View Full Version : 2011 A year of extremes
2011 was the wettest year in Scotland when some areas in England had the driest, the second hottest for the UK, the hottest globally in a La Nina year (which is supposed to depress global temperatures) and the tenth hottest globally on record. Not to mention all the weather extremes around the world.
Have a Happy New Year.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jan-12, 15:03
Did you read this article in RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/copernicus-and-arrhenius-physics-then-and-physics-today)recently?
Copernicus and Arrhenius: Physics Then and Physics Today
There was a really interesting article in Physics Today (http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1) this past October on the parallels between the slow acceptance of the idea of anthropogenic climate change and of the idea that the earth circles the sun.
Author Steven Sherwood writes that:
“Many who are unwilling to accept the full brunt of greenhouse warming have embraced a more comforting compromise reminiscent of the Tychonic system*: that CO2 has some role in climate but its importance is being exaggerated. But accepting a nonzero warming effect puts one on a slippery slope: Once acknowledged, the effect must be quantified, and every legitimate method for doing so yields a significant magnitude. As the evidence sinks in, we can expect a continued, if slow, drift to full acceptance. It took both Copernicanism and greenhouse warming roughly a century to go from initial proposal to broad acceptance by the relevant scientific communities. It remains to be seen how long it will take greenhouse warming to achieve a clear public consensus; one hopes it will not take another century.”
A really important point is that what Sherwood is talking about here is not about acceptance of anthropogenic greenhouse warming within the scientific community — that acceptance has already happened — but amongst the general public. Of course, the analogy with Copernicus is still a good one, because it did take some time for understanding of the greenhouse idea to really take hold within the scientific community. Indeed, it has only been in the last year that the American Physical Society (APS) has considered climate change a central-enough topic to deem it worthy to start a climate change ‘topical group’. (The APS topical groups are formal, structured discussion groups that have to be approved by APS. Note for those that might think politics might have played a role in slowing things down: this most certainly isn’t the case. The APS leadership is simply very conservative about what is deemed central enough to Physics to approve a topical discussion group; for example, a colleague of mine spent several years trying to convince APS to support such a group on Quantum Information. That climate change is now an APS focus group topic makes a strong statement, but not a political one: it simply reflects the maturity of the field. Members of APS that are interested in climate should consider joining; there are bound to be some very interesting discussions in areas such as radiative transfer and atmospheric dynamics.)
Sherwood’s article deserves to be widely read. It is freely available on the Physics Today web site (http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1).
For more on the history of of the development of the greenhouse idea within the physics community, our own Ray Pierrehumbert’s article in Physics Today (pdf) (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf) is also a very worthwhile read.
*Tycho accepted the evidence that the other planets orbit the sun, but tried to come up with a way to still keep the sun orbiting the earth.
You can see some parallels between what Steven Sherwood claims in his article and the posts of some members of this forum, many of whom haven't yet got past the denial stage.
I'll quote some particularly relevant paragraphs from Sherwood's article in a future post.
I suppose we all start with an open mind - we're not born with fixed ideas..
Devils advocate, it gets a discussion going.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jan-12, 16:48
Here is one paragraph from the article I mentioned above (http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1):
Relativity contrarians basked in conspiracy ideas, claimed to be able to disprove Einstein’s theory, and were convinced that the scientific establishment was suppressing their alternative views—all claims echoed nowadays by climate contrarians. But it is not hard to spot the differences between those groups and the real vanguard of a scientific revolution. Copernicus, Einstein, Charles Darwin, and Alfred Wegener, the founder of plate tectonics, all proposed powerful new theories that challenged core assumptions held by humanity for generations. Their theories steadily gained traction first among up-and-coming experts, then among the general population. Relativity and climate contrarians instead offer a wide range of mutually exclusive and sketchy proposals, which generally predate the new theory and lack predictive power. But because the contrarian proposals reinforce traditional beliefs, they enjoy a prolonged period of public popularity even as their currency among successive generations of experts approaches zero.
The man in the street - whether educated or not - tends not to believe anything that doesn't reinforce traditional beliefs, which we have seen so many times in hundreds of posts on Climate Change in this forum. The irony is that the typical "climate change denier in the street" will laugh at anyone who denies Copernican Heliocentricity - probably because he has been brought up on it, not because he has any idea how to verify it empirically. As for General Relativity, the typical man in the street doesn't even know what it is!
Will the General Theory be affected by the alleged 'discoveries' re the OPERA results?
Bobinovich
02-Jan-12, 17:32
However, unlike those independent scientists of the past pushing their radical ideas to become accepted, we now have industry-sponsored scientists pushing thories which tend to be in tune with their respective sponsors leanings - that is for both sides, we see companies out to cash in on the fast buck from the current drive for renewables - all suposedly in the name of helping to counter anthropogenic climate change.
If world leaders have been duly convinced by their independent scientific advisers that we, as a planet, must change our wicked ways then surely they'd be pushing through emergency legislation, regardless of how hard it might be for us to accept, to ensure that we all contribute what is necessary to reverse what we are doing to the planet. Saying that, I understand that the general consensus is that climate change is now largely irreversible.
So, until we see a concerted global effort being made to change, from the top down - International, National, Governmental & Industry - then I don't see how us 'little people' at the end of the chain are going to be convinced that we can and should do our bit.
However, unlike those independent scientists of the past pushing their radical ideas to become accepted, we now have industry-sponsored scientists pushing thories which tend to be in tune with their respective sponsors leanings - that is for both sides, we see companies out to cash in on the fast buck from the current drive for renewables - all suposedly in the name of helping to counter anthropogenic climate change.
If world leaders have been duly convinced by their independent scientific advisers that we, as a planet, must change our wicked ways then surely they'd be pushing through emergency legislation, regardless of how hard it might be for us to accept, to ensure that we all contribute what is necessary to reverse what we are doing to the planet. Saying that, I understand that the general consensus is that climate change is now largely irreversible.
So, until we see a concerted global effort being made to change, from the top down - International, National, Governmental & Industry - then I don't see how us 'little people' at the end of the chain are going to be convinced that we can and should do our bit.
Well if you and the rest of your ilk could stop being so apathetic, cynical and sceptical and actually take global warming a little bit more seriously then perhaps we could see that big change in approach? Politicians will give us what we want. I'm trying to focus upon the issues and the science, I don't give a monkeys if someone makes a buck out of it, heck people have made zillions more out of wrecking the planet. What do you think you could do? :Razz
secrets in symmetry
02-Jan-12, 19:45
However, unlike those independent scientists of the past pushing their radical ideas to become accepted, we now have industry-sponsored scientists pushing thories which tend to be in tune with their respective sponsors leanings - that is for both sides, we see companies out to cash in on the fast buck from the current drive for renewables - all suposedly in the name of helping to counter anthropogenic climate change.Your first sentence is very misleading. Most climate scientists work for independent universities or independent laboratories/organisations. Very little funding for their work comes from industry, and, anyway, no scientist that I know would "push theories" just because a company wanted to hear them. Research scientists are far more independent minded, and have far more integrity than the general public thinks they have.
What you say about industry-sponsored scientists pushing their sponsors' leanings is mainly a myth. Some company employees may do that, but very few of them have any qualifications or experience in climate research. Most climate deniers are not scientists, and certainly not climate scientists. Many are simply idiots.
If world leaders have been duly convinced by their independent scientific advisers that we, as a planet, must change our wicked ways then surely they'd be pushing through emergency legislation, regardless of how hard it might be for us to accept, to ensure that we all contribute what is necessary to reverse what we are doing to the planet. Saying that, I understand that the general consensus is that climate change is now largely irreversible.Some (but not all) world leaders are pushing through legislation as fast as they think they can without ruining the world economy or losing power. That's why they set up the IPPP, and that's why they hold summits from time to time. Things move slowly for a variety of reasons, e.g. because of power struggles and political agendas, because world leaders don't really understand the science, because they don't want to alienate oil companies completely, etc. There is also disagreement on how best to power the planet in future, e.g. wave and wind versus nuclear versus carbon capture, etc. Many of the desired (or necessary) technologies aren't mature or don't exist yet, e.g. carbon capture, fusion, storage for renewables. There are companies and organisations that peddle downright lies for their own benefits, and governments have to deal with them too. Oil companies are some of the worst offenders, as are Scottish Renewables - the latter peddle downright lies with gay abandon. Then there are leaders who push renewables, but who haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they talk rubbish most of the time. Wee Fat Eck is the prime example there.
So, until we see a concerted global effort being made to change, from the top down - International, National, Governmental & Industry - then I don't see how us 'little people' at the end of the chain are going to be convinced that we can and should do our bit.That concerted effort won't happen in the simple minded fashion you seem to suggest. Industry wants to make money, governments want to be re-elected, people resist change to their comfort zones of understanding, etc. Legislation is already being passed to reduce CO2 emissions. It's people's choice to be awkward right now, but in the end you won't be able to buy stuff that pollutes the atmosphere with CO2 like you can now - because of the convoluted concerted effort that does (and will) exist. :cool:
The Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, David JC Mackay is saying that the cost of tackling climate change to each of us between now and 2050 will be no dearer than doing nothing about it.
Mystical Potato Head
02-Jan-12, 20:10
The Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, David JC Mackay is saying that the cost of tackling climate change to each of us between now and 2050 will be no dearer than doing nothing about it.
Could you give us some proven facts as to how he comes to this conclusion?
After all,you would be the first one to pull me up if i quoted something,someone had said about climate change that hadnt been peer reviewed.
Could you give us some proven facts as to how he comes to this conclusion?
After all,you would be the first one to pull me up if i quoted something,someone had said about climate change that hadnt been peer reviewed.
Again I do all the running for you, happy to oblige. ;) As for proven facts, ha! Tell me one prediction that is a proven fact. By the time you wait for proven facts on climate change then the damage is done.
It is a proven fact that he says that tackling climate change is no dearer than doing nothing about it.
The least surprising bit to me anyway is the more nuclear option was going to be the most expensive as nuclear economics don't add up, at least in the long term.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/28/uk-switch-low-carbon-energy
I have an O level in Physics and that is about the level of my interest! I also have the pleasure to know some very respected and highly qualified scientists who are patient and gentle when explaining their relative fields to me in quite some detail. (lecture notes were interesting!!!!) I learnt a lot from them and was interested in many aspects of their work because it was part of who they are and because, knowing I was smart enough to get it, they took time to explain things in a manner I could grasp.What I find about the climate change arguments on here is that the posts tend to be so long and turgid that i lose interest half way through. The threads themselves always degenerate into a sneering match between various posters so I lose interest half way through. They often refer to articles which are long winded and Scientific in a complicated manner so I lose interest half wsy through. Maybe I dont have any staying power or maybe im just thick but I cant get interested enough to sift through all the stuff to find anything informative or instructive. Ill keep dipping into threads like this with more hope than expectation but i fear im destined to be disappointed.
