Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Man from Nasa slams Salmond coal plan as 'sham'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 31 January 2009
ONE of the world's leading climate change experts yesterday called into question the green credentials of the First Minister, branding his energy policy a "sham".
Click here to read the letter in full

Nasa scientist Dr James Hansen called for Alex Salmond to abandon any plans to allow new coal-fired power stations to be built in Scotland.

He urged that any such stations should be built only if they were fitted with technology – which does not yet exist – to capture and store carbon dioxide, the dangerous greenhouse gas.

The Scottish Government has said it is intending to allow new fossil-fuel power stations, as long as they are "ready" to add the technology at a later date.

In a strongly worded letter seen by The Scotsman, Dr Hansen warned such an approach would not guarantee that a "single tonne" of would be prevented from entering the atmosphere, and would do nothing to halt climate change.

Opposition parties responded by criticising the First Minister's green credentials, and environment groups called for Mr Salmond to act on Dr Hansen's advice. But energy experts warned that new fossil-fuel power stations were essential to prevent the lights going out, particularly as the Scottish Government had rejected new nuclear plants.

In a letter to the First Minister yesterday, Dr Hansen, the head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "Carbon capture and storage readiness is not an adequate solution. It is a sham that does not guarantee that a single tonne of carbon will be captured in practice. Alternative approaches must be considered which ensure an effective moratorium on new unabated coal power."

Carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations accounts for almost 20 per cent of Scotland's emissions. Scotland has a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

The Scottish Government has said it is planning to base the future of its electricity supply on "clean" fossil-fuel power stations and renewables. However, in a consultation that closed yesterday, it put forward a plan requiring new fossil-fuel power stations only to be "ready" for carbon capture and storage, rather than adopting the clean technology from the start.

This has led to fears from environmental groups of new "dirty" power stations pouring emissions into the atmosphere before carbon capture and storage technology becomes viable.

Danish firm Dong Energy has already announced its ambition to build a new coal-fired plant in Hunterston, Ayrshire, which would be "ready" for carbon capture and storage technology, but not kitted out for it from the start.

Duncan McLaren, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, strongly supported the views in Dr Hansen's letter and agreed a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations was vital. He said the letter revealed a "fatal flaw in the Scottish Government's climate change policy, which requires a different stance in their energy policy".

He added: "The climate change implications of new unabated coal-fired power stations are unthinkable."

Mr McLaren said Mr Salmond had to take notice of the letter if he wanted to retain his green credentials. "He would be very unwise to ignore it if he wants to maintain a credible stance that he wants Scotland to be a world leader in tackling climate change.

"My advice to the First Minister would be to accept graciously the input from one of the world's leading experts on climate change and be grateful that he's showing an interest in Scotland's potential for world leadership in these matters."

Mr McLaren said there was no need for new fossil-fuel power stations, and that enough capacity existed to provide Scotland with an electricity supply until 2020, by which time carbon capture and storage technology would be available.

Scottish Labour's environment spokeswoman, Sarah Boyack, said: "The SNP are quick to make big announcements that sound green, but they are not yet serious about putting Scotland on track to meet the big carbon reductions we urgently need to deliver. There is a real danger that if coal-fired power stations are built without carbon capture technology, they will just add to our growing carbon emissions."

And Green MSP Patrick Harvie said approving new coal power capacity would make Scotland "the dirty man of Europe".

However, industry experts argued there was little choice but to have new fossil fuel power stations, particularly as the Scottish Government had ruled out nuclear.

Professor Andrew Bain, an economist and energy expert, stressed that with nuclear power ruled out, there was no option but new fossil-fuel power stations. "It's very dangerous to wait until carbon capture technology is available," he said. "If we wait, there's a considerable risk of power cuts in ten years."

Former Labour minister Allan Wilson agreed new coal-fired power stations would lead to high emissions, and said nuclear was the only option to meet climate change obligations, have a secure supply and keep electricity affordable. "There's no alternative to new nuclear – there's no such thing as clean coal," he said. "There's a place for coal-fired power stations but it has to be in conjunction with nuclear, or emissions will go through the roof."

A Scottish Government spokesman insisted the SNP was leading the way, with the strongest climate change bill in the world, and the Saltire Prize for innovation in marine renewable energy.

He added: "As part of a balanced energy mix, carbon capture and storage has the potential to cut emissions from fossil fuels by 90 per cent and we also need new power stations to play their part.

"Any investment designed to last 30 years will need to be compatible with our ambitious climate change targets and that's why we consulted on whether new fossil-fuel power stations should be ready for carbon capture technology.

"We have the capacity to store carbon in the North Sea and can build on the scientific and engineering expertise in our oil and gas industry and our universities."

Opposition surrounding new coal-fired power stations in Scotland mirrors that in the rest of the UK. A decision on controversial plans to extend Kingsnorth Power Station in Kent is expected later this month.

Dr Hansen took the unprecedented step of testifying on behalf of six Greenpeace activists who vandalised the power station.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

 sm753,

30/01/2009 22:29:29

The "NASA man" has a point.

The Hunterston coal proposal is just as bad (or good) as the one for Kingsnorth.

Makes no difference if it's in Ayrshire or Kent.

(Hint: most things make no difference whether they're in Ayrshire or Kent. Marvellous British places, both of them.)
2

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:02:41

Alec Salmond ate my nuclear hamster
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 00:10:19


What does one expect, when their real forte, is stopping under 21s drinking, and hiding the cigarette's under the counter?

Subjects of great importance on the other-hand, given very little thought!

4

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:10:30



"....Choices among alternative energy sources - renewable energies, energy
efficiency, fossil fuels with carbon capture - these are local matters. But the decision to phase out coal use unless the CO2 is captured fully from the outset is a global imperative, if we are to preserve the wonders of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being......"

I.e. The NASA Professor is saying that Carbon Capture is ok, this is what Salmond proposes

As recent as 19th November 2008, the Scottish Government relased this statement regarding the scoping study for new Clean Coal Plants.

"....New fossil fuel power stations should be ready for carbon capture technology, according to new guidance published today.

The Scottish Government is consulting on requirements that new power stations over 300 Megawatts should be able to incorporate carbon capture technology in the future....."

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/11/19160931

Last May Jim Mather announced work ona common agreement between th Uk and Scottish Government on carbon capture.

"...Scotland will have clear and consistent procedures to regulate revolutionary carbon cutting technology,........The Scottish Government has introduced a Legislative Consent Motion to allow for the introduction of a common framework across the UK for carbon capture and storage....."

You may recall that it was Alistair Darling who prevented BP from establishing the Uk's first Carbon Capture Commercial venture at Peterhead soon after the SNP taking control at Holyrood.

Yes, a union dividend.

More pisss poor research from the north britishman (that's the scotsman not smee)


5

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:11:14


3. Go back to bed mate, your floundering like a beached porpoise


6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 00:12:45


Wardog ~5,

Speak for yourself! :)

7

Forward not Back,

31/01/2009 00:16:44
This is a wind-up, isn't it? China has been the world's biggest polluter yet Scotland, with b ugger all industry to speak of, receives a letter from a bloke whose theorising is being questioned more and more every day (note the subtle switch from the use of 'global warming' to 'climate change' these days).
8

Edward,

31/01/2009 00:18:15
God yet another anti SNP story!
This time its from a'NASA Scientist'
Ive read the letter,the Scientist seems to be missing or ignoring one tiny point and that the proposed new coal fired power stations, would utilise the latest technology to not only scrub, but also capture CO2 emmissions. The difference between what is proposed and what we are used to will be like night and day.
Perhaps the scientist was not provided this information as he certainly does not make any reference to the new processes
9

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:19:02

7. it is a bit rich when American scientist are declaiming others efforts when the sates remains the largest consumer of fossil fuels per capita in the world and has been since the 1940's...... but then again fair comment, Scotland should lead the world in this, in his letter he certainly doesn't advocate nuclear




10

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:19:42

8. I wonder who briefed him.......
11

Wynn,

CLYDESDALE 31/01/2009 00:25:20
Jolly hockey sticks!
12

Fifi la Bonbon,

31/01/2009 00:32:51
It all seems very straightforward to me.

Mister Salmond's government should press on with these revolutionary Danish-built coal fired power stations kitted out with this soon-to-be-invented revolutionary space age carbon capture technology which does not yet exist, with faith in the prospect that the revolutionary carbon capture technology that hasn't been invented yet eventually gets invented. Meantime, they can construct special revolutionary tartan balloons to contain the carboniferous emissions. These will create jobs - unemployed people in Ayrshire can be set to knitting them - and will be a revolutionary tourist attraction and a global imperative, if we are to preserve the wonders of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being.

Sometimes people think we Scots have no get up and go.
13

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 00:39:24
So we are supposed to believe Jim Hansen, the proven, serial liar from NASA? If you need further details of his chicanery go to Steve McIntyre's excellent Climate Audit site:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Check these lies from Hansen:

http://hennessysview.com/2008/11/10/james-hansens-boldest-lie-to-date/

And this takes the biscuit:

http://euro-med.dk/?p=4827

Remember that Hansen is a close affiliate of Al Gore. Says it all really.

http://www.climateaudit.org/
14

subrosa,

31/01/2009 00:42:46
# 10

I was typing that Wardog! This chap's been primed by someone somewhere. I don't think it's a million miles from the stinking Thames either.

Will be interesting to see what other 'experts' say about it then give an opinion.
15

ochone,

Sauchie, Clacks 31/01/2009 00:44:20
This is pretty similar to the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister of Japan.

The Scotsman of course, is as usual, pretty free with its use of adjectives, the doctor is of course perfectly entitled to his opinons as are others and its a pity that, if only for the sake of objectivity it didn't seek some of those.

I doubt if even the good doctor would fully understand the Scotsmans desription of his letter, perhaps its just trying to recover some ground for its unionst chums after they screwed up so badly over the budget.
16

Sanny,

31/01/2009 00:47:41
This so-called expert from NASA is yet another scientific fraudster. The whole question of CO2 has been de-bunked.

Simple facts: - CO2 has only been as low as today's level, twice in the last 500 million years, We have a CO2 poverty in today's atmosphere. If CO2 is causing Global Warming then why were the levels during the last Ice age around 12 times today's value.

The IPCC report only looks at the history of the last couple of hundred years Which is but a moment in the earths history. It is like looking at the changes in temperature from 6am until midday and extrapolating these to midnight and concluding if the temperature continues to rise at the same rate then we will be incinerated by midnight.

Coal is primarily wood that was growing during the Carboniferous period when the vegetation was absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. At the end of the Carboniferous period CO2 levels had fallen to today's level and we were entering a new Ice Age.
17

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 31/01/2009 00:48:09
Hansen has a point, but he is well-kent in America as a global warming paranoiac. Before getting excited about his latest frothing at the mouse, take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
18

subrosa,

31/01/2009 00:49:14
Mr Hansen's old boss at NASA rubbishing his comments:

http://tiny.cc/0KptA

So much on the web about this man, I'd have thought the Scotsman would have checked him out before they wrote this article.
19

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 00:49:38
More Hansen fraud:

http://hennessysview.com/2009/01/06/ill-say-it-again-james-hansen-is-a-fraud-and-a-liar/

For this man to attribute extreme weather event to AGW without any evidence whatsoever is criminal.
20

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 31/01/2009 00:49:55
WOOPS! Should be "mouth', not "mouse". Sorry.
21

John Cameron,

St Andrews 31/01/2009 00:50:59
Few scientists have made more money out of the Global Warming Obsession than James Hansen (Al Gore, of course, made much more but he is not a scientist). Hansen's pejorative work has been heavily funded by the Heinz Organisation, run by John Kerry's wife. In return Hansen strongly supported John Kerry's forlorn presidential run. He is also rolled out in the law courts out to defend acts of terrorism by the Eco-Fascists. Everyone is entitled to their view but Hansen is hardly an impartial observer. Today he is mainly a TV pundit and most of the predictions he made almost 30 years ago at the University of Iowa have not come to pass. In particular, his warning that sea levels will rise by 25 metres in the next few decades but him at the nutty end of even the most extreme Doomsters.
22

,

31/01/2009 00:51:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 00:52:52
16 sanny

Exactly. Also, how dare Hansen claim in his letter that:

"Scientific data reveals that the safe level of atmospheric carbon
dioxide (CO2) is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and is likely less than that. Implications for energy policy are profound, as atmospheric CO2 is already over 385 ppm."

Where is the evidence to support this spurious claim? I guarantee there is none.
24

subrosa,

31/01/2009 00:53:09
Well the letter was given to the Scotsman so someone in the political 'know' is connected. Let me guess ...
25

Sanny,

31/01/2009 00:54:05
Incidentally, Inter-glacial periods (the bit between the Ice ages) are cyclical and usually last 18 - 20 thousand years. We are now 18 thousand years into the current inter-glacial period!!

