| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" 09:56 - Nov 18 with 25804 views | sP7qupUf |
Is this a genuine attempt to address pressing issues or a smokescreen to detract away from the ongoing issues with the C-19 pandemic, emerging issues around cronyism and the potential disaster with the "oven ready" Brexit deal? The lack of detail would suggest the latter to my mind. |  | | |  |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:25 - Nov 27 with 2062 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:50 - Nov 27 by felixstowe_jack |
Strange latest reseach I have seen suggest less than two years to produce less co2 than a petrol diesel car. |
Perhaps you would like to contact Autocar and tell them that they are wrong? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:52 - Nov 27 with 2061 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:42 - Nov 27 by Scotia |
I take it from that Carbon free generation is accounting 32.9% of power even on a wind free winters day - that is quite impressive.
This isn't Boris's green future this is Boris's green present.
If I was in the office my entire building would be getting power from it's solar array and the grey water would be coming from the rainwater harvesting system.
All of this technology, even wind to a certain degree is in it's infancy but has made huge strides in a short space of time. Who could have imagined a car like a Tesla model 3 back in the days of the model T ford, that has been achieved in barley 100 years.
You can't stop progress and this is the kind of progress we need. |
You really should look at the history of the Automobile.
The Model T replaced Electric cars when it was introduced along with all the other fossil fueled cars, Electric cars are not new.
As to todays generation, Carbon free generation only accounts for about 28% percent and only if you include Nuclear power 13.5% and Biomass 7.25% which is NOT carbon free and is more polluting than both Coal & Gas.
The French Interconnector at 4.85%and NEMO Interconnector at 1.67% are currently supplying more than Solar and Wind combined at 5.9%.
Nuclear is the way forward and not Intermittent supplies which require constant backup.
How much will you get from your solar Arrays between 4 and 5:30pm?
How much will you get on a very cloudy day.
The future under Boris's green new deal will only make it worse at the cost of £Billions. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 12:54]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:27 - Nov 27 with 2045 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:52 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
You really should look at the history of the Automobile.
The Model T replaced Electric cars when it was introduced along with all the other fossil fueled cars, Electric cars are not new.
As to todays generation, Carbon free generation only accounts for about 28% percent and only if you include Nuclear power 13.5% and Biomass 7.25% which is NOT carbon free and is more polluting than both Coal & Gas.
The French Interconnector at 4.85%and NEMO Interconnector at 1.67% are currently supplying more than Solar and Wind combined at 5.9%.
Nuclear is the way forward and not Intermittent supplies which require constant backup.
How much will you get from your solar Arrays between 4 and 5:30pm?
How much will you get on a very cloudy day.
The future under Boris's green new deal will only make it worse at the cost of £Billions. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 12:54]
|
That is my entire point. Electric cars aren't new, ones that have a range of 350 miles and a top speed of 150 mph are. Wind power isn't new, using it to generate up to 40% of the countries requirement is. I used to have a solar powered calculator, now an office of 100 people is powered exclusively by the sun on suitable days.
Of course at this time of year my office would need back up for dusk hours, but that is for approximately an hour a day for 3 months of the year. Obviously they aren't as efficient on a cloudy day but they provide an output. There are very few days when the wind doesn't blow sufficiently to generate some power from a turbine.
We need a back up supply and nuclear is a decent option, biomass isn't an option in the long term. We also need more renewables and more efficient buildings and technology. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:33 - Nov 27 with 2040 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:27 - Nov 27 by Scotia |
That is my entire point. Electric cars aren't new, ones that have a range of 350 miles and a top speed of 150 mph are. Wind power isn't new, using it to generate up to 40% of the countries requirement is. I used to have a solar powered calculator, now an office of 100 people is powered exclusively by the sun on suitable days.
Of course at this time of year my office would need back up for dusk hours, but that is for approximately an hour a day for 3 months of the year. Obviously they aren't as efficient on a cloudy day but they provide an output. There are very few days when the wind doesn't blow sufficiently to generate some power from a turbine.
We need a back up supply and nuclear is a decent option, biomass isn't an option in the long term. We also need more renewables and more efficient buildings and technology. |
Why do you think spending Billions of Pounds to get Intermittent Wind & Solar energy is a good thing?
