Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned

[Flying Binghi]

That's just for starters...

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/silence-of-the-strokers/news-story/7758370473a41f5fc4792f1af8a8fcb9)






.

[Capn Bloggs]

The lunatic fringe is becoming less of a fringe!! :{

No more flushing the 140 in the driveway then...

[Flying Binghi]

The lunatic fringe is becoming less of a fringe!!...



Yep. They want to ban them so we can meet our CO2 targets... or to atone to the climate gods. Pick one, the're both just as silly.:hmm:

...anyway, the CO2 output of all them Oz two strokes combined would likely be the same amount as put out in a few seconds by a coal fired power station. And yet around the world there are 621 new coal fired power stations being built right now according to information given to Australian senator Williams.

No Cookies | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/new-coalfired-power-stations-world-621-australia-zero-now-understand/news-story/865d0daf16bfdbc4c8c399f8eea2a759)






.

[rutan around]

Before anyone else wastes 10 seconds of their life be warned the previous post takes you straight to the BBS.*

*Bolt Bulls#*t Show

[Capn Bloggs]

Makes sense to me.

What's your position on two-strokes, Rutan?

[rutan around]

Very good purgatives if you fly behind one.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

[rutan around]

Also old mate seems to get 3 times the distance on a tank of fuel since he changed to a 4 stroke outboard.

[Ozgrade3]

Why on earth would anyone use a two stroke anything these days. Horrible noisy things that are hard to start, you have to mix the oil/fuel just right, then when finished what you are doing, you smell like an oil refinery. Electric rechargeable is the way to go.

[Flying Binghi]

Also old mate seems to get 3 times the distance on a tank of fuel since he changed to a 4 stroke outboard.

Outboards ?

Evinrude are 2 stroke engines, likely burn less fuel then a 4 stroke of equivalent torque, and they offer a full 10 year warranty on the engine..:hmm:





.

[Flying Binghi]

Why on earth would anyone use a two stroke anything these days. Horrible noisy things that are hard to start, you have to mix the oil/fuel just right, then when finished what you are doing, you smell like an oil refinery. Electric rechargeable is the way to go.

I were looking at them battery chainsaws a few months back. Something to leave behind the seat of the ute for those times when yer find a tree across the track. Advise i received from an elec saw owner were to stick with me 2 stroke Sthil for a while longer yet.

Meanwhile, back with pax carrying aircraft. When battery/elec powered aircraft can be built that match fuel powered aircraft in the cost and operational areas I'd say they'd take off. Long way off yet.





.

[peterc005]

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

[StickWithTheTruth]

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

He writes this stuff on another forum already... he just needs to spare this one of such posts :-)

[Old Fella]

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

This sort of comment is a bit like some of those associated with the SSM Survey. Last time I checked we were supposed to live in a democracy and have the right to free speech, unless of course we oppose SSM or the notion of Global Warming. We are sitting back happily watching the Global Warming believers destroy our economy and yet we contribute less than 2% of global emissions. To me that simply means that we could shut down each and every Co2 emitting item in Australia and our contribution at very best would be a less than 2% reduction in Global Emissions. When the Global Warming believers all start using sailing ships instead of aircraft, riding horses instead of driving powered vehicles and living in mud brick houses I might even start believing them.

[Sunfish]

stihl chainsaw, cold dead hands.

[LeadSled]

stihl chainsaw, cold dead hands.
lying Binghi,
Your mate is spot on, electric chain saws just don't have the grunt, although I must admit that my 12" bar battery saw is convenient for light ppruning --- of the garden variety, of course.
Tootle pip!!

[Flying Binghi]

lying Binghi,
Your mate is spot on, electric chain saws just don't have the grunt, although I must admit that my 12" bar battery saw is convenient for light ppruning --- of the garden variety, of course.
Tootle pip!!

Yeah, suppose there comes a time in every ones life when its an electric chain saw and an electric mobility scooter to help carry the saw to the job..:p





.

[Flying Binghi]

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

Havin a look-see at yer old posts there peterc005 and found this jem:

"...P.S. I like Julia Gillard and think she is a fine person doing a good job..."

From the thread: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/484906-gillards-carbon-tax-effect-aviation-fuel.html



And reading all those easily debunked claims of peterc005 reminded me of...

Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research -

"...There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why..."


Mr Paltridge wrote an excellent book called The Climate Caper





.

[Connedrod]

Funny if it wasnt so serious.

A few weeks ago i had to go down to the big smoke. To to left of me where coal trains going to the largest coal export port in the world. To right of me were components going to the latest wind turbine farm in the north new england.