Maybe we should start learning to build igloos!!
26

Sanny,

Upwey 31/01/2009 00:58:41
21
John Cameron,
I read somewhere that Al gore had read science at Uni - maybe he failed I don't know. Having a science degree does not make you a good scientist. Gore is most certainly a failure except when it comes to making money out of a gullible public.
27

SkeptikScot,

31/01/2009 01:01:04
I must admit I'm a bit confused. We're allowing dirty power stations but not nuclear. Why?
28

murren59,

Isle of Arran 31/01/2009 01:02:16
I think that Hansen - like the Greens'n'Unionists - has his heid well and truly stuck up his own coal hole.
29

,

31/01/2009 01:02:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 01:04:43
27 Think about it......then come back with your answer to your own question.
31

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 01:05:59
Jenny Haworth os either totally naive or a manipulator of fact. I suspect the former.
32

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 31/01/2009 01:08:11
Mr Hansen should stay at home and put his own nation's problems to bed before he starts on ours, particularly with help from MugaBroon. I forecast that this country will be a beacon of environmental progress. Perhaps then we won't need container loads of woolen jumpers from so called bankrupt nations to keep our old yins warm in probably one of the most temperate climate in Northern Europe.
33

clawmaster,

glasgow 31/01/2009 01:08:29
this NASA man sounds like a total muppet.
34

,

31/01/2009 01:14:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 31/01/2009 01:51:00
Which vice president, certainly not the current one. I live here you creton, and the previous administration has virtually brought the World to a stand still. So you were lectureing the Bush Administration, what a load of clap trap. You are obviously sleeping with the enemy, now let me guess, could it be Gordon Brown by any chance?????????????
36

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 31/01/2009 01:55:26
NASA, paid for through TAX DOLLARS, your speach would have been heard on Saturn. Might as well have been, for it has no relevance here in SCOTLAND.. Oh and have a nice day!!!!!!!!!
37

tomi,

31/01/2009 02:43:36
Tell him where to go!!
38

TheScotsman,

Scottish Borders 31/01/2009 04:08:50
Other headlines this balanced newspaper were considering for this article....

SALMOND SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT

WORLD FAMOUS SCIENTIST PROVES SALMOND IS SHAMBOLIC

ALEX SALMOND WORSE THAN CHINA ON POLLUTION

DONT VOTE SNP VOTE LABOUR

WE HATE THE SNP
39

Reekin' Lum,

31/01/2009 04:10:30
Such absolute bunk. The Scotsman, as usual, gripped by the hysteria of global warming, happily reporting the drivel from this "Dr. Hansen" as if it was the gospel. They (Scotsman) and the others like the dreaded Brown have all embarked on this nonsensical ride because of their need to get votes from the "Green" nutters at all cost.
No one has the guts to stand up and say that this whole global warming idiocy is just that-idiocy.
In the absence of some cause they can cling on to ( they being, as usual, the liberal element), no Iraq situation they can feed off ( desperately dissapointed that the US is actually making progress in this arena) what else do they have but to embrace a new piece of rubbish to make their pathetically meaningless lives, meaningful to their pathetic selves.
40

inoui,

31/01/2009 04:22:28
rubbish.
Might aswell start a fire with this report.
41

greenhill,

31/01/2009 04:42:05
RE Edward,31/01/2009 00:18:15 and various posts by the halfwit "Wardoug"

There is no working carbon capture technology.You guys are talking pie in the sky.

The SNP are reflecting the luddite anti-nuclear political culture of Scotland. Meanwhile the rest of the World is moving on :117 new nuclear power stations are planned or are being built.

This is because nuclear technology has changed greatly but Scots do not want to pay attention because so many of us are stuck in a self righteous anti-nuclear past.

Salmond seeks to harness the stupidity of local mass opinion in order to win votes.
42

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 31/01/2009 04:52:28
With at least four articles about it, it looks like today has been marked out as "Anti-SNP Nuclear Policy" day.

As this is the theme for today, I expect some editorial articles about the same in tomorrow's Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday.
43

greenhill,

31/01/2009 05:00:36
RE Col. Blimp­IV*,31/01/2009 04:32:03

YES .

In fact the latest nuclear technology eats up old waste to produce power. The difference between old and new is enormous.
44

greenhill,

31/01/2009 05:04:29
RE For Scotlands Future,Vote for the SNP 31/01/2009 04:52:28

Your comment has no substance with regard to the real issue.You just play the paranoid hurt feelings card and no more.

Go and learn about the latest developments in nuclear technology then make some informed comment.
45

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:06:15
It seems alright to pollute the environment with Nuclear Power stations, but not with coal-fire ones.

Why??

Oh yes!! YOU CAN'T SEE NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND SO THAT'S OK. Politicians and Nuke Power Station operators can pretend it doesn't exist.

You can't have a Carbon Footprint, but you can have as big a Nuclear Footprint as you like.

We are a Carbon-based life form that exhales CO2. Only some politicians could come up with the idea to tax us for that - from which they, naturally, are exempt.

I wouldn't be surprised if politicians start getting Carbon Credits handed out with their expenses.
46

greenhill,

31/01/2009 05:15:19
RE For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:06:15

"It seems alright to pollute the environment with Nuclear Power stations, but not with coal-fire ones."

New nuclear is not the same as old. Get up to speed.
47

Billiam Wallace,

31/01/2009 05:23:22
Hmmm. My comments keep disappearing, not even a "deleted by admin" left behind. Greenhill, if the new power stations are so great why are the English not planning them where they need the power... England? The carbon footprint of nuclear energy is still pretty big due to the energy used for mining, refining, making fuel rods and transporting them across the globe. I reckon that the future of power is in local production using wind and solar power to split hydrogen from water which can then be used to make electricity for charging the car and powering the house of the future.
48

Phil C,

31/01/2009 05:30:37
The man from Del Monte says yes. Thanks for the contribution to the energy debate, but the man from Nasa should take a hike and go back to the USA to attempt a clean up of their emissions. To start chucking words like 'sham' around is plain stupid. The Scotsman loves it of course and the onionists suddenly become experts with green credentials! That's where the damaging sham lies.

But the whole issue is far from finalised. I personally feel that 'dirty' power stations are as objectionable as nuclear ones without a means of disposing of waste. We must find ways of cleaning up after ourselves and not subject the earth to more filth.

Hanson says in his letter, "First Minister, I recognize that you have been a strong supporter of forward-looking actions to mitigate dangerous climate change. We are now at a point that bold leadership is needed, leadership that could change the course of human history."

SNP policy IS forward-thinking. We do need new energy production. The debate goes on. Unfortunately so does the silly and irrelevant sniping from backward-thinking onionists. These people see problems in everything and answers for none.
49

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:33:47
#45
You've been reading too many publicity pamphlets. In theory the old Nuke plants were "safe" too, according to their publicity pamphlets. Unfortunately, real life is different. Isn't it a coincidence that it's the "next generation" of Nuke Power plants (the ones they want to build" that are always safe and reliable, and it's always the "latest developments" which will make them safe.

What is the cost of cleaning up the beaches and the surrounding countryside from all the "accidental" spills at Dunrae, all of which "could never happen"??

25% higher rate of in Leukaemia in children living in East Lothian near Torness??

50-years from now we'll get someone just like you, posting exactly the same comments. "the latest generation of Nuke Plants is safe"; "latest developments in Nuke technology.....".

No, it's not me with my head up my backside, it's you.
50

secretbelter,

east lothian 31/01/2009 05:38:20
the problem alex salmond has that he has no cohesive energy policy,by the end of 2015 approx 8 coalfired power stations require to close due to current legislation re co2 emmissions, the facts are there if as a nation,the uk we do not start resolving this matter now the lights will go out , this i can promise you
51

greenhill,

31/01/2009 05:40:05
Re Billiam Wallace,31/01/2009 05:23:22

The English have to make a decision soon.

The USA has not built a new nuclear power station since 1973 because of the deficiencies of the old style. Now they are building 3 of the new kind.

Pie in the sky ideas are no good: we need action now. New nuclear power stations are being built all over the World. A small nation of luddites will not prevent progress.
52

greenhill,

31/01/2009 05:45:46
RE For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:33:47

I have to say in favour of old style nuclear, in spite of their deficiencies they were no where near as polluting as conventional carbon emmiting power stations. Even old nuclear is a lesser evil.
53

secretbelter,

east lothian 31/01/2009 05:47:41
#50

i must question your stats on helath issues,however i would argue that the buiding of a second nuclear power station at torness would be something that many people in east lothian would support,instead of the blight of windfarms on our beautiful scenery,the only people who gain are the landowners who receive payment for there installation
54

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:55:58
#53
That's a very telling comments:
"The English will have to make a decision soon" - funny, I thought this was the UNITED Kingdom.

"A small nation of luddites will not prevent progress" - so much for democracy, but it was nice of you to recognise us as a Nation.

It seems OK with you for the English to make a choice, but not the Scots. Or are the the Scots only allowed to make a choice, but only if they agree with the English (or with you)??

A bit like the Irish Vote on the EU. They will continue to have a "democratic" vote until they get the result they want.
55

Age of Reason,

Aberdeen 31/01/2009 05:58:13
54 same old rubbish about 'nuclear less polluting'... only as long as the integrity of the equipment is maintained (compare 3 Mile Island... US Babcock's best)and the storage for eternity (contrast potential nuclear Aberfan)

The key to this issue is to prove the carbon capture technology. We've already let Clean Green Beyond Petroleum BP offthe hook with the abandoned Miller extended life experiment. Rerofit this technology to existing stations and THEN, Only Then does this scheme have credibility. We have the expertise, let's fund it.
56

greenhill,

31/01/2009 06:08:54
RE For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 05:55:58 :-"The English will have to make a decision soon" - funny, I thought this was the UNITED Kingdom.

He asked me about the "English”. I answered him. You have taken comments out of context to put together a twisted point. You really are a nutbag.However I shall indulge you.

Scots tend to be very anti-nuclear. The English are less so. Right now there is more chance of a new power station being built in England we shall have to wait and see.

Meanwhile the rest of the World will be festooned with new nuclear whether you like it or not.

Tough luck you ignoramus.
57

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:09:20
#54
"I have to say in favour of old style nuclear, in spite of their deficiencies they were no where near as polluting as conventional carbon emmiting power stations. Even old nuclear is a lesser evil."

Really?? Tell that to the companies who are being pay hundreds of millions to clean up Dunrae.

#55
Medical report on this was reported in this newspaper - or don't you believe what the Hootsman says??

So the people of East Lothian would rather have a nice unobtrusive Nuke Power plant endangering their lives, than the "blight" of a clean energy source?

I think the people who gain are also those who are supplied by the power generated - oh yes, and those that are not poisoned by nuclear pollution that "can't happen", and whose effects may only be seen a generation later.
58

greenhill,

31/01/2009 06:14:31
RE For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:09:20

Having to "clean up Dunrae" is nowhere near as bad as the World wide destruction caused by conventional power:you thickie.

In addition conventional coal spews out masses of radioactive waste.
59

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:22:35
#59 Greenhill
You're still wrong. It is the Westminster Parliament that will make the decision, and unless they have declared UDI, this is the UNITED Kingdom Parliament in which Scottish MP's also get to vote.

BTW: South Africa, last year, decided NOT to build a "new nuclear" plant, throwing out a French proposal and opting for coal-fired ones.

BTW2: Is "new nuclear" a euphemism for "we hope we get it right this time"?
60

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:28:59
#61
I never said that current energy pollution was good, but you don't go and shoot yourself in the head because you have a cold.

Clean up the current power sources and invest in renewable, safely produced energy.

BTW: I always know when someone resorts to personal insults that they hardly believe their own arguments.
61

secretbelter,

east lothian 31/01/2009 06:29:21
#60

who will you blame when the lights go out, what will you say to your children who want to play with their playstation,sorry my principles will not allow me to support nuclear power or coal fired power stations, both have supported the east lothian economy well for many years.
62

greenhill,

31/01/2009 06:32:46
RE:For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:22

You really are a pedantic diddy.The guy asked me about the English and I answered him. Politicians take account of public opinion and would be more likley to build in England.Decisions will be taken soon.

63

me-here,

here 31/01/2009 06:33:16
Jim Hansen?
Is that not the muppets show guy?
64

John S,

The Pans 31/01/2009 06:35:12
#52?#60 secretbelter-Lights going out ? In Scotland ?
Scotlands energy. Load demand varies on a hourly/daily/seasonal basis.The power required on that one day (usually the coldest day of the year) of max demand fluctuates between 2,500MW to 5,500MW and on the min demand day (usually the warmest day of the year) 2,500MW to 3,500MW.

2009-Scotland has about 11,000MW plus of electricity generation capacity incl 7,200MW baseload generation, 1,600MW from Hydro and renewables plus another 800MW from Peterhead PS if the transmission system at Peterhead was upgraded that would give 8,000MW.

