Is climate change a fraud?

[woolley]

Just now, alpha-acid said:

But the man is a proven liar

Is he? I must have missed this proof. But what if he is? Politicians lie all the time. In this specific instance he is saying that the MUA projections for the yield of this wind farm are up to triple the UK Government published yields for the windiest parts of Britain. That has to be easily verifiable.

If the devil incarnate approached you and told you to think very carefully before you took a particular course of action or it will cost you dear, would you not re-examine your calculations before committing possibly hundreds of millions decades into the future for no gain at all?

[Albert Tatlock]

If both sides are both 50% liars...it will cost us 200% more than we need to pay out.

So it does need to be looked into in far more depth.

[woolley]

Just now, Albert Tatlock said:

If both sides are both 50% liars...it will cost us 200% more than we need to pay out.

So it does need to be looked into in far more depth.

Exactly. And that's all that's being said, even by Burgess.

[P.K.]

24 minutes ago, woolley said:

If the devil incarnate approached you and told you to think very carefully before you took a particular course of action or it will cost you dear, would you not re-examine your calculations before committing possibly hundreds of millions decades into the future for no gain at all?

If you're in Tynwald - no...!

[Dirty Buggane]

Whoops

Edited June 24 by Dirty Buggane

[Happier diner]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

n this specific instance he is saying that the MUA projections for the yield of this wind farm are up to triple the UK Government published yields for the windiest parts of Britain. That has to be easily verifiable.

Yes it is verifiable and it is an absolutely ridiculous statement that he is making. Their yield projections are actually very conservative. 

[TheTeapot]

I don't know if anyone is lucky enough to have seen the Earystane opposition Facebook page, but that page is a clear example of why people like Burgess are dangerous. 

[Albert Tatlock]

8 hours ago, alpha-acid said:

But the man is a proven liar

Yeah, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

With potentially hundreds of £millions at risk and another generation (pun intended) at risk of immense debt...no harm in looking at things in far more technical depth.

There are politics involved here from the MUA to keep themselves in high paid work. Far more considerations should be going into this.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Yes it is verifiable and it is an absolutely ridiculous statement that he is making. Their yield projections are actually very conservative. 

Do we have any links available for both please?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

10 hours ago, alpha-acid said:

But the man is a proven liar

Yeah, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

But you don't know at what time it's right.  So it's actually worse than useless because it's taking up the space that a clock that does tell the time correctly (or at least a lot more usefully) could occupy.  If you have to fact-check everything because someone has been shown to be (at best) careless with the truth far too often, then there's no point in listening to them at all, because it means you have to do all the work yourself anyway.  Usually twice, because you have to discover their nonsense and then find out the truth.  

These people are 'bad faith actors' not just because they aren't telling the truth and don't care that they're not.  They're also exploiting the goodwill of fair-minded people who think that everyone should be listened to and might have a point to make.  Which is the default position with someone new, but when they're repeatedly shown to be unreliable sources, there's not the time.  Because part of the reason they behave like this is to stop meaningful debate by overwhelming it with nonsense.

[Albert Tatlock]

23 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But you don't know at what time it's right.  So it's actually worse than useless because it's taking up the space that a clock that does tell the time correctly (or at least a lot more usefully) could occupy.  If you have to fact-check everything because someone has been shown to be (at best) careless with the truth far too often, then there's no point in listening to them at all, because it means you have to do all the work yourself anyway.  Usually twice, because you have to discover their nonsense and then find out the truth.  

These people are 'bad faith actors' not just because they aren't telling the truth and don't care that they're not.  They're also exploiting the goodwill of fair-minded people who think that everyone should be listened to and might have a point to make.  Which is the default position with someone new, but when they're repeatedly shown to be unreliable sources, there's not the time.  Because part of the reason they behave like this is to stop meaningful debate by overwhelming it with nonsense.

My concern is that we need two systems...but need to make sure we get the right solution and cost benefit ratio. That's not unreasonable, given the history of the IOM Govt when it comes to politics, large projects and vested interests.

For an isolated island of 85k people, that could mean 5 to 10 times the equivalent cost to net zero 85k people in the UK.

 

[woolley]

4 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Yes it is verifiable and it is an absolutely ridiculous statement that he is making. Their yield projections are actually very conservative. 

So you can link the official figures from the report and the confirmed output from the UK Government for wind farms surrounding us as he did, and you can explain the disparity please? I appreciate that this may be possible. I just want someone to actually do it and debunk his claim. Saying that he is a ridiculous liar and a fascist climate denier just doesn't cut it when he is citing sourced figures and you are not.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

My concern is that we need two systems...but need to make sure we get the right solution and cost benefit ratio. That's not unreasonable, given the history of the IOM Govt when it comes to politics, large projects and vested interests.

For an isolated island of 85k people, that could mean 5 to 10 times the equivalent cost to net zero 85k people in the UK.

That's all the very reasonable.  But one of the problems with people like Burgess is that they don't allow such a debate to take place.  By deciding that something must be resisted at all costs, for emotional or cynical reasons, the important details never get examined and alternatives aren't looked at.  And the 'noise' they create and the effort to counter their nonsense stops all reasonable debate.

It's partly because the British media are more interested in conflict than information and from that people think that that is the way to conduct a debate is about 'winning' rather than coming to the best result.  Everything is seen to be about rhetoric rather than science - even scientific things.  And then people wonder why nothing works.

[HeliX]

55 minutes ago, woolley said:

So you can link the official figures from the report and the confirmed output from the UK Government for wind farms surrounding us as he did, and you can explain the disparity please? I appreciate that this may be possible. I just want someone to actually do it and debunk his claim. Saying that he is a ridiculous liar and a fascist climate denier just doesn't cut it when he is citing sourced figures and you are not.

The MU page states "An average 20MW capacity windfarm on the Isle of Man is expected to generate at least 58GWh per year." and "A windfarm at Earystane and Scard of at least 20MW could be expected to produce between 104 and 149 GWh of renewable electricity per year". https://www.manxutilities.im/energy-transition/wind/onshore-wind-faqs/

Given they've measured the wind speeds, and it's not Government idiots doing it, it's energy specialists, that seems not outside the bounds of reality. There are American wind farms in excess of 50% load factor: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/wind-energy-factsheet

[Idleweiss]

17 minutes ago, HeliX said:

The MU page states "An average 20MW capacity windfarm on the Isle of Man is expected to generate at least 58GWh per year." and "A windfarm at Earystane and Scard of at least 20MW could be expected to produce between 104 and 149 GWh of renewable electricity per year". https://www.manxutilities.im/energy-transition/wind/onshore-wind-faqs/

Given they've measured the wind speeds, and it's not Government idiots doing it, it's energy specialists, that seems not outside the bounds of reality. There are American wind farms in excess of 50% load factor: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/wind-energy-factsheet

Actually your link says  “Capacity factor of land based wind in the U.S. ranges from 21% to 52% and averages 35%”

As Burgess pointed out on the night the IOM one uses a calculation of 40% despite the best onshore farm in the UK (in Scotland) producing only 27%. He said that there is no onshore farm in the UK, even those in the Scottish Islands, doing anywhere near 40%. The maximum is onshore is currently 27%. 

Edited June 24 by Idleweiss