Can't you really think of better investments? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 18:47]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:44 - Nov 27 with 2037 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:33 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why do you think spending Billions of Pounds to get Intermittent Wind & Solar energy is a good thing?
Can't you really think of better investments? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 18:47]
|
Yes invest billions in wind, solar, efficiency and trying to find a suitable low carbon back up.
How much do you think it would cost to keep a coal fired power station running? Build a new one or nuclear plant? That would just be in financial terms without considering environmental impacts.
Also we can't afford not to. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:59 - Nov 27 with 2022 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 14:44 - Nov 27 by Scotia |
Yes invest billions in wind, solar, efficiency and trying to find a suitable low carbon back up.
How much do you think it would cost to keep a coal fired power station running? Build a new one or nuclear plant? That would just be in financial terms without considering environmental impacts.
Also we can't afford not to. |
Replacing current Stations wouldn't have any environemntal impacts, the sites are already there.
Coal fired plants produce cheaper energy than Wind when all the susbsidies are removed from wind and the Carbon tax is removed form coal.
It is called a level market place.
It is how business decisions are supposed to be made, not by airy fairy green nonsense.
How much money do the Wind Farms set aside for removing the wind turbines when they are decomissioned? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:36 - Nov 27 with 2015 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 16:59 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Replacing current Stations wouldn't have any environemntal impacts, the sites are already there.
Coal fired plants produce cheaper energy than Wind when all the susbsidies are removed from wind and the Carbon tax is removed form coal.
It is called a level market place.
It is how business decisions are supposed to be made, not by airy fairy green nonsense.
How much money do the Wind Farms set aside for removing the wind turbines when they are decomissioned? |
Of course they would. Huge construction efforts are required before you even consider the impacts of getting the coal from probably an opencast mine.
Apparently renewung an existing coal power station for a further 10 years would cost about £150 million.
Wind farms wash their own face regarding decommissioning and the impacts afterwards are minimal. Look in to the community fund set up for the pen y cymoedd wind farm.
The cost of remediation a coal or gas station is expensive, there is a lot of contamination. Before you consider where the coal came from, take margam open cast as an example. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:59 - Nov 27 with 2006 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:36 - Nov 27 by Scotia |
Of course they would. Huge construction efforts are required before you even consider the impacts of getting the coal from probably an opencast mine.
Apparently renewung an existing coal power station for a further 10 years would cost about £150 million.
Wind farms wash their own face regarding decommissioning and the impacts afterwards are minimal. Look in to the community fund set up for the pen y cymoedd wind farm.
The cost of remediation a coal or gas station is expensive, there is a lot of contamination. Before you consider where the coal came from, take margam open cast as an example. |
Currently our coal is imported, so there are no environmental costs for us.
But why open cast, why even old fashioned mining.
Think modern & think big, look at modern Salt mining, massive tunnelling machines are used to create large open mining tunnels.
You seem to think inside the box all the time except when it comes to Wind & Solar.
As for the environmental aspects of wind you obviously don't care about thousands of tons of Fibreglass Blades going to land fill.
But we already know from our previous discussions you make many excuses for so called green energy. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 19:56]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:53 - Nov 27 with 1999 views | Scotia |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:59 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Currently our coal is imported, so there are no environmental costs for us.
But why open cast, why even old fashioned mining.
Think modern & think big, look at modern Salt mining, massive tunnelling machines are used to create large open mining tunnels.
You seem to think inside the box all the time except when it comes to Wind & Solar.
As for the environmental aspects of wind you obviously don't care about thousands of tons of Fibreglass Blades going to land fill.
But we already know from our previous discussions you make many excuses for so called green energy. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 19:56]
|
How on earth is importing coal sustainable? Of course there is an impact on the environment, the environment doesn't stop at borders. There are impacts from abstraction wherever that abstraction takes place.
Before you consider the actual burning of the stuff.
I'm not blind to renewable they have a role. That role needs to be bigger but it will almost certain never supply all of our needs. There are too many of us and we are too power dependent. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:40 - Nov 27 with 1988 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Oh dear even more bad news for EVs, pricing in Australia means Tesla fast chargers are more expensive than petrol.
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/teslas-now-more-expensive-to-charge-than-pe
Here is one of the reasons for future price increases here, this is an EV charger company Instavolt who borrowed £18 Million to set up their company and install 314 chargers.