So we not allowed to use coal here in Australia but are allowed to export the stuff. We export the high quality coal and we use the the lower quality here.

Yesterday we were told we are 1.27 % of the worlds co2 emiters. Remember that what we export and what that country burns is place on Australia co2 emmision. A country of 25 million.

So if you think that if we stop exporting how long do you think it would take mmm lets say china to come down and just take it.

Mean while we now pay the highest power rates in the world pay high personal tax while we export or country away and get nothing for it.

6 billoin australian $$$$ this year alone will go overseas in goverment subitites to support wind turbines.

[AnotherRedWineThanks]

The idea that we are 1.27 % of the worlds co2 emiters is irrelevant.

Pilots on an A380 are less than 1.27% of the people on board, so does that make them not worth considering when discussing aviation safety?

I find it odd that some pilots seem not to be able to grasp the concept of leadership.

[Connedrod]

The idea that is irrelevant.

Pilots on an A380 are less than 1.27% of the people on board, so does that make them not worth considering when discussing aviation safety?

I find it odd that some pilots seem not to be able to grasp the concept of leadership.


Yes you must be a pilot that cant think or read. If we remove the exports we nothing. Why are we being being used for the over peoples useage.

Worlds population approx 7.5 billion. Australian population 25 million. Do you really think we make a difference. If we all stoped tomorrow we make not a difference. Even the chief scientist was ask can we make a difference if we stoped 100& of emisions he said no. Then ask what if we go to 50% emision stopage. He said i think ive already answered that question. For every $1 extra that spent on electricity bills it $1 less that spent to give my kids your kids ypur family work. We now going to be held to ransom by AGL as predicted some time back. To put wind turbines up to comply withe liddel removal will take a min of 2400 3mgw turbines. But will provide not 1 watt of base load power.

[Captain Dart]

---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.

A scam, abetted by the 'useful idiot' greens and socialists.

[rutan around]

---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.Capt Dart with all due respect you need to get your head out of the cockpit a bit more often and do a bit more reading. (Reading or listening to coal spokesman Andrew Bolt does not equate to the acquisition of knowledge)

Closing Liddell power station is supposed to leave the grid 1,000 M/Vs short.
Last year Mr Adani put up a 648 M/V solar power station in southern India in 8 months for about $888 million AUD. That would make a 1,000 M/V about $1.5 billion AUD (The panels were all made in China)
If they build a new 70% dirty coal fired station of similar size it would cost over $2 billion and about $100 million per year to feed it coal for the rest of it's life- assuming they can obtain quality coal for $40 per ton. If it had a 40 year life that's $4 billion. You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money. Solar is looking good both environmentally and cost wise. As a bonus I've never heard of a human or a bat or a bird getting black lung from solar panels.

[Capn Bloggs]

Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan.

And remind me how much that 1gw battery is going to cost so we've got the power available when there's no sun?

[AnotherRedWineThanks]

If we remove the exports we nothing. That may well be correct.

But I think the answer is Vickers Viscounts. As a young lad at Essendon aerodrome I loved the whistle of the RR Darts, not that I knew then what they were. Why did we ever bother developing aircraft after they were invented?

Because people back then had imagination.

Renewables can't do baseload? Wait a while, they will. Renewables not as cheap as coal? Wait a (short) while, they will be, if not already.

Climate change is bullsh1t, therefore fossil fuels are infinite? Mmmmm, don't think so.

Maybe replacing fossil fuels on the ground will keep them available for use in the air a bit longer.

Don't care because you will be dead by then? Mmmm, selfish?

[gerry111]

riding horses

Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane? :=

[AnotherRedWineThanks]

Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic].

Not at all: You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money. The clue is in the word 'storage'.

And how much that 1gw battery is going to cost?? Cheaper every day. An old mate bought a VHS recorder for $1200 because he was an early adopter, and didn't regret it, because he had a VHS recorder and we didn't. Same with 1 GW batteries. My guess is that they will follow the same price path as hard discs. That's what seems to be happening already. once again I ask, why didn't we stick with Vickers Viscounts?

[rutan around]

how much that 1gw battery is going to cost Who cares. With pumped hydro and or ammonia to store surplus energy they would not be needed. Just as fossil gases are used now when power is needed quickly so stored ammonia could be used instead either directly or just the hydrogen component.

Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic] Red Wine fan thank goodness someone understands what I'm on about. I haven't got the time or inclination to rebuff every fact free argument put up by the likes of Capt Dart . However re wind turbines they recoup their energy input costs in months not years. He also conveniently forgets the amount of money and energy needed to build his dirty coal fired power station before it even makes one watt. He then ignores it's life long dependence on expensive coal while spewing crap into the air. I don't know what part of free energy in the form of wind and sunshine he doesn't understand.

[Lancair70]

Outboards ?

Evinrude are 2 stroke engines, likely burn less fuel then a 4 stroke of equivalent torque, and they offer a full 10 year warranty on the engine..:hmm:





.

:= Nah they dont at all. 7yrs of an ETEC and can tell you not great on fuel compared to 4stroke and 10 Year warranty?? I wish or I wouldnt be getting rid of mine, they can fix it, again!!!

[criticalmass]

I have well over a thousand hours behind two-stroke Rotax aircraft engines, and although they are reliable and cheap, they are simply no longer acceptable as an aeroplane powerplant when compared to the Rotax 912-family of engines.

My advice to anyone still flying a two-stroke powered aeroplane is fly it until the engine is worn out and then scrap the entire machine and embrace the world of four-stroke powered aeroplanes. You'll wonder why you persisted with the two-stroke for so long.

[Old Fella]

Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane? :=

I guess they do Gerry, but how many Global Warming believers would be riding them? Not many I think. See you a the 2018 reunion I hope.

[kaz3g]

Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane? :=

Methane actually comes with bull s....kaz

[jas24zzk]

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

I am another climate change sceptic.

That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.

Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?

That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life

#3 is VERY important

My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!

[rutan around]

My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!

jaz24zzk please post just a couple of sources you used to arrive at your understanding. I'm sure others besides me would be interested to see them.

[kaz3g]

I am another climate change sceptic.

That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.

Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?

That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life

#3 is VERY important

My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!

Hi Jas

PV cells are already being recycled in Australia and their numbers, like those of deep storage batteries, will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next 2-3 decades (both have long expected lives)

Both are already being recycled in small numbers and the industry will grow.

PV panels and batteries both need to be added to the list of regulated e-waste to ensure that both manufacturers and purchasers dispose of them responsibility.

https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/can-home-solar-batteries-be-recycled

Solar panel recycler leads Australia in emerging industry - The Lead SA (http://theleadsouthaustralia.com.au/environment/solar-panel-recycler-leads-australia-in-emerging-industry/)

Best thing I've ever done apart from buying my AUSTER was installing solar panels on my house. My winter energy bill for the last 3 months is less than $110.

Kaz

[bolthead]

That's great Kaz. Did you pay full price for the panels, or were they subsidised?
How much do you get paid for the power they put into the grid? And how much do you pay for the power taken from the grid?

[rutan around]

A post appears to have been withdrawn where somebody suggested that all government subsidies be withdrawn from renewables and let the best man win in the battle between new expensive dirty coal power and new expensive clean power. The writer must have felt a bit of a hypocrite when he realized that most if not all 24 coal power stations were built with government money. It gets worse. After the gov got their money back from the sale of electricity to the taxpayers one would think they would then be able to sell the power at the cost to run and maintain the now paid for station. But no. They then sell or lease it to some big company who just loves a lucrative monopoly and that big company then pays for it all over again by charging whatever they can get away with. Don't give me sob stories about subsidies.

[bolthead]

That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.
In the 'Aus' newspaper a week or so ago was an article about a guy who had installed a $30,000 battery ( AGL I think ) that cost him $5,000. Hmmmm I wonder who's paying the rest?
During the next SA blackout, If he thinks all the power in that battery is his to use, then I've got news for him, and it's all bad.
By the way, it was only a month or two old and was going to be replaced.

[rutan around]

That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.There are lots of things lots of things that we need that don't work or produce all the time. Water is a good example. In Australia it doesn't rain every day or indeed every year in some places. So when it rains we store enough to see us through to when it next rains. Wheat and other foods are handled the same way.

Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about intermittent electricity? The technology is there to store enough electricity/energy to see us through the longest recorded no light no wind period for a particular area. What this discussion is about is finding the most effective , economical method known to date for storing power.

I happen to support ammonia for numerous reasons but would drop it in an instant if a superior system came to light.

One thing for sure is that it is a waste of time and intellectual resources to argue that we can keep pumping 50 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year without repercussions.
Clean energy however we choose to do it is our only choice.

[bolthead]

Hey Rutan, I'm no scientist, but I like to try to sort out the wheat from the chaff. But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides. But I don't think people types like Al Gore or Michael Moore help your cause. They seem to think it is their duty ( and make lots of money in the process ) to scare the bejesus out of everyone with overblown rhetoric. Or our very own Tim.