So for us ludites who don't understand the Pantene bit, what is happening & what is the answer?
The threads themselves always degenerate into a sneering match between various posters so I lose interest half way through.
Yes I agree and that is why people who deny climate change degenerate these threads into a sneering match because they know it diverts the thread from the real issues.
You mean like this one; "Well if you and the rest of your ilk could stop being so apathetic, cynical and sceptical" ?
You mean like this one; "Well if you and the rest of your ilk could stop being so apathetic, cynical and sceptical" ?
That is not attacking someone personally, that is pointing out that someone is being apathetic, cynical and sceptical. It is a comment on the message, not the person.
Mystical Potato Head
03-Jan-12, 13:19
Yes I agree and that is why people who deny climate change degenerate these threads into a sneering match because they know it diverts the thread from the real issues.
I think you should have a close look at your own doorstep first.Look at your reply to Bobinovich's comment.It isnt very often he gives an opinion on the subject and the one he gave was in a mannerly fashion with no sarcasm or rudeness towards you.As squidge has already pointed out,thankfully there are teachers and lecturers who take the time to explain things in a civil manner and not ridicule
people when they question what they're being told or for just being the ordinary man in the street and assume like SIS does that they dont, or are not capable of understanding.That really is the height of arrogance.
It is attacking their personal opinion so how can it only be a comment on the message and not the person when your attacking their personal point of view?
Yes I agree and that is why people who deny climate .....
I am genuinely interested in understanding this kind of statement. I have seen this type of quote in many places.
Who or what is a 'climate change denier' ?
And what has this to do with renewable energy?
Reggy why be so dismissive? you're a relatively recent convert yourself - if there was less of calling us [or our posts] numpties who won't listen, and come to realise we're all open to suggestion with an unbiased mind, it might help your cause.
I can fully understand Squidge's post: "highly qualified scientists who are patient and gentle when explaining their relative fields to me in quite some detail" Apologies, but highlights are mine.
You are NOT a Climate Scientist, and I do despair why you become so, shall we say; 'het up' because your message is not getting through.
This Org is made up of thousands; from all varied walks of life, but not one takes kindly to having information - no matter how brief - thrust down their throats.
Why sir, you even doubt the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
October 2005 "I have been checking up on some of IPCC's data and I smell a rat."
Is it any wonder that a few of us here challenge you? This is not sneering, but apart from you and your doppelganger these global warming / man-made / natural threads would be bereft of posters, and said thread would simply sink away.
Yes, some of us do want to hear 'views' on these aspects of our planet, but without the condescending attitudes that seem to persist..
Everyone can have their own opinion but not their own facts.
This Org is made up of thousands; from all varied walks of life, but not one takes kindly to having information - no matter how brief - thrust down their throats.
On the subject of the most serious disaster to happen to this planet then you must tow the line on pain of death to the said planet. Not liking facts thrown down your throats is not an excuse to deny climate change which is very likely real and happening.
Bobinovich
03-Jan-12, 17:14
...which is very likely real and happening.
Likely real Rheg? Is this you admitting that, like many others feel, the whole thing might NOT be real? Doesn't that make you a partial denier yourself if you don't fully believe in what you're preaching?
Likely real Rheg? Is this you admitting that, like many others feel, the whole thing might NOT be real? Doesn't that make you a partial denier yourself if you don't fully believe in what you're preaching?
I'm very objective about climate science but if we represent the uncertainties as much as the certainties when it is very likely to be happening then we will be guilty of misrepresenting the science.
billmoseley
03-Jan-12, 17:49
maybe the changes are just the earth going though it's natural cycle and yes maybe man has accelerated it a bit
secrets in symmetry
03-Jan-12, 17:53
maybe the changes are just the earth going though it's natural cycle and yes maybe man has accelerated it a bitLol! Go and read the article I quoted earlier!
Hmmm, I'll try again.
........ many of whom haven't yet got past the denial stage.
I am genuinely interested in understanding this kind of statement. I have seen this type of quote in many places.
Who or what is a 'climate change denier' ?
And what has this to do with renewable energy?
billmoseley
03-Jan-12, 19:50
Lol! Go and read the article I quoted earlier! well i read can,t agree with it. firstly they say the earth isn't flat never heard such twaddle we al no it is. so i'm off to start up both my gas guzzlers light my extra smoke coal fire and enjoy this lovely weather :lol::lol::lol:
secrets in symmetry
04-Jan-12, 15:00
Hmmm, I'll try again.
I am genuinely interested in understanding this kind of statement. I have seen this type of quote in many places.
Who or what is a 'climate change denier' ?It's a generic (and usually, but not always, derogatory) term for anyone who denies the existence of anthropogenic climate change. It may be denial due to lack of knowledge (usually, but not always, wilfully), or (on the other extreme) to wilful pig ignorance. Intellectual laziness is another common cause - people don't even try to understand the evidence. There are plenty of examples of all types on this forum.
And what has this to do with renewable energy?In principle, it doesn't have much to do with renewable energy, but in practice it has everything to do with it. We gain most of our energy from burning fossil fuels, which leads to increased CO2 and hence increased global warming. In order to stop this, we need to find alternative sources of energy which don't pump out CO2. Energy from nuclear fission is one such example, but this alone won't solve the energy problem (for a variety of reasons), and we don't yet have fusion. Burning coal or gas with carbon capture and storage is another example, but the technology isn't yet mature. So renewables such as wind,wave, tide, solar, and hydro come into the game. That's about it!
I always thought 'climate change denier' is one who questions whether the 'climate is changing' it's not whether it is man-made (anthropogenic) or a natural cycle; it's those denying global warming..
So myself, who believes the planet is warming, am, thankfully not in that terrible camp of wilful pig ignorance, or Intellectual laziness or don't even try to understand the evidence. so am not to be one of these infuriating types on this forum. If I'm wrong, let me think, is there anyone on this ere Org who had doubts?
I'm sooo pleased we have a Climate Scientist on this ere Org, so reassuring to have such a knowledgeable contributor
I'm sooo pleased we have a Climate Scientist on this ere Org, so reassuring to have such a knowledgeable contributor
Only one Beks? I thought we had more than one !!!...:roll:
"Willful pig-ignorance" ?...Yep, that's me when it comes to climate change, really pig-ignorant but happy with it!!! ...;)
C3............;)
If you're so concerned about the environment and climate Rheg then why do you drive a big 4x4 and a campervan, will you be trading them in anytime soon for a Toyota Prius, a trailer and a tent? :cool:
Green_not_greed
04-Jan-12, 22:49
2011 was the wettest year in Scotland when some areas in England had the driest, the second hottest for the UK, the hottest globally in a La Nina year (which is supposed to depress global temperatures) and the tenth hottest globally on record. .
I blame the SNP. Its all since that smug wee dictator got re-elected. If they didn't stop putting all those things up which interfere with the wind, we wouldn't have these problems. Fact.
If you're so concerned about the environment and climate Rheg then why do you drive a big 4x4 and a campervan, will you be trading them in anytime soon for a Toyota Prius, a trailer and a tent? :cool:
I also live in a house, should I go live in a cave or a treehugger's commune? :cool:
If you think the answer to that question is 'Yes' then do you think being concerned for the environment is going to catch on with the rest of society? :confused
I personally don't think people should go live in cold caves, give up on foreign travel or fast cars, life is too precious to waste being sat at home but I do think society needs to change to get off fossil fuels and make it affordable for us all.
I also live in a house, should I go live in a cave or a treehugger's commune? :cool:
If you think the answer to that question is 'Yes' then do you think being concerned for the environment is going to catch on with the rest of society? :confused
I personally don't think people should go live in cold caves, give up on foreign travel or fast cars, life is too precious to waste being sat at home but I do think society needs to change to get off fossil fuels and make it affordable for us all.Goodness me Reggy, well, is it 'yes'? cos if it is, it's rather a contradictory, and dare I say it, hypocritical statement; driving a gas guzzling 4 x 4 and a Campervan, and then instructing US to "get off fossil fuels"!!
It's gonna be difficult to take you seriously from now on.:~(
It's gonna be difficult to take you seriously from now on.:~(
You liar, you never took me seriously before.
and then instructing US to "get off fossil fuels"!!
Liar, I don't think I've ever instructed you personally to get off fossil fuels.
I also live in a house, should I go live in a cave or a treehugger's commune? :cool: If you think the answer to that question is 'Yes' then do you think being concerned for the environment is going to catch on with the rest of society? :confused I personally don't think people should go live in cold caves, give up on foreign travel or fast cars, life is too precious to waste being sat at home but I do think society needs to change to get off fossil fuels and make it affordable for us all. No, I don't suggest you should live in a cave, in fact, I applaud you for going some way to offset your carbon footprint by installing solar panels, though I dare say the long term cash saving also helped swayed your decision to install them. The way I see it, you've banged the drum for ages about the climate, telling us we should pretty much change our way of living, regardless of how much it will cost us as taxpayers, yet you're not willing to completely give up your dependency on fossil fuels; you are like the vegetarian that doesn't believe in cruelty to animals, but can't quite bring yourself to give up wearing leather shoes. Btw, I do believe mankind has had a negative impact on the climate, but my apathy/cynicism stems from being confused by all the data because I'm not smart enough to understand it. Anytime someone tries to put forward an alternative argument they are drowned out by climate change lobbyists, no matter how good their professional credentials are, they are accused of being a denier. We'll still be dependant on fossil fuels for many years yet, partly because I think most people just don't care enough. It may be naive of me suggest it, but surely if our Government were serious enough about wanting us to use alternative energy means then they would instruct councils all over the UK to install solar panels on as much of the council housing stock as possible, then we wouldn't need so many wind turbines blotting the landscape.
Snip:
Politicians will give us what we want. When did politicians EVER give us what we want? :-)
ywindythesecond
05-Jan-12, 01:40
"There are companies and organisations that peddle downright lies for their own benefits, and governments have to deal with them too. Oil companies are some of the worst offenders, as are Scottish Renewables - the latter peddle downright lies with gay abandon. Then there are leaders who push renewables, but who haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they talk rubbish most of the time. Wee Fat Eck is the prime example there."
I know it is just a snapshot SiS, but you wrote it. Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done.
No, I don't suggest you should live in a cave, in fact, I applaud you for going some way to offset your carbon footprint by installing solar panels, though I dare say the long term cash saving also helped swayed your decision to install them. The way I see it, you've banged the drum for ages about the climate, telling us we should pretty much change our way of living, regardless of how much it will cost us as taxpayers, yet you're not willing to completely give up your dependency on fossil fuels; you are like the vegetarian that doesn't believe in cruelty to animals, but can't quite bring yourself to give up wearing leather shoes. Btw, I do believe mankind has had a negative impact on the climate, but my apathy/cynicism stems from being confused by all the data because I'm not smart enough to understand it. Anytime someone tries to put forward an alternative argument they are drowned out by climate change lobbyists, no matter how good their professional credentials are, they are accused of being a denier. We'll still be dependant on fossil fuels for many years yet, partly because I think most people just don't care enough. It may be naive of me suggest it, but surely if our Government were serious enough about wanting us to use alternative energy means then they would instruct councils all over the UK to install solar panels on as much of the council housing stock as possible, then we wouldn't need so many wind turbines blotting the landscape.