2016-Hunterston B (reduced to 840MW) closed and possibly Cockenize Power Station (1,200MW),the possible coal fired Huntertson on load with 1600MW giving a new baseload capacity of 6,800MW or 7,400MW plus Hydro and renewables

2009-We have been exporting all winter (and throughout the years) to England with the peak on 16 Jan 2009 2832MW 22:23:00 GMT and 23 Jan 2009 2859MW 07:03:00 GMT, now this is more than Hunterston plus CPS (total 2,000MW). It looks as if we have spare capacity without these power stations.
65

John S,

The Pans 31/01/2009 06:44:03
#64 secretbelter - I agree nuclear power or coal fired power stations, both have supported the east lothian economy well for many years. Including me ex SSEB and SP.
Scotland doesn't need a nuclear PS just for the sake of one.
Building Torness nuclear power station (and Heysham in England) was "to support the UK engineering industry through what was obviously going to be a lean period".

66

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:47:54
The decision of America to build 3 "new nuclear" plans, the first since 1973, is not just because of deficiencies in the Old style or they are enamoured with the new designs.

It is because they have failed to invest in alternative sources, and the new building will create jobs and reduce dependence on Arab Oil, for which they pay $700bn per year.

They have been caught with their pants down, and this is a "quick fix" solution.

The latest estimates of the "stimulus" required by the "developed" nations will run into several TRILLION $$. Just 1% of that invested in renewable energy over the past 10-years would have seen the end to nuclear power plants.

Just think what could have been developed with $100bn - less than what was handed out to AIG.

The world will be "festooned" with "new nuclear", not because they are right, but because we have corrupt politicians who deliberately failed to invest in renewable energy.

Scotland has one of the few Governments in the world that is standing up and saying "THIS IS WRONG".
67

donald,

glasgow 31/01/2009 06:50:35
Sounds like somebody has been debriefed by the Brits.
68

greenhill,

31/01/2009 06:52:45
REFor Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 06:28:59

The fact is you are stupid and prejudiced against nuclear power. Old style nuclear has saved Scotland and the World and from vast amounts of radioactive pollution because if we had used conventional coal to meet our needs far more radiation would have been spewed out. Now we have new nuclear technology which can even eat up old waste. What a gift.

Coal is the worst fuel. Coal burning has released to the World more than 100 times more radioactivity than all the nuclear power plants in the world.

Mercury released in coal burning contaminates all oceans, rivers, lakes and soil.Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year.

If such consequences occurred from nuclear power, all nuclear plants would be closed.

Clean coal technology does not exist.
69

secretbelter,

east lothian 31/01/2009 06:53:03
#67/68

i bow to your knowledge,however the united kingdom is facing an energy crisis within the next ten years, and this is for various reasons, ageing plant, reliability of certain power stations to provide power to the national grid, all its need is for a few key plants to come off line then we will definetly be faced with power cuts
70

secretbelter,

east lothian 31/01/2009 06:56:48
#71

yes it does a wee bit more research would be advised however it comes at a substantial cost, ever heard of super critical boilers.
71

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 31/01/2009 07:00:53
#67
Thanks for your response to #64. His is an old Unionist argument against Scotland going it alone. "We cannae dae it - the sky will fall doon".
72

For Scotlands Future,

Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 07:21:45
#71
"Clean coal technology does not exist." Yes it does, it's called "Scrubbed Coal", but because of lack of investment, this is expensive.

So your argument is that Coal-Fire is more radioactive than Nuclear Power??

#74
Your analogy never stopped the building of Nuclear plants and the production of nuclear waste "in the hope" that technology will come along to safely get rid of it. That hasn't happened yet either.

As I said to "Greenhill" in post #63, no one argues that Coal-Fire is clean, but you don't shoot yourself in the head because you have a cold. Coal-Fire does not produce nuclear waste for our grandchildren, and we can stop using them at any time in favour of cleaner alternatives.

Of all the countries in the world, Scotland is one with the LEAST need for "new nuclear". We are blessed with alternatives. Lets start investing in them and developing them, instead of being led around by the nose.

As I said, the SNP is one of the few Governments in the world that is standing up and saying the implementation of "new nuclear" instead of investing in alternatives is wrong.

The Westminster government (regardless of who it is) has no intention of investing in alternatives outside that which will buy them votes - and I fear that Obama is the same. Time will tell.
73

terry osser,

morden 31/01/2009 07:26:29
hansen is a discredited nut case. he went before the us senate asking them to pass a law making any dissent to his views on global warming should be criminalised
74

greenhill,

31/01/2009 07:35:54
For Scotlands Future,Vote NO TO NUCLEAR POWER 31/01/2009 07:21:45

You read the points re Coal fire and radioactive waste. You are clearly incapable of comprehending the facts.
At present we do not have clean coal technology that works.



75

pehman,

sussex 31/01/2009 07:42:15

Hansen, isn't he the guy with the muppet show ?
76

greenhill,

31/01/2009 07:50:43
RE pehman,sussex 31/01/2009 07:42:15

You are a muppet. What a dullhead.
77

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Tram City 31/01/2009 07:57:07
what wrong with you unionistas,by the time these power stations are built it will be 2020,So the carbon capture technoligy will be available by then.Never listen to americans who say they are experts,i mean who wonts to listen to a country that gave credit crunches to eat.They stick in your throat.Carry on Alec you doing all right son
78

greenhill,

31/01/2009 08:09:22
RE:-scottishcoffindodgerno1,Tram City 31/01/2009 07:57:07

You write incomprehensible drivel.
79

Gdgy,

31/01/2009 08:39:24
So what...Salmond has promised something that can't be built. Nothing new there...that he has built his entire energy policy on something that can't be done is something we have seen before...
But what is he doing to get the right technology...that is even more telling....this technology will just appear.
80

yockel,

31/01/2009 08:41:53
OK then greenhill, what exactly is "new nuclear?"

Where can we see an example functioning?
81

awhl,

31/01/2009 08:43:30
New coal power stations are possibly even worse than new nuclear. Carbon capture is a never never technology just round the corner a bit like nuclear recycling. Unlike the kingsnorth decision which is being vociferously opposed by all we in Scotland are expected to follow the nats line or have our scottish credentials questioned.
How long is the editor going to allow these unmoderated attacks on his journalists and staff continue? Surely it is a failure of his duty of care to his staff to continue to publish unmoderated attacks on his staff?
Can we not have a proper commens section like the herald and guardian please?

82

Rodster,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 08:43:52
Like most people on here I am no expert ,or scientist ,and like most people on the earth I worry about climate change pollution etc.
Problem is that on this thread we have nuclear fanatics like Greenhill ,insulting anyone that has the temerity to disagree with him.
For Scotland's Future that will never countenance any nuclear .
We have people rubbishing Dr Hansen , and when you check the people discrediting him they have referred us to Right wing American religious Nutters articles condeming the good doctor.
We also have people saying wind turbines will make our countryside ugly so let us take a risk with nuclear now that is plain stupid .
The truth is nobody knows 100% is there or is there not global warming?
Remember the millenium bug that was going to have planes crashing out the sky , power stations blowing up etc etc.
Turned out to be a con and was backed by eminent scientists.
WMD , etc etc etc governments and politicians lie and cheat so no wonder we the public are confused.
I think we have to err on the side of caution , my gut not facts tell me that nuclear is still too dangerous, clean coal , carbon capture I just dont know ,but it sounds more plausible than nuclear, and also the technology sounds more likely than cleaning up nuclear waste.
So guys can we keep it civil here and try and have a rational unpoliticised debate .
Unionists because SNP like a technology don't rubbish it , Nationalists , likewise just because SNP like something no need to close eyes and ears to all other arguments this is too important for all that nonsense.
83

Ananurhing,

31/01/2009 08:50:34
True story. I've slashed my heating oil bills by around 70%. I bought a multi fuel stove and a chainsaw. The former inhabitant of my house told me that many years ago he had about 20 tons of coal dumped behind the house. He stopped using it and it grew over. I explored and right enough, there it was. I've now got my own small open cast operation going on, and I burn a combination of wood and coal.

Point is, times are getting tough. As soon as it's available, I'll install a Beck Meikle domestic hydro generator. I'd like to have a ground heat exchanger and maybe some solar panels once the technology improves. Meanwhile, there's all that coal there. It's available to me, so I'm going to make full use of it. If a crusading nutter from the most polluting country on the planet knocks on my door to lecture me, I'll introduce him to my slagheap.

Scotland is a small, sleepy, under resourced emerging nation. We need to make full use of all our natural resources, until we can invest in a better way of doing things. Like I said, times are hard.
84

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 31/01/2009 08:50:50
When will people wake up to the fact that man made climate change is a myth used by self-appointed consultants to grab cash and fame and governments to raise more taxes.

Get on and build the coal power stations - the Chinese are building one per week anyway.
85

Border Thistle,

Kirkcaldy 31/01/2009 08:54:19
As a technophile I question the effectiveness of a nuclear power generation policy. Two points...there is a limited(very)reserve of uranium in the world. after peak oil we will have peak uranium with all that entails in terms of escalating world prices and international tensions to secure supply. Now why would any country want to go down that road? Maybe because they don't have coal reserves. Scotland does...Fife is made of coal! Have a look at your house insurance policy...it will outline a disclaimer against paying out for a nuclear accident and the Government could not afford to pick up the tab. So if you are in the downwind plume from Torness( all of Fife) you should be a bit worried. In other words if it's a safe technology...why is it uninsureable??
86

Brideun,

Culloden 31/01/2009 08:57:28
I believe that France is almost totally nuclear for power supply, can the many experts on this site have information on any problems that have occurred during the installation and subsequent operation. Surely the proof of the pudding one way or the other/
87

Abesaidwhat,

Minnesota 31/01/2009 09:05:33
Mr Hansen wants to put oil and coal firm chiefs on trial for crimes against humanity.

Climate change is happening, emissions have an affect, and the majority say mankind is culpable.

I think we all have to make our minds up where the truth lies and what our responsibilities are.
88

Gdgy,

31/01/2009 09:07:40
Amazing how many SNpites are suddenly experts in so many diffrent fields...OR could it just be that Salmond has got this one wrong?
Or are all the experts wrong? I wonder...now who has previous for winging it when they didn't know the answer?
89

Unimpressed one,

31/01/2009 09:08:30
It's interesting to hear what the former boss of "man from Nasa" , John Theon has to say about him.

NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results," Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress," Theon wrote.

Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neit
90

Unimpressed one,

31/01/2009 09:11:19
"Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.

So the was is basically a fraud, like his pal Gore. And look how many have been suckered by the snake-oil peddlers.
91

Unimpressed one,

31/01/2009 09:14:47
Note how experts say we NEED coal-fired stations built now, whilst eco-freaks, such as McLaren, think not. Even some of the Libdums think renewables can power the whole country. Just how ignorant can you get?
92

Border Thistle,

31/01/2009 09:20:56
#Brideun....on the other hand Germany has few if any nuclear power stations. However she does have Europes largest wind and solar power generating capacity. which would you rather have...an out of control french Nuclear plant or a rogue wind turbine??
93

TWC,

31/01/2009 09:28:58
Right enough America are the leaders in cutting Greenhouse gases. Isn't it amazing how many of them pop up in the UK telling us how we should do thing in eg
Global warming
the Economy etc
and they've made such a good job of it haven't they.
This guy shouild go home and sort the US first.
94

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 31/01/2009 09:35:12
Hansen is just about the most discredited scientist in the history of the 'global warming' debate. Hansen 'created' the infamous 'hockey stick' graph which showed that the world's temperature was going off the scale like a rocket. Whem I say he 'created' it - I really mean that - he made it up - and Al Gore used it in his appalling film and every lecture he ever gave. In order to prove that the earth was now warmer than it has ever been - he deliberately omitted the Mediaeval Warm Period - a period of about 400 years when Europe was MUCH warmer than today. This was the time - from about 800AD t0 1300 AD when all the great cathedrals were built in East Anglia - and they are filled with scultpures of fat lambs, grapevines and sheaves of wheat. England was an agricultural Eden at that time and huge amounts of wealth poured in - hence the era of cathedral building. Hansen also left out the period fron 1936 - 46 when the Arctic was more than 6 degrees C warmer than it is today. So, the man is a plain fraud who does not merit the label 'scientist'. He and Gore are the two greatest sellers of snake oil since Barnum & Bailry.
95

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 09:39:33
Two years after James E. Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general report said 'our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public.'

96

frank mcbride,

lusitania 31/01/2009 09:39:46
#48, Billiam

Indeed, strange things going on.

I, simply, criticised the remarks of Allan Wilson, former Labour Minister, on dirty technology.

Nuclear is not "clean" and never has been. In fact it will become dirtier, in the next few decades, as it becomes more difficult to extract the raw material required.

Also, with all the talk of energy security, why would we even consider being beholden to a foreign power for the necessary means of production?

I wonder how long this comment will last. Will it just disappear like my earlier comment?
97

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 09:43:30
Tweedmouth: The so-called 'hockey stick' is not a fiction. It is the graph of earth's mean temperature against as measured and verified by scientists worldwide.
98

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 09:43:49
against time
99

Finnzz,

31/01/2009 09:48:20
Hansen has been debunked as a charlatan and a qu@ck. Why the Scotsman gives so much credence to him is a clear demonstration of their political bias against the SNP.

