Carlos

Include the cost of control boxes and rewiring each individual circuit into 2 separate ones, it wouldn't be something for nothing.Also I think the local authorities band together to get the best rate for electricity for the street lights? And maybe that it's a price per light, regardless of the hours used? Environmental benefits likely stronger than the economic ones.

Absolutely, and I found a great quote from a "pro AGW" scientist ripping into a journalist who was fishing for a quote long those lines..... I've lost it though.... unless it's somewhere further back up the thread Of course that runs both ways, but if both sides would keep the junk science from their own "supporters" out of the picture then we might get something with more meat on it in the press as well

I suppose it depends on who is looking at it.I actually find the "wide view" more worrying, as it reminds you how much of a total change has happened. With the non-zero axis it's easy to think "things are changing fast" but not think of how significant that may be.

So if the VE project is turned down and then BP applied for something similar on their own, you'd not object?

show us what predictions have panned out as "predicted" all the computer models put forward by the scare mongers have failed to correctly predict current tempretures. but your excuse for that is this one is better than the last one, over and over again And the predictions from the "other side" which have panned out better?

Hmmm... maybe this whole debate just comes down to different personality types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception

What decade of cooling? We've just had the hottest decade ever recorded. Show me this decade of cooling. Sorry, I should have said the one in which there has been no statistically significant warming. But you have dodged the question. Tell me who had a model in 1998 which did not expect the warming trend to continue. Can you find one? Because I have not been able to. I had a bit of a trawl on that subject last night and didn't find anything too solid either. There are 1998 papers looking at NAO and ENSO effects on climate, but they seem to have expected a positive NAO effect to continue at that point. I was surprised to see that the multi-decadal NAO effects were apparently only recognised in 2001, so that likely goes some way to explaining why they were not in models before, if not exactly backing up the idea that we know exactly what's going on To play devil's advocate there is of course the reciprocal argument - which models produced by those sceptical of AGW prior to 2000 predicted steady temperatures now?

Is this one still up to date? http://www.shetland.gov.uk/vikingenergy/files/Volume%204a%20Appendices/Appendix%2014.4%20Peat%20Volumes%20and%20Reuse.pdf Page 9 - 878,000m3 of peat to excavate, hoping to reuse 321,000m3 of that. Assuming all those numbers are right that's the Total proposal dealing with a between a third and a half of the peat involved in the VE works.

The Lerwick graph in green. If the original data is available it'd be interesting to see rolling 5 and 10 year averages for Lerwick too. http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2858/shetlandvsglobaltemps.jpg

I think this is the source interview for that story, and gives a fuller picture of his views. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

That bit of the street has a few marked bays for... 15 minute is it? short stay parking.... about 4 marked bays I think..... 2 of them disabled badge holders only? Parking anywhere else there abouts could get you a ticket. The rest of the street is closed to all drivers except disabled badge holders from.... 11:30 to 5:30? something like that.

I've heard that generally Norwegian tunnels may be steeper, but have 3 lanes, to give a climbing lane for heavy vehicles? Where the EU approach seems to be to keep the grades gentle enough to not need an extra lane? 8% likely seems steeper when it's a continuous 3 km climb.... Not sure on the levels, but I suspect the Sound Brae is maybe 9% at most?

5.7km for that one compared with 7.1km for Whalsay - 25% extra. A Whalsay tunnel would be 40 to 50m below the sea bed I think it said... not sure what depth of water there is on the route.... £95M plus 25% is pretty near £35M x3..... The road spec. they quote is about the same as a new A class Shetland road, so not hugely different from what would be needed here. Road grades on the Norwegian tunnel are 10% maximum and I think we are limited to 8% for UK specs? That likely adds 500m + of tunnel length on its own.

Because voters don't care if things go bad for 8 or 10 years, but will keep that party in control anyhow for the long term gains..........

From the reports we have 4 boats and £50M involved? Is the case that each boat needed £10M+ extra income above what they could catch on quotas, just to break even?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves About half down the page is some background to changing declared reserves "There are doubts about the reliability of official OPEC reserves estimates, which are not provided with any form of audit or verification that meet external reporting standards" and "The most prominent explanation of the revisions is prompted by a change in OPEC rules which set production quotas (partly) on reserves"

There are agreed limits on how much and how fast you can pump from an oil field, and they depend on how much oil you declare is left in there.....

Hello GT, I hope that you will find time to give some input on keeping the science straight, as I feel that's something that is hard to do - mainstream media not reporting enough detail to know what's going on, and extreme views leading the viewing figures on the net. If I could throw in a local question that interests me - From Met Office figures annual rainfall in Shetland has gone up 25% since records started (about 1930 was it?). Any accepted opinion on that in professional circles? How widespread is that change, how does it fit in longer term cycles (if any) and what changes have actually happened in rainfall patterns - more rainy days, or more intense rainfall events, seasonal changes?

Dangerous = any increased risk? An infinitesimal amount of man made warming (which he accepts?) = an infinitesimal increase in risk of quite a few things (even if the overall effect is beneficial) = dangerous? On the general area I thought this was quite a well balanced article, and you have to love a Feyman quote:- “Science is the organised scepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.†http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7018438.ece

I think they are doing it already. Global temperature not rising in the last 10 years.... The most positively received ideas I've seen for cooling the climate down would still be pretty big scale though..... not sure on getting that done without somebody noticing.... It is only 4.5 million... oops, you're right - it was the other article that was talking billions

Alternative scenario 2 People don't want to pay for things until there is an immediate threat. If climate change gets to be an immediate threat, it's already too late to do too much in the short term by CO2 reduction. If/when we get things like droughts hitting US or Chinese food production, they'll give climate engineering a shot, and the effects of that will not be quite so predicable as things like CO2 reduction, so lets hope for the best..... Ecconomists back climate engineering over taxation - http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2248988/economists-back-climate Bill Gates invests $4.5B in climate engineering - http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/bill-gates-paying-for-climate-hacking-research/

As above, most of the running costs for the ferries comes from Edinburgh at the moment, which is one of the things that makes it had to compare long term costs of ferries vs tunnels. Building a tunnel saves Edinburgh year on year revenue money (wages, fuel) and saves Shetland long term capital money (new ferries and terminals) by spending our capital money up front, but remember the tunnel will have ongoing revenue spend too - inspection, maintenance, pumping, lighting.... as well as at least some staffing costs.

Doesn't most of the revenue costs on the ferry get paid directly by Edinburgh as part of the rate support grant?

The report outlines how they went back to the company who had given a £35M figure, gave them some more information, the actual tunnel length invloved, and looked at recent similar projects, and the "tunnel build only" cost went uphill pretty quickly. But hey, if a company is really offering a fixed design & build price, including roads and all the rest for £35M, then snap their hand off.

Which particular bits of the links do you disagree with?