Are we just supposed to take your word for that Rog? You stated it a number of times now, let's see some backup. This emptiness of yours gets tiresome.

"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."

Where's your data?

Oops - Dan beat me to it

But, Rog will probably have some data to back up his claim

It's complicated - possible to come up with data to support any side of the argument

Rog's argument applies more to nuclear - it costs more to build the plant, meet all the regulatory requirements (that there aren't enough of because we still have accidents), mine and refine the Uranium, and dispose of it for eternity... - cost in dollar or energy terms

Yeah, he probably got a little mixed up with all the concrete.

Hey Rog, on 2/6/12 you said,

"I further pointed out that the 'hacker' would most certainly have a strong public interest defence if they were ever found, given that the real scandal was not the copying of the emails, but the vanished billions of taxpayers money sunk down a black hole of unaccounted for grants, slush funds, subsidy paid to parties with a vested interest in continuing the climate scare and the propping up of the now flatlining european carbon market. All on the back of shoddy science with little empirical support, conducted by people who say one thing in public and another in private."

Do you really believe that Rog? It almost sounds like an admission of guilt. I wonder how many here know what is going on with this. Did you know the information was hacked in the beginning?

I only post this link below because I thought you were from Australia. Sorry for the mixup and sorry, I did not know we were so close to history here;

http://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 17:06:48 MST.

"Do you really believe that Rog?"

Don't take my word for it Dan, read the emails for yourself.
Which is what I advised the police to do.

Tom Nelson is reading through all 5000 of them, and has turned up some very interesting information.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

Far more interesting than my bio on desmugblag

Edited by tallbloke on 02/11/2012 17:43:14 MST.

"Tom Nelson is reading through all 5000 of them, and has turned up some very interesting information."

Actually, I find your arguments interesting in that we know very little about long term climate change so we don't know if any recent changes are because of CO2 increase or some natural cause and "warmistas" are over-stating their case,

but, that comment reminds me of "The Donald" or "The Carnival Huckster" saying that he had people in Hawaii researching Obama's birth certificate and they were turning up very interesting information...

Jerry:
Carnival Huckster

Uh huh?

The difference being I've provided you a link to a page which links all the emails and Tom's own articles on the ones he has found interesting. So now you have no excuse for continuing to argue from ignorance.

Does not every cult have their website with exclusive authors ?

What's the impact rating of a Wordpress posting ?

+1 What Dan's saying.

Edited by redmonk on 02/11/2012 17:52:18 MST.

I'm sure Tallbloke has some great sites to link to besides those on his blog. How tall are you anyway Tallbloke? You got the Tall part correct anyway.

This is an interesting blog in which they say this about you;

"Its also amazing how denialists lacking any pedigree in certain fields of science - here, climate science - wade in (like Tallbloke, above) claiming that they want a scientific discussion while at the same time studiously ignoring submitting their contrarian ideas to peer-reviewed scientific journals where they would reach the broader scientific community and more importantly would be rigorously tested for their validity (or lack thereof). Instead they think that the anti-environmental/anti AGW blogosphere is a fine place for their ideas to be aired, and routinely snipe away at the scientists doing the actual research and their output in scientific journals

See the full interesting read here. I have read quite a few Climate blogs but this one is pretty facsinating;

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 18:12:36 MST.

Cameron,

not as much as the BBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, CYA, ETC.

But we do our best. ;-)

I got 53,000 the week my home was invaded by the secretive policemen.

Quite a few more people know about what they are up to now.

You won't learn much about how the climate system works among the droolers and dimwits at Deltoid Dan. Though I'm sure you'll find them to be congenial company.

My website is far more informative

Edited by tallbloke on 02/11/2012 18:15:30 MST.

No, I think people should read the blog I have posted to read up on your standing in the scientific community. Your interest in the Cosmos in general looks fun but I am going to stick with the notion that All Climate is LOCAL. Our current problems are not caused by an influx of cosmic rays stimulated by a degeneration of the Sun's energy because Neptune is behind Jupiter. Our problems are caused from letting millions upon millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into our atmosphere within a single generation. The blog is a good summation of your weeknesses. I encourage anyone to read it. Anyone that reads it will understand why you don't want it read;

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 18:24:14 MST.