That is the only reason this story has been given such promenance.

The advocates of Nuclear power forget the carbon footprint created by the plant build, fuel transport, waste disposal and unit decommissioning. Add it all together and there is no appreciable savings in either costs or pollution.
100

Unimpressed one,

31/01/2009 09:50:28
#104, "The so-called 'hockey stick' is not a fiction. It is the graph of earth's mean temperature against as measured and verified by scientists worldwide."

And Hogswart Castle is a privately funded school in the borders. Does your gullibility know no bounds?
101

greenhill,

31/01/2009 09:51:09
Oh dear I see the nutbags are out in force once again.

e.g.Border Thistle,Kirkcaldy Who worries about the limited reserves of uranium.

That is not a problem : Right now we have around 80 years of known supply .We can also reprocess used fuel , build fast breeder reactors. Then we could use thorium of which there is 3 to 4 times as much.



102

Pilrig,

Livingston 31/01/2009 09:52:08
54 Stick with auld-style nuclear,sooner or later we wont need lights - we'll all glow in the dark !
103

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 31/01/2009 09:52:39
If you look up the statistics you'll find that Scotland, like France, exports electricity to England and Wales everyday. So, cut the connection and we'll have plenty of spare power (using just the sources we already have).

Job done.
104

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 09:53:58
Someone should have tried a wee bit of research on this "expert" before headlining him .
Seems that there are innumarable scientists who ain't too fond of the chap and his theories.

Somebody remind me what Scotlands carbon footprint is reckoned to be, then the U.S of A's and China's???
Indeed ,I would be most interested to know what London alone belches out!

Now about nuclear , I see someone mentioned that totty wee problem of WASTE.
Don't want it , did'nt vote for it and I'm no hivin' it!

Surely this article has'nt been influenced by nuclear lobbyists? No , did'nt think so.
105

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 09:55:05
innumerable!
106

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 09:58:03


108. 80 year uranium supplies for whom?


Who did you calculate this, is this base don the current nuclear sites or new ones?

Thanks for confirming that nuclear isn't renewable.


107

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:00:59
Dr. Hansen was a long term critic of the Bush administration's energy policy.

In recent years he has also criticised the UK, German and Canadian Governments about their future energy plans.

Dr. Hansen himself has been criticised by many in North America for being a self-publicist!
108

greenhill,

31/01/2009 10:07:31
RE Finnzz,31/01/2009 09:48:20 You are another halfwit.


Studies have already been done that look at the carbon footprint over the complete lifecycle for various energy generation types. Here's a summary, in gCO2/kWh:

Coal: > 1000
Coal gasification: 800
Oil: 650
Gas: 500
Biomass: 25 to 93
Photovoltaics: 35 to 58
Wave/tidal: 25 to 50
Hydroelectric (reservoir): 10 to 30
Hyroelectric (run of river): 5
Wind: 5
Nuclear: 5

Nuclear power has one of the lowest carbon footprints available, and is the only low-footprint baseload technology that can be deployed anywhere, regardless of local weather conditions. Coal produces 200 times the carbon footprint of nuclear on a watt-for-watt basis.
109

greenhill,

31/01/2009 10:09:44
RE Wardog™,31/01/2009 09:58:03


80 years from known supplies at current consumption rates and we could look for more. Then we have all the other alternatives I mentioned.
110

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:10:23
Greenhill, Folk in East Lothian are fighting to halt the construction of an Incinirator.. You dont speak for the people of East Lothian on any issues.
111

greenhill,

31/01/2009 10:13:06
RE Queen D,Glasgow 31/01/2009 09:53:58

Waste is not a problem for new Nuclear.In fact we have new nuclear technology that generates power from old high level waste turning it into low level waste.
112

greenhill,

31/01/2009 10:16:53
RE Beachcomber,Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:10:23

What a looney. What are you on about. I never claimed to speak for the people of East Lothian.
You can shove East Lothian right up your fundament.
113

A Crofter,

Western Isles 31/01/2009 10:19:47
Does it need a rocket scientist to confirm that A FatMouth hasn't a green bone in all that blubber?

Pity we can't somehow harness all his hot air - though it would need a good scrubbing before release into the atmosphere.
114

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:20:27
Scotland is supposed to be a smoke free zone in law coal fired power stations produce smoke so therfore will be against the smoke free law, so no to coal.
co2 scrubbers are not efficient only about 30% so a waste of money but you still get smoke. The EU will probabally fine us for increasing polution. incidently people are being threatened with £1000 fine for using coal in their fires at home so how do you condone one and not the other (fusion power is close to being on its way France has a experimental station thats ready to go comercial no radiation and no need for fuel it works like the sun
115

Charles MN,

31/01/2009 10:21:02
#113
The current known Uranium resources are 5.5 million tonnes. The world currently uses 65,000 tonnes a year. By my sums that gives about 80 years supply. That is not to say there isn't far more uranium that hasn't been found yet.

As was said in #108 there are also many techniques to re-use uranium. As well as the use of thorium.

The Chinese are extracting uranium from waste from coal fired power stations. We use the same waste to build homes and schools.

Any one who is basing their arguments against nuclear power on a shortage of uranium doesn't know what they are talking about.
116

Selgovae,

31/01/2009 10:21:20
I think the Scotsman omitted the final part of the letter. I believe it goes like this:

...We must solve the coal problem now.

One of my plans is the construction of a hyper-advanced carbon removal system that has been developed at NASA. The technology for this is now finalised. But, First Minister, as you know, there are people in the USA, such as my former supervisor, who wish to make the fulfillment of my dreams for a green and better world impossible, and will stop at nothing to ensure my plans end in failure. The siuation here is desparate. But there is a slim hope. My esteemed friend and mentor, former vice-president Al Gore, has accululated the financial resources to construct such a system. We are now looking for a country that will support our important work. You name was given to us as a forward-looking and brave world leader. In brief, we are willing to forward the funds to your government on condition that you implement the system according to our specificatins. All we ask of you is assistance in releasing the funds from their present location in a Swiss bank account. As we are presently unable to forward monies to our legal representatives in Switzerland, we need you to forward the sum of $10,000 to our representatives' bank account, details of which are written below. Meanwhile, we need the details of your government's account into which the sum of $12 billion can be deposited. As soon as we have such details, and our representatives are able to continue, the sum will be immeditaely transferred to your account.
117

Nevsky;,

Moscow 31/01/2009 10:23:42
120 Crofter#

Says someone who burns either oil or fossil fuel in his house!
118

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 31/01/2009 10:27:06
The solution to the nuclear waste issue is simple: stick it on old, now decommissioned Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and blast it into space towards the sun. These missiles are easily converted to such a task and the sun won't mind.

If a few explode on take off, then provided they are launched from somewhere uninhabited, it won't make much odds to the natural background radiation around the world.
119

greenhill,

31/01/2009 10:34:28
RE Nevsky;,Moscow 31/01/2009 10:23:42

What about that guy earlier on #88 with an open cast coal mine in his back garden.It must be true because you could not make that up. I bet the coal was stolen in the first place.

Then he says he has bought a chainsaw.What that means is that he takes his 4x4 and chainsaw out to Forestry Commission land then loads up with wood before driving home with a smug expression on his face.
120

Jim A A,

oban 31/01/2009 10:42:37
re. 67 John S the pans
It is good to get actual figures to look at rather than simple rhetoric when discussing a subject as important as this and jou seem to be knowledgable on this subject.
However I cannot get your figures to add up and it may be that some are missing .
Can you please clarify the following to assist me and other interested but less knowledgable than yourself to fully understand Scotlands current and projected to 2016 energy position.
Breakdown of current and 2016 baseloads i.e. how do you arrive at the 11,000 MW total?
( you make no mention of Torness)
Upgrading of the Peterhead transmission systemwould increase the power station generation from 800MW to what?
I,d appreciate any other knowledgable input in terms of figures rather than mere words and opinions which without accurate figures are next to useless.
121

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:50:16
Very interesting comments and links on here, particularly from connaughtboy. I actually skim-read this article; normally when I see the by-line of Jenny Haworth, Der Schotte's resident tree-hugger, I just turn the page. And I repeat the charge I suspect got me red pencilled yesterday - The Scotsman's Editorial Policy is shamefully Pro-Labour, Pro-Unionist and therefore anti SNP.
122

drew 33,

duddingston 31/01/2009 10:53:18
James Hansen Al Gore disciple and proponent of the infamous "hockey stick" forecast to Congress in 1988 that the global mean temperature would rise by 1°C by 2008.In fact the present temperature is 0.35°C below the 1988 level.
123

frank mcbride,

lusitania 31/01/2009 10:53:44
#122, Charles MN.

No. of nuclear plants to more than double over the next 25/25yrs.

Known reserves of fuel: 80yrs @ present rate, therefore there will be less than 40yrs, in reality.

Why should we be beholden to foreign powers for our energy security? Is this not the new warcry?

If, and when Fusion is perfected, I, for one will be only too happy to support it, but until then I will continue my opposition to WMD based dirty nuclear.
124

The Strategist,

31/01/2009 10:56:05
The man from NASA is completely wrong. The Norwegians have an operating carbon capture technology as do the Canadians, Germans and Americans. Most are based on Amine absorbtion technology.

It's true that the UK doesn't but that's not unusual.
125

greenhill,

31/01/2009 11:04:17
RE frank mcbride,lusitania 31/01/2009 10:53:44

You really are willfully stupid.Several alternatives were mentioned along with the fact we could find new reserves.

Now just to make sure:

SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES WERE MENTIONED.

What part of that do you not understand?
126

drew 33,

31/01/2009 11:06:51
104 fred bloggs
Time to call on your idol and mentor "Slioch" he can always bulk out your daft notions with largely irrelevant trivialities. That "hockey stick" has been well debunked, not least its forecast of a current global temperature of 15°C against an actual of 14°C
127

greenhill,

31/01/2009 11:09:40
RE The Strategist,31/01/2009 10:56:05

What disengenuous rubbish.
128

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 31/01/2009 11:12:06
its another IF & BUT story.
why not print some of the blog time stories from yesterday,yes the one you removed.
129

ten pound tourist,

Australia 31/01/2009 11:16:29
the man that went ahead of the first steam train was classed a hero
130

jdships,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 11:17:05
Interestingly Salmond ticks all the same boxes as Hansen .
Says something doesn't it !!!!!!!!!!!!!
131

tartangladbach,

edinburgh 31/01/2009 11:18:14
another alister campbell trick, get a story a lazy unionist editor will like for the headline! ignore the the big story how scottish labour shot it's self in the foot again this week over the budget!
132

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 11:18:16
132 JayDeeTee,31/01/2009 11:01:35
#1. Smee. "(Hint: most things make no difference whether they're in Ayrshire or Kent. Marvellous British places, both of them.)"
Except people in Kent know not where Ayrshire is, nor do they care.
======================================================

What a load of rot.

I suppose you could place every English county on a map?
133

TWC,

31/01/2009 11:18:23
133 greenhill

You are painfully stupid, only a fool would introduce something that creates waste while having no disposal method.
We await the promised definition of waste disposal promised by Labour many years ago.
134

The Strategist,

31/01/2009 11:21:07
#135

Truth hurts eh...
135

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 31/01/2009 11:22:16
How dare Hansen say that Salmond's plan is a sham. Salmond is a sham.
136

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 11:24:01
Looks like Wardog and Nevsky will not be able to adopt these 2 kids after all.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Gay-adoption-set-to-be.4930358.jp
137

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 11:24:01
Jim Hansen is a first class scientist who has been attempting to alert the world to the dangers of climate change for decades. The changes he advocates would mean considerable disruption to existing technologies based on fossil fuel usage and the wealth streams associated with them. As a result he is the subject of numerous scurrilous smear campaigns, some of which have already been regurgitated on this thread.

The difficulty for readers who have not delved into this subject in detail is to decide who is telling the truth. Perhaps one clue is that not one person has so far referred to any of Hansen's many peer-reviewed publications. Instead, we have the usual inaccurate misinformed garbage comments from people like Sanny, Unimpressed One and Tweedsmouth.

So let me suggest that if you wish to read one paper by Hansen that you look at the following:

www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

This answers Connaughtboy's question, "how dare Hansen claim in his letter that:
"Scientific data reveals that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and is likely less than that. Implications for energy policy are profound, as atmospheric CO2 is already over 385 ppm."

You may not like it, but the fact remains that all competent scientific evidence and theory points strongly in the direction that Hansen indicates.

This is not not a matter of Unionists versus Nationalists, or a Marxist/fascist plot to tax you more, or a greeny conspiracy to take over the world. It is a matter of the survival of the planet, in terms of agriculture, human population, sea level and biodiversity.

If you find that difficult to accept, just ask yourself one question: "How would I react if there really was a threat to the planet and human civilisation caused by a complex environmental change?" The answer, for many people undoubtedly appears to be, "With denial, with business as usual, and by denigrating those who woul
138

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 11:25:07
Contd.

