I'm talking about the post you made at 15.14, then edited at 15.38, Dan.
The one about stupid folk, and Rog being a member of something called the Heartland Institute.

I was surprised that you had posted on this thread after ignoring it for years. I looked back to see what could have upset you. Maybe Rog had called his theory the original Daisy Chain theory or something?

I reposted the stupid people comment a few posts ago;

"In general, Rog has come to the wrong website to recruit stupid people."

And, sorry, I forgot what I said about the Heartland Institute in the post I DID NOT ERASE. Rog has done a good job of pretending he does not know about the Heartland Institute, since they in general support the same group of people he does.

You make too many assumptions Mike, like I ignored this thread for how long? I did not know it existed until when I started posting on it. I am amazed I never saw it, but I do not live here as much as it may seem like it. Look for flaws in yourself, I'm sure you'll find some. I only recently started using the 'most recent post' feature and never went to CHAFF, so it's very reasonable I would not have seen it.

My thought for today is in regards to Rog and his cohorts saying the 'Greenhouse Effect' is poorly named and how they would like to rename it. This from the same group that chastizes 'Global Warming' going to 'Climate Change'. Well, I would like to remind Rog that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and it even keeps working at nite while we sleep, whereas a greenhouse of the garden variety loses its effectiveness at night to hold heat in the same way.

Edited for grammar, not lack of guts

Edited by wildlife on 02/10/2012 12:34:23 MST.

Thanks for the reply, Dan.
Seeing as you are now reading threads that don't involve your packs, would you like to fill in the questionaire in my recent thread about political and moral leanings? :)

Where in the world is that - under a bush in Scotland somewhere? We'll have to raise a pint someday and put the fire out! HaHa!

I would not mind sticking to the greenhouse theme. See you again at midnight - have to work.

What the hell is a carbon flame?

That's pretty funny. Are you one of the new recruits? :>)

edited to add smiley face

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 00:22:55 MST.

Dan McHale says:
You make enough derogatory comments about the other side Rog, that you ask for this treatment - like on your own website 'the only thing wind power is good for is sailing' You are a we too arrogant. What's with the need to knock alternative energy? You give yourself away too easily.

Dean started it, but hey, it's a flame war after all, and we all like to vent a bit about the things that niggle us. ;-)

'Big Wind' is a scam. The turbines cost more in energy terms to build, install and maintain than they will ever return during their design life. They exist only because governments see them as useful visible icon that they are 'doing something about climate change'. They kill endangered species, they drive human beings to abandon homes or commit suicide, and they increase heating costs for hard pressed pensioners who are dying of cold related illnesses in increasing numbers.

I don't "knock alternative energy" per se. I have a solar hot water panel on my roof, I use an electric bicycle for local errands. I Collect, saw, chop and stack naturally fallen timber for my heating and cooking requirements. I use a twenty year old van for that and a 60 year old motorcycle which returns 80mpg for my commute. I walk a lot. I use a 35W solar panel to recharge the bicycle battery. I collect and filter rainwater for domestic use and to irrigate my home grown vegetables which do no food miles.

In brief Dan, I'm greener than you, so shove your sanctimony where it belongs.


The paper I posted was from 1999 when the sun was active - if that matters to you.

It matters to me and everyone else who has been scammed. The Sun which delivers 1360-1362W/m^2 is the main driver of climate change, not 0.039% of the atmosphere which feebly absorbs and re-emits little bits of it. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying here these last three years.

Positions identical to those who most wish for free reign to spoil our planet does place a huge asterisk next to any boast of greenliness.

How can you just come out like that and say you are greener without knowing anything about me? That is typical of your hubrous and boasting it seems. We are in fact pretty similar in our green regard, although I have no way of knowing if you are in fact exaggerating your concern for the environment - that would be my take. Right down to the electric bicycle and even crashing high mileage motorcycles we are similar though, solar cells and all, although I have not as yet received quite a bump on my noggen as you have. I think we will have to call it a draw on being green. Thanks for shairing that.

As for wind power not paying for itself, you really do need to acknowledge the subsidies all energies get and etc. Wind Power is not the only thing killing endangered species. What about the seasonal shifts caused by the Carbon bubble bursting and now the upcoming methane bubble? Oh, that's right, you don't 'believe' any of that is true. You don't believe that pricking the planet with millions of wells and releasing millions upon millions of years of sequested CO2 is having any effect on the planet. It cannot be absorbed by the Carbon Cycle without changing the life of every living thing on the planet. By the way, are they Fracking down in Australia? It seems like Australia would be a good place to ship toxic waste to for disposal in fracking wells.

As far as that renaming of the Greenhouse Effect goes, you could try Greenhouse Affective Disorder.