It seems that deltoid's innuendo and tittle tattle about me holds more interest for Dan than my link to Tom Nelson's page where he could find out what our billions have been buying in the way of climate science by reading the emails the head scientist wanted to delete.

Anything to distract yourself and others from the naked truth eh Dan? Why go to the source when you can waste your time with idle opinion heh?

You are a joke.

Thanks for that link. I doubt you want anyone to really read what's there either. I'm SURE you would much rather people assume what you want them to about it. I suggest people dig into the list and see how easily things could be taken out of context and then there are pieces like this below. It's all a good read.

"2003: Michael Mann on questions from McIntyre and McKitrick: A "highly organized industry PR firm...is behind this effort"
Email 1741

These folks appear to have some very large industry groups behind them running the show, setting up forums for them on capitol hill (the latest sponsored by the infamous "Marshall Institute") and its best for scientists not to exchange any emails with them--they will only quote you out of context and misrepresent your comments. Please feel free to contact me to discuss further. So I strongly advise against any scientists communicating with these people. Understand that anything you send to them, you are giving to a highly organized industry PR firm that is behind this effort. An investigative reporter in the media may be revealing the dubious details behind this in an article in the near future. Please feel free to contact me to discuss further, mike"

Call me what you will Rog, but I'm here because you are the joke. The little snippet I copied from the above from the list kind of says it all. Here, I'll post it again for you. You are blind to your own BS;

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

People should understand that the list is edited by Tom Nelson with his own bias inserted into the titles like this piece. The bias is clear where he inserts 'Warmist' and 'Hoax' below in the title of the email. And then of course, these appear to be emails selected from many others since they are not in any chronological order;

Email 143, June 2007, your tax dollars at work: $1200 airfare, then $543 per day each to send warmists to Bermuda in high season for proposed climate hoax meeting
Email 143

...b) Current US Government per diem for Bermuda during that period (April-November is high season): $373 (lodging) + $170 (meals and incidental expenses) = $543/day total (for comparison, total per diem during the balance of the calendar year drops to $454/day).

c) A travel contractor (e.g., Carlson Wagonlit for US Feds., or CIRES, or UK?) could probably do a person-by-person airfare calculation (based on where each participant needs to travel from). But for simplicity here is a gross estimate for each person attending (since clearly airfares may vary considerably): $1200 airfare (which US Feds. anyway are strongly encouraged to use). + $543 * 6.5 days = $3529 (too many days?). + miscellaneous expenses & surface travel costs (cabs, buses, etc.) = $300. Total: ~$5K/person.

d) How many people would you plan to support? Let's say a dozen (according to the SPWG website, there are presently 9 members). 12 x $5K = $60K.

e) Plus there might be local organizational costs (rental of a meeting space, if applicable; coffee/tea; workshop dinner; etc.): $5K?

Bermuda looks fairly pricey!

Too bad Rog, you cannot supply a more complete list and one untarnished by the bias of the blogger - Tom Nelson - seemingly a man without a face or history. If somebody hacked into our emails, and then took only the ones they thought could be damning, and then commented on them before showing them, I'm not sure the list could have relevence to anything. Even though that is what the list is supposed to be damning, it does not seem to succeed. People will see what they want to see in it and most importantly, people like you spin it however you will without the reader having knowledge of what it really is; Biased comments about a biased selection of emails.

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 20:31:08 MST.

I was just reading in December Scientific American

Dubuque has suffered a number of "500 year floods" since 1999.

After the first one they proposed removing a bunch of houses and rebuilding Bee Branch Creek to carry more water. The people wouldn't go along with it. After the 2nd "500 year flood" they agreed to it. After the third they escalated the plan.

In "red" Dubuque Iowa they can't agree about whether climate change is real, and they couldn't wait for Washington D.C. to do anything, so they fixed the problem without having to agree on whether climate change is real or man made.

Same thing is happening in other cities.

By the time we can prove that climate change is real, and regardless of whether we can prove it's because of atmospheric CO2, we will have to start mitigating the problems.