The answer, for many people undoubtedly appears to be, "With denial, with business as usual, and by denigrating those who would try to warn me."

139

Charles MN,

31/01/2009 11:25:59
#130

Yes if you double usage then the current known reserves would last half as long but you may be tempted to go and look for more when that happens. We have so much known reserves of uranium that little exploration has occurred in the last 30 years. That is also the reason that breeder reactor research was abandoned and is also the reason that reprocessing of waste is not done in most of the world ( it is cheaper just to use new stuff).

As has been mentioned above, there are other fissile elements that can be used such as thorium which alone would multiply the available resources by 3 or 4.

It is also true that modern power stations are more efficient that older ones so a doubling of the numbers of plants wouldn't double the consumption.

If you want to argue against nuclear power find some other argument as trying to suggest there is a shortage of fissile material just makes you look ignorant.
140

greenhill,

31/01/2009 11:26:03
RE TWC,31/01/2009 11:18:23

Waste is not a problem for new nuclear .In addition we now have technology that generates power from old high level waste and turns it into low level waste.
The real problem is the luddites like you
141

TWC,

31/01/2009 11:31:44
148 greenhill,
If you don't mind I'll wait for the official proposal from those qualified and in the Specific Government position to advise us.
Not an unidentified labour Troll, I am not telling you not to build Nuclear Stations just not until the waste disposal is (Professionally ) defined.
142

John Methven,

Blackburn 31/01/2009 11:34:35
If a country in the Geographical position of Scotland cant be self sufficient as far as power goes then God help the rest of the world (by the way Scotland has always been there) John from Blackburn England
143

Westfield Bairns,

Vote SNP for a better future 31/01/2009 11:35:25
Deary me as this letter is from a man from NASA he must be right, erm not quite. Carbon capture as mentioned already is technology already being used in other Countries but not the UK at present. Mr Hansen has already predicted climate change research which has, lets say, not quite hit the mark.
This story from the Scotsman unfortunatly sounds like what it is, a bit of Unionist propoganda
144

nick,

Cumbernauld 31/01/2009 11:35:36
#127
There will be an article in the February Scots Independent newspaper which will detail the present and future Electricity generationn capacity situation in Scotland.
145

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 11:40:49
Sorry Greenhill, but I ain't buying it!



E-Mail Article

Listen to Article

Printer-Friendly

3-Column Format

Translate

Share Article

Text Size

BRUSSELS: As France presses ahead with building more next-generation nuclear reactors, new evidence emerged Friday to suggest that industry and governments may be unprepared to handle the increasingly toxic waste that will result.

Highlighting the importance of the technology in France, both as its main source of electricity and as a major export industry, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced late Thursday that Électricité de France, Europe's biggest power producer, was awarded the contract to develop a second atomic reactor using next-generation technology.

EDF beat competition from the gas and power company GDF Suez to lead the construction at an existing nuclear site at Penly in northern France.

Areva, the company based in Paris that designed the so-called EPR, says the new system will generate far more electricity more safely than previous reactors, is easier to construct, and will last longer.

Areva, the world's biggest reactor maker, also says the EPR - which is expected to generate more than 1,600 megawatts, making it more powerful than any other reactor in commercial use - will use about 15 percent less uranium and produce 30 percent less waste.

Today in Business with Reuters
U.S. economy posts fastest decline in 26 yearsDespite sliding profits in 4th quarter, Exxon sets record for 2008Obama moves to reverse Bush's labor policiesBut an anti-nuclear group said that information it gleaned from industry reports - publicly available but which have received little attention so far - show that waste from the EPR will be more radioactive by a factor of seven because more uranium is burned up. That will make it more expensive to handle and store safely, according to Greenpeace, which provided the details on Friday to the International Herald Tribune.
146

greenhill,

31/01/2009 11:41:43
Waste from new nuclear is not a big problem.The real problem is luddism.

Anyway the fact is that the World will be festooned with new nuclear power stations.The luddite idiots who have defacated the contents of their minds on this thread will just have to lump it.

147

New Town Resident,

31/01/2009 11:42:34
#145. Seen the evidence given by Dr. Theon, Hansen's NASA predecessor and ex boss to the US Senate (just released)? He said

1. Hansen manipulates figures and his models are unreliable.

2. He has brought NASA into disrepute.

Your scientific consensus means the IPCC doesn't it, as opposed to the 1600 scientists who have issued statements disagreeing?

I believe there are about 45 panel scientists who officially endorse the IPCC reports although some say they only endorse some chapters and not others. Right?

However these people change over time. Help me, how many previous members of the IPCC have now resigned and disassociated themselves from the IPCC?
148

drew 33,

duddingston 31/01/2009 11:44:08
145 Slioch
"Jim Hansen is a first class scientist"
On the contrary Hansen has been shown to justify his theories with false and falsified statistics in addition to his many hysterically extravagant claims on global warming.
149

New Town Resident,

31/01/2009 11:46:51
~153. If you go to the National Grid website and look up the 7 year statement you will see this information is freely available. National Grid will also give you detailed spreasheets which break out Scottish stations in detail if you ask them. So you don't have to wait for the February edition of the Scottish Independent. (what is this by the way, sorry not familiar with it)
150

Calum10,

31/01/2009 11:55:08
It has taken the Scotsman a while but it has got its headline:

ALEX SALMOND BLAMED FOR GLOBAL WARMING

What next?

ALEX SALMOND BLAMED FOR GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH.

ALEX SALMOND EAT MY HAMSTER.

The Scotsman's hatred of Wee Eck has run it's journalistic course. There is no more mileage in it.
151

TWC,

31/01/2009 11:55:35
154 Queen D,Glasgow

You must have really hit a nerve there!
152

New Town Resident,

31/01/2009 11:57:19
#150. Neither the time nor place to debate nuclear diposal options in detail. However I think they already are very well defined - there are quite a few public domain papers on the DECC website. The issue is political and cannot be solved by scientific rationality.

But in very crude summary in order of decreasing danger/pollution the options are threefold;

1. Store on site in water tanks
2. Reprocess
3. Store underground in stable rock formation encased in concrete

We are of course doing 1. and 2. already and the politics is simply about people trying to block option 3.

The existing waste isn't going to go away, so this is of course a completely illogical approach if people were really concerned about safety.

153

greenhill,

31/01/2009 11:57:58
RE TWC,31/01/2009 11:55:35


Queen D has done an edit>Copy edit>paste job of an anti nuclear article from another newspaper.

Yawn
154

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 31/01/2009 12:01:55
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/#more-5352

Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predicti
155

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 31/01/2009 12:04:17
hANSEN CONTINUED
Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added

Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges 'notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming' & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.
156

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 12:05:36


144. Another Day and another Badge for Rufus

Bigot
Racist
Misogynist
Sexist
Pist Artiste
HM Iron Cross

and now homophobe....


The union brigade must be proud that this little cub scout has won so many badges.

No doubt got his 'bob a job' from washing AM2's car

157

ThePeter,

Glasgae 31/01/2009 12:06:10
One lier (the NASA "scientist") doubting another lier

Would be amusing if it was not going to potentially cost us billions....
158

E300,

31/01/2009 12:14:17
Charlatan Dr James Hansen warned the American Congress of the dangers of "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming in 1988.
Global mean temperature January 1988...14.35°C January 2008...14.03°C. Yes, a fall of 0.32°C in 20 years.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/monthly
Hansen can't even distiguish between positive and negative far less acceleration and deceleration.
159

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 12:16:32
# 156 New Town resident,

As for Dr John Theon. I had never heard of him until very recently, and I'm sure neither had you, whereas I've been reading Hansen's works for years. Perhaps you should do a bit of digging to find out a bit more about Theon before believing everything he writes. Perhaps this will help:

"M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe's claim that Theon was Hansen's supervisor is completely untrue:"

"Gavin Shmidt writes:

"Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations."

See: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
160

St Caledonia,

31/01/2009 12:19:32
There are over 4000 government officials and paid for scientists feeding of a 4 billion dollar slush fund dedicated to the climate change lie.
The Earth is currently in a cooling period, which is why the term "global warming" was cleverly replaced with the term "climate change" it almost happened unoticed.
161

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 12:21:11
BTW "Dr Gavin Shmidt" in the above should, of course, have had a "c" between the S and the h. But The Scotsman swear-word police reckoned that that would be code for S.h.i. etc so wouldn't let me write it. It's absolutely barmy! You just couldn't make it up.

162

GlenB,

31/01/2009 12:21:32
A good article here refers to Hansen http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3302471/a-cooling-ardour.thtml

Also to his former boss at NASA who thinks "man-made global warming theory is anti-scientific bunk:"
163

getinnnn,

Scotland 31/01/2009 12:30:39
The only good "ONE of the world's leading climate change experts" is a dead " ONE of the world's leading climate change experts". Maybe He should just stop breathing and putting out "deadly" carbon dioxide.
164

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 12:30:44
Tell me Wardog, what is it that makes you proud to be Scottish?
165

greenhill,

31/01/2009 12:34:00
RE GlenB,31/01/2009 12:21:32

Melanie Phillips is a weird right wing headbanger.When you turn to her views as some kind of evidence then you really have lost the plot yourself.
166

Alexander,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 12:35:16
#145 Slioch
"The changes he advocates would mean considerable disruption to existing technologies based on fossil fuel usage and the wealth streams associated with them. As a result he is the subject of numerous scurrilous smear campaigns, some of which have already been regurgitated on this thread."
Time you changed that well worn record. You obviously don't subscribe to that other equally stupid conspiracy theory that the Global Warming Brigade have been infiltrated by the energy companies allowing them to charge increased prices for their diminishing reserves with relative impunity.
167

greenhill,

31/01/2009 12:35:45
RE St Caledonia,31/01/2009 12:19:32


Medication time for you. Now take your pills and have a wee lie down.
168

Ananurhing,

31/01/2009 12:36:50
#126 Greenhill

You're a nippy wee presumptious toad, with a chronically jaundiced view of the world and those around you. Your presumptions are a highland mile off the mark, and says more about you and your judgement than anything else.

The point I was making is that Scotland is an under resourced small country, with an abundance of natural resources to hand.

Try dealing with the point rather than knee jerk conjecture, and being as objectionable as you obviously are.

For the record, I don't have an off road 4X4, have never felled a tree for fuel or stolen timber from anyone, and don't really have anything to be smug about. Just because other people are giving you and your arguments a thorough kicking, don't lash out at me with your insults and made up guff! Cretinous midget!
169

greenhill,

31/01/2009 12:45:33
RE Ananurhing,31/01/2009 12:36:50


I am amazed you took that post seriously.

I have had no serious challange to any of my arguments..The fact you say so shows you to be just another fool.
170

British flag,

31/01/2009 12:45:43
When a guy from NASA calls salmond a TW-T you can bet your bottom dollar that's exactly what he is!
171

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 31/01/2009 12:46:13
A scientist from NASA accuses us of fouling the atmosphere! Talk of the Kettle calling the Tea-pot black!
172

traprain,

31/01/2009 12:47:57
175 Alexander
I used to work for an oil company, it always made a lot more sense to sell a barrel of oil for $45 at a profit of $25 rather than sell 2 barrels at $30 for a profit of $20. The Greens are great facilitators for higher prices.
173

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 12:52:07
88 Ananurhing,31/01/2009 08:50:34
True story. I've slashed my heating oil bills by around 70%. I bought a multi fuel stove and a chainsaw. The former inhabitant of my house told me that many years ago he had about 20 tons of coal dumped behind the house. He stopped using it and it grew over. I explored and right enough, there it was. I've now got my own small open cast operation going on, and I burn a combination of wood and coal.
======================================================

What a story.

You should write a book.

You could call it "How I Slashed my Heating Oil Bills using a Chainsaw".

A guaranteed bestseller.

Maybe even "The Heating Oil Bill Chainsaw Massacre".
174

greenhill,

31/01/2009 12:54:23
Is he filling in the holes in his mine with chainsaw chopped bodies?
175

JCA REID,

Annan 31/01/2009 12:54:34
Some cheek coming from this NASA fella! Why not close down the coal mines in West Virginia?
& as for "Scottish" Labour....they'd jump on any passing bandwagon....their 'green credentials' are variable.
So folk are worried about the CO2 emissions - plant MORE trees....the tree-line in Scotland is deliberately kept 1000-1500feet TOO LOW anyway!
176

Ananurhing,

31/01/2009 12:55:25
#182 What's you're point Rufus?
177

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 13:00:15
88 Ananurhing,31/01/2009 08:50:34
Point is, times are getting tough. As soon as it's available, I'll install a Beck Meikle domestic hydro generator. I'd like to have a ground heat exchanger and maybe some solar panels once the technology improves.
============================================================
This could be a second book.

"Why I left my Wife for a Beck Meikle domestic hydro generator and ground heat exchanger".