I haven't told anyone that they should change their way of living, what you do in your spare time is your business as is mine. I've only tried to gain support that society needs to change about how we get our energy and that the science of climate change is not a hoax etc. I only talk about climate change in the same context as an alcoholic does when he finally admits to him/herself that there is a problem and change needs to happen. When the other drunks accuse hypocrisy towards the reforming drunk for his/her past is not going to help the situation, in fact it will make things worse and force him back into his/her habit and probably make his detractors feel better in the process.
Thank you for letting the org know about the solar panels, that is one huge breach of trust from a person that is on my FB friends list. I didn't want the org to know about them as I didn't want to make out that I was some sort eco-warrior who puts his money where his mouth is, nobody loves someone who is all sanctimonious and holier than thou you know. ;) I was hoping to portray myself as the hapless and hypocritical person who is desperate to reduce their carbon footprint but can't for reasons that are out of his control.
Back to the fossil fuels bit, like you said, oil will continue to be part of our lives even in the long term and part of a low carbon energy strategy. Quite frankly there is no alternative for it, it is a useful form of fuel. In synergy to that, the scientists also seem to state that we can still have some dependency on oil and lower the carbon dioxide inventory in the atmosphere if and only if we reduce the world's carbon emissions by 80%. Mostly by vastly reducing the carbon emissions that is attributable to electrity generation and space heating with some reductions from transport. The world's natural carbon sinks will do the rest.
In the spirit of that and facing no alternative (because the system doesn't allow me to do otherwise) I'm replacing the car (later this month) by buying one that does 88.7 mpg and requires no vehicle excise, a win win situation.
I don't know of any other alternatives that add up, but if you accept that greenhouse emissions is causing climate change (even if you don't understand the science, I don't understand how a telly works but I still believe tellies work) and you admit reducing carbon emissions will reverse it but you see no political solution that will do it, then I can hardly call you a climate change denier, you are just being pessimistic on the belief that you are a realist. And your stance is perfectly understandable, the task is huge.
Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party is trying to lobby government to get them to put solar panels on all suitable social housing, so far one tory has signed up to it and no Lib Dems. If you really think that the system needs to change then why not vote for a candidate that supports Caroline? Vote Green seems to be the easiest answer. You can't hope to change the world by voting the same old bad dross or the less-so-bad dross back in every 5 years.
And BTW, you are making a pretty big assumption that everybody's motive for going veggie is that they are appalled to cruelty to animals, most are but not all, which means that they are not necessarily opposed to wearing leather or any other shoe making material.
You liar, you never took me seriously before.
Guilty as charged sir. But then reading through your recent posts, it's a conclusion that is now even more justified..
It's a generic (and usually, but not always, derogatory) term for anyone who denies the existence of anthropogenic climate change. It may be denial due to lack of knowledge (usually, but not always, wilfully), or (on the other extreme) to wilful pig ignorance. Intellectual laziness is another common cause - people don't even try to understand the evidence. There are plenty of examples of all types on this forum.
Thank you SiS.
I appreciate the fact that you note it as often derogatory. I quite agree. I would go so far as to say that it is often loaded with venom, it is used almost with religious fervour in so much that if anyone dare question anthropogenic climate change in any way, they are a Denier - a non believer. In my view this removes any debate and places the issue into a question of faith, and that it is not.
Using the term denier appears to be loaded with the same vitriol as used to describe a Holocaust denier, as if to try and shame people into 'believing'.
If there are questions due to lack of knowledge, why should those people be lambasted as deniers? Why not educate instead?
If people have educated questions and challenge, for whatever reason, the evidence for ACC why is this often met with derision, a refusal to engage and a shout of 'denier'.
Taking an objective view of the (loosely termed) 'debate' it is easy to see why many people have switched off and become apathetic, because it appears to be a question of faith and if you do not have the 'faith' you are to be deemed a non believer and therefore not worthy.
The solutions often appear contrary to their objectives and appear to be designed to help the wealthy and the corporates as their primary goal.
So why bother trying, let's just be a denier and carry on as we are!
My sincerest apologies re the solar panels, I (mistakenly) thought it was something that was common knowledge. I understand enough that we could and should do more to combat the greenhouse gases, the problem I and millions of others have is Governments appear to only be involved because of what can be raised in taxes in the name of being seen to be 'green'. Although the green voice is louder now than 20 years ago, people will continue to vote for the two/ three main parties in this country by how it will affect them financially, no-one is going to vote in a party that they think will see them shelling out more in taxes, it's turkeys voting for Christmas.
Liar, I don't think I've ever instructed you personally to get off fossil fuels.
Now sir, you enter a very unsafe arena; as calling me a liar is, in this instance totally uncalled for, The Org does not have "parliamentary privilege" in so doing.. in addition your knee-jerk reactionary retort does not make any sense whatsoever.
Please note my words above of 'US', which is pertaining to the objective form of 'we'.. i.e. not me personally..
Do wake up boy and take more notice and think things through before you post, an apology would not go amiss, but with my usual prediction I very much doubt I'll get one..
Rheghead, I am aware you call me a 'liar' but conversely I have to challenge you that you are very 'inconvenient' with the truth.
As we know you instigated the Thread: Coalition Government's cut to solar FiT is legally flawed dealing with the fact that the Feed in tariff paid to those who had solar panels installed was to be cut from 42p to 21p (the Government is to appeal) Don't blame Joxville for mentioning you have solar panels, your postings, gave a very good indication that you had these things.
"The plummeting costs of solar mean we've got no option but to act so that we stay within budget and not threaten the whole viability of the Fits scheme," 'The cut would have almost doubled the payback period for householders, meaning someone installing £10-12,000 solar panels would have only be in credit after 18 years rather than 10. The rate was to be reduced from 43.3p per kWh of solar electricity to just 21p, cutting returns from around 7% to 4%..'
However it is the higher of the two and getting such a good return is taken from the pockets of those who could ill afford it: "It is a disgrace that anyone should suffer from fuel poverty in an energy rich nation like Scotland. Price hikes by energy companies continue to undermine the Scottish Government's attempts to lift people out of fuel poverty.(Scottish Gov)
Almost a million homes are in Fuel Poverty
I did take note of your posts:
1) You mean the solar panels that cost the same price of a below average family car that the rest of us drive? "
You allegedly drive a 4 x 4 and a campervan
2) But hey wait a mo, you get charged no vehicle excise licence fees for having a car that does less than 100g CO2/km, surely someone has to pay for them to take to the road, it is the rest of us that has to do that and they are the rich that can afford those hybrid low carbon cars.
You then compound this statement by writing in this thread 'In the spirit of that and facing no alternative (because the system doesn't allow me to do otherwise) I'm replacing the car (later this month) by buying one that does 88.7 mpg and requires no vehicle excise, a win win situation.'
3) I actually find it morally repugnant that we should continue to be over reliant on fossil fuels thus making life hard for the poorest in society that can ill afford to heat their homes when the rich can buy themselves out of rising fuel prices.
But you drive a 4 x 4 AND a campervan AND have solar panels on your roof!
In conclusion; Please don't ever have the temerity to call ME a liar!
And Please don't come back chastising me for perusing your posts, I am after all - as you well know from my profile - only following my instinct..
weezer 316
05-Jan-12, 17:11
Calm down children!
Calm down children!
He started it, so there:lol:
He started it, so there:lol:
Yes but the hole in your arguments is that you are attacking me as an individual who is doing the right thing, getting a more fuel efficient car, cycling, getting insulation, replacing all the bad bulbs, getting solar panels, getting behind local renewable energy schemes, speaking up for them, condemning those that deny climate change, all those good things. I've changed my attitude of doing the same old high carbon lifestyle.
You actually make it sound that I have acted wrongly, you just sneer from the sidelines and not contribute anything worthwhile to these threads except to criticise.
My general comments are generally directed at society and there in lies the problem. As Joxville says, nobody takes climate change seriously enough, that tells me that my work here is not done and I need to bang the drum at twice the pace until the message gets through.
And btw you lied when you said that the new car was a hybrid, it isn't...
Yes but the hole in your arguments is that you are attacking me as an individual who is doing the right thing, getting a more fuel efficient car, cycling, getting insulation, replacing all the bad bulbs, getting solar panels, getting behind local renewable energy schemes, speaking up for them, condemning those that deny climate change, all those good things. I've changed my attitude of doing the same old high carbon lifestyle.
You actually make it sound that I have acted wrongly, you just sneer from the sidelines and not contribute anything worthwhile to these threads except to criticise.
My general comments are generally directed at society and there in lies the problem. As Joxville says, nobody takes climate change seriously enough, that tells me that my work here is not done and I need to bang the drum at twice the pace until the message gets through.
And btw you lied when you said that the new car was a hybrid, it isn't...
Relax Reggie you're still doing it: "condemning those that deny climate change".. "that tells me that my work here is not done and I need to bang the drum at twice the pace until the message gets through."
Who on earth do you think you are for goodness sake?
Less of that and folk might, I say 'might' listen to you.. as has been mentioned the more you treat this as a Religion, the less people will listen, it's not that hard, really..
Relax Reggie you're still doing it: "condemning those that deny climate change".. "that tells me that my work here is not done and I need to bang the drum at twice the pace until the message gets through."
Who on earth do you think you are for goodness sake?
Less of that and folk might, I say 'might' listen to you.. as has been mentioned the more you treat this as a Religion, the less people will listen, it's not that hard, really..
It is not a religion you daftie. global warming is evidence based, and well documented and peer reviewed.
It is not a religion you daftie. global warming is evidence based, and well documented and peer reviewed.
"daftie" eh? to be expected..
OK so the planet is warming, I've already posted that. I'm doing something, I've insulated until my energy bills are almost negligible.
I do not run a 4 x 4 and a campervan like yourself, neither do I berate people who do not follow the 'party line' as of an eco-religion, you have this very naive belief that 'banging your drum' will encourage others to follow you - apart from the possession of a couple of gas-guzzlers that is. And I also do not profit by taking money from those in fuel poverty who are paying for your panels, IF that action was to save the planet, why all the squeals about the halving of the FiT?
Time for a reality check.
People do not take kindly to being 'instructed'.
Example, you admitted in an earlier post that your 'Supporters of wind farms in Caithness' had (sic) not 'taken off', does this not indicate to you the apathy of Joe Public.. and you seriously believe that by continuing to drone on, it will make one jot of difference, why sir then you have no understanding of human nature..
Trouble with our tete-a-tete, is that it keeps bringing up this thread to the top of the Forum..;)
You've made your point, I've noted it now let me bang the drum in peace. Otherwise this thread is going to keep popping up and advertising my agenda. You do yourself no favors.