They traded and their capital has steadily decreased until 2019 when their accounts show that in 2017 they lost £3,186,232 and in 2018 £4,264,829
Concerns prompted a statement on their solvency in August 2019.
This suggests free charging will be ending soon and to make a decent profit it will have to be quite a high price.
This is without adding any of the Fuel Tax shortfall. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:44 - Nov 27 with 1988 views | Boundy |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:59 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Currently our coal is imported, so there are no environmental costs for us.
But why open cast, why even old fashioned mining.
Think modern & think big, look at modern Salt mining, massive tunnelling machines are used to create large open mining tunnels.
You seem to think inside the box all the time except when it comes to Wind & Solar.
As for the environmental aspects of wind you obviously don't care about thousands of tons of Fibreglass Blades going to land fill.
But we already know from our previous discussions you make many excuses for so called green energy. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 19:56]
|
You seem to be fixated on the financial without considering the environmental cost. This isn't the 19th century so why not use a resource that's free to all with non production costs,with just the means to create the power with technology which is continually evolving Just why are coal power stations closing ? as you say some infrastructure would remain remain to upgrade them but the problem of their emissions would remain. Aberthaw for example was given an extended life only with the fitment of scrubbers but even those failed to keep the site cost effective and within current legislation .44.6% of our energy produced comes from renewables , its isn't going away no matter how much you wish it would so embrace it and feel proud of being part of a generation which tried to protect the planet .I'm of an age to remember driving through the valley and seeing the constant fires on either side of the hills caused by Hades of the Dare valley https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/30-years-on-phurnacite-through-186 | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 20:52 - Nov 27 with 1978 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:44 - Nov 27 by Boundy |
You seem to be fixated on the financial without considering the environmental cost. This isn't the 19th century so why not use a resource that's free to all with non production costs,with just the means to create the power with technology which is continually evolving Just why are coal power stations closing ? as you say some infrastructure would remain remain to upgrade them but the problem of their emissions would remain. Aberthaw for example was given an extended life only with the fitment of scrubbers but even those failed to keep the site cost effective and within current legislation .44.6% of our energy produced comes from renewables , its isn't going away no matter how much you wish it would so embrace it and feel proud of being part of a generation which tried to protect the planet .I'm of an age to remember driving through the valley and seeing the constant fires on either side of the hills caused by Hades of the Dare valley https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/30-years-on-phurnacite-through-186 |
Sorry, but 44.6% of our energy produced does NOT come from renewables. I suggest that you look at some actual data before making silly statements.
This year with the reduced demand caused by the pandemic it is 36.48% including 7.18% Biomass, most of which is even dirtier and produces more CO2 than coal.
At this moment Renewables are generating a grand total of 12.5% and the other 87.5% are made up of Fossil fuels, Nuclear and interconnectors.
Let me know if you want to get the real numbers for yourself.
The most telling thing that you wrote was
" Aberthaw for example was given an extended life only with the fitment of scrubbers but even those failed to keep the site cost effective and within current legislation."
Current legislation, which gives Wind a free pass on Grid connection costs, Backup costs and gives them large subsidies and first market choice.
Coal (and Gas) gets a penalty of £18/Mw Carbon tax and is forced to man their stations all year round in case they are needed while producing not one penny unless they are needed, like now.
So you neatly explained the answer to your own question "Just why are coal power stations closing ?"
I am against Wind and Solar because the government has created an unlevel playing field to allow them to be worth building at the Tax Paying Consumer's cost.
But they do not do what you think, Germany has not lowered their CO2 output despite investing Billions in Wind & Solar and neither has the UK.
Our decrease in CO2 output was achieved by the dash for gas and outsourcing our heavy industry.
Plus they will all need replacing after about 20 years of production, a very poor return on the Billions spent on them.
But you obviously think it is worth it and are happy for the country to spend another 20 or 30 billion on even more of them, which still wouldn't be producing very much under today's weather conditions, instead of building small nuclear reactors or molten salt reactors which supply baseload for almost 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 365 days a year. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:00]
| | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:24 - Nov 27 with 1968 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 17:59 - Nov 27 by A_Fans_Dad |
Currently our coal is imported, so there are no environmental costs for us.
But why open cast, why even old fashioned mining.
