Willy waving or proving what can be done in reply to a direct question on the previous page, Molgrips?

When I first went to see an energy adviser I was a little dubious, when I got the quote for the solar panels with the payback times too. Everything I’ve done has matched or bettered expectations. I’m passing on my positive experiences which may encourage others to invest.

I get about 30% more sun than my sister in the UK but as the feed in tarifs in the UK were better when she installed her PV she’ll get payback in about the same time.

The return on investment is faster on energy saving measures in the UK so things like triple glazing pay back faster in the UK than here.

So to put it another way, why are they based in Freiburg, not Hamburg?

Though I note they have a branch office in Gelsenkirchen, which is of similar latitude to London and considered asking why their house wasn’t there, but figured at least people would have heard of Hamburg.

Why Freiburg indeed. Because in about 78 there was a proposed nuclear plant for the Rhine. The locals objected and committed to a programme of energy saving and alternative energy so the nuclear plant wouldn’t be needed. They won and solar city Freiburg was born.

Theres almost always choice.
There may be few people who can quote extreme examples but for the majority there will be more sustainable options that arent taken because its still less important to them than a normal measures of success.

To be fair if you had hydrogen stored in your house you may suddenly vanish with a large squeaky pop.

Seriously though it now appears the climate change deniers (not skeptics, to be a skeptic there must be a way of changing your position if enough evidence is given) are on the back-foot. Indeed while I was walking the mutt on Saturday morning there was an article on the ‘Today’ programme about how the ‘skeptics’ are now actually agreeing that anthropomorphic climate change was happening but were now mainly arguing about what the effect is/will be.

Here is my vanilla response to all global warming threads.

“Global warming, also known as Climate Change, is a STUPID theory by a bunch of tree-hugging liberal hippies that states unless we go back and live in caves, the polar ice caps will melt and life as we know it will cease to exist. This theory comes from a bunch of idiotic scientists who really have no clue what they’re talking about…after all, they’re only scientists, who ever wants to listen to them? I mean sure, I admit they were right about the world being round…and the planets going around the sun… and lightning being caused by opposite charges between the earth and the sky, not Zeus…and worms and rats not appearing out of nowhere…and stars being balls of gas burning millions of miles away, not holes in heaven…and the brain being the center of the nervous system, not the heart…and lead poisoning being able to kill you…and cigarettes being bad for you, and everything else ever discovered or invented, but still! They’re wrong! These global warming people are the same tree hugging hippies that said DDT was bad for the environment back in the 70s and 80s!

They’re all a bunch of liberal crackpots who have a political agenda, so who wants to listen to them? It is almost exclusively believed by left wing bleeding-heart liberals who are influenced by rich environmental lobby groups and opposed to the economy and anyone with a job. One of these bleeding heart socialist hippies, Al Gore, has made a propaganda video regarding global warming entitled An Inconvenient Truth which uses heartless fear-mongering, and all kinds of heartless, cruel, un-American facts in an attempt to get people to consume less and sabotage the American economy, culminating in Ford going out of business, which will mean that the terrorists will win. Republicans would never use this type of fear mongering for political gain, never! So stop criticizing us, after all, you don’t want the terrorists to come get you, right?”

Climate change is natural, this is a fact I’m afraid.

On a very semantic point, you are correct, in so much as H. sapiens is just another species of animals.

But, as I’m pretty sure that a semantic point is not the one you were making, you’re quite incorrect to say that it’s fact. This is why we have a word that specifically describes humanity’s effects on things: “anthropogenic”; it avoids such pointless ambiguity.

To say that the currently observed climatic change is not related to anthropogenic activity is about as sensible as saying that you don’t need oxygen to breathe. Perhaps you could try that for a few minutes and see how you get on? After all, it’s only scientists that worked out that we as humans apparently need oxygen to survive.

I’ll repeat – you are as a layperson entitled to your opinion. You’re not, however, entitled to your own facts.

You live at 43° latitude. Your experiences with solar will be completely different from most on this forum.

Euan Mearns suggests that Scottish solar panels may not produce in their lifetime the energy used in their manufacture.

Solar Scotland

They are only cost effective because of the subsidies from other consumers and like wind depend on the grid sup[plying nuclear and fossil fuel power when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Do read on to the comments on that Scottish solar article – lots of really interesting and informative stuff.