You've made your point, I've noted it now let me bang the drum in peace. Otherwise this thread is going to keep popping up and advertising my agenda. You do yourself no favors.
You were doing well there Reggy, bit of sting in the tail "you do yourself no favors" -You spent too long in America on your Holiday, it's spelt with a 'u' in this county! just a minor point in case you missed it
Oh well if it's advertising your agenda, I'll leave my signature on the bottom..
PS any more turbines over in 156mph winds? ;)
Texas had the worse drought ever in 2011, a sure sign of climate change.
Texas had the worse drought ever in 2011, a sure sign of climate change.
"The 1915-1918 drought might also arguably be worse than the 2010-2011 drought overall."
Now, lets reflect: http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?166325-Typical-Right-Wing-Press-witholding-the-truth
;)
"The 1915-1918 drought might also arguably be worse than the 2010-2011 drought overall
;)
I am sure that is of comfort to Texans if you think it is arguable. ;)
"The 1915-1918 drought might also arguably be worse than the 2010-2011 drought overall."
Now, lets reflect: http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?166325-Typical-Right-Wing-Press-witholding-the-truth
;)
I was just about to suggest that Bekisman & Rheghead sort out their differences by Private Message.
Then you spoiled it......... :lol:
I was just about to suggest that Bekisman & Rheghead sort out their differences by Private Message.
Then you spoiled it......... :lol:
Nah, let's keep it public. More fun that way.
I'm building it up to a public mud wrestling contest (eco friendly of course)! :Razz
Record damages to crops and livestock totalling over $6 billion was incurred last year which beat the last record Texan drought's damages in 2006 of $4.6 billion.
Over $10 billion of damages in just two years of drought in one area of the globe. Lord Stern has a point I think. It makes renewable energy incentives look like chicken feed.
sassylass
06-Jan-12, 05:24
I have an O level in Physics and that is about the level of my interest! I also have the pleasure to know some very respected and highly qualified scientists who are patient and gentle when explaining their relative fields to me in quite some detail. (lecture notes were interesting!!!!) I learnt a lot from them and was interested in many aspects of their work because it was part of who they are and because, knowing I was smart enough to get it, they took time to explain things in a manner I could grasp.What I find about the climate change arguments on here is that the posts tend to be so long and turgid that i lose interest half way through. The threads themselves always degenerate into a sneering match between various posters so I lose interest half way through. They often refer to articles which are long winded and Scientific in a complicated manner so I lose interest half wsy through. Maybe I dont have any staying power or maybe im just thick but I cant get interested enough to sift through all the stuff to find anything informative or instructive. Ill keep dipping into threads like this with more hope than expectation but i fear im destined to be disappointed.
ohhh squidge I have missed you. You always hit the nail on the head.
Nah, let's keep it public. More fun that way.
I'm building it up to a public mud wrestling contest (eco friendly of course)! :Razz
You are awful Phil!
Mud wrestling in public?, nah bit too dirty, don't mind custard pies though!
Unfortunately it appears some folk (ladies?) think this is a bitter fight between me and Reggie; far from the truth, there's no animosity OR bitterness on my part and I believe that Reggy thinks along similar lines.
I don't believe I am breaking a confidence, but Anfield for instance.. anyone reading his and my posts would think we are at each others throats.. but in reality we have been corresponding via PM's for a couple of years in a most satisfactory and indeed friendly way, he's good chap, without a hint of animosity. He has his firm outlook on life and I have mine.
The posting of such (appearing to be vitriolic) threads, between him and myself, is to the enjoyment of robust posting on this 'ere Org. Murmurings of the Org losing it's way and being fettered have been in evidence, but I do honestly feel that a large percentage of posters do enjoy a ding dong; a tete-a-tete, scattered amongst the more usual - and equally fair; 'what are the bus times for Castletown' or 'what do you think of Kate Moss' threads.
Reggy is very enthusiastic with closely held opinions, which is to be admired; I have too.
I know there are other Orgers who enjoy these postings, by notification via PM's or indeed emails to myself. So please don't conclude that a robust discussion between me or Reggy is a nasty 'orrible vindictive trade in insults; it ain't!
Record damages to crops and livestock totalling over $6 billion was incurred last year which beat the last record Texan drought's damages in 2006 of $4.6 billion.
Over $10 billion of damages in just two years of drought in one area of the globe. Lord Stern has a point I think. It makes renewable energy incentives look like chicken feed.
Stark figures indeed, but they mean beggerall in Caithness and I would bet in most of the UK. And, quite random.
(Texas is about 3 times the size of the UK. "Texas emits the most greenhouse gases in the US" maybe your message should be told to the Texans)
How is this going to convince the masses that they should embrace paying more fuel fees & taxes to make the wealthy richer???
(what about CO2 emissions and the planet???)
This is similar to the scare tactics over the banking crisis: 'start bandying about huge figures and sums of money and the public will be convinced' It meant nothing to the majority of people, even those who kind of understood it.
What we do know is that our energy bills are increasing and we are getting lighter on the income.
So what with $10 billion! Whatever wherever, it doesn't comprehend. It means nothing. It's not relative to the majority of people.
Facts are facts, but when taken out of context mean nothing.
If you truly want to try and change the mindset and habits of people, it has to be relative! It has to impact.
There is no point spouting (banging the drum) with irreverent facts and data that are random and distant from the people that are exposed to you.
It doesn't matter how long or loud you bang the drum, unless it's relative and achievable, it's cobblers.
I once had a Neighbour who kept banging his drum......At first I tried ear plugs but they didn't work well at all.
In the end the Landlord evicted him......Peace at last !!!
C3...........:eek::roll:
Unfortunately it appears some folk (ladies?) think this is a bitter fight between me and Reggie; far from the truth, there's no animosity OR bitterness on my part and I believe that Reggy thinks along similar lines.He says you smell of pooh and wee! :Razz
Some could say I just made that up, but it's on the interweb now so must be true.
In Queensland record heavy rains and floods caused 200,000 people being evacuated from their homes and $30 billion worth of damage caused.
ywindythesecond
06-Jan-12, 19:18
I was just about to suggest that Bekisman & Rheghead sort out their differences by Private Message.
Then you spoiled it......... :lol:
I tried it Moira, just got me abuse! http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?164559-Dear-Beks-and-Reggy
I tried it Moira, just got me abuse! http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?164559-Dear-Beks-and-Reggy
Excuse me ywind but was it not you that said: "but as they say in Lion's Den "I'm out" ?
Nothing to contribute to this thread I see...
I tried it Moira, just got me abuse! http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?164559-Dear-Beks-and-Reggy
You and your beeg drum is worse than Rheg or Beks, I can understand them, but you are OTT
secrets in symmetry
06-Jan-12, 19:54
Thank you SiS.
I appreciate the fact that you note it as often derogatory. I quite agree. I would go so far as to say that it is often loaded with venom, it is used almost with religious fervour in so much that if anyone dare question anthropogenic climate change in any way, they are a Denier - a non believer. In my view this removes any debate and places the issue into a question of faith, and that it is not.
Using the term denier appears to be loaded with the same vitriol as used to describe a Holocaust denier, as if to try and shame people into 'believing'.As Rheghead has pointed out on numerous occasions, Climate Change is evidence based, and is backed up by fairly standard science. It's not a case of "believing". You call it faith, is this simply because you haven't bothered to find out anything about it, or are you trying to make a point? I think I'd actually prefer if the latter were the case!
What do you think of heliocentricity? Is that just "faith" according to you? If not, why not?
Do you understand why we say the Earth orbits the Sun - as opposed to the Sun orbiting the Earth? Or do you just believe it because you were taught that it's true?
If there are questions due to lack of knowledge, why should those people be lambasted as deniers? Why not educate instead?
If people have educated questions and challenge, for whatever reason, the evidence for ACC why is this often met with derision, a refusal to engage and a shout of 'denier'.People rarely post educated questions on forums. Most questions in posts are idiotic, often deliberately. There are many examples in this thread.
Taking an objective view of the (loosely termed) 'debate' it is easy to see why many people have switched off and become apathetic, because it appears to be a question of faith and if you do not have the 'faith' you are to be deemed a non believer and therefore not worthy.
The solutions often appear contrary to their objectives and appear to be designed to help the wealthy and the corporates as their primary goal.
So why bother trying, let's just be a denier and carry on as we are!I am beginning to worry that you are parodying the wilfully ignorant. I suspect you're not, so I'll carry on....
The basic reason for climate change is the Greenhouse Effect. Here is a ludicrously simple minded explanation....
The Earth's atmosphere is bathed in sunlight, to which it is transparent. This sunlight reaches the ground, where much of it is absorbed, and the ground heats up. The ground then re-radiates, mostly in the infra-red. Some of this radiation reaches higher parts of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapour absorb this infra-red (aka thermal) radiation which they then re-radiate in all directions - including back downwards towards the surface of the Earth, which further heats the surface of the Earth, and the lower atmosphere. The more CO2, the more heating....
Calculating the exact amount of (long term) heating is difficult - because the Earth is a big complicated system - and that's what Climate Scientists have spent the last few decades figuring out how to do. I suspect there may not be a genuine climate scientist on the planet who doesn't think there is significant anthropogenic warming, the difficult bit is getting the amount of warming exactly right. The lower limit isn't too difficult to get (more or less right), the worry is that the effect could be much worse than the lower limit.
As I've said before, it doesn't seem possible to account for the 20th century temperature series with any model that doesn't include heating due to human-caused CO2 - irrespective of how crazy the model is (within the laws of physics), and even with bending the parameters of the model to the extremes. The observed pattern is what's predicted (post-dicted for most of the century - obviously!)
See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg) for a more detailed (but still simple) description of the Greenhouse Effect.
A good place to start for anyone interested in learning more about the subject is RealClimate's "Start here" page (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/).
I hesitate to recommend Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:Global Warming basics (http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm) because they are a lobby group rather than a scientific organisation, but their introductory page is better organised and more elementary than the ones by scientists lol!
Most of the other links are by scientific organisations, but they tend to either be more technical, or they concentrate on the consequences of global warming rather than the science.
secrets in symmetry
06-Jan-12, 20:04
I inadvertently linked to Wikipedia's diagrammatical explanation of the Greenhouse Effect. The complete article is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).
As Rheghead has pointed out on numerous occasions, Climate Change is evidence based, and is backed up by fairly standard science. It's not a case of "believing". You call it faith, is this simply because you haven't bothered to find out anything about it, or are you trying to make a point? I think I'd actually prefer if the latter were the case!
What do you think of heliocentricity? Is that just "faith" according to you? If not, why not?
Do you understand why we say the Earth orbits the Sun - as opposed to the Sun orbiting the Earth? Or do you just believe it because you were taught that it's true?
People rarely post educated questions on forums. Most questions in posts are idiotic, often deliberately. There are many examples in this thread.