Amazon would sell millions.
178

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 13:01:54
185 Ananurhing,31/01/2009 12:55:25

You would get a £1000 fine for burning coal and/or wood if you lived in Edinburgh.
179

The Jannie,

Out there, watching 31/01/2009 13:05:16
See Al Gore exposed at : www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/2008/12/the_twelve_days_of_global_warm_1.html
180

Son of one of Stirlings finest,

Weston S Mare 31/01/2009 13:07:01

I have slashed my heating bills by 70% by reading all Rufus T Firefly's side splitting quips, I laugh so much I nearly overheat. Well done Rufus, you are without doubt the premier wit on these threads.
181

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 31/01/2009 13:09:11
As posted occasionally in the past: The sector of electricity generation in Scotland
employing 'dirty' techniques of production would, even without 'cleanup' contribute
to global warming by up to only a few thousandths of one degree(C) over 100 years.

Let us have a sense of proportion (not least world wide) in determining the way forward!
182

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 13:09:41
#167 E300 said, "Global mean temperature January 1988...14.35°C January 2008...14.03°C. Yes, a fall of 0.32°C in 20 years."

As an example of idiotic cherry-picked garbage from the denialist camp that takes some beating.

You chose Jan 1988, which had the second WARMEST temperature anomaly (+0.348C) of the 1980s (exceeded only by Jan.1983 at +0.387C) and compared it with Jan 2008, which has the COLDEST temperature anomaly of this decade (since Jan 2000).

If you are actually interested in evidence that has some meaning you need to take a time span long enough to smooth out the monthly and annual variations. About five years is the minimum required. If you do that the results are as follows.

1986-1990: Average + 0.149C
2004-2008: Average + 0.416C

Showing an increase of +0.267C.

But I guess you are not actually interested in real evidence, like all the rest you are just looking for mud to sling, and it doesn't really matter to you that it is meaningless garbage.
183

Ananurhing,

31/01/2009 13:11:32
#187 Rufus

As I thought, pointless!
184

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 13:13:06
Yawn all you like Greenhill, I quite enjoy looking at the news from another perspective by reading the press of other nations, it is most interesting to read of France and Germany and how they view economic activity of the UK ,not well should you be interested.
I like the herald Tribune and I doubt it can be classed as anti nuclear , however it is willing to put forward both scientific evidence for and against nuclear power.
Having read the entire article in the Herald Tribune, you will forgive me if I decide your opinion is NOT the one which persuades me.
And if you are so tired I suggest you have a wee nap, and wake up a nicer person!
185

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 13:18:09
Ananurhing's Back Garden.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/23/world/23coal-span-600.jpg

186

greenhill,

31/01/2009 13:19:30
It was an anti nuclear article. The Herald tribune is a cobbled together paper with all sorts of views put forward.I could probably fish out a pro nuclear article:proving nothing.
187

A Crofter,

Western Isles 31/01/2009 13:20:08
#124 - Sorry to disappoint you, Nevsky, but I have my own wind turbine for electricity and burn driftwood for heating. I admit, however, to using some oil in my car (annual mileage: 1,500) and tractors - I trust you're doing your bit for our planet as well?

I also respect the environmental designations (ESA and Ramsar) that apply to my land; thankfully, these are protected by EU laws, so this beautiful part of Scotland remains safe from Trumplicking "aspiration"!

Hope these additional comments are not too childish for you, 20th Century boy (#149).
188

Rufus-T-Firefly,

31/01/2009 13:20:28
Ananurhing about to put his heating on...........

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/17788.jpg

189

greenhill,

31/01/2009 13:24:32
RE A Crofter,Western Isles 31/01/2009 13:20:08

We are not worthy!
190

New Town Resident,

31/01/2009 13:25:32
~168. If you are right then I apologise. My understanding is that he claimed to have the job Hansen has now (if not the same title) and that Hansen had a junior dotted line reporting relationship to him. But you are right, I didn't check this out. I'd just assumed he wouldn't have made such a claim in a written submission, but hadn't allowed for possible misinformation by Inhofe.

Seems to me you can't rely on anything in this debate unless you do it all yourself, and alas I can't afford the satellite launchers.
191

Charles MN,

31/01/2009 13:29:42
#154
The EPR's designers looked to reduce waste by two methods:
a) increasing the efficency of the plant so you get more MWh per unit of waste
b) increasing the percentage of fissile material in each load ( to 5% ) which increases the time in the reactor for each load.

Because of b) each load is more radioactive when it is removed from the reactor due to a higher amounts of short lived radioactive elements. Arriva say it will be 15% more radioactive, Greenpeace seem to have a different figure. Over time the short radioactivity reduces leaving about 90% of the waste of the previous designs due to having fewer loads.

If you add a) and b) you achieve Arrivas 30% reduction in waste from their previous design. You should realise that even the previous design was far better than our magnox and AGR reactors (see link below).

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39386.pdf


192

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 31/01/2009 13:32:14
Does Jenny Haworth ever check the credibility of the people she is so fond of quoting ? If she did she would surely realise that the likes of Hansen are on the fiddle and she should not put any store on what they say. On the other hand is she simply stirring the pot to see what reaction she gets.
193

greenhill,

31/01/2009 13:39:35
RE nabodican,Rural Scotland 31/01/2009 13:32:14

Oh dear another rustic ignoramus.
194

Brian Hill,

31/01/2009 13:49:50
#91 Border Thistle: excellent points BT especially your final point....: "In other words if it's a safe technology (nuclear power)...why is it uninsureable??"
195

Queen D,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 14:03:03
That's what I like about it , it gives varying points of view which the "quality" press of Scotland used to do , allowing the reader to make up their own mind.
BTW there is another article on nuclear in this paper where various bloggers put forward some interesting information from the Swedes.
You might like to persuade them of the easy disposal of Nuclear waste, but I hae ma doots!
196

greenhill,

31/01/2009 14:04:34
RE:- Brian Hill,31/01/2009 13:49:50

Border Thistle makes no effective points.
The insurance point is especially ridiculous and proves nothing apart from the extreme caution of insurance companies.They are aware of public opinion and that is one they can easily get away with.

Mass opinon is not the same as informed opinion.New nuclear is totally different from old. You are ignorant
197

greenhill,

31/01/2009 14:07:14
RE Queen D,Glasgow 31/01/2009 14:03:03

You have got to put forward your own point of view rather than copying newspaper articles.I cannot take you seriously.
198

Charles MN,

31/01/2009 14:10:47
#203
If you want to insure your nuclear power station can I suggest Lloyds of London or this company. You will find their rates quite reasonable as they have only had to pay out once in the last 50 years.

http://www.amnucins.com/Home.html
199

Ananurhing,

31/01/2009 14:21:15
#197 Rufus

Very funny. Not far off the mark. Too many fingers though!
200

greenhill,

31/01/2009 14:22:42
The insurance point is absurd. It would not surprise me if standard household insurers would not pay out due to alien invasion-they would probably have some clause.


201

radge dug,

31/01/2009 14:40:02
The Man from Pravda has spoken...
202

radge dug,

31/01/2009 14:41:06
The Man on the Moon aint too pleased either.

Fortunately, the 'man' on the street can usually think for himself and not swallow all the negative propaganda from politically biased 'news'papers.
203

radge dug,

31/01/2009 14:42:17
Anyway, who TF are Nasa to lecture us on global environmental issues? Like Bernard Matthews telling us to be veggie.
204

greenhill,

31/01/2009 14:49:31
RE radge dug,31/01/2009 14:42:17

You are just another idiot. He is speaking on his own behalf. He is not representing Nasa with his views.

Now do you have any substantial points to make?
205

E300,

31/01/2009 15:01:08
191 Slioch
You can squirm as much as you like Slioch. No cherry picking as you call it, 1988 was the year of Hansen's fatuous representations and 2008 because their is no figure for 2009, yet! You may not like it but the Met Office figures show Jan 2008 colder than Jan 1988 of course we could use the very latest figure for December 2008 and it is still colder. Perhaps it may be accounted for by the 12% increase in atmospheric CO2 in that time? Or are you gong to tell me I am a dupe of the oil companies or that it is accounted for by "noise" ie errors which you cannot explain, errors that mask 20 years of "accelerated" global warming according to charlatan Hansen.
206

greenhill,

31/01/2009 15:10:42
Re E300,31/01/2009 15:01:08

If your brain was given an enema then there would be nothing left between your ears.
207

E300,

31/01/2009 15:18:39
191 Slioch
Sorry that you should class the Hadcrut figures as "meaningless garbage" I am well aware that they refuse to divulge their methodology in "adjusting" and deriving their temperatures but we have to work with something and they are preferable to charlatan Hansen's discredited GISS figures which have increasingly departed from reality and all three of the other recognised global temperature measures.
208

E300,

31/01/2009 15:21:01
215 greenhill
How pathetic. Nothing like a bit of personal insult when you either don't understand or have lost the argument.
209

phocus,

Arizona, USA 31/01/2009 15:22:30
Dr. James Hansen is a loon. Please, Scots...you are brighter than this nut. He gives Obama 4 years to SAVE THE PLANET! No sun spot activity for over a month...last time that happened the world cooled significantly. Warming, then cooling, then warming...you get it. Dr. Hansen holds hands with another loon, Al Gore, and together, they chase the money. Where did all the small minds come from all of a sudden?
210

greenhill,

31/01/2009 15:31:47
RE E300,31/01/2009 15:21:01

To say your viewpoint is insane would be a compliment.
211

Geomac 1,

USA 31/01/2009 15:37:20
Hansen has long since been discredited by true and honest climate change scientists. His best buddy is Al Gore - who obtained most of the information for his "Inconvenient Truth" from Hansen and we all know how much that was rubbished by genuine climate scientists - including the debunking of the infamous Hockey stick graph used by Gore. This tried to obliterate the middle ages warm period (long before CO2 increased) and was roundly rubbished for ignoring facts.
Is it also known that Gore and Hansen are involved in a company which is in the highly lucrative business of selling carbon credits - so their pockets benefit from continuing to perpetrate their garbage.
I wonder just how Hansen would power the world without coal, oil or natural gas? It's time that he and his cohorts informed us of what should be done rather than what cannot be done!!!
212

E300,

31/01/2009 15:39:50
222 greenhill
You are a sad person!

220 phocus,Arizona
As the global warming scaremongering increasingly unravels the disillusioned become even more frenetic in defence of their untenable position.
213

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Truth about climate change? 31/01/2009 16:30:55
Well,
Hansen would certainly know what would contribute to 'climate change' (they don't call it global warming these days, mm). However it's useful expertise if there is no problem with the climate. There may well be a problem but the lie that there is academic consensus on the subject is now coming out. See the link below to a paper signed by 650 of the world's leading scientists in related areas (people just like Hansen) of whom many were formerly in the 'climate change' camp and who now believe that 'climate change' is not a problem and if it is not because of human beings and their habits. Indeed the current president of the EU doesn't believe it and the president of the Czech Republic wants to debate the subject with Al Gore.

I'd be all for clean air. As an asthmatic I like clean air but my problem was caused by Labour's damp peripheral housing schemes.

Nuclear is a menace to ours and future generations. Perhaps a short term solution in advance of the technology arriving would be better than thousands of years of nuclear waste because of dumping in Scotland.

I think the Greens should be concerned about stupidly promoting the globalists' agenda!

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html
214

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 16:32:36
#214 & 218 E300

"Or are you gong to tell me I am a dupe of the oil companies?"

In this instance you are just the dupe of whoever posted the website that produced that idiotic bit cherry-picked nonsense that you clearly still don't understand. (Perhaps you could let us know where you got it from).

But then, as Tamino stated in his article "Stupid is as stupid does",

"Duping people — taking advantage of their statistical naivete — is a regular tactic of those who deny the reality of global warming." You have been well and truly taken advantage of, but you don't even realise it yet.

I tried to explain to you that the relative temperatures of Jan 1988 and Jan 2008 (or any other couple of months for that matter) is of no significance. If you want to know how global average temperatures are trending by looking at just two end points (which is what you did) you need to look at averages over at least five years. That is what I did, and I used the same Hadcru series that you used (it isn't Hadcru that is "meaningless garbage", it is the use you made of them). Here are some more five year average figures from Hadcru. Try to see if you can recognise if it shows if the world is getting warmer:

Five year global temperature anomalies (from HADCRUT3 see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

Years Anomaly (1961-1990 = 0deg.C).
1978-1982 +0.039C
1983-1987 +0.065C
1988-1992 +0.162C
1993-1997 +0.208C
1998-2002 +0.397C
2003-2007 +0.445C

If you want to see similar figures in graphical form see here:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/5yr.jpg?w=489&h=361

Incidentally, there is good agreement between the Hadcru and NASA GISS series. The latter shows slightly increased warming in recent years relative to Hadcru, but that is because the Arctic regions are better represented.
215

Catharine,

winnipeg 31/01/2009 16:35:38
"clean coal" is an oxymoron - and only a moron would try to promote it. Hey, here's a novel idea: instead of raping the earth and leaving a putrid mess for future generations, why not take responsibility for our actions now and STOP BEING SO DAMNED WASTEFUL. It really doesn't take all that much effort to make a difference, but we have to make better choices, and we have to do it NOW.
216

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 16:44:27
Catharine,
Yes, clean coal doesn't exist and neither does clean nuclear waste. We need energy in the short term as renewable technologies will take around 30 years to reach the point where the world can use them significantly.

