1 - Indigenous Jungle stolen for huge soy Farms

- It's a danger of CO2 panic that cases like these which we can easily do something about are often ignored as organisations concentrate on less effective minor CO2 fixes.

The Sahara is getting smaller

(of course you won't see this as a positive in the one sided debate in the media.) This show said it was local people were beginning to see trees as belonging to them (not to outsiders/landowners) and therefore to value them. So they don't cut so much down so natures improving.

more

"To put that into context, the U.S. global emissions each year is something like 8 petagrams, and what we found was something like a tenth of a petagram, plus. [1 petagram = 1 billion metric tons.] So in terms of fossil fuel emissions, it's pretty small. But in terms of forest impact, and particularly by a single storm, it's pretty significant."
- added hurricane Katrina released more forest CO2 than new tree growth in the US that year

The Naked Scientists report on R5 about London Array was misleading. In the report I heard numbers like "50% of UK production", (the word windpower was blurred), "a quarter of Londons homes"

i.e. bigging it up terms probably straight off the press release.
- Wow it's going to be huge I thought, then I heard the number 1000 MW and as an engineer I'm like, but that's bugger all ! don't these media types have a feeling for basic number things. Have they no idea that's not a huge power station ?

- quick numbers: UK production is 46GW so 1000MW is about 2%. that's hardly mega mega
- Now of course it doesn't run flat out, as it's not always windy. They say 35-40% load factor, but in practice best is 27%
so @30% = 0.65 % of UK electricity production optimistic ballpark figure.

O.65% that is hardly mega mega !

Further perpective (from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3074)
- London Array: up to 341 wind turbines in the Thames Estuary
Cost: ?.5bn Power: 1000MW (when the wind is blowing)

- New Grain Power Station: gas fired, also in the Thames Estuary
Cost: ?50m Power: 1200MW (when the gas is available)

Government agrees to 1.2GW Gas Power plant with 25% lower CO2
This could be the true story as it's convenient to consider the Thames new Gas Power Station and the Array as part of one unit cos that's how it will work. When it's windy you'd turn the gas down & still satisfy demand. So what you end up with is a 1.2GW plant, where 25% of the output is CO2 free and almost cost free . So maybe that's why those nice people at a Shell a building a windfarm cos perhaps they get to sell quite a lot of gas ?

- See The London Array Windfarm Notes

Jan 2008 2 corrections
- 1. the BBC website priced New Grain @ ?50m the E-on website uses the 40% higher figure of ?00m (this still 1/10 of equivalent of a windfarm)
- 2. Since Gas plants reduce CO2 by 55% average over coal 75% of the time the CO2 would be at 45% of coal so the average would be 34% of coal. So wind component has reduced CO2 by 25% and the gas by a further 41% , - yes that's right the biggest reduction in CO2 comes from the gas part not the wind

So if you were mining gold
- mine 1 has a 99% impurity means to to get a 1Kg of gold you have to remove 99Kg of spoil
- mine 2 has a 98% impurity means to to get a 1Kg of gold you have to remove 49 Kg of spoil
- mine 3 has a 90% impurity means to to get a 1Kg of gold you have to remove 9 Kg of spoil

Wow that 1% difference in impurity makes a huge cost saving of course cos it has double the gold purity from 1% to 2%
likewise in cleaning the waste water the amount of work needed to get a 99% pure solution compared to a 98% is huge.

Doesn't this principle apply to risk ?
- If you are sure something might happen like i.e. 50% risk, then money is well spent, but if the risk is small say ii. 2% the amount of money it costs to reduce the risk to 1% is huge. But of course you can say we will save double the lives. Circular thinking ? no not quite i-you save 48 lives in 100 ii you save 1 extra life.

So $10bn spent reducing CO2 by 1% is a waste of money. If you could reduce it 50% that would be worth it, though I wouldn't spend $100bn to do this. ( bear in mind the recirculation effect of government spending a fair amount of money comes back in tax etc, that's why wars aren't as expensive as they seem. )

Small risks mean it's not worth spending big money

2- The Clowns Funny Sketches : The Intro -Tell people the truth ? No, you have to hype it up and throw logic out of the Window .. There is no much bad logic in IPCC thinking	7 - The Jugglers - juggling with the stats
12 The puppet Show - Is the Green Movement a puppet of anti-capitalist clowns ?	15a - The Tightrope Walker - A research Scientist tries to hold keep his research grant without losing his/her integrity

actually it became 20 cartoons you can see the rest here : IPCC Circus Cartoons , Page 2

Most shock horror stories reveal after an hour of Googling to be a weak story which has grown legs in the reporting e.g. Lowest Arctic Ice Ever= only 28 years of measurement and record high level of Antarctic Ice on the same day.

I have no doubt "it is too bad to be true", so major flaws will be revealed.-

- The basis CO2 is in increasing, some of it falls in the ocean, the more falls the more acid the ocean. Shellfisfish cannot make shells in high pH acid water

- Last year the same prog said "Oh my God if CO2 levels reach 660ppm then Coral is finished", The same professors university profile webpage says "550ppm then it's finished", His new article says "450-500 ppm", and the presenter said "remember it must go no higher than 450 or else !" ...Do you spot a pattern ?

11/1/2008 I found the debunk Good Acidification debunk

- 3 other debunks and my notes Full details

-It's important to note that
1- As regards ocean levels coral is killed only when ocean levels fall, not rise.
2 - Coral is a slight net emitter of CO2 rather than a sink