There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.

[rutan around]

But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides.Bolthead it seems to me that a good indication that a theory is correct is when its predictions come true. Climate scientists have been warning for a long time that uncontrolled releasing of CO2 and other green house gasses into the atmosphere would lead to global warming causing ice to melt and sea levels to rise.

Well each one of the last three years has seen the hottest global average temperatures ever recorded, ice is melting ( your glacier somewhere , ships passing through the Arctic Ocean in summer) and sea levels rising partly through seawater expanding as it warms and partly through ice melting.

Those who don't want to believe our climatologists instruments keep changing their position. One faulty instrument out of thousands is faulty so they must all be wrong. Our earth orbit has moved closer to the sun without a skerrick of evidence that this has happened and even if it did move by the amount they say, the effect would be tiny. They also say climate change has occurred before, when man could not have affected it, so it's not man driven now.

Something drives climate change. Abnormal volcanic activity, a collision with a large meteorite or a near miss with a planet sized object are some things that could cause warming without mans involvement.

As none of these has happened since the industrial age started it's a pretty good bet that we have something to do with the rising temperatures.

There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie. Why not? It seems to indicate that it is now the hottest it has been for 2,000 years and that is why the ice has melted exposing the trees.

[kaz3g]

That's great Kaz. Did you pay full price for the panels, or were they subsidised?
How much do you get paid for the power they put into the grid? And how much do you pay for the power taken from the grid?

Subsidised...although the subsidy had reduced from memory. I get 14 cents for what I put into the grid and pay about 33 for what I take out of it. I actually produce a significant amount more than I use from the grid so I'm paying taxpayers back by subsidising them (or adding to the generator's profits).

Kaz

[bolthead]

Rutan Doesn't that make you wonder why there were trees growing there all that time ago. Were the levels of CO2 then much higher than they are today?

I read somewhere they used to grow crops in Iceland ( or it might have been Greenland) in areas that it is impossible to do so today.

[rutan around]

I read somewhere they used to grow crops in Iceland ( or it might have been Greenland) in areas that it is impossible to do so today. Bolthead,
Nuuk the Capital city of Greenland is in the area settled by Eric the Red. Today in summer they grow grain and vegetables (even potatoes) to supply the city.

Today scientists think that the couple of Little Ice Ages that have occurred since 1300 were caused by volcanic eruptions .
If you're interested there is some interesting reading here.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

This one is also good reading and may explain your trees under ice .

Volcanoes linked to cultural upheaval since early Roman times | ScienceNordic (http://sciencenordic.com/volcanoes-linked-cultural-upheaval-early-roman-times)

Climate is not a static thing but change always has some cause.

Today there is no obvious cause to be seen for the changes happening other than man and his bolshie attitude that we can destroy the lungs of the earth (trees) while at the same time pump 50 gigatons of heat trapping gas into the atmosphere every year.

There are solutions but we have to act. The first thing to do is get rid of our current wishy washy politicians who can't even make a decision about a marriage act without spending $122 million. :ugh:How the hell will they ever be able to make big decisions?

[Flying Binghi]

Senator Malcolm Roberts contacted Joanne Nova to clarifie the One Nation position on 2 strokes...

"...Thanks to Malcolm Roberts for contacting me tonight with more information. CLARIFICATION: It’s not a complete ban on two-strokes, but a change to increase standards on motors..."

UPDATE: Malcolm Roberts, One Nation replies the two-stroke mower *change* is about real pollution, not CO2 « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/update-malcolm-roberts-one-nation-explain-the-two-stroke-mower-ban-is-about-real-pollution-not-co2/#more-55089)





.

[Capn Bloggs]

4-stroke whippersnipper. My back's not looking forward to that...

[bolthead]

I'll have to think about that for a bit Rutan. Volcanos causing ice age sounds plausible ( getting into Mythbusters mode here ). But what caused the obvious warming that allowed the trees to grow before the current glacier?

[rutan around]

Senator Malcolm Roberts contacted Joanne Nova to clarifie the One Nation position on 2 strokes...

The blind leading the blind. It's people like those two wot cause unrest. What they need is for a colour additive to be added to smoke produced by coal. Once they could see it it would become 'real' pollution.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

[aroa]

Boltie...you need to read up on Greenland history.
About 500 years ago when there were Norse settlements there, they raised crops and stock. A mini ice age..due volcanism?..caused them to be dying off, so move on ...to where is a mystery. Labrador, Newfoundland..?? recent finds of sites.
I see on a recent doco the fluctuations in weather, as ever, has again allowed grazing and crops in parts of southern Greenland..