I am beginning to worry that you are parodying the wilfully ignorant. I suspect you're not, so I'll carry on....
The basic reason for climate change is the Greenhouse Effect. Here is a ludicrously simple minded explanation....
The Earth's atmosphere is bathed in sunlight, to which it is transparent. This sunlight reaches the ground, where much of it is absorbed, and the ground heats up. The ground then re-radiates, mostly in the infra-red. Some of this radiation reaches higher parts of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapour absorb this infra-red (aka thermal) radiation which they then re-radiate in all directions - including back downwards towards the surface of the Earth, which further heats the surface of the Earth, and the lower atmosphere. The more CO2, the more heating....
Calculating the exact amount of (long term) heating is difficult - because the Earth is a big complicated system - and that's what Climate Scientists have spent the last few decades figuring out how to do. I suspect there may not be a genuine climate scientist on the planet who doesn't think there is significant anthropogenic warming, the difficult bit is getting the amount of warming exactly right. The lower limit isn't too difficult to get (more or less right), the worry is that the effect could be much worse than the lower limit.
As I've said before, it doesn't seem possible to account for the 20th century temperature series with any model that doesn't include heating due to human-caused CO2 - irrespective of how crazy the model is (within the laws of physics), and even with bending the parameters of the model to the extremes. The observed pattern is what's predicted (post-dicted for most of the century - obviously!)
See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg) for a more detailed (but still simple) description of the Greenhouse Effect.
A good place to start for anyone interested in learning more about the subject is RealClimate's "Start here" page (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/).
I hesitate to recommend Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:Global Warming basics (http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm) because they are a lobby group rather than a scientific organisation, but their introductory page is better organised and more elementary than the ones by scientists lol!
Most of the other links are by scientific organisations, but they tend to either be more technical, or they concentrate on the consequences of global warming rather than the science.
Oh dear, yet another drum banging in my ear!!!
C3.........[disgust]:roll:
Stark figures indeed, but they mean beggerall in Caithness and I would bet in most of the UK. And, quite random.
(Texas is about 3 times the size of the UK. "Texas emits the most greenhouse gases in the US" maybe your message should be told to the Texans)
So what with $10 billion! Whatever wherever, it doesn't comprehend. It means nothing. It's not relative to the majority of people.
Facts are facts, but when taken out of context mean nothing.
If you truly want to try and change the mindset and habits of people, it has to be relative! It has to impact.
There is no point spouting (banging the drum) with irreverent facts and data that are random and distant from the people that are exposed to you.
It doesn't matter how long or loud you bang the drum, unless it's relative and achievable, it's cobblers.
I just wish that it doesn't affect us but we live in a globalised economy, what happens in other parts of the country will affect us here on our isolated peninsular.
Take for instance the record droughts that have been seen in Kenya last year. Another extreme. But there are worries about the cost of arabica coffee and cocoa which have soared by 68% and 76% respectively due to crop failure. Tea is set to go up as well in the new year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/8848063/Price-of-a-cup-of-tea-to-rise-as-demand-soars.html
That was a good post SiS - shame you spoiled it by uttering "wilfully ignorant" and "ludicrously simple minded". I wonder how many people you irritated by that:roll:. People have to start somewhere.
So... here I sit having read all these posts and wondering why it is that I can't get upset, excited or even very interested in Global Warning. My electricitiy bills are a shocking amount but I do my best to reduce them little by little. I think renewable energy is a great thing and I dont mind windmills but Im not sure what I can do to make any difference as there is no way on earth I can afford solar panels (or even a small family car come to that)! I would love to generate some of my own electricity but the means to do this are beyond me Im afraid. Both financially and I think technically too. I therefore dont spend much of my time thinking or worrying about global warning... The issues are too huge, the solutions too complex and expensive and the scientists too condescending for me to feel that I have any influence over the issue. I try to concentrate my meagre intelligence and limited time on things I can affect by my thoughts and actions so social issues are my bag as Im sure some of you know.
Then yesterday I spotted this and it made me smile. I rarely copy emails or facebook things t it might be pertinent to this argument and might raise a smile in an otherwise rather tetchy set of threads about this subject...
So what did we have back then…? After some reflection and soul-searching on "Our" day here's what I remembered we did have.... Back then, we returned milk bottles, pop bottles and beer bottles to the shop. The shop sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles repeatedly. So they really were recycled.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every shop and office building. We walked to the grocery shop and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two streets.
Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen not a screen the size of a cinema. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. We drank from the tap when we were thirsty instead of using a plastic cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
Back then, people took the tram or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest chippy.
I still do some of these things and so Im going to smile a bit and try to do a bit more and whilst I will dip into these threads im not going to feel bad cos I cant stretch to solar panels or a windmill in my garden!
secrets in symmetry
07-Jan-12, 13:43
That was a good post SiS - shame you spoiled it by uttering "wilfully ignorant" and "ludicrously simple minded". I wonder how many people you irritated by that:roll:. People have to start somewhere. The "wilfully ignorant" is necessary to remind some of the idiots of their identity, and the "ludicrously simple minded" was for my own peace of mind - because my account of the Greenhouse Effect was a bit too over-simplified for comfort!
So... here I sit having read all these posts and wondering why it is that I can't get upset, excited or even very interested in Global Warning. My electricitiy bills are a shocking amount but I do my best to reduce them little by little. I think renewable energy is a great thing and I dont mind windmills but Im not sure what I can do to make any difference as there is no way on earth I can afford solar panels (or even a small family car come to that)! I would love to generate some of my own electricity but the means to do this are beyond me Im afraid. Both financially and I think technically too. I therefore dont spend much of my time thinking or worrying about global warning... The issues are too huge, the solutions too complex and expensive and the scientists too condescending for me to feel that I have any influence over the issue. I try to concentrate my meagre intelligence and limited time on things I can affect by my thoughts and actions so social issues are my bag as Im sure some of you know.Perhaps you don't get upset because you aren't aware of the disasters that could beset the Earth during your children's (or grandchildren's) lifetime if we continue putting out CO2 at the current rate.
I wouldn't worry about the windmill in your garden - unless you live in a windy area miles away from anyone else - and the windmill is much taller than your house and any nearby trees. Most domestic windmills are close to useless. Insulating your house is a better option, as is installing an air source (or, even better, a ground source) heat pump - but, like solar panels, they aren't cheap.
Good post Squidge.. interesting to see that you may take issue with s-i-s and the unnecessary language in his posting. I can assure you that you are certainly not alone in being irritated.. as shown by the paucity of responses in threads in which he appears.
Maybe its the bolshie in me, but I dislike intensely those who try to humiliate others, to force them off posting.. Please forgive me for interweaving this critique into this particular thread, but it is refreshing to see someone reacting to another without shrugging their shoulders and saying sod this, I ain't posting anymore.
The idea of the General Forum is (I believe) to act as a means of 'general' chit chat among those who have Caithness connections, a light-hearted place to banter to make friendships, a mutually pleasurable experience. Of course at times these threads do get heated and sometimes these web discussions go too far, the offenders receive a shot across their bows, or are suspended, or indeed banned.
Orgers should not be put off by a mocking poster - being concerned they cannot put their tuppence worth in - for fear of being shot down in flames by someone who thinks they have the right to do so. They may post once, but not again. I have PM's to support this.
S-i-s tells us he is a scientist; "I am a scientist, your utterings were postmodernist". and "Yes, I'm a Scientist", Is he? I've no idea, but he certainly has no people skills or man-management, so can safely assume he is possibly of no importance in whatever field he 'dominates'
An Academic? a learned person has no need to denigrate others, as he or she has reached their pinnacle, and can comfort themselves with helping pass on their knowledge in a quiet and affable way..
Unfortunately it appears among the varied members of the Org there are plenty of; "wilfully ignorant" and "wilfully ignorant evolution deniers". "People rarely post educated questions on forums. Most questions in posts are idiotic, often deliberately. There are many examples in this thread." "I am beginning to worry that you are parodying the wilfully ignorant" "wilful pig ignorance." "Intellectual laziness is another common cause - people don't even try to understand the evidence. There are plenty of examples of all types on this forum." "the posts of some members of this forum, many of whom haven't yet got past the denial stage." "Lol! You wouldn't understand a word I said if I got all technical on you. When's your next schoolboy project due?" " OMG Angel! Are you feeling OK? You are sounding a bit like the Crazy with the Crystals when you post wishy washy words that sound like postmodernist crap" "but much of it was either sensationalist crap or blatant nonsense" "Are you attempting to extract the uric, or do you really not understand why your comments are so mind-numbingly stupid?" "As for your schoolboy report...I don't know whether your data is reliable, but I do know that your "analysis" of it is so naive that it is hilarious." "but I thought that even you couldn't possibly be that hopeless. " "Since your opinions seem ever more bizarre to me, there's little point in continuing this discussion" "a good laugh at all the other things he doesn't know or understand." "The fight against pen pushers with PCs but little knowledge comes next" "This will be because you haven't looked, or because you ignore the facts and just believe what you want...like many (most?) of the posters on this forum" "Having seen who posted the original, are you surprised? He has a habit of finding websites full of rubbish and copying them onto the forum without comment. He obviously doesn't understand"any of it.."Do you understand why we say the Earth orbits the Sun - as opposed to the Sun orbiting the Earth? Or do you just believe it because you were taught that it's true?"
It would be tantamount to boring to continue.. my personal point; this pouring of scorn onto Orgers IS counterproductive.. and lends itself to a dead thread that goes nowhere because posters - and there are many - fight shy of an expected drubbing, for their own held beliefs.. Perusing s-i-s earlier postings of long ago, he was a polite chap in dealing with his Wisteria requests, but seems to have degenerated into the name calling, mocking, derisive and denigrating genre, that serves no purpose.
I agree with his" Insulating your house is a better option," I, like Squidge cannot afford solar panels or a domestic wind turbine. My own direction is insulation, which has been mentioned in these threads. I also like his "Oil companies are some of the worst offenders, as are Scottish Renewables - the latter peddle downright lies with gay abandon. Then there are leaders who push renewables, but who haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they talk rubbish most of the time."
Hopefully I'm not being 'wilfully ignorant'.. but just pointing out this is supposed to be a friendly place..
Ok SiS
Disasters yes well. our generation has been largely insulated from disasters and yet I tend to think that whatever will happen to my childrens generation will happen and they will deal with it as they see fit. So far other than VOTE GREEN which seems to have been said a couple of times I havent seen much else that sets out what I - ME - SQUIDGE can do about this. I have a limited budget - its January - I have no spare cash, I have alarge family but as yet for all your posts and rhegeds posts I am still at a bit of a loss about how I personally can affect a change if I cant afford the cash to install solar panels.
Excellent Post Beks !!!
The .Org should be a friendly place and if any of the "Scientists" want to get their message over to us that are "pig ignorant" then they have to do it in a friendly way!!