Think modern & think big, look at modern Salt mining, massive tunnelling machines are used to create large open mining tunnels.
You seem to think inside the box all the time except when it comes to Wind & Solar.
As for the environmental aspects of wind you obviously don't care about thousands of tons of Fibreglass Blades going to land fill.
But we already know from our previous discussions you make many excuses for so called green energy. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 19:56]
|
No environmental cost for us? Besides being wrong, it's a tad selfish don't you think.
You are fixated on the idea that the tchnology will never be good enough or affordable enough but think about this, when all new tech comes out it is normal for only the well off to be able to afford it.
When petrol cars first came in most people in the Uk couldn't afford them, they were for the rich and priviliged.
That's the way it has always worked.
One day the tech will have improved enough to make it all possible. Or we could listen to you and stagnate. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 23:19 - Nov 27 with 1961 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 21:24 - Nov 27 by Catullus |
No environmental cost for us? Besides being wrong, it's a tad selfish don't you think.
You are fixated on the idea that the tchnology will never be good enough or affordable enough but think about this, when all new tech comes out it is normal for only the well off to be able to afford it.
When petrol cars first came in most people in the Uk couldn't afford them, they were for the rich and priviliged.
That's the way it has always worked.
One day the tech will have improved enough to make it all possible. Or we could listen to you and stagnate. |
Perhaps you can tell me how advanced nuclear reactors of modular design and molten salt reactors are "stagnating" compared to 6th century windmills modified to make electricity? | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:46 - Nov 28 with 1942 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Here is some information for cat.
You don't believe "denier sites" about Global warming exaggeration, would you believe IPCC Scientists?
These are all ex IPCC Scientists that disagree with the IPCC political reporting who made statements in or before 2013.
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc
Their resumes are below their comments, they make interesting reading.
There are other well known scientists, who also disagree with the IPCC assessment reports.
Professor Roger Pielke Jr.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson.
Professor Peter Ridd.
Dr Roy Spencer, who is not a Climate denialist.
Professor Freeman Dyson - Physicist
Adjuct Professor Willie Soon - Aerospace Engineer, paid by the dreaded Petrol industry.
49 Former NASA scientists and astronauts
Prof Myron Wyn Evan B. Sc., Ph. D., D. S - Physicist (Sigma Pi Sigma of the American Institute of Physics 1995).
Joseph E. Postma - M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy, a definite denier.
Dennis Hollars - PH D Astrophysicist.
Dr Charles Wax - past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University.
U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008.
Professor Michael Beenstock - Professor of Economics.
Dr. Edward Wegman - Prof of Statistics.
Perhaps you won't feel quite so concerned that the earth is going to burn up after reading what they say. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:05 - Nov 28 with 1940 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:46 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
Here is some information for cat.
You don't believe "denier sites" about Global warming exaggeration, would you believe IPCC Scientists?
These are all ex IPCC Scientists that disagree with the IPCC political reporting who made statements in or before 2013.
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc
Their resumes are below their comments, they make interesting reading.
There are other well known scientists, who also disagree with the IPCC assessment reports.
Professor Roger Pielke Jr.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson.
Professor Peter Ridd.
Dr Roy Spencer, who is not a Climate denialist.
Professor Freeman Dyson - Physicist
Adjuct Professor Willie Soon - Aerospace Engineer, paid by the dreaded Petrol industry.
49 Former NASA scientists and astronauts
Prof Myron Wyn Evan B. Sc., Ph. D., D. S - Physicist (Sigma Pi Sigma of the American Institute of Physics 1995).
Joseph E. Postma - M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy, a definite denier.
Dennis Hollars - PH D Astrophysicist.
Dr Charles Wax - past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University.
U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008.
Professor Michael Beenstock - Professor of Economics.
Dr. Edward Wegman - Prof of Statistics.
Perhaps you won't feel quite so concerned that the earth is going to burn up after reading what they say. |
As I have pointed out several times, I am not a believer in global warming. I believe we are going through climate chaneg as an eternally ongoing process but, we are destroying habitats, polluting our world.