The problem for people and their habits is that they are getting lied to. No-one knows what to believe and so get confused and give up. The one thing that will make the earth cleaner is the truth - fight for that instead of telling people to be responsible like Emperor Obama.
217

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 16:48:58
E300

Another way of illustrating why using just two months as end points does not give a significant result is to choose another two months and see that you get contradictory results:

Thus, you chose "January 1988...14.35°C January 2008...14.03°C. Yes, a fall of 0.32°C in 20 years."

But, had you chosen the corresponding March figures, the results would have been:
March 1988, anomaly +0.259C
March 2008, anomaly +0.481C
an increase of 0.22C.

The one result shows a month in 2008 cooler than 1988, the other shows it warmer. In order to get consictent results you need to take a longer time period: if you take five years the later date is ALWAYS warmer: that IS significant.
218

greenhill,

31/01/2009 16:49:25
RE :Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Your are no more than the laird of you're @rse. That is where you are talking from.
219

greenhill,

31/01/2009 16:53:33
RE Slioch,Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 16:48:58

E300 is an obtuse f**ckster . It is just about impossible to reason with such willful idiocy.

Shame on you E300
220

Sanny,

Upwey 31/01/2009 16:53:57
Greenhill
You are the idiot or Luddite or whichever of the insulting terms you have applied to others.
You are very pro nuclear, but I ask what experience and or knowledge do you have in Nuclear Physics or Engineering. I served as an Engineer at Dounreay, Harwell and Winfrith and I now totally oppose all Thermo Nuclear Installations. They are inherently unsafe and the waste problem is mindboggling,active elements with Half lives of ten of thousands of years.
Untill the problems of Fusion are resolved I say no to nuclear.
221

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 17:03:34
greenhill,
Are you a shill? You got any reasoning in your skull?

My girlfriend just came back from New Brunswick - it was -34 degrees, the coldest it's been since records were kept 150 years ago. The money behind then carbon credit industry is the same money that's behind the IMF and the people who are now consolidating their wealth and global equity through the current financial sector engendered economic collapse.

If I were you I'd blow less hot air, keep away from mainstream media and start stock-piling storable foods cause the sh$t is about to hit the fan.
222

greenhill,

31/01/2009 17:07:30
RE Sanny,Upwey 31/01/2009 16:53:57

None of your business Sanney.You crank.

If you had any savvy you would know that arguments of authority are logical fallacies. Then again you have just displayed your deficiencies in the smarts dept by putting forward an argument of authority.

We could go on to play a huge game of trump playing bigger and bigger authority cards. I have got more class than that.

You are contemptible.
223

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 17:10:01
greenhill,
"If you had any savvy you would know that arguments of authority are logical fallacies."

Does that hold for Dr Hansen too? Good, in which case we can put this article to bed and suffer the global warming that your bilge will engender.

You are a fool.
224

Sanny,

31/01/2009 17:11:50
228
Slioch
I note you seem to be trying to extrapolate the global temperature based on measurements over a few years, even the now discredited IPCC studies looked at a 200 year period - and still got it wrong. These timescales are but a fleeting moment in the total history of the earth. To make any sense of climate change you need to look at periods measured in 100's of millions of years.
Try looking athe the results published by CR Scotrese as shown in this URL www.scotese.com/climate.htm: form which you will see we are still in a cool period albeit moving out. In fact we are still recovering from the Medieval Warm Period.
225

greenhill,

31/01/2009 17:13:11
RE Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,31/01/2009 17:03:34

So as you say "My girlfriend just came back from New Brunswick - it was -34 degrees, the coldest it's been since records were kept 150 years ago."

Well there we have it positive proof that global warming is not happening.I wonder if the masons are involved in the deception?
226

Geomac 1,

UK 31/01/2009 17:14:14
I am off to buy a home generator! Other than wind (which is worse than useless - other than to developers and landowners) renewable electricity generation is in its infancy and we NEED electricity for virtually everything.
227

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 17:17:29
Ample proof of the reality of manmade climate change can be found from many authoritative sources:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
228

greenhill,

31/01/2009 17:19:16
RE Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,31/01/2009 17:10:01

Hansen alone would not be enough. However Hansen is not alone and is backed up by informed opinion. This is much better than crank opinion.
229

Sanny,

31/01/2009 17:20:38
236
greenhill
What an ill-mannered tirade! Are you mentally ill of are you suffering from the effects of unprescribed drugs. If you are to make a point then you need to seriously moderate your language and attitude to those who disagree with you.
I have given my opinion as a professional Engineer who spent around 12 years in the nuclear industry, so I ask how does that make me a crank?
If you can refute my argument then please do so but without the gratuitous insults. It certainly adds little to your argument and is normally taken as a sign that you have indeed lost the argument if not the place.
230

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 17:28:12
Sanny,
It's a troll. Reacting to them feeds them. Best to ignore it.
231

greenhill,

31/01/2009 17:28:21
Sanny,31/01/2009 17:20:38


You are again deploying an argument of authority. That is not respectable. You are a fool.
232

Sanny,

31/01/2009 17:35:40
fred bloggs,Edinburgh 31/01/2009 17:17:29
Now try reading the articles at the following URL's
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
These reports look at a reasonable timescale and not just the last few second of time. It is most interesting to note that just before the last ice age CO2 levels DROPPED to a similar value as today's level, Global temperatures too were not to dissimilar
Forget all the hype and read these reports with an open mind.
233

Sanny,

31/01/2009 17:38:19

greenhill,31/01/2009 17:28:21
It is now obvious that you are suffering from some dreadful malaise and it would be unkind of me to try to engage you in a reasoned debate.
Please seek help!
234

j Piper,

Houston 31/01/2009 17:48:51
This is laughable. The sky is falling, The sky is falling !! Oh, but before it hits, do you mind buying some carbon tickets. Hilarious
235

Richard Lionheart,

31/01/2009 17:50:58
Stopping climate change is the best paid industry to be in right now. Look at the number of suckers prepared to believe that by stopping breathing they can stop the climate changing. Also every company in the land (which has not gone bust yet), wants to hire a climate change/environMENTAL specialist and they pay top bucks!

Al Gore has made mega bucks and his gravy train has only just come in.

Just a small point, “when” you stop the climate changing we die!

Well done to Alex Salmond. He recognises that Wind Farms and Wave Power will not secure Scotland’s’ power needs for the Future. As he’s agin Nuclear then Fossil Fuel is the only other option.
236

SkeptikScot,

31/01/2009 17:52:58
So it's "No" to a nuclear industry in Scotland and "Yes" to dirty power stations.

This is a BIG mistake.

237

greenhill,

31/01/2009 17:53:15
RE : Sanny,31/01/2009 17:38:19
Arguments of authority do not equall reason.You are a stranger to reason.
238

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 18:00:19
"So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth - and a mountain of nonsense.
And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed." (Nigel Lawson)

Interesting observations from Col Blimp. The 'war on terror' has allowed politicians around the world to get away literally with murder, bring in surveillance, increase the secret state etc. There was Friendman's 'shock economics' which as we see now will allow politicians and bankers to concolidate global banking and credit, raid pension schemes and savings, devalue currencies, change ownership of entire industries etc. I think 'global warming' is yet another shock tactic. They're all happening at the same time and people are so fried they'll put up with just about anything. Maybe that's the point..
239

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 18:06:37
#238 Sanny commented,"
"Slioch
I note you seem to be trying to extrapolate the global temperature based on measurements over a few years"

What I was doing was addressing the specific point of E300 attempting to derive significant information from two monthly global temperature anomaly figures twenty years apart. No significant information can be derived from such data and E300 showed his statistical naivete by trying to do so.

As far as palaeoclimatology is concerned: certainly it is a useful, indeed essential, tool in trying to understand the present. But remember that we only have reasonably accurate data with respect to temperature, CO2, Methane, sulphates, dust etc for about 800,000 years, from polar ice cores. This covers several glaciations, so is relevant to present possibilities.

Three very important lessons we should learn from those records:

1. There have been many violent climatic convulsions during those 800,000 years that would, were they to occur in the near future, be catastrophic for human civilisation. For example, 125,000 years ago, in the last (Eemian) interglacial, temperatures were a degree or two warmer than at present and sea levels were 4-6 metres HIGHER than today.
2. The last ten thousand years, since the end of the last glaciation, the climate has been UNUSUALLY BENIGN, with no large changes in climate. That is, unusual in the context of what has been normal for those previous 800,000 years.
3. During all of those 800,000 years, CO2 levels were less than 300ppmv. They are now about 387ppmv and rising at a rate about sixty times faster than at any time in those 800,000 years.

240

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:09:12
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html

“A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered.”
241

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:10:46
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

That’s a pretty good summary of the scientific consensus. And if you listen to many of the scientists involved in climate research they’re actually very worried. So far, for all the ‘discussion’ about climate change, and all the science begind it, we’ve actually seen very little action. We’re already heading into unknown territory and if this continues, even a short time longer, there appears to be the potential for catastrophic effects.
242

The Strategist,

31/01/2009 18:16:39
Collect the CO2, add some hydrogen and turn it into Methanol which is a high octane fuel that used to be known as Wood Alcohol.
243

Winters,

Glasgow 31/01/2009 18:18:10
Greenhill 239#
I'm not getting involved in the rights or wrongs of the Hanson letter, I know nothing about the subject. It may be correct that there are record low temperatures in New Brunswick, however there are very high temperatures in Australia at the moment so where does that leave us.
I don't know what all this has to do with Scottish Nationalism and I'm not going to write further on this.

244

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Facts? 31/01/2009 18:24:17
This winter Northern hemisphere snow cover was greater than at any time since 1966 and perhaps moreso. 1, 000 years ago (in the Mediaeval Warming period) the earth was warmer than the 1990s.
"According to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s."
"Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels."
"A report by the UN Environment Program this year claimed that the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."

"Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama show that August '08 was the fourth month last year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, i.e. since satellite records began. November 2008 in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago."
245

bonniecharlie,

kirkcaldy 31/01/2009 18:25:07
There are strikes all over the country and whats front page headlines in the Scotsman.An American of all people criticising Scotlands energy policy. Beyond belief I think he should check out Americas first. The biggest polluter in the world. Front page news I just dont get it whats going on at the Scotsman these days.
246

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:28:45
The NASA/GISS data for global temperatures;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1880 were in descending order:

2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997.

So of the ten hottest years on record, eight have occurred in the last ten years and all have occurred within the last 12.
247

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:30:25
The HADCRU data;

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1850 were in descending order:

1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007, 2008, 1997.

So of the ten hottest years on record, eight have occurred in the last ten years and all have occurred within the last 12.
248

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:31:04
The four principal global temperature records, the two surface and two satellite records, correlate very well with one another and all show that average temperatures have risen over the last ten years.

The years so far this century are significantly warmer than any equivalent period in the instrumental record.
249

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:31:39
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
250

seanie,

31/01/2009 18:31:57
The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
251

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 18:36:42
"At last, after years when they could not speak openly on this subject, chirped Ms Watts, "scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". She failed to explain (although she was later forced to clarify this on her blog) that the only scientist to say anything so silly was Dr James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose utterances on climate change have lately become so wild and extreme that they have made him a laughing stock. (He was last week publicly disowned by his old boss Dr John Theon, who said that Hansen's unscientific claims had been an embarrassment to Nasa ever since he joined Al Gore in whipping up panic over global warming back in 1988.) "
252

nostress,

grangemouth 31/01/2009 18:40:06
Shock Horror! SNP TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING...

Thank God for the Scotsman and all the wee wee unionist trolls...otherwise I would never have known that the SNP are responsible for global warming as well as the credit crunch...what? That's next week's editorial? Sorry...
253

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 18:43:45
Exactly nostress,
The journalism is shocking. This guys cred has been hugely distorted and obviously for the purpose of chipping away at the SNP.

The demise of this 'newspaper' is really sad.
254

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 31/01/2009 18:47:58
Just like these power stations, Salmond is full of hot air.

He opens his big mouth too often without thinking simply to gain some cheap publicity by making nice soundbite statements about this that and the next thing to make him sound as if he's the great visionary of Scotland.

His positions more often than not simply don't stack up and if he was serious about this he would properly invest in the new science required to produce really clean energy alternatives instead of holding up a £10M prize thats not going to be presented until 2015 (and at todays rate of exchange how much will that be worth?).
255

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 18:54:28
#259 Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel

I pick out just one of your many misunderstandings and inaccuracies.

NASA GISS "data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s."

That is not true. You have confused contiguous USA figures with global figures. Not surprising because deniers websites went all out to promote such misunderstandings last year, claiming FALSELY that 1934 was the warmest year in the twentieth century.

