Hell of a lot cleaner than coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining


Mindless silly stuff.

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid.

  #125   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 448
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:29:22 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


Simply repeating this doesn't make it true.


  #126   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,188
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Apr 24, 10:26*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:


On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob *wrote:
*On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
* *In ,
* * *Jo *wrote:
...
* *Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going
to win.
* *The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can
only be
* *stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been
stored in
* *the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the
sea?


* *What*are* *you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
makes any
* *sense at all.


*It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and....


His English is bad but he has a valid point.


My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about
that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
* Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
* including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
* made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
* temperature at different depths. *Dr. Hansen said that the current
* imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
* energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was
* equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
* days per year.


JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.

Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.
I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


More fool you.

And the mining of it causes problems too.


Mining of anything can, stupid.

Uranium is not clean energy.


Hell of a lot cleaner than coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...s_of_uranium_m...


Mindless silly stuff.

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You really are a half wit aren't you Rolf?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Waste_disposal
  #127   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light


Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance?


No. The resistance is coming from renewable energy and green lobbies,
and it so totally threatens their narrative and cash flows that it
cannot be allowed to happen.



I think it's going to be hard to
ignore ...


it will be fought tooth an nail by the green proto fascists and the
renewable energy companies.

Its already a fact that cheap gas can halve emissions at far far less
cost per tonne of CO2 saved then renewables.

Both are running out of credibility fast.


http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=42


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-idUSBRE83G0LE20120417




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #128   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:





On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:

...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is going to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration can only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently been stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in the sea?
What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far makes any
sense at all.
It all sounds scarily like Drivel.
He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and...
His English is bad but he has a valid point.

My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365
days per year.


JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear energy.
--
jo
"Action on global warming can be driven by heroic leadership
or by events. It'll probably be by events."--Richard Smalley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


wel it is of course mucgh morte ceondomc thahn reneables and much safer

Nothing is renewable however, not even renewable energy so called.

And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.



nor is mining the stuff that goes in solar planets and wind turbines
harry, but you need a lot less uranium than either of those.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #129   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Andy Burns wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:

I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908

an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).


I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is
an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer

Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one.

I have found one picture of me as a schoolboy online,. but its under a
name I seldom use.

There are a couple of other pictures of me in various sites under a
completely different and unrelated pseudonym that I use when taking
******** about that hobby.

I am not on facebook, twitter, linkedin or any social networking sites.

it isn't important who I am, its what I am and what I represent that is
of value - or not, depending on your prejudice.

I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan.

So thats the closest you are going to get.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #130   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

harry wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:28 am, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Following on from another thread...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light

Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to
ignore ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i...


Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut
back elsewhere.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...100.S.60689951



I think there is no doubt its there, the real killer is what it will
cost in cash AND energy terms to get it out.

The shell tight oil man said that..if is three times what loose gas is
from Norway, its a bank account you wont draw on.

And looky here

Legal procedures, bureaucracy and haggling over resource valuations can
delay exploration and production indefinitely. In France, political
opposition to fracking has brought a stop to development of the Paris
shale basin.

That's exactly how it will go. it will be delayed as long as possible
like nuclear power has been to give renewables the fattest easiest
profits for the least value to the people of this country.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.


  #131   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,688
Default Fracking in UK given green light

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!


I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan.


Separated at birth? You decide ...

http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg

  #132   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Fracking in UK given green light



"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 10:26 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...





On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:


On Apr 21, 4:16 pm, Bob wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:11:02 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
In ,
Jo wrote:
...
Not completely wrong. In the long run an accelertion is
going
to win.
The sea level is accelerating today and this acceleration
can
only be
stopped by reducing the extra energy that has resently
been
stored in
the sea. How will you reduce the extra energy stored in
the
sea?


What*are* you talking about. Nothing you've written so far
makes any
sense at all.


It all sounds scarily like Drivel.


He's talking about methane clathrates in the deep ocean and tipping
points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...clathrates_and...


His English is bad but he has a valid point.


My english is bad because I am a Norwegian. I am talking about sea
level
rise caused by the increased level of CO2.
James Hansen knows more about
that:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-hansen-ted-t...
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science,
including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was
made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean
temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current
imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the
energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8C) was
equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day,
365
days per year.


JH agrees with me; we need a lot of clean energy which is nuclear
energy.
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.
I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


More fool you.

And the mining of it causes problems too.


Mining of anything can, stupid.

Uranium is not clean energy.


Hell of a lot cleaner than coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...s_of_uranium_m...


Mindless silly stuff.

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


There are no problems. Used fuel is reprocessed into more fuel, stupid.-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Waste_disposal


Just because some cretin like you claims something, doesnt make it gospel,
stupid.

  #133   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,688
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Tim Streater wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg


That's Inspector Morse.