I am fed up of the "I know better than you" brigade who treat us all as idiots and the ones that do this are all connected to global warming, wind farms and renewable's!! Perhaps it's the "Wannabee scientist" in them, I don't know but they will not get any followers or fans by posting the way they do!
Until they can convince me that I am doing wrong in the way I live then I will remain one of the "pig ignorants " of Caithness!!!
I will not be bullied or brow beaten by a few on the .Org who think they are God when it comes to climate change!!!
C3...................:roll::roll:[disgust]
Greenhouses gases cannot hear nor have they care for human to human sensitivities, the results will be the same.
Groundhog day blizzard in Mexico, USA and Canada caused $2 billion of damage and affected the lives of 100 million people.
Excellent Post Beks !!!
The .Org should be a friendly place and if any of the "Scientists" want to get their message over to us that are "pig ignorant" then they have to do it in a friendly way!!
I am fed up of the "I know better than you" brigade who treat us all as idiots and the ones that do this are all connected to global warming, wind farms and renewable's!! Perhaps it's the "Wannabee scientist" in them, I don't know but they will not get any followers or fans by posting the way they do!
Until they can convince me that I am doing wrong in the way I live then I will remain one of the "pig ignorants " of Caithness!!!
I will not be bullied or brow beaten by a few on the .Org who think they are God when it comes to climate change!!!
C3...................:roll::roll:[disgust]
Give me an example of how to approach the subject in a way that you will listen then I will do it.
Good post Squidge.. interesting to see that you may take issue with s-i-s and the unnecessary language in his posting. I can assure you that you are certainly not alone in being irritated.. as shown by the paucity of responses in threads in which he appears.
Maybe its the bolshie in me, but I dislike intensely those who try to humiliate others, to force them off posting.. Please forgive me for interweaving this critique into this particular thread, but it is refreshing to see someone reacting to another without shrugging their shoulders and saying sod this, I ain't posting anymore.
The idea of the General Forum is (I believe) to act as a means of 'general' chit chat among those who have Caithness connections, a light-hearted place to banter to make friendships, a mutually pleasurable experience. Of course at times these threads do get heated and sometimes these web discussions go too far, the offenders receive a shot across their bows, or are suspended, or indeed banned.
Orgers should not be put off by a mocking poster - being concerned they cannot put their tuppence worth in - for fear of being shot down in flames by someone who thinks they have the right to do so. They may post once, but not again. I have PM's to support this.
S-i-s tells us he is a scientist; "I am a scientist, your utterings were postmodernist". and "Yes, I'm a Scientist", Is he? I've no idea, but he certainly has no people skills or man-management, so can safely assume he is possibly of no importance in whatever field he 'dominates'
An Academic? a learned person has no need to denigrate others, as he or she has reached their pinnacle, and can comfort themselves with helping pass on their knowledge in a quiet and affable way..
Unfortunately it appears among the varied members of the Org there are plenty of; "wilfully ignorant" and "wilfully ignorant evolution deniers". "People rarely post educated questions on forums. Most questions in posts are idiotic, often deliberately. There are many examples in this thread." "I am beginning to worry that you are parodying the wilfully ignorant" "wilful pig ignorance." "Intellectual laziness is another common cause - people don't even try to understand the evidence. There are plenty of examples of all types on this forum." "the posts of some members of this forum, many of whom haven't yet got past the denial stage." "Lol! You wouldn't understand a word I said if I got all technical on you. When's your next schoolboy project due?" " OMG Angel! Are you feeling OK? You are sounding a bit like the Crazy with the Crystals when you post wishy washy words that sound like postmodernist crap" "but much of it was either sensationalist crap or blatant nonsense" "Are you attempting to extract the uric, or do you really not understand why your comments are so mind-numbingly stupid?" "As for your schoolboy report...I don't know whether your data is reliable, but I do know that your "analysis" of it is so naive that it is hilarious." "but I thought that even you couldn't possibly be that hopeless. " "Since your opinions seem ever more bizarre to me, there's little point in continuing this discussion" "a good laugh at all the other things he doesn't know or understand." "The fight against pen pushers with PCs but little knowledge comes next" "This will be because you haven't looked, or because you ignore the facts and just believe what you want...like many (most?) of the posters on this forum" "Having seen who posted the original, are you surprised? He has a habit of finding websites full of rubbish and copying them onto the forum without comment. He obviously doesn't understand"any of it.."Do you understand why we say the Earth orbits the Sun - as opposed to the Sun orbiting the Earth? Or do you just believe it because you were taught that it's true?"
It would be tantamount to boring to continue.. my personal point; this pouring of scorn onto Orgers IS counterproductive.. and lends itself to a dead thread that goes nowhere because posters - and there are many - fight shy of an expected drubbing, for their own held beliefs.. Perusing s-i-s earlier postings of long ago, he was a polite chap in dealing with his Wisteria requests, but seems to have degenerated into the name calling, mocking, derisive and denigrating genre, that serves no purpose.
I agree with his" Insulating your house is a better option," I, like Squidge cannot afford solar panels or a domestic wind turbine. My own direction is insulation, which has been mentioned in these threads. I also like his "Oil companies are some of the worst offenders, as are Scottish Renewables - the latter peddle downright lies with gay abandon. Then there are leaders who push renewables, but who haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they talk rubbish most of the time."
Hopefully I'm not being 'wilfully ignorant'.. but just pointing out this is supposed to be a friendly place..
Friendly place? But isn't your successful tactic is to sneer from the sidelines, get a reaction and then say we are denigrating others? If it isn't then I certainly take it like that. Pot calling kettle? You really are pathetic as one antiwindie once put it to me.
"I have to say Beki is a bit out of order, but you will understand if I keep out of the public mudslinging."
If your real gripe is the drum beating rather than the content then why do you not sneer at those that constantly put over an anti wind stance, there are plenty on this forum but you never attack them. Why don't you take a long look at your hypocrisy?
Give me an example of how to approach the subject in a way that you will listen then I will do it.
Oh come on Rheghead !!!
Yours and S-i-S's posts are a disgrace....... A "Holier than thou" attitude, A "I know best" attitude and you belittle anyone who questions your postings and it turns into a slanging match!
You both pretend to be "Scientists" when everyone on the .Org knows you are not, A course in "Man Management for the both of you wouldn't go amiss!
And you could approach the subject by telling us "Pig ignorants" how we have survived this long on Earth. And remember, I come from the age when every household and factory in Britain burnt coal and the air was thick but we survived.
C3...............:eek::roll:
Oh come on Rheghead !!!
Yours and S-i-S's posts are a disgrace....... A "Holier than thou" attitude, A "I know best" attitude and you belittle anyone who questions your postings and it turns into a slanging match!
You both pretend to be "Scientists" when everyone on the .Org knows you are not, A course in "Man Management for the both of you wouldn't go amiss!
And you could approach the subject by telling us "Pig ignorants" how we have survived this long on Earth. And remember, I come from the age when every household and factory in Britain burnt coal and the air was thick but we survived.
C3...............:eek::roll:
So I take it from your reply that given the best bedside manner you weren't gonna take heed anyway?
In the Horn of Africa, in the worst drought ever, 12 million people face food shortages.
So I take it from your reply that given the best bedside manner you weren't gonna take heed anyway?
Now thats just the sort of post that puts me off....I will listen to you but you have to convince me without the snide remarks like you have just made!!!!
Go On Rheg, convince me why I should save this planet for my Grandchildren and their children!! I dont think you can do it, you are not convincing enough!!
C3...............:roll::roll:
Now thats just the sort of post that puts me off....I will listen to you but you have to convince me without the snide remarks like you have just made!!!!
Go On Rheg, convince me why I should save this planet for my Grandchildren and their children!! I dont think you can do it, you are not convincing enough!!
C3...............:roll::roll:
Do you care about the world that your grandchildren will inherit?
Do you care about the world that your grandchildren will inherit?
Well thats a silly question Rheg, of course I do. But I am more concerned that they will end up being shot or stabbed by their fellow human than being washed away by a tsunami.
Did my Grandparents care about me as they tried to stay warm burning their coal in the fire?
I do believe your priorities are all wrong!
C3...............:roll:
billmoseley
07-Jan-12, 21:21
In the Horn of Africa, in the worst drought ever, 12 million people face food shortages.
natures way of keeping the population down?
Well thats a silly question Rheg, of course I do. But I am more concerned that they will end up being shot or stabbed by their fellow human than being washed away by a tsunami.
Did my Grandparents care about me as they tried to stay warm burning their coal in the fire?
I do believe your priorities are all wrong!
C3...............:roll:
I do believe that as global warming bites harder, crops will fail, economic stability will suffer, human and animal migrations will occur. There will be more people living in the temperate zones with different ways of seeing the world. I do think that as a result human conflict will occur and the chances of your grandchildren getting shot or stabbed will be a lot higher.
natures way of keeping the population down?
The 3rd world will suffer most and be least capable to adapt to climate change. The 1st world is most largely responsible for the GHG gases to date, then we deny it.
No, I think it is the 1st world's way of keeping the population of the 3rd world down.
Again we have more squabbling and NO NO NO information. Rheg, I am not stupid as I am sure you know - I read the papers, the news and even plough through loads of tetchy posts - I KNOW about the famine, I know about the floods - what I dont know is what you think I can do about it.
Do you guys KNOW how frustrating it is to be told that we should Worry and fuss and think about it a lot and yet you dont give any sensible suggestions of what we can do about it on a personal level. Of course we care about the state of the planet, of course we wonder what life will be like for our children but we can only influence what we can influence. Like Corrie I too am concerned about my children living in a safe world and I actually DO stuff which can make a difference and try to tackle inequality and disaffection but as yet none of you clued up posters have said what difference I can make to Global bloody warming except expensive stuff. How about a list?
billmoseley
07-Jan-12, 21:32
can't agree along time before ghg gases came along there was starvation happening. which is why they have such large family's in the hope that some survive. we see it more now because of the media. i'm not saying we haven't affected the climate but i don't think it's as much as we are lead to believe. humans are just a blip in earths history. when we are gone mother nature will soon repair the earth. yes i did mean when and not if.
Again we have more squabbling and NO NO NO information. Rheg, I am not stupid as I am sure you know - I read the papers, the news and even plough through loads of tetchy posts - I KNOW about the famine, I know about the floods - what I dont know is what you think I can do about it.
Do you guys KNOW how frustrating it is to be told that we should Worry and fuss and think about it a lot and yet not be given any understanding of what we can do about it on a personal level. Of course we care about the state of the planet, of course we wonder what life will be like for our children but we can only influence what we can influence. Like Corrie I too am concerned about my children living in a safe world and I actually DO stuff which can make a difference and try to tackle inequality and disaffection but as yet no one has said what difference I can make to Global bloody warming. How about a list?
Good positive post. It only needs a pen and a bit of time.