For information, the data from NASA GISS for average global temperature for the five year periods:

1932-1936 = -0.18C

2004-2008 = +0.67C

In other words, the actual figures are that global average temperatures have increased by 0.85C since the 1930s, but deniers try to twist and distort the figures (to be blunt they just lie) to tell you that it is actually colder now than in the 1930s.

That is what deniers do: they lie to you because they know that most people don't have the means or the time to check up on the lies they are telling you.

Don't be a dupe. The future of your family and your planet depends on you taking the trouble to find the truth.
256

seanie,

31/01/2009 19:00:13
The scope for natural variability, year to year, is far greater than the underlying warming trend. So deriving trends across short periods is essentially meaningless; there is too much noise in the data.

Even five year averages aren't necessarily going to show consistent warming. Natural events such as a La Nina or a major volcanic eruption could result in a significant temporary cooling that drives the average down. But even that would not be inconsistent with an underlying warming trend, because such effects are temporary.

The simplest way to filter out the 'noise' of natural variation and identify any trend is to average out temperatures in some way. There are various ways to do it, with varying degrees of complexity, but it's a perfectly straightforward and entirely valid way of interpreting the data that itself doesn't 'promote' any particular result. It just filters out the noise.

So, knowing that, look at the HADCRU and GISS graphs showing 'smoothed' or averaged temperatures.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.pdf

In both cases, is the average temperature (as represented by the smoothed average) higher now than ten years ago?

Yes it is. Significantly.
257

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

31/01/2009 19:53:08
Slioch,
Look, if it exists and it is people who are doing it then I'll back the idea. However, you claim there are deniers out there with a duping agenda and lots of scientists out there are claiming that the protagonists have a duping agenda and that the real reports and stats are being suppressed etc.

My instincts tell me that never to trust alarmists like yourself. Shock tactics are notoriously employed by those in power to manipulate public opinion and entrench their power and order people around. It seems too that suddenly there is big money in 'global warming' and that 'carbon' is next big tax idea. Academic opinion is starting to move away from what seemed like a consensus.

Whether I'm duped or not all I can do is use public transport as I do..
258

PointOf View,

Scotland 31/01/2009 20:32:50
65 Greenhill
"Politicians take account of public opinion".

Now I know your either rather unwell or having laugh!
Actually to correct myself, perhaps north of the border of the SNP variety do. However, Politicians south of the border are lying, trough snorting, thieving scumbags, particularly of the Lie-bour variety. Incidentally are you a politician?

I think you should also consider the different in outcome when considering a terrorist attacks (or accident) on nuclear, as apposed to Coal! Do I have to write the headline for you!

Ha ha Scotsman at its best. I can't post joining up the following Lie-bour. Anyone know what how Scotsmans share price stands. Shame on them.
259

Phillip,

31/01/2009 20:43:06
Global Warming is the "sham" but a fraud is more like it. My next-door neighbor who is a Professor of Physics and a well respected creator of mathematical models of natural phenomona, has already been engaged by researchers at NOAA to assist them in refining their global model because they have discovered something very problematic for global warming. It's not happening! Their models keep predicting worse and worse climate change, but the average climate readings each year are trending DOWN! The world appears to be swinging colder not warmer for an unknown reason.

I also question climate change for historical reasons. There was no heavy industry during the Middle Ages nor was there a huge inclux of carbon and other green house cases into the atmosphere. Yet, during the medieval warming period the world grew so hot that it was possible to grow grapes and make wine in England! This was recorded in French manuscripts of the time with a sense of horror and foreboding because of the poor quality of the product.

Without green house gases, how did it get so warm? If the presence of green house gases guarantees Global warming and the absence guarantees cooling, why did it work the other way around during the Middle Ages?

It wasn't until the first rumblings of the Modern Era and mass industry that Green House gases began to be pumped into the environment in significant amounts, and that coincided with the LITTLE ICE AGE!

It's a lie designed to scare people into supporting the radical agenda of the environmentalist & animal rights crowd. Forget about starving or freezing people, save the fishies!
260

PointOf View,

Scotland 31/01/2009 20:43:09
5 Greenhill
I’ve just realised its you isn't it? Yep, Hi Patrick Harvie (Green MSP). Enjoy your few seats in Hollyrood, you won’t be occupying them after the next elections. Green you must be joking!
261

Phillip,

31/01/2009 20:43:56
Also, I love how the idiots at the Scotsman write out NASA as if it is a proper name instead of an acronym.
262

PointOf View,

Scotland 31/01/2009 20:45:36
5 Sorry wardog, re post 280, i meant 65 Greenhill. Indeed i wish he was on a Greenhill far far away.
263

Colin, Glasgow,

31/01/2009 21:31:07
Sanny says “I served as an Engineer at Dounreay, Harwell and Winfrith and I now totally oppose all Thermo Nuclear Installations.”

Hmm. I would have thought you would have known that the term thermonuclear generally applies to fusion, not fission.

264

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2009 21:34:52
#279 Philip

Every one of your five paragraphs is based on errors and misunderstandings.

1. "the average climate readings each year are trending DOWN! " Wrong. See for example #264 above.

2."during the medieval warming period the world grew so hot that it was possible to grow grapes and make wine in England!" No. England grew warm enough to grow grapes. England is not the world. England is warm enough to grow grapes at present. Global temperatures during the MWP were not as warm on average as the last 30 years or so globally.

3. "Without green house gases, how did it get so warm?"
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases maintain Earth's temperature about 33deg Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be. There are many other factors that effect global temperatures including changes in the sun, volcanic eruptions, changes in albedo and changes in ocean currents.

4. The LIA occurred long before significant quantities of anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced.

5. Perhaps should you make a little effort to understand the science ...
265

Colin, Glasgow,

31/01/2009 21:55:50
Greenhill, "Salmond seeks to harness the stupidity of local mass opinion in order to win votes".

Forthright, but true.

Salmond talks renewables, but ends up pushing fossil fuel. He relies on the fact that people are unaware that pollution from coal makes it approximately 100 times as harmful to health as nuclear power. The same goes for oil. But Salmond cannot afford to say a word against oil either.

http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf
266

Daviep,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 22:23:23
As usual when I hear the word slams I wonder who instigated this rubbish down south or the Nuc lobby...the mans is crazy Carbon capture has been done in Norway at least CO 2 capture and as usual why would a man in Nasa be interested in a tiny little country like us if he had no axe to grind it beggars belief that Top Nasa scientest is remotely interested in wee Scotland

Awa and bile yer heid and at least give credit to Scotland for 25% of power from renewable sorces ...already BEFORE 2011 what about down the road ..still burning logs..the nuclear issue is a dead duck...we have enough American missles to see us frazzled in a twitch ..get real...USE less...Tell Nass to stick to useful things at huge cost like exploring Mars if he even is NASA who cares

davep
267

IainGlasgow,

31/01/2009 22:37:10
NASA are in no position to criticise anyone's energy policy when tens of billions of dollars that could be invested in developing sustainable energy technologies are being spent on utterly pointless explorations of Mars and the outer solar system.
268

Man-O-Field,

Aberdeen 31/01/2009 23:16:33
No 290
It is surely not to be expected that 'present day' type volcanic eruptions will assist global warming! The medieval solar active phase however has a parallel in recent solar activity. The fascination is now as to whether the almost absence of sunspots for over a year is going to lead to (or not) a marked downturn in global warming in
the future and if so for how long!
269

harry lewes de,

01/02/2009 03:48:44
Hansen is a charlatan whose professional reputation depends on being able to browbeat anyone who even begins to question the erroneous way he has ignored the scientific method.

270

Dan in Alabama,

Huntsville, Alabama 01/02/2009 04:14:04
Jenny:

James Hansen is .NOT> "the man from Nasa."

He is a Disgrace to my friends and family who have worked at the Space Agency for years, decades.

Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison "Jack" Schmid, who is a Geologist who just happened to walk on the Moon, has publicly stated Hansen is Wrong.

Hansen's former boss, Dr. John S. Theon, has publicly written that Hansen has "embarrassed NASA."

And worse yet is your writing of a subject you (obviously) know little about when you, yourself say "...to capture and store carbon dioxide, the dangerous greenhouse gas."

Did you ever take a basic Earth Sciences class?

Here's a simple test you can perform at your desktop: Breathe in & out deeply & rapidly so you hyperventilate.

You can't breathe now, right?

Now, hold your paper lunch sack up to your mouth & nose, and try to breathe. You can now.

Want to know why?

Because the breath you're exhaling is being captured in the bag, containing enough of that "carbon dioxide, the dangerous greenhouse gas."
271

Dan in Alabama,

01/02/2009 04:17:18
INTENTIONALLY MIS-SPELLED THE APOLLO 17 ASTRONAUT'S NAME AS "SCHMID" BECAUSE OF THE WORD "FILTER" NOT LETTING ME SPELL IT PROPERLY WITH THE FINAL "T"

I wonder who is more retarded: The author of this propaganda; or the webmaster.

You Scots DESERVE to go Bankrupt due to your Stupidity.
272

Tebester,

Eugene 01/02/2009 05:09:40
We Americans are getting soft. In the old days when hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Al Gore and James Hansen were found out, the cry of "get a rope" would go out.
273

Scot in Exile,

Australia 01/02/2009 05:29:18
Yoohaaa Tebester!

Let's string em all up, those so-called scierntists what don't know what they are talrking about. Sheet - they even believe in evorlution. And something they call relartivity. They darnt know nuffin about the world. Left wing commies, the lort of em, those scierntific peeps. But us right wing god-fearing folk, we know what's best don't we.
274

Scot in Exile,

Australia 01/02/2009 05:47:25
Dan the man from Alabam,

We Scots "deserve to go bankrupt due to our stupidity"? A keen observation from America, Dan. After all, the world's financial crisis started in Scotland, didn't it?

Are you still breathing into your paper bag? If so, send us your number, and we can call the ambulance.

275

Scottish 'N British,

01/02/2009 13:21:08
"the letter killeth"

- Thomas Hardy
276

greenhill,

01/02/2009 13:57:37
RE Scot in Exile,Australia

Brilliant stuff. Come back. We need you here.
277

Marcus Gibson,

London 01/02/2009 14:14:53
Dr Hansen's comments are laughable. In my 25 years of covering environmental and other stories as a journalist, 'E' in Environmentalism has always stood for two things: Exaggeration and Ego.

Don't forget those issues of the 1990s that 'could never be solved' according to every breathing environmentalist.. These proved to be red herrings, and shortlist would include acid rain, contaminated land, the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer, the 'Braer' pollution that would 'never disappear'.
278

Dr. Albert Gortenbull,

Edinburgh, UK 01/02/2009 15:44:52
NASA's Dr. Hansen: "I am the King and you are the serfs, and you've no William Wallace to defend you now!
279

Colin, Glasgow,

01/02/2009 16:43:36
#304 “Don't forget those issues of the 1990s that 'could never be solved' according to every breathing environmentalist.. These proved to be red herrings, and shortlist would include acid rain, contaminated land, the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer, the 'Braer' pollution that would 'never disappear'.”

That misses the point entirely. Nobody said these problems could not be solved – instead they these said these problems would be solved by taking action. They were right. Acid rain was controlled by limiting sulphur emissions from coal flues; the ozone depletion was halted by banning CFCs.

Hansen is asking for similar action, to limit CO2 from coal plant and to halt the construction of new polluting plant unless it captures carbon from the outset.
280

Jamie346,

glasgow 01/02/2009 17:29:08
It is about time this country had a good look at the future for energy and about time our green supporters stopped playing into the hands of oil producing countries, who will screw us over the next 15 years unless we can produce our own electrical energy from sources other than oil and gas

Tidal, wind turbines eyesores and the other sources the green brigade support is well intentioned but we can produce energy quickly with the use of coal and nuclear. The technology is surely available that can produce "clean" coal power and also very very safe nuclear plants.These sources may appear to be more expensive than oil and gas but as long as that expensive money is not used to buy fuel from outside of the UK then surely it will be better for the balance of payments in the future and in actual fact will thus be CHEAPER to everyone and also give good employment to many of our people
281

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/02/2009 17:54:15
Could someone clarify - this revolutionary space age carbon capture technology hasn't actually been invented yet, has it?
282

krusty the klown,

01/02/2009 22:40:37
Dan in Alabama,
Just because some peeps in your back yard suggest someone is wrong or right then don't jump to conclusions that support your (perhaps) biased opinion- remember, there are a lot of god botherers in your toon that suggest creationism is right based on popular fiction - aka the bible
283

Scot in Exile,

Australia 02/02/2009 00:03:32
James Hansen appears to be public enemy number one amongst the good folk of the Scotsman's letters page. For those of you who don't know of him, this might be a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

It occurs to me that something curious is going on. Any letters page on any article about global warming on any website in the western world tends to be crammed by global warming deniers. It's like the Salem witch trials. Soon, maybe we'll have public stonings of anyone who dares to claim that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming. And that will include 95% of people with any sort of a decent training in the physical sciences.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.