Thread: Something to ponder

Ouch! Seeing as we're going there, I really don't understand why, regardless of whether Global Warming is even a thing, anyone would be against not only reducing atmospheric pollution (hooray health and environment), but also decentralising our power production, and taking away our reliance on finite resources from other nations that hold us to ransom on price.
Our entire country basically runs on a handful of power stations and we hold about a week of automotive fuel at any time. Why do we even bother having a military when we have zero energy security?

If anyone wants to make this Political - please start a new thread in Current Affairs - NO POLITICS in this forum please.

Originally Posted by Stuart02

Ouch! Seeing as we're going there, I really don't understand why, regardless of whether Global Warming is even a thing, anyone would be against not only reducing atmospheric pollution (hooray health and environment), but also decentralising our power production, and taking away our reliance on finite resources from other nations that hold us to ransom on price.
Our entire country basically runs on a handful of power stations and we hold about a week of automotive fuel at any time. Why do we even bother having a military when we have zero energy security?

Yes, going big on renewables would certainly increase our energy security, as well as the environmental benefits.

It's obvious where Sitec stands on global warming, an astute observation and understanding, very cryptic...

'When there's smoke, there's plenty of poke!!'
'The more the smoke, the more the poke!!'



Sorry Sitec - couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by 350RRC

It happens in other fields too, where the data gets manipulated to fit the model.

I have a lot of experience with fisheries models for a particular species (non trawl) and have spent a lot of time back in the day helping the modellers getting their outputs looking something like reality, both historic and current, let alone future.

From my experience, it is incorrect to assume that data manipulation is always deliberate. Most times it isn't but just some form of standardisation to make the model more 'accurate' and hence useful, as taught in university by someone with no experience in the real world.

The real problems arise when the model parameters and standardisation of data inputs create outputs that can't even come close to predicting what has been actually been observed in the past (by running these models backwards, normal as a check) and they are still being used to somehow predict the future!

cheers, DL

Yeah I know I'm quoting myself, but to add to the 'science' and 'data' issue, Elders have completely changed their 12 month outlook for rain where I am, in the last 24 hours. This forecast has changed a few times this year, but not as radically as today.

Get a screen shot of the BOM's 3 month rain outlook tonight and see if it is the same in a day or two also.

I never rely on either, and the fisheries model I referred to previously has never been right in 15 years.

The whole point is that all data going into any model needs to be treated with respect, or the model has no chance right from the start.

cheers, DL

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said long ago "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you do read the news you're misinformed"?
How the hell is the ordinary punter supposed to find out the truth when there's so many self interested bastards mostly taxpayer funded, feeding us their own personal agenda?
I'm all for cutting pollution where ever we can but building mostly useless wind farms which only work sometimes (and no one ever talks about the huge energy costs to build them and their massive foundations) solar in places where the sun don't shine, strikes me as just a con job for vested interests.
Of course our hordes of pollies are going to be behind these things.... their futures are what they are interested in and many get jobs after politics with places like the UN or mining companies or the taxpayer subsidised “green energy” providers
AlanH.

Originally Posted by ATH

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said long ago "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you do read the news you're misinformed"?

My sig line...

Originally Posted by ATH

I'm all for cutting pollution where ever we can but building mostly useless wind farms which only work sometimes (and no one ever talks about the huge energy costs to build them and their massive foundations) solar in places where the sun don't shine, strikes me as just a con job for vested interests.

Analysis of typical wind turbines suggests that they generate enough energy to cover their full energy use within 5 to 8 months of operation.

Carbon and Energy payback of a wind turbine — SaskWind

Certainly the money men who finance these things would be well aware of their payback time. It's not a particularly difficult calculation when you have thousands of wind turbines in operation around the world. And the current generation of wind turbines are profitable without any handouts at all.

I've still to understand how anyone can identify an electric car as 'zero pollution'.