It's strange to think we will be mitigating problems without knowing the cause of the problem. We do understand though, but the PR forces from the other side are powerful - just enough to create that doubt - when there is no doubt in the scientific community. The country that put men on the moon does not listen to it's scientists anymore because the voices of the scientists are being drowned out.

Last year looked pretty wild in the midwest. First they had major flooding that delayed the planting season ( not to mention isolating a nuclear power plant in Nebraska )and then there were major heat waves and somehow they got crops out of it. The margins are getting squeeezed and certain people want everyone to keep going on like nothing is happening. It is bizarre. I talked to a nephew in Idaho today I have not talked to for awhile, and asked him what his thoughts were on global warming, rather than climate change (since it's 3rd world and southern Idaho), and, I don't know why I'm always surprised, but I got the warming isn't real thing, with all the usual backward defenses like somebody is trying to sell them something etc and etc. It's pretty sad really but not surprising when the media is so limited in places like that.

Edited by wildlife on 02/11/2012 21:46:30 MST.

"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...."

Hi Rog

Which companies would they be? I'm intrigued.

Your fellow Australian

Arapiles

Edited by Arapiles on 02/12/2012 00:47:20 MST.

Dan McHale says:
Your interest in the Cosmos in general looks fun but I am going to stick with the notion that All Climate is LOCAL.

What we get locally is called weather.


Our current problems are not caused by an influx of cosmic rays stimulated by a degeneration of the Sun's energy because Neptune is behind Jupiter.

Our 'current problems' are pretty much the same as those faced by farmers down the centuries; unpredictable weather which can change daily, monthly, annually and sometimes droughts or floods which go on for years in some less favoured parts of the world.

My research potentially offers some predictability to some of the longer trends. It doesn't surprise me that you would try to mischaracterise something you know nothing about as 'astrology' so I'll put up a couple of comments later showing some of what we have been discovering over at my website. Then people here canmake up their own minds about me and my research, rather than being directed by you to see what sinister profiling activities the uglies over at scienceblogs.com have been saying. More on them later too.

Our problems are caused from letting millions upon millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into our atmosphere within a single generation.

After Jerry put you straight about the lack of any convincing evidence for this you say:

It's strange to think we will be mitigating problems without knowing the cause of the problem.

Thousands of years ago, the Egyptian Pharoes built granaries which held enough grain to get their peoople through a seven year drought. They used astrologers to keep an eye on the Nile flooding patterns and discovered cyclicities within the longer time frame. In the middle ages and right up to the C18th the Europeans blamed bad weather events on witches, and executed large numbers of them when crops failed.

One of the scientists who was a victim of modern day witch hunt by the core hockey team who (as revealed by the emails) tried to prevent the scientific paper she co-wrote about the medieval warm period being published and subsequently tried to get the journal editor who published it sacked had this to say about .'weather cooking'

These days, we don't store grain reserves anymore. It seems that the free-marketeers can make more money speculating on basic foodstuffs when there are short term fluctuations in supply. This greedy activity will be the death of a very large number of people quite soon if the downturn in growing conditions caused by the rapid cooling I've predicted these last three years comes to pass. It will be made worse by the alarmists who have been telling Canadian farmers to expect warmer conditions to move northwards.

The only sensible climate policy is to be ready for climate change, whichever direction it changes in.

"The only sensible climate policy is to be ready for climate change, whichever direction it changes in"

The "just in time" industrial policy is making us more at risk.

Storing "7 years of grain" is extra cost.

And if you're just optimizing this quarter's profits then storing extra "just in case" has no value.

The government should be buying up food and storing it in case there's a famine.

But, also, even if we haven't proved it to Rog's satisfaction, we should move away from fossil fuels. Besides, we're going to run out someday anyway, developing alternatives would actually stimulate the economy,...

Jerry says:
even if we haven't proved it to Rog's satisfaction,

If you read the latest research and empirical results on measurement of the Moon's surface temperature, reported along with the theory developed by Dr's Nikolov and Zeller I linked, you'll see that the mainstream greenhouse theory is now in big trouble.

we should move away from fossil fuels. Besides, we're going to run out someday anyway, developing alternatives would actually stimulate the economy,...

This is cart before horse. We need to develop the alternatives while we are using the fossil fuel. That way, there will still be an economy to stimulate.