They are only cost effective because of the subsidies from other consumers

Any idea how most of the older power stations were built, was it a big government corporation. Because coal, oil and gas are all around us people assume it’s been really cheap to get all that infrastructure in place.
Pricing today may be an issue but as with most tech manufacturing costs go down over time, same can’t be said for carbon based fuels. To assume governments will be able to keep energy cheap into the future is a big gamble.

Fossil fuels are made economic by the fact that we treat irreplacable natural resources as being free, and the environmental costs as being everyone else’s problem. If the predictions of warming/climate change come even a little bit true, the economic and social damage will be… well, unbudgetable. We don’t even really take into account the past, known environmental costs

“Alarmist” and “Exagerated claims” – and that is just what the climate scientists say!

Given our ignorance of what is going on in the oceans and large parts of the land mass, the definitive way in which arguments for our role in global warming is framed is quite extraordinary. And that is from scientists, bizarre. At least it puts humans at the centre of things….how terrible if we were only marginal players

While large sums are spent on inefficient alternatives, less money is spent on issues that cause far more deaths and hardship – starvation, poor water, sanitation. Strange priorities.

Alternatives are often very efficient, they have to be to compete with the throw-away alternative that is fossil fuels. It’s a bit like using throw away plastic plates. Convenient and cost effective in the short term but using crockery and washing it is a more cost-effective, long-term solution.

Given the level of unemployment in Europe, one of the greatest inefficiencies is not making efficient use of human resources. People don’t insulate because it costs too much, it costs too much because gas and electricity are cheap and lightly taxed but labour heavily taxed. In France labour is taxed at over 100% but electricity at only 22%. Change macro economic policy to reflect the benefit to society of energy saving and the harm caused by fossil fuels, and you can create an economic boom while cutting CO2 emissions.

While large sums are spent on inefficient alternatives, less money is spent on issues that cause far more deaths and hardship – starvation, poor water, sanitation. Strange priorities.

Classic whatabouterry.

If the climate does change then starvation, poor water and sanitation could be something that we all face.

There is never absolute certainty in science, but that is not a reason to not act on the best and increasing evidence of human impact on climate.

I am not in a position to analyse the science so I have to analyse those that can. What is the credibility of those making the arguments, what is the proportion of informed debate on either side, what are the motivations of the speakers. As has been offered in the discussion earlier, the overwhelming majority of those that are experts in climate science believe that human impact is driving change – for me that is persuasive, rather than uninformed editorial in the newspapers or talking heads without the necessary scientific background to undertake their primary, or even secondary analysis of the evidence. I don’t argue that there are not exaggerated claims on the climate change side – but that does not undermine the consensus argument

Change macro economic policy to reflect the benefit to society of energy saving and the harm caused by fossil fuels, and you can create an economic boom while cutting CO2 emissions.

I’m sorry I don’t understand.

Please educate me Edukator.

If you make it cheap to do the right thing and expensive to do the bad thing then the good thing happens.
Tax Fuel
Tax Inefficiency
Tax Waste

Subsidise Efficiency
Subsidise Energy Saving
Subsidise Recycling

MORE

http://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html

Study the Permian and tell me claims about the extent of change are exaggerated. Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed. I won’t post my own predictions for two reasons: I won’t be around to know if I was right and I don’t wish to be ridiculed. I’ll just say that you can expect a rapid rise in the number and intensity of extreme weather events in your lifetime.

Simple, gobuchul. Make it cheap to insulate business premises and expensive to buy gas to heat them and firms will employ people to insulate using material that have to be manufactured. More people working creating more fixed assets increases economic activity and wealth.

gobuchul

This is not new thinking. The Stern report covered some of this ground, but more recently Jacobs and his mates ate the The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP)at Leeds Uni and LSE have published stuff on this. The argument runs that the market does not price in the full impact of environmental degradation, including climate change. If it did then the market would re-orientate towards environmentally sustainable activity. Their argument is that you would not only minimise the impact of climate change but also maintain economic growth.

Others think this is over optimistic – but you pays your money and takes your choice

Edukator – Troll
Scientists tend to err on the side of caution when making predictions and also fear being ridiculed.

Presumably why they dump their raw data, and only keep their manipulated copies?

http://web.archive.org/web/20110331055548/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind

-Phil Jones head of UEA CRU

Oh good, another one who thinks the increase in extreme weather events is not happening, that places are not smashing temperature records year on year and that it’s all just fine.

No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.

An example is a professional I know. His house is well insulated because he is cost conscious with his own money. However, he knows that all of the expenses of his business premises are deductible and he’s a lot less worried about keeping costs down. The result is that he invests a lot less in the efficiency of his business premises than his own home. One person responding to two different sets of economic conditions.