I believe strongly that an Earth with a global economy that bases itself on inequality is an unsustainable world. A global problem needs a global solution. Not more of the same. Have a look at what the polical parties stand for, especially their environment, foreign, energy, and human rights affairs. You should vote for the party that genuinely has global equality at the heart of their policies, not as a PC add-on. You will not change anything by voting the same alternating dross back in.
Next, write to your MP, explain how desperate you feel about the current situation. Give going green a higher profile. Make it your number one priority. Ask for more public transport, more renewable energy schemes, demand more tax breaks for going green. If we could just mobilise everyone to follow suit then we will have results.
Next, write to your planning officer, give support to the many schemes that are facing strong opposition.
Next counter the global warming sceptical arguments with your firm but gentle manner, there will be more more willing to take heed with you.
Next, make little changes to your lifestyle then build them up, like eating less meat, have a vegetarian day as part of your week and make it a special day for all the family.
Buy as much food and other stuff as you can fro sustainable sources, the Fairtrade label is a good guide to start with.
I'm not going to preach, just some suggestions.
Good positive post. It only needs a pen and a bit of time.
I believe strongly that an Earth with a global economy that bases itself on inequality is an unsustainable world. A global problem needs a global solution.
Whether your right or wrong about the science Rheghead your idealism is out of control. Napolian was a great idealist and he tried to convert others too, but from a different angle than you,thankfully. :lol:
This threads interesting. I remember agreeing with almost everything you said when we first started talking about climate change on the org and although I still see your point, theres something about the presentation that irks but youve already been taken to task for that. So has your mate SIS. I still weigh on the side of climate change but im aware its not an exact science in the way its presented. Thats as important as the scientific data. We're psychological animals, thats what makes us different from other animals but still part of the same seed.
I think climate change can evoke a religious streak in the believer and it makes them all the more unfavourable because they know they are right. Maybe this thread could become a sticky and we could talk about climate change in a respectful and knowledgeable fashion. Ive skimmed some of it on the net and Im aware the scientific community are in no doubt about human effect on climate change. If thats the case it needs to be taken seriously.
But, and its a big but. Even napolean would struggle to raise an army today. ;)
Thailand was hit by the world's 4th worst natural disaster, 58 provinces were affected by monsoon rains and floods, World Bank estimates that $45 billion worth of damage was caused. Hardly reported on our TV news.
Good positive post. It only needs a pen and a bit of time.
Next, write to your MP, explain how desperate you feel about the current situation. Give going green a higher profile. Make it your number one priority. Ask for more public transport, more renewable energy schemes, demand more tax breaks for going green. If we could just mobilise everyone to follow suit then we will have results.
Next, write to your planning officer, give support to the many schemes that are facing strong opposition.
Next counter the global warming sceptical arguments with your firm but gentle manner, there will be more more willing to take heed with you.
Next, make little changes to your lifestyle then build them up, like eating less meat, have a vegetarian day as part of your week and make it a special day for all the family.
Buy as much food and other stuff as you can fro sustainable sources, the Fairtrade label is a good guide to start with.
I'm not going to preach, just some suggestions.
Halleluyah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some sensible suggestions. Some things I can do ( vegetarian day might be a step too far for my house of carnivorous men!) and some i can look out for. I WILL do the MP thing, I wrote to Frank Field when he was appointed to look at the social issues at the start of the parliament and I had a well thought out reply even if he isnt my MP.
I will watch out for planning applications and consider each of them on their merits and see whether i feel i can support them.
The problem with buying sustainable food is that it can be more expensive. I always try to buy local and british food as it seems stupid to fly things like apples from thousands of miles away when we have lovely ones grown here.
Lets have some more suggestions from the people on here that understand the science and can give sensible suggestions that wont break the bank.
thanks
Halleluyah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some sensible suggestions.
Your easily pacified. :lol:
Only a fool will think the worlds people will come together to fight climate change if it is indeed the dangers they say it is.
If thats what itll take then we have no chance. Your not giving us much hope Rheghead.
How many disasters will it take for you to be more enthusiastic?
In august, hurricane Irene ripped through the eastern seaboard of the US causing $10 billion of damage.
Aye - you know me Gleeber = anything for a bit of peace. Its a start but you are right.... the world coming together to fight anything seems far far far away. I will do what I can without letting it take over my life or worrying about it. There are problems closer to home that I CAN help and maybe make a difference to so the lions share of my limited time and effort will remain dealing with these issues. Oh and I forgot about my lovely Cheese and Onion Pie. The carnivores will eat that with no bother - although maybe if its cheese its not veggie enough!!! Ach Ill get there in the end. At least we have something practical to work on. Ill settle for that at 11pm on a SAturday night
How many disasters will it take for you to be more enthusiastic?
Honestly Rheghead, I could interpret that as a verse from the Holy climate changists bible. That being said are you really trying to convert me into a changist so as we can change the world together? I know what your saying but for the world to change in the way you ask it would take hundreds of years to integrate all the diferent cultures around the world. We dont have hundreds of years. Do you have a plan B?
I never watched that movie. Tell me more.
Which world's population can reverse climate change, the world's population that says 'Yes we can' or the one that says 'no we can't'? It really is as simple as that, the only thing stopping it happening is an attitude change and less cynicism.
You go round in circles. You know as well as I do that the change you require in attitude in 6 billion people will take more than political pursuasion. How excatly do you see this process developing and considering your scenario has a time limit?
Bobinovich
08-Jan-12, 00:14
Which world's population can reverse climate change, the world's population that says 'Yes we can' or the one that says 'no we can't'? It really is as simple as that, the only thing stopping it happening is an attitude change and less cynicism.
Then I go back to the last paragraph of my first post on this thread - when we see a top down approach to this problem then, maybe, the general populace will be more easily convinced that things have to change. Until then I'm with Squidge - I'll recycle and do what I can within my budget.
So destruction of civilisation and the world's ecosystems is not enough to change attitudes?
So destruction of civilisation and the world's ecosystems is not enough to change attitudes?
Well not necessarily because its a nutural thing to do. Its an integral part of human nature to destroy and very often we do mass destroyals. How exactly are you going to change that?
We're also very creative but you cant have one without the other. Call me a cynic if you must. :lol:
Well not necessarily because its a nutural thing to do. Its an integral part of human nature to destroy and very often we do mass destroyals. How exactly are you going to change that?
Well you must accept that most wars are ultimately to do with the haves and have nots? Today's haves are the ones with oil and coal and gas. What need for mass destroyals when we are self sufficient in our own renewable energy?
Bobinovich
08-Jan-12, 00:26
So destruction of civilisation and the world's ecosystems is not enough to change attitudes?
I would have thought that your continual references to disasters within this thread and the direct response, or lack of, to those posts, would give you your answer :confused. How can we believe that anything we do INDIVIDUALLY can have any effect on these events, or future ones elsewhere in the world?
Even if a major disaster was to befall the UK we would, as I'm sure many of the other countries do, try and cope with the death, destruction and aftermath. However I still believe that, in order to have any major effect, it would have to be on such a huge scale that it would then prompt the government to say 'We need to do something.more', and then we get a top-down approach.
I would have thought that your continual references to disasters within this thread and the direct response, or lack of, to those posts, would give you your answer :confused. How can we believe that anything we do INDIVIDUALLY can have any effect on these events, or future ones elsewhere in the world?.
That sounds like the excuse the tobacco industry uses when accused that smoking causes cancer. "smoking doesn't cause cancer because which individual cigarette did it?",
"Which barrel of oil caused hurricane Irene?"
Well you must accept that most wars are ultimately to do with the haves and have nots? Today's haves are the ones with oil and coal and gas. What need for mass destroyals when we are self sufficient in our own renewable energy?
Wars are never about haves and have nots. Thats nonsense. Its much more complex than that and much deeper.
Wars are never about haves and have nots. Thats nonsense. Its much more complex than that and much deeper.
Well I disagree. Iran is sitting on huge amounts of oil and it is playing the haves and the have nots game, Rick Santorum, a Republican candidate has already said he will bomb Tehran.
Iraq was playing the haves and have not game, it got invaded. Now they have said they will sell oil only to China and India.
Russia is playing the haves and have not game over its neighbours and the EU, causing trouble but Russia is too powerful to play games back with.
Germany invaded the Caucasian region because they have oil and Germany didn't.
Cyprus could be back on a war footing because the south has oil and the north doesn't.
Oh I could go and on but I'll spare you.
So destruction of civilisation and the world's ecosystems is not enough to change attitudes?
Won't we just evolve to adapt to the change? Maybe not "us" but some form of life, or don't you subscribe to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis?
Well I have the cure and so does every industrial country in the world.
Stop building new cars. There are enough cars on the planet to last everyone 20 to 30 years, longer if you look after them properly. Overnight you will save the carbon the factories create, over time you will reduce demand for oil to almost nil. You will still need to make parts for them and have an industry dedicated to keeping them running efficiently, so the job losses should be re-distributed reasonably well.
The incentive for the manufacturers to come up with alternative fuel sources will skyrocket.
Over thirty years you will reduce the cost of recycling all these old cars with a loading at the end to get rid of them. If, with that incentive, we can't come up with a transport system that works with a lower (or nil) carbon footprint then we deserve to go the way of the Dodo.
Of course this won't happen. It is far too obvious and vote losing for our political masters.
Won't we just evolve to adapt to the change? Maybe not "us" but some form of life, or don't you subscribe to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis?Of course, I'm not a scientist, I'm just like 99.999% of those on the Org, I search the web for information (compared to those who say they 'know' - who got their information from books).. The link below gives his ideas - and from the Guardian - so I'm not biased..
James Lovelock:
It may be too late to save civilisation, but people will survive and there will be another one. There were 30 before the present, so why should this one be so special?
James Lovelock:
Large-scale nuclear power is the only practical way that we have to solve the greenhouse gas problem. Of course we should do everything else as well including renewable fuels, windmills, but we should recognise that these are no substitute..
I'm more prepared to listen to a truly remarkable man, with a lifetime of experience, than others..
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovelock-online_chat-00.htm (http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovelock-online_chat-00.htm)
Whoops, sorry folks my PC posted twice 'there's something wrong with my computer'
'there's something wrong with my computer'
Is it suffering from Global Warming Beks?
C3..............:roll:;)
ywindythesecond
08-Jan-12, 13:18
How much climate change has this lot effected?
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3833/bweao.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/bweao.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Is it suffering from Global Warming Beks?
C3..............:roll:;)Nah, just some old farht pushing the wrong buttons (I think)..
Been reading (!) an article "The Truth about sea levels?; they're always fluctuating', it's by Nils-Axel Morner, who was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm Uni, president of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, leader of the Maldives sea level project.. so obviously knows more than any of us insignificant bods on here - all of whom get our info from various sources..Very interesting
"Perhaps the most graphically disturbing piece of information in the climate arena is the assertion that sea levels will rise to a catastrophic degree. An Inconvenient Truth scared many people, and the sea level issue continues to worry them. The imagery from the movie is still etched in our minds and hearts. Imagery is powerful even if it is untrue. It lingers in the subconscious mind, where it can affect our ability to think critically and receive whole-systems information. We must be vigilant to prevent this"
Anyway just back from a sojourn out, so popped into Spoons - as you do - and in their in-house magazine with a two-page spread (46 - 47) is an article all about it.. me thinks that Tim Martin, Chairman of 'Spoons doesn't like semi-religious rhetoric either!