And we suffer severe 'snow-jobs' in the country too, but not related to extreme cold.

Indians scientist reckon Indias big coal push is going to knacker the place. Deaths due pollution and along with China, wreck the global atmosphere.
And we are going to sell them the coal to do it..!!
And we sell uranium to those who are building nuclear power stations and we dont/cant even entertain one.!
The clever country indeed !

[bolthead]

Burning cow dung to do your cooking must do wonders for your health, as well as local pollution levels.

[rutan around]

Burning cow dung to do your cooking must do wonders for your health, as well as local pollution levels.

It's definitely a problem but why solve it with another dirty polluting problem when we're surrounded with clean affordable energy?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

affordable
A very subjective description.

[rutan around]

affordable A very subjective description. I think any proper objective assessment would come to the same conclusion if all the costs of both systems were included from the turning of the first sod for the start of construction to the site cleanup at the end of useful life.

Our local coal fired station uses 4million tons of quality thermal coal per year. I haven't been able to find out what is paid for that coal as I'm not privy to the contracts. however if we use a middle of the road figure of $50 / ton it means an annual cost of $200,000,000 just to fuel it. Fuel for renewables $0

Costing must include health effects on miners and people living in the smoke plume plus long term CO2 effects on climate. I'm sure others will add to this list.

[Flying Binghi]

I think any proper objective assessment would come to the same conclusion if all the costs of both systems were included from the turning of the first sod for the start of construction to the site cleanup at the end of useful life.

Our local coal fired station uses 4million tons of quality thermal coal per year. I haven't been able to find out what is paid for that coal as I'm not privy to the contracts. however if we use a middle of the road figure of $50 / ton it means an annual cost of $200,000,000 just to fuel it. Fuel for renewables $0

Costing must include health effects on miners and people living in the smoke plume plus long term CO2 effects on climate. I'm sure others will add to this list.

...Meanwhile, back on planet earth. China continues to build coal fired power stations and import Australian coal and then uses some of that cheap coal power to produce the solar panels and wind power units that it sells to Australia..:hmm:



"...Australians are set to pay $300 million in subsidies to an outback solar farm owned by a Saudi Arabian billionaire..."

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/taxpayers-give-300m-to-saudi-billionaire-for-solar-plant-that-makes-2-of-old-dying-coal-plants-power/




.

[bolthead]

Last time I looked at a solar panel it appeared to have an aluminium frame.
I'd like to see them make aluminium with renewable power, and keep the lights on. I think they would have 3 chances. None, Buckley's and bugger all.

[Cloudee]

Last time I looked at a solar panel it appeared to have an aluminium frame.
I'd like to see them make aluminium with renewable power, and keep the lights on. I think they would have 3 chances. None, Buckley's and bugger all.
Steelmaker Sanjeev Gupta teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/steel-maker-teams-with-ross-garnaut-to-run-factories-using-rene/8965240)


"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."




“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will.” - Albert Einstein, 1932

[Flying Binghi]

Steelmaker Sanjeev Gupta teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/steel-maker-teams-with-ross-garnaut-to-run-factories-using-rene/8965240)


"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."



"...The new business partners are now calling on the Government to agree on a market mechanism, like a Clean Energy Target...

...the plan will include some coal and gas..."

Yep, there's a rube born every minute..:hmm:

If the power these scam artists are going to produce is so cheap why do they need a "market mechanism" If they can power their business from sun and wind then go right ahead and do it - No market mechanism required..:hmm:

Clouded, no one doubts that solar panels and wind generators produce power. It is just at this stage it is not a sane, cheap and reliable power source to power a nation that is blessed with 100's of years of coal supply.





.

[rutan around]

Clouded, no one doubts that solar panels and wind generators produce power. It is just at this stage it is not a sane, cheap and reliable power source to power a nation that is blessed with 100's of years of coal supply.Binghi it is even less sane to sh#t in our own nest which is exactly what we're doing burning anything that releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you haven't any sane affordable ideas for clean energy please go back to fantasizing about Jo Nova and stop being a handbrake on those who are genuinely seeking the best way to achieve a clean affordable energy future.

[packapoo]

[QUOTE=Cloudee;9897883]Steelmaker Sanjeev Gupta teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/steel-maker-teams-with-ross-garnaut-to-run-factories-using-rene/8965240)


"We're happy for the sceptics to watch what we do, and they'll learn what's possible."