Now Nuclear power, safe and clean, until you have a Fukushima. Then where do you put the waste? That waste takes a long time to become safe, Where do we keep putting the waste? How do we store what will be a vast amount in less than 1000 years, if mankind lasts that long. A typical Nuclear plant won't last 40 years, There are around 440 Nuclear plants worldwide that would all need replacing. The most common fuel is Uranium 235 with a half life of 700 million years. The planet will be overflowing with nuclear waste, nowhere left for people to live, is that what you want for our childrens futures? | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:48 - Nov 28 with 1937 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:05 - Nov 28 by Catullus |
As I have pointed out several times, I am not a believer in global warming. I believe we are going through climate chaneg as an eternally ongoing process but, we are destroying habitats, polluting our world.
Now Nuclear power, safe and clean, until you have a Fukushima. Then where do you put the waste? That waste takes a long time to become safe, Where do we keep putting the waste? How do we store what will be a vast amount in less than 1000 years, if mankind lasts that long. A typical Nuclear plant won't last 40 years, There are around 440 Nuclear plants worldwide that would all need replacing. The most common fuel is Uranium 235 with a half life of 700 million years. The planet will be overflowing with nuclear waste, nowhere left for people to live, is that what you want for our childrens futures? |
That is the benifit of new designs, especially molten salt reactors, they use the old waste to run and remove the majority of their radiation, thus making the earth safer.
They are also not able to suffer the fate of Fukushima as they fail safe.
There is also the Safire project, if the information can be believed that can also use the waste and totally remove all radiation.
If we cannot find other ways to remove the radiation waste in 1000 years then we will have retrograded scientifically. Even now it could be sent in to the sun. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:56 - Nov 28 with 1920 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Hooray, we have 5 times as much wind power today, it is currrently 2.35Gw or 6% of demand, it will soon be more than a single modern Gas powered station or a nuclear reactor can produce.
Boris's Green Industrial Revolution is absolute Bull. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:18 - Nov 28 with 1918 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 18:56 - Nov 28 by A_Fans_Dad |
Hooray, we have 5 times as much wind power today, it is currrently 2.35Gw or 6% of demand, it will soon be more than a single modern Gas powered station or a nuclear reactor can produce.
Boris's Green Industrial Revolution is absolute Bull. |
That last line is right, yes.
The idea of using cleaner and greener power sources is not BS though. | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 20:21 - Nov 28 with 1912 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 19:18 - Nov 28 by Catullus |
That last line is right, yes.
The idea of using cleaner and greener power sources is not BS though. |
Of course it is if it doesn't do the job.
But you believe that it will get better, I don't, so we agree to dis-agree. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 11:30 - Nov 29 with 1895 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Oh dear, the wind has gone on holiday again, back down to0.75Gws and 2.1% of demand again.
But never mind it will get much better some time in the future, at enormous cost to the tax payer no doubt. | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:11 - Dec 3 with 1873 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Cat, we are told that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is dying, half dead etc.
How about the reality of the situation from an actual on the spot Scientist?
This is a classic case of reality compared to the mass media narrative promoting other scientist's views of environmental disaster.
If you have the time have a read, you may find it enlightening, even though Jennifer is a "denialist scientist", she is doing ground work.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/ | | | |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:27 - Dec 3 with 1866 views | Catullus |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 12:11 - Dec 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Cat, we are told that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is dying, half dead etc.
How about the reality of the situation from an actual on the spot Scientist?
This is a classic case of reality compared to the mass media narrative promoting other scientist's views of environmental disaster.
If you have the time have a read, you may find it enlightening, even though Jennifer is a "denialist scientist", she is doing ground work.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/ |
What Marohasy does has been described as "junk Science" with flawed methodology and using highly selective data with no reasoning as to why certain data was used.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-publi
Other eminent scientists disagree with her but as always, it comes down to what you choose to believe.
I've seen pictures from the Great Barrier reef, here you go,
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/explore-atlas-great-barrier-
There are other signs the Oceans are warming such as Great WHite sharks being seen further North than before and more commonly too.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predic
So again, we have to agree to disagree. Experts eh, if one day they all agree on something who believes them will depend on the media source they use! | |
| |
| Johnson"s "Green Industrial Revolution" on 13:54 - Dec 3 with 1842 views | A_Fans_Dad |
So, videos and photographs of areas of the reef showing how well it is doing are "junk science"?
OK.
Perhaps you should have read some of it instead of immediately looking for a reason not to? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