IPCC?, I smell a rat there..
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/ (http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2010/nilsaxelmorner/)
Stephen Hawking claims that if nuclear war doesn't destroy us then Global Warming will.
In December cyclone Washi dumped a month's rain in 24 hours and caused flash floods and 40,000 people were evacuated. A damage bill of $27 million was caused of which The Red Cross donated £140,000 to help relief efforts.
“It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming, will befall the earth within a thousands years.” Stephen Hawking
In December cyclone Washi dumped a month's rain in 24 hours and caused flash floods and 40,000 people were evacuated. A damage bill of $27 million was caused of which The Red Cross donated £140,000 to help relief efforts.
I am sorry Rheghead but you coming out with these facts and figures do nothing for me. If I was to go green tomorrow with solar panels, my own wind turbine, get rid of my motor etc, etc, it would not make the slightest difference to the worlds weather. While ever you have the likes of the USA, China and India filling the air with pollutants then these things will always be happening all over the world. Please dont try and make me feel guilty for polluting the atmosphere !!!
C3................[disgust]
In January, south Africa, La Nina was blamed for torrential rain which caused 20,000 people to be evacuated from their homes. Estimated damage is $200 million.
Top 10 Most Terrifying Natural Disasters in History
The 1979 Typhoon Tip
The 1986 Lake Nyos Limnic Eruption
The 1960 Chile Earthquake
The 2003 European Heat Wave
The 1993 Storm of the Century
The 1931 Great Flood
The 1908 Tunguska Explosion
The 1999 Bridge Creek F5 Tornado
The 1815 Tambora Eruption
The 1958 Lituya Bay Megatsunami
http://listverse.com/2010/03/15/top-10-most-terrifying-natural-disasters-in-history/
Top 10 Most Terrifying Natural Disasters in History
The 1979 Typhoon Tip
The 1986 Lake Nyos Limnic Eruption
The 1960 Chile Earthquake
The 2003 European Heat Wave
The 1993 Storm of the Century
The 1931 Great Flood
The 1908 Tunguska Explosion
The 1999 Bridge Creek F5 Tornado
The 1815 Tambora Eruption
The 1958 Lituya Bay Megatsunami
http://listverse.com/2010/03/15/top-10-most-terrifying-natural-disasters-in-history/
This is a thread about extreme weather events in 2011, please delete.
I've perused the thread and there's very little that mentions 2011!
'I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on. I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh'.
Did I say that? nah certainly not me.. but seeing that Reggie is dictating the direction of the thread - I'll leave it all to him..
Bye :roll:
billmoseley
08-Jan-12, 20:48
“It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming, will befall the earth within a thousands years.” Stephen Hawking
i totally agree with him. not a bad thing to happen.
This is a thread about extreme weather events in 2011,.
In August, I think it was the 14th........It was so hot in Caithness I managed to go out without my thermal underwear on and if I recall correctly, I didn't switch my electric blanket on that night!! Talk about extreme weather, it was awful!!!!
C3.................:roll:;)
In Columbia, rains 5 times heavier than average caused floods and mudslides and 30,000 people to evacuate their homes. Damage is estimated to be in the region of $5 billion
In Columbia, rains 5 times heavier than average caused floods and mudslides and 30,000 people to evacuate their homes. Damage is estimated to be in the region of $5 billion
I think you will find Rheggy that it was 31,002 people who had to evacuate. The removal firms were making a fortune!!!
C3...............:eek:
The worst tornado season of the US saw 350 deadly tornados rip through 21 states causing $10 billion of damage.
billmoseley
08-Jan-12, 21:03
In Columbia, rains 5 times heavier than average caused floods and mudslides and 30,000 people to evacuate their homes. Damage is estimated to be in the region of $5 billion
not to mention the damage to the drugs trade
The worst tornado season of the US saw 350 deadly tornados rip through 21 states causing $10 billion of damage.
Not to mention a few Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancaster bombers as well as the Tornado's.
C3.............;)
floods in Pakistan in Aug-Sept caused $2 billion of damage and 1.5 million homes to be evacuated.
floods in Pakistan in Aug-Sept caused $2 billion of damage and 1.5 million homes to be evacuated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-1zTDwSiw
C3............[lol]
June floods in China caused $13 billion of damage, 37 million people have been affected.
billmoseley
08-Jan-12, 22:25
it's a cruel world but these things have always happened. we just know about it now and you can spend all day digging up facts and figures on the internet but you will never convince enough people to make a difference. SIMPLES
Damaging weather events getting more frequent.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/unknowns/weatherevents.jpg
He started it, so there:lol:
Yes he did and then you joined this "debate"
I tried it Moira, just got me abuse! http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?164559-Dear-Beks-and-Reggy
Excuse me ywind but was it not you that said: "but as they say in Lion's Den "I'm out" ?
Nothing to contribute to this thread I see...
Thanks ywindythesecond, I see that now.....
<snip?> Unfortunately it appears some folk (ladies?) think this is a bitter fight between me and Reggie; far from the truth, there's no animosity OR bitterness on my part and I believe that Reggy thinks along similar lines.
That's fine. So let's stick to "robust debate" (in your own words) and keep all the personal jibes off the forums. :)
Apologies to Rheghead for interrupting this thread but I felt compelled to respond.
Like Squidge I do my best, within my budget, to recycle, re-use and conserve, preserve what we can..... ;)
A thread is never interupted. Every little post has a meaning. Its truly amazing and is making me reconsider many ideas I have about the human race and my part in it. Rhegheads right about one thing. We're all in it together but he forgets each one of us is little more than an atom of consciousness whizzing around in the complex web of human relationships. When we look at it like that I think it shows how pointless rhegheads battle is. Im kinda disappointed in his one line scriptural quotes and reinforces Phils earlier views about the experts on the org and their religous tendencies towards this issue. Ive always listened to Rheghead on this subject but I dont need converted. Nor does anyone else. I think he knows his salvation is flawed. Change the attitudes of 6 billion people he says but doesnt say how to do it. Its as crazy an idea as believing in a supernatural God. :roll:
Before anyone complains I know plenty people who believe in a supernatural God and I suspect most of them would admit to a crazy streak. Doesnt make them crazy though.[lol]
Bobinovich
08-Jan-12, 23:51
They may be becoming more frequent, although the short timescale (31 years) doesn't really give us much data to compare to, however a quick Google search shows that humans appear to be adapting better to survival of such events (data from 1900 - 2006, full PDF report here (http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf)). Maybe we can similarly adapt to the whatever the planet decides to throw at us in the future.
http://www.caithnesshost.co.uk/Deaths.jpg
I'm sure we will adapt Bob but if the more serious scientists are right theres going to be some kind of clean out in the next century. I cant imagine it and dont want to.
I rarely make sense of graphs but that last one is interesting. The years 1910-1919 were not only lower than other decades surrounding it but remarkably lower. Thats the decade of the Titanic, thge First World war and the flu epidemic.
Yes he did and then you joined this "debate"
Thanks ywindythesecond, I see that now.....
That's fine. So let's stick to "robust debate" (in your own words) and keep all the personal jibes off the forums. :)
Everything is fine, been told who, what, why, so all's well in the world
secrets in symmetry
09-Jan-12, 00:22
Ok SiS
Disasters yes well. our generation has been largely insulated from disasters and yet I tend to think that whatever will happen to my childrens generation will happen and they will deal with it as they see fit.No! This is the point - we can do something about future global warming. We can keep it down to a couple of degrees (perhaps) by drastically reducing our CO2 emissions.
So far other than VOTE GREEN which seems to have been said a couple of times I havent seen much else that sets out what I - ME - SQUIDGE can do about this. I have a limited budget - its January - I have no spare cash, I have alarge family but as yet for all your posts and rhegeds posts I am still at a bit of a loss about how I personally can affect a change if I cant afford the cash to install solar panels.A simple way to reduce your CO2 emissions by a large amount - and reduce your heating bills at the same time - is to insulate your house. The most important things are a modern boiler, good double glazing, loft insulation and cavity (or other) wall insulation. If you own your house, you can get grants that pay for a lot of this - especially if you're not exactly rich. Things are harder if you don't - ask your landlord. Other important issues are floor insulation, draught reduction, and probably a few more I've forgotten.
New cars with smaller engines emit much less CO2 than old ones - road tax and fuel costs are lower too.
Do all the political things that Rheghead suggested.
My knowledge of heat pump and solar panel technology is a bit out of date, but in my opinion the former were much better than the latter a couple of years ago.
I saw an interesting article somewhere a few weeks ago.... Unfortunately, I forget where it was, and I can't find it right now.... Anyway, it claimed that new technology (and the resulting profits) will rescue us from global warming. This is similar to what Rheghead has been saying, but there's a difference in that genuinely new technology will generate profits without the need to create artificial (contrived, at best) markets like the wind turbine and solar panel markets that we have today. I think this is what will happen.
Finally, don't take any notice of statements, articles or links posted by the wilfully uninformed. These get more ridiculous and more deluded by the day.
secrets in symmetry
09-Jan-12, 00:27
Im kinda disappointed in his one line scriptural quotes and reinforces Phils earlier views about the experts on the org and their religous tendencies towards this issue. Ive always listened to Rheghead on this subject but I dont need converted. Nor does anyone else. I think he knows his salvation is flawed. Change the attitudes of 6 billion people he says but doesnt say how to do it. Its as crazy an idea as believing in a supernatural God. :roll:So gleeber, would you have been a rational Copernican or a religious Epicyclist? Stubborn conservative deniers hold (or held) the religious beliefs in both cases....
Your just not listening SIS.We dont need converted. Most of us are doing what we can all within our own various circumstances. If your intent on conversion get your backside over to China or India or even the USA and get them to change. Rhegheads not saying how he can do it perhaps you can?
secrets in symmetry
09-Jan-12, 01:02
Your just not listening SIS.We dont need converted. Most of us are doing what we can all within our own various circumstances. If your intent on conversion get your backside over to China or India or even the USA and get them to change. Rhegheads not saying how he can do it perhaps you can?Gleeber, the point is that the sort of religious people you like to make fun of are the deniers - irrespective of whether they are the supernatural variety or the stubbornly uninformed circus performers evident on this thread. It doesn't matter whether they deny evolution or anthropogenic climate change, they are the religious ones because they are religious in their denial.
I dont like to make fun of people SIS. I try to use humour to discuss certain human activities that often cause trouble. You on the other hand have difficulty in that department. Just some consructive criticism. Circus performers I ask you