SRSLY?

http://www.bernardcribbins.com/
  #134   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!


I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan.


Separated at birth? You decide ...

http://adslpipe.co.uk/photos/tnp-cribbins.jpg

I dont have facial hair except when I dont shave for a couple of days.

Why do you care? Do you fancy me or something?

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #135   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,688
Default Fracking in UK given green light

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why do you care?


Only to the extent you were claiming that no photos of you were in the
wild! I'll remove it ...



  #136   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,188
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Apr 24, 8:11*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:


I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908


an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).


I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!


I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is
an engineer should be confused with an Australian *web 2.0 programmer

Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one.

I have found one picture of me as a schoolboy online,. but its under a
name I seldom use.

There are a couple of other pictures of me in various sites under a
completely different and unrelated pseudonym that I use when taking
******** about that hobby.

I am not on facebook, twitter, linkedin or any social networking sites.

it isn't important who I am, its what I am and what I represent that is
of value - or not, depending on your prejudice.

I have been mistaken for Leo Sayer when I had longer hair. Or Bob Dylan.

So thats the closest you are going to get.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.


Clearly has something to hide.
  #137   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,188
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Apr 24, 8:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:28 am, Andy Burns wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Following on from another thread...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light
Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard to
ignore ...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-britain-shale-reserves-i....


Lots of "could bes" . Many of these initial high estimates were cut
back elsewhere.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shale...m-3739100.S.60...


I think there is no doubt its there, the real killer is what it will
cost in cash AND energy terms to get it out.

The shell tight oil man said that..if is three times what loose gas is
from Norway, its *a bank account you wont draw on.

And looky here

Legal procedures, bureaucracy and haggling over resource valuations can
delay exploration and production indefinitely. In France, political
opposition to fracking has brought a stop to development of the Paris
shale basin.

That's exactly how it will go. it will be delayed as long as possible
like nuclear power has been to give renewables the fattest easiest
profits for the least value to the people of this country.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.


Some of the intial estimates of other gas sites have been cut back by
90%.
Quite possibly the whole thing is a Ponsi scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#Economics
  #138   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

harry wrote:


Clearly has something to hide.


Indeed. Since the operation I don't quite think I'll make it to the
cover of Men On Men ..

Or any of your other usual light reading.

I prefer on balance to have something to hide than nothing at all worthy
of mention.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #139   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,397
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is
an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer


Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge.

Andy
  #140   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is
an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer


Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge.


I know. I met his son once.

Andy



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.


  #141   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:

....
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.
And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining

Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP.
Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very
stupid. Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is
not a stable source of energy. Now I get some money because a lot of
it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of
Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm,
I would give them the farm for free.

When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read
the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature.
I hope that you will have a look at it:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/

How heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only
70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about
610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me,
as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous.

If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body.
1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec.
Please do a google-search for
"ionizations in the body from natural radiation"
and then have a look at page 133 of that book.

Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of
atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not
afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science.
--
jo
Volkswagen Prague Marathon, 13. may 2012
http://www.runczech.com/index.php/en/home_page
  #142   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Jo Stein wrote:
On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:

...
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


Thats because you have been brainwaahed.

And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining


Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP.
Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very
stupid.


They are not dangerous and they are not stupid.

The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and
distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy.



Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is
not a stable source of energy.


It is.

Now I get some money because a lot of
it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of
Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm,
I would give them the farm for free.


you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away?


When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read
the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature.
I hope that you will have a look at it:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/


I don't think you know who I am actually.
I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss
say.



How heavy are you? I am a marathon runner and my weight is only
70 kilograms. Then I know that inside my body I have about
610 000 000 ionizations per second. That does not scare me,
as I know that natural radiation is not at all dangerous.

If you ar a fat man you have 1 000 000 000 Bq inside your body.
1 Bq = 1 disintegration per sec.
Please do a google-search for
"ionizations in the body from natural radiation"
and then have a look at page 133 of that book.

Why are we so afraid of radiation? Because we are afraid of
atomic bombs and do not understand science. Why are TNP not
afraid of global warming? Because he do not understand science.


No its because he DO understand science. Very very well. Better at the
philosophical level and over a broad range than most scientists he has met.


There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and
covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through
the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument.

It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change
that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the
equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get
very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves
the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century
global warming.

The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick -
its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant.

Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a
black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument
(if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are
deeply specious.

For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY
interesting study this paper:

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/M...nsmark2012.pdf

I can only reiterate the adage

The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me,
and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as
they can make a massive profit out of it.
The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me.

Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If
pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will
be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing
the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped).

My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved.

The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into
'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into
anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD
have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than
if we had no AGW theory at all.

But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup
(which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand)
renewable energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a
low carbon or cheap or resource efficient way known to man.