When in business the electricity I consumed at home cost me 110% more than the electricity I consumed at work.

Cost at work: price on the bill minus VAT.

Cost at home: price on the bill including VAT paid for with money subjected to social security payments and tax.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

That is some foresight right there!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/australias-hottest-year-recorded-in-2013
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat
Really one at all?

No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.

Since records began or since the formation of the planet? November 1 was the hottest since records began in Paris. Records are being broken all the time if we consider the period since records began, and with increasing frequency.

Mike.. lets leave ‘cherry picking’ of data to alarmists and deniers. You can’t just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.

Are we not allowed to use ice core data in the study of climate change? Alarmists and deniers constantly choose which info they want to use.

Mike.. lets leave ‘cherry picking’ of data to alarmists and deniers. You can’t just decide when the records start from to suit your claim.

Not alarmist at all, just seem more extreme weather events in the last 10 years than I care to repeat, 2013 was an incredibly hot year in Australia, one of the countries that will be most ****ed by rising temperatures. Reality isn’t alarmist, when you are starting to hit 40c+ for over a week then something is broke, it’s happening more and more.

Who says ‘we’ aren’t allowed to use ice core data?

Use ice core data if you wish. It shows that rises and peaks correspond to natural orbital and solar cycles. The current ones don’t. CO2 didn’t cause the post-glacial or medieval warm periods, the mechanisms that caused those aren’t responsible for current warming.

Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual’s existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.

Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don’t you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.

theocb – Member – Block User
No temperature records have been broken at all Mike.

You really need to use your brain / google (preferably both) before you open your mouth

me or him Zokes 🙂

Unscientific opinions are important to understand as are so often constructed from a combination of the individual’s existing prejudices, political inclinations and psychological projections.

Us humans can be fascinatingly self-centred don’t you think? So often the climate change debate sounds like a televangelist-style Creationist debate.

In the US the issue is a party-political one. Republicans deny climate change specifically and reject science generally. The general rejection of science is simply becuase scientists are typically liberals so they’re people you have to disagree with on principle. They deny climate change specifically because republicans believe in small government and individual liberty. If you accept climate change you accept that government has to do something about it and that means growing government and increasing government regulation – which would be diametrically un-republican.

U! S! A!
U! S! A!

‘Anti-environmentalists’ 😐

I agree that ‘human’ opinions are very interesting and agree with your point.
You have fallen into the trap yourself though. I assume you state ‘unscientific opinions’ to try to place a scientist above an ‘ordinary’ human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.

Edukat. Yes I wish to use the best data we have in a discussion about climate. No records have been broken regarding temperature. Agreed? If a denier said the temp has stalled or dropped since 97 you would mock him.. not sure why you think an alarmist using short term climate data is okay.

I agree that different forcings were responsible for previous records.. doesn’t make them irrelevant when alarmists start using short term temp. data.
What happens long term if milankovitch cycles are balanced against different forcings (i.e exaggerated human influence)? We have zero data to understand that occurrence. agreed?

try to place a scientist above an ‘ordinary’ human.. much like the religious believers do. Science is a simple subject matter open to all, if you start pretending Scientists are special then it is a slippery slope.

Except science has qualifications and real training, is reviewed by peers and tested by others. If the lay person has spent the time, educated themselves in the methods of research and the science, then studied the data, and examined it with an open mind, conversed with others subjected their work to scrutiny and challenges and do what if for the common good not fame or ideology then I reckon they can challenge “science”

If I want an opinion on fitting a toilet I’ll ask a plumber, fitting a mech a bike shop. Climate change a climate change scientist.

Classic whatabouterry.

If the climate does change then starvation, poor water and sanitation could be something that we all face.

We won’t in the UK. The north is set to become more economically prosperous under even the extreme ends of the climate change projections, as it opens up more land viable for heavy agriculture. Eg Russia, Norway, Canada etc.

What it will do is cause billions of people in equatorial regions to starve, forcing them to migrate North or South. And we here in Britain will be happy to vote UKIP and watch them all starve to death on TV whilst telling them to sort their own countries out, climate change isn’t real you indolent fools, you’re just lazy…coming here because of a benefits system! They will be shot at trying to cross borders, lynched if they get to their destination or left to drown at sea if their boats capsize.

That or we’ll round them up in internment camps and gas them and carry on not giving a shit like good Europeans do.