From another life I found that Ross person's reputation well exceeded his abilities. A good talker.

[Sunfish]

Before this thread deteriorates further, we need to get back to basics.

Firstly, pollution is actually wasted money if you think about it. Nobody wants to waste money.

In any argument, life cycle costs need to be considered as well as what economists call "externalities". For example, there is no saving on CO2 emissions from using electric cars if the power comes from coal fired power stations. You are just changing the location of the pollution.

There is a simply massive difference between theory and practice for new technologies. What works in the Lab may not work economically in the field. Dont believe what scientists and axe grinders tell you, ask the engineers who have t make stuff work.

Investments in existing technology are massive. In addition we have worked the bugs out of automotive technology and internal combustion engines over a hundred year period. It would be nice if we didn't have to throw all that away and start again.

All that stuff about LNG/liquid Ammonia/fairy dust/ electricity or whatever the latest solution is suffers from the comparison costs of deployment. What irks me is how the proponents gloss over the hurdles involved in practical engineering solutions to these issues.

Examples: Mum with three little kids in her SUV trying to fill it with liquid ammonia. The design of an electric power grid capable of powering electric recharging stations for electric car/truck traffic on the Hume highway, let alone the design of stations that can accommodate cars and trucks for thirty minute charging times.

Our best solution, absent a quantum leap in technology for example super duper batteries, is incremental improvement over time.

I have 9kw of solar on my roof, solar hot water as well, but I am not rushing for batteries any time soon. I used a Tesla taxi in Amsterdam, which was nice, but completely impractical over Australian scale inter city distances with current battery technology. As for alternative fuels, show me something that is less toxic than what we currently employ, that is available now on a massive scale and that can be distributed with existing infrastructure.

[Flying Binghi]

...Firstly, pollution is actually wasted money if you think about it. Nobody wants to waste money...



Though what is pollution?

Oil has naturally seeped out of the ground since it were first formed all those millions of years ago. There are many oil 'lumps' found on beachs around the world that originated from an undersea oil seep. Much coal country around Australia originally had surface exposure and just lay around with out hurting anything.

The volume of 2 stroke engines in Oz is trivial. And yet we have idiotic Oz politicians 'inspired' by the european global warming hysteria looking to impose yet more costly bureaucratic red tape on Oz business and consumers.





.

[Flying Binghi]

Binghi it is even less sane to sh#t in our own nest which is exactly what we're doing burning anything that releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you haven't any sane affordable ideas for clean energy please go back to fantasizing about Jo Nova and stop being a handbrake on those who are genuinely seeking the best way to achieve a clean affordable energy future.

More on the Garnaut report from Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research...

From the 2009 book The Climate Caper,page 65,66:
"...In 2008 when Garnaut was producing his draft and final reports on what should be done about climate change, an Academy of Science ad-hoc committee was charged with the task of producing an 'Academy response' to the Garnaut reports.. ...the purpose was to highlight any aspects of the Garnaut reports which, in the view of the committee, were inadequate in their coverage, emphasis or veracity..

...produced a rough draft of a response that indeed made a number of points.. ...the most important was a deliberately worded statement about the commitee's worries with the accuracy of the forecasts of Australian regional rainfall one hundred years into the future. These forecasts after all were the major input to the Garnaut calculations of the negative impact of global warming, and therefore to the Garnaut recommendations about how the nation should respond..." The draft response was discussed with Garnaut, subsequently, "...Garnaut became became very sympathetic to the need for vast new resources to address the need for basic research in the field of climat science.. ...in the end it seems that the idea of a response to the Garnaut report was dropped altogether..."







.

[rutan around]

Bingi you need to read this--- perhaps twice. You're not mentioned by name but you're in there. So is Lord Haw Haw er lord Monckton.


Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial



June 23, 2011 2.54pm AEST
Author



https://cdn.theconversation.com/avatars/2015/width170/ian-enting-1308637480.jpg Ian Enting (https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-enting-2015) Honorary Senior Associate, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne


Disclosure statement

Ian Enting is employed by The University of Melbourne in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, which has been funded by the Australian Research Council. He also receives small amounts from the sales of his books: "Inverse Problems in Atmospheric Constituent Transport" and "Twisted: The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial".
Partners

https://cdn.theconversation.com/institutions/722/logos/width170_logo-1365118447.png (https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722)
University of Melbourne (https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722) provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.
https://cdn.theconversation.com/partners/357/logos/width170_logo-1441606271.png (https://theconversation.com/au/partners/victoria-state-government)
Victoria State Government (https://theconversation.com/au/partners/victoria-state-government) provides funding as a strategic partner of The Conversation AU.
View current jobs from University of Melbourne (https://jobs.theconversation.com/search/organisations/university-of-melbourne?utm_source=theconversation.com&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=article_sidebar)
View all partners (https://theconversation.com/au/partners)
Republish this article (https://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557#republish) https://theconversation.com/assets/call-to-actions/republish-ca547a7c5135cc6d1a28933dc8b6823c.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

https://theconversation.imgix.net/files/1785/original/Galileo_facing_the_Roman_Inquisition.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926 The Galileo Movement co-opts the father of science’s name to pursue an anti-science agenda.

Email
Twitter (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Rogues+or+respectable%3F+How+climate+change+scept ics+spread+doubt+and+denial&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Frogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitterbutton&utm_campaign=none&via=ConversationEDU)19
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Frogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_medium%3Dfacebookbutton)6 6
LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&source=The+Conversation&summary=%2A%2A_CLEARING+UP+THE+CLIMATE+DEBATE%3A+Professor+I an+Enting+takes+a+look+at+the+front+groups+and+published+tex ts+of+Australia%27s+climate+sceptics._%2A%2A%0D%0A%0D%0AThe+ %22name-calling%22+in+what+passes+for+public+deba...&title=Rogues+or+respectable%3F+How+climate+change+sceptics+s pread+doubt+and+denial&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Frogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557%3Futm_source%3Dlinkedin%26utm_medium%3Dlinkedinbutton)
Print (https://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557#)


CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Ian Enting takes a look at the front groups and published texts of Australia’s climate sceptics.
The “name-calling” in what passes for public debate on climate was recently discussed (http://theconversation.com/climate-science-establishment-versus-sceptic-1050) in The Conversation by Garth Paltridge.
“It seems appropriate to expect the establishment to take the first steps in any attempt to bridge the divide between the sides,” he said, proposing we should, “recognise that not all climate sceptics are rogues and vagabonds.”
“The very first step should be for climate scientists to make a conscious effort to read some of the documentation appearing in the more respectable sceptic weblogs,” he argued.
Garth should get out more.
Many of us, including most of the authors of this series, have engaged with the arguments of self-styled “sceptics”.
We’ve looked at not just the blogs, but also the information from organised groups, the few published scientific papers and the books in which these their claims are presented in detail.
As a counter proposal, I would argue that any self-styled “sceptic” who claims to have a genuine case should do what normal scientists do and dissociate themselves from those who practise fabrication and misrepresentation, those who in Garth’s words might be called “rogues”, if not “vagabonds”.
The reality is that the most prominent pseudo-sceptical scientists are doing the opposite: gathering together to provide apparent respectability to front organisations that are designed to spread confusion.
This is the message from Merchants of Doubt (http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/): How a Handful of Scientists Obscured Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, backed up by documents obtained in the course of tobacco litigation, show that not only was greenhouse denial using the same misinformation techniques as the tobacco industry, but that it was often the same groups and the same people. These anti-science activities hide behind names such as “Friends of Science”.
In Australia we have a similar phenomenon, with the additional twist of often using names that aim to capture a “martyr for science” image. They present themselves as being ignored by an entrenched establishment, when in reality they are ignoring or distorting the accumulated scientific knowledge.
An early starter was the Lavoisier Group (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php) - a single issue organisation similar in structure and name to organisations like the Bennelong Society (on indigenous affairs), the HR Nicholls society (on industrial relations) and the Samuel Griffith Society (on constitutional matters and support for the monarchy). But for the Lavoisier Group, the “martyr for science” ethos is a bit of a stretch - Lavoisier was executed for his activities as a tax collector.
The latest entry is the Galileo Movement (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/), again co-opting the name of a “martyr for science” for an anti-science activity. The Galileo Movement’s founders funded the previous visit to Australia by Viscount Monckton. The movement’s “Independent Climate Science Group” includes Monckton, Bob Carter, S. Fred Singer and Ian Plimer as well as Garth Paltridge.
Monckton’s extravagant claims were described by John Abraham earlier in this series. Monckton’s recent testimony to the US Congress has been extensively refuted by a larger group of scientists.
The title of Bob Carter’s book Climate: The Counter-Consensus captures the problem succinctly. There is no such counter-consensus. What groups such as the Galileo Movement present as a alternative to mainstream view of climate is not an alternative consensus, but rather a collection of wildly conflicting and extensively discredited fragments designed to create confusion.
Singer’s book (with John Avery), Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years proposes a natural 1500 year cycle for global temperature. I find this unconvincing, with no evidence provided for the claim that Imperial Roman times were as cold as the Little Ice Age 1500 years later.
I am also puzzled as to how a man who claims we are in a natural warming cycle until about 2300 could be part of the Heartland Institute group. which convinced Senator Steve Fielding that the Earth is cooling.
But in Australia, it is Ian Plimer’s book Heaven + Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science that has had most impact. Kurt Lambeck, President of the Academy of Science at the time, put it aptly when he stated that Heaven + Earth is not a work of science.
The book is extensively referenced with 2311 footnotes. But oddly many of these references directly support the mainstream view of climate change.
Plimer repeatedly quotes the paper that says “climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 degrees C has been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate over the last 420 million years.”
In other words, the geological record shows that doubling CO₂ causes an increase in temperature of at least 1.5 degrees. That is what “climate sensitivity” means: how much warming CO₂ causes.
This aspect of Heaven + Earth was recycled last year by Cardinal George Pell in a letter to the Senate, claiming that temperatures in Roman times were two to six degrees warmer than now, (the opposite of what is implied by Singer’s book).
While Pell cited the references in Plimer’s book as evidence, the reality is that Plimer’s whole section on “Roman Warming” cites seven scientific papers and none of them support this claim.
One of the scams used in Heaven + Earth is to plot graphs on different scales to claim that different data averaging gives different trends.
This device was used in Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear as a simple fictional example of how to fool a gullible jury, though it also seemed to fool many gullible readers.
But, it is Plimer’s misrepresentation of the cited references in Heaven + Earth that really justifies Kurt Lambeck’s statement. Some of these are downright silly, the claim that New Orleans subsided a metre in the three years prior to hurricane Katrina, for example.
Comparable is the claim that the 1991 eruption of volcano Mount Pinatubo emitted large quantities of chlorofluorocarbons, citing a paper that says nothing of the sort. The serious fabrication arises when claiming that satellite measurements of temperature don’t show warming while citing a reference that says the opposite. So far, my analysis of Plimer’s references (http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91) shows 28 cases in which he misrepresents the content of his cited sources.
Finally, there is Garth Paltridge’s own book, The Climate Caper. This contains little science at all.
It is mainly about the institutional pressures that act on scientists. I agree with much of what Garth says, but my observation is that the pressures have largely acted in the opposite direction, inhibiting communication of mainstream climate science when governments found the implications inconvenient.
Thus organisations such as CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology remain muted on the inadequacy of proposals from both sides of politics.
Even those who support Garth’s views think that his book would have been more credible, more “respectable” perhaps, if he had chosen someone other than Monckton - indeed almost anyone other than Monckton - to write the foreword.
Scientists who claim genuinely respectable scepticism destroy their own case when they link their arguments to those who mis-use and misrepresent the processes of science.
Such links expose the activities of groups like the Galileo Movement for what they are: exercises in spreading confusion for political ends.
This is the eleventh part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:


Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community (http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808).
Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why (http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515).
Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy (http://theconversation.com/speaking-science-to-climate-policy-1548).
Part Four: Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet (http://theconversation.com/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544)
Part Five: Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric (http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550)
Part Six: Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review (http://theconversation.com/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552)
Part Seven: When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up on climate change (http://theconversation.com/when-scientists-take-to-the-streets-its-time-to-listen-up-1912)
Part Eight: Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities (http://theconversation.com/australias-contribution-matters-why-we-cant-ignore-our-climate-responsibilities-1863)
Part Nine: A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial (http://theconversation.com/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554)
Part Ten: The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton (http://theconversation.com/the-chief-troupier-the-follies-of-mr-monckton-1555)
Part Eleven: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial (http://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557)
Part Twelve: Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality (http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553)
Part Thirteen: The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change (http://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558)

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... So, bombarding a thread with long posts makes yer look more knowledgable..:hmm:

rutan around, what exactly did atmospheric physicist Garth Paltridge get wrong in his book. He covered many of the global warming 'issues' and made some fairly definite comments. His comments made in his 2009 book about the climate computer models being absolute garbage has been well vindicated...

"...The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/19/climate-scientists-admit-they-were-wrong-on-climate-change-effects/





.

[rutan around]

Bing wants short replies OK
1 the world is warming
2 If it's not mans doing what is the cause?
3 Explain how to fix whatever you think is causing the heating.