And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #143   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,397
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On 26/04/2012 01:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/04/2012 20:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and is
an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer


Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge.


I know. I met his son once.


So... who lives in Suffolk, and who is a web 2.0 programmer?

Andy
  #144   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,321
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:44:29 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
Bernard Cribbins is an actor, and apparently lives in Weybridge.

I know. I met his son once.

So... who lives in Suffolk, and who is a web 2.0 programmer?


I think we may need a venn diagram for this one.
  #145   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On 26.04.2012 13:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:
On 24.04.2012 08:29, harry wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:39 pm, Jo wrote:
Den 21.04.2012 17:53, skrev harry:

...
Well if you're Norwegian, that's pretty good English.
I don't see what you have to worry about in Norway with all the hydro
power.

I don't see nuclear as being economic, safe or renewable.


Thats because you have been brainwaahed.


Do you need better glasses? Here you answer harry and not me.

And the mining of it causes problems too. Uranium is not clean
energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...uranium_mining


Aside from the unresolved waste disposal problems.


Sorry for late replay. I became frightened by this TNP.
Climate sceptics scares me because they are very dangerous and very
stupid.


They are not dangerous and they are not stupid.

The stupid dangerous people are the ones who take a little science,. and
distort it and market it for profit as global warming and renewable energy.


Hydro power is OK, but we do not have enough of it and it is
not a stable source of energy.


It is.


Now I get some money because a lot of
it will be used for building wind turbines on my farm at the coast of
Norway. If someone would build a nuclear powerplant on my farm,
I would give them the farm for free.


you mean you would welcome it, or immmediately run away?

Now I use the farm for vacation only, and there is plenty of room for me
and a nuclear power plant.

When compared to coal uran is clean. I gave TNP the advice to read
the book of Wade Allison, but he is too stupid for such litterature.
I hope that you will have a look at it:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/


I don't think you know who I am actually.
I havent read that book, but I agree completely with what the reviewerss
say.

"reviewerss" is not an english word.
....
There is a glaring hole in AGW. its well and skilfully hidden and
covered up, but if you pick - not through the mathematics but through
the LOGIC of the argument you find that it is in fact a CIRCULAR argument.

It starts by ASSSUMING that CO2 is the cause of ALL the climate change
that cannot otherwise be explained, adds an abritrary factor to MAKE the
equation fit the facts - which it does until about 2000, when things get
very out of shape and BECAUSE the arbirtrar scaling now makes the curves
the same declares that PROVES CO2 is the cause of late 20th century
global warming.

The maths I take on trust and peer reviewed but its a magicians trick -
its not relevant to what I am saying, the LOGIC is what is relevant.

Furthermore, the assumptions made by it that the earth is in fact a
black body when it comes to radiation, except when it suits the argument
(if it were a black body there would be no climate change at all) are
deeply specious.

For some far better science on climate change, which is DEEPLY
interesting study this paper:

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/M...nsmark2012.pdf

I can only reiterate the adage

The more I learn about nuclear power the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change the less it scares me.
The more I learn about climate change politics the more it scares me,
and most of all the ones who don't care if its true or not, as long as
they can make a massive profit out of it.
The more I learn about 'renewable energy' the more it scares me.

Currently I sit on a fence with respect to CO2 and global warming. If
pushed my best guess from the evidence is that CO2 induced warming will
be less than 0.2C and that actually something else entirely is causing
the minor rises we have seen (which appear broadly to have stopped).

My guess also is that clouds and cloud cover are involved.

The scsry thing is because all the research money is going into
'proving' that CO2 is the cuplrit no research money is going into
anything else and if we are wrong and it was something else we COULD
have done something about then we are in worse trouble as a result than
if we had no AGW theory at all.

But the one thing you can prove is that without massive hydro backup
(which may actually be the case in Norway, and in New Zealand) renewable
energy is the single worst way to generate electricity in a low carbon
or cheap or resource efficient way known to man.

And that is why on balance if I cant gave nuclear I'd rather frack gas.

I agree that renewable is a bad ideea. We need a lot of clean energy
to replace fossil fuel, and it must be available on demand.

Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion
on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when
we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story?

Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
"When you measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you
cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."

Our clever scientists have measured the atmospheric CO2
during the last 400 000 years and found this remarkable figure
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7
inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however,
is nearly double that of the last century.**
** Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in
global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602,
doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.


During the last 20 000 years sea level rose from -132 m to 0 m
while CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 395 ppm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

The large population increase came in a periode when we had stable
CO2 and stable sea level, and the large spike in CO2 is made by man.
When studying the figure from NASA it is not difficult to "guess"
what will happen to the sea level in the future.
--
jo
There is a tension between short-term, individual welfare
and long-term, group welfare or world welfare.
If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope.
Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in
the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our
massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations.
From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet



  #146   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,819
Default Fracking in UK given green light

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:

I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908

an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).