Cameron, when I started writing my post yours was not there yet so this is the coincedence of the day for me; We both came up with the use of boast totally independently. That's pretty cool. All of the people giving Rog awards for his personal blog would probably kring at his boasting of his greenliness.

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 12:23:11 MST.

Dan, I didn't say anything about subsidies or costs in dollar terms. I said that purely in energy terms, big wind turbines never pay back the energy used to create them emplace them and maintain them.

So all the fossil fuels burned creating and transporting the parts and the piles and the concrete and the steel and the labour put more co2 into the atmosphere than the stupid ugly noisy bird killing monstrosities of p1ss poor design, planning and execution ever save.

Get Real.

Please.

This can be vigorously debated and it's all under developement. With your attitude nothing will ever be improved upon. You actually are a stick your head in the sand kind of guy, or is that oil well? Whenever you open your mouth, contradiction falls out. That is readily apparent to anyone in the know. What alternative energies do you think are viable? You did mention solar - that's good. Got anything positive to add?

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 12:31:39 MST.

Cameron says:
Positions identical to those who most wish for free reign to spoil our planet does place a huge asterisk next to any boast of greenliness.

It might have escaped your attention Cameron, but the coorporations that have been spoiling our planet for the last 100 years are the same corporations which bought the rights to build big wind farms....

Ask Donald Trump. Oh the irony.

Are we joining the dots yet?

" don't "knock alternative energy" per se. I have a solar hot water panel on my roof, I use an electric bicycle for local errands. I Collect, saw, chop and stack naturally fallen timber for my heating and cooking requirements. I use a twenty year old van for that and a 60 year old motorcycle which returns 80mpg for my commute. I walk a lot. I use a 35W solar panel to recharge the bicycle battery. I collect and filter rainwater for domestic use and to irrigate my home grown vegetables which do no food miles."

That's weird

The Oregon State Climatologist says the same thing

Global warming not caused by human activity

and that he rides a bicycle, etc. to personally consume less fossil fuel

So because money is involved it's bad Rog? Sounds good to me that Donald Trumps nose can be steered by alternate energy. These guys are as involved in survival as anyone.

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 14:17:32 MST.

This can be vigorously debated and it's all under development.

I'm sure they'll be quite happy if you just keep right on spouting nonsense while they pick your pocket and wreck your environment.

Funny how concerned you are about the environment when it's all collapsing around you and you can't see it. There was a bit of irony in those Australian floods last year when the coal could not get to market because of flooding. No, you keep talking Rog, I love reading the stupid things you write - brings it all into the light of day. Our pockets have already all been picked. You really do think we can just keep going on as usual don't you?

Don't look down Rog! Don't look up and don't look sideways!

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 12:43:13 MST.

Actually Dan, I predicted the end of the Australian drought months in advance on this very thread.

While the alarmists like yourself said the heatwave and drought was down to co2. Of course, now the cooling and floods are down to co2 as well. So co2 causes global warming, global cooling, global saminess, more snow, less snow and boils.

Its the ultimate in irrefutable, non-falsifiable unscientific nonsense.

That's really the best you can do? Somebody should go through this thread and see how many times you have used the word ALARMIST. It's the usual badge people like you wear in threads like these. Rog, the environmentalist that really isn't into environmentalism and if somebody is into environmentalism, their pockets are being picked. You hide yourself in a small dark corner.

I'm going to take a break and give you time to post 5 posts in a row now. One suggestion though; Insert more mathematical formulas and graphs in your posts - they make it seem more like you have something to say.

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 13:06:17 MST.

"'Big Wind' is a scam. The turbines cost more in energy terms to build, install and maintain than they will ever return during their design life..."

Electricity production data from DOE from wikipedia:


Right column is dollars per megawatt hour

Wind and coal are about equally cheap

Natural gas is significantly cheaper. They say there are huge amounts of recently discovered natural gas. We should be switching to that. Also, it produces less CO2. Also, the facilities are cheaper so you could use it when the wind quit blowing which is the big problem with it.

This might not accurately include all the subsidies and externalities, like with coal it produces pollutants that kill people and make them sick. And if we were talking oil it wouldn't include the military expenses to protect oil sources or the cost of all the peed off Middle Eastern people like the one's on 9/11 from which has precipitated all sorts of anti-terrorism costs that probably never would have happened if we weren't importing oil from them...

So Jerry Quotes me:

The turbines cost more in energy terms to build, install and maintain than they will ever return during their design life..."

And then gives us a dollars sheet of "Estimated Levelised costs".

Levelised?

Estimated?

Still not ready to face up to the fact that they take more energy to build install and maintain than they ever generate during their designed lifetime.

WAKE UP!