I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and
is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer

Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one.

ISTR a hobby related website you had some years ago

btw, you never did say if you knew rod brigginshaw or not


--
geoff
  #147   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,819
Default Fracking in UK given green light

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Following on from another thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fracking-gets-
green-light


Seems we have 5x the amount of shale gas offshore, as onshore, will
offshore fracking meet less resistance? I think it's going to be hard
to ignore ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...e-reserves-idU
SBRE83G0LE20120417


That would be a bit difficult for the thrust of the article in that well
known environmental rag the Rolling Stone that Harry posted a few days
ago


--
geoff
  #148   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 848
Default Grammer and spieling

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:55:52 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

Pontiac Aztek


url:http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...committee.html

Good grief, it looks like it's been rammed up the arse.
  #149   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Grammer and spieling



wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:55:52 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

Pontiac Aztek


url:http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...committee.html

Good grief, it looks like it's been rammed up the arse.


People used to say the same thing about my 73 Golf.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/retromotoring/2526890983/

It does work pretty well tho.

Tho I do prefer the much lower sill of the Diahatsu Charade.
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...256D1F00129948
Much more convenient for loading heavy stuff like a top
loading washing machine into etc.

I used to be able to put a DEC LA120 into the back of the Golf by myself.

I must have had rocks in my head.

  #150   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

Jo Stein wrote:


Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and opinion
on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your templar-source when
we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a completely different story?


The reverse is equally true.

Why would ypu trust wiki when you can go to a dozen different places and
find a different story.

Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
"When you measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you
cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."


exactly so. Which is why I pointed yopu at a competent paper from a amn
who is a peer revuewed scientist publishing a paper at the royal society.


Our clever scientists have measured the atmospheric CO2
during the last 400 000 years and found this remarkable figure
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Sea level rise Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7
inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however,
is nearly double that of the last century.**
** Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in
global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602,
doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.



I would cross check those figures elsewhere. there is more than one
story out there.

During the last 20 000 years sea level rose from -132 m to 0 m
while CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 395 ppm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

The large population increase came in a periode when we had stable
CO2 and stable sea level, and the large spike in CO2 is made by man.
When studying the figure from NASA it is not difficult to "guess"
what will happen to the sea level in the future.


Guessing is always easy.

Being right is a lot harder.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.


  #151   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Fracking in UK given green light

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Andy Burns wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:

I try to find out more about [TNP], and I found this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04350141366747415908

an early 40s meteorologist and theologian with interests in science,
theology, philosophy, history, politics, education and technology
including Web 2.0 (a wannabe polymath).
I think "our" TNP looks more like Bernard Cribbins than that!

I can't imagine one someone who it is well known lives in suffolk and
is an engineer should be confused with an Australian web 2.0 programmer

Don't bother looking or an online profile of me, there isn't one.

ISTR a hobby related website you had some years ago


mm. Might be a cvideo of me flying a toy plane, but no online profile.

btw, you never did say if you knew rod brigginshaw or not


Dot to my knowledge.

Only Rod I ever knew was the guy hat manages Iron Maiden..and apparently
still does.

Haven't seen HIM since '76 tho.





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.
  #152   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default Fracking in UK given green light

On 27.04.2012 13:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:


Also I am quite sure that no one will push for yours guess and
opinion on CO2 and global warming. Why should we trust your
templar-source when we can go to Wikipedia or NASA and find a
completely different story?


The reverse is equally true.

Why would ypu trust wiki when you can go to a dozen different places
and find a different story.

Scientists follow the advice of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) "When
you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in
numbers your knowledge about is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind."


exactly so. Which is why I pointed yopu at a competent paper from a
amn who is a peer revuewed scientist publishing a paper at the royal
society.

Have you heard about this madman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_...nights_Templar
He is no more mad than you. Both of you suffer from the delusion that
we have no global warming. Both of you tell lies and want us to believe
that your fiction belongs to our real world. I think that
Anders Behring Breivik can be cured from his delusion.
You may be too old to be cured.
--
jo
"only the willfully blind could fail to implicate
the divisive force of religion in most, if not all,
of the violent enmities in the world today."
--Richard Dawkins

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Green light? Banty Home Repair 9 March 30th 08 03:08 AM
Give your FOREX the green light. EZ2FX Home Repair 0 March 19th 08 11:43 AM
Generating green light using a 510 nm AC current Radium Electronics 65 July 17th 06 11:54 PM
OT - Green Light Cliff Metalworking 0 March 9th 06 03:42 PM
Weird green light on my LCD VHSC? david Electronics Repair 1 October 21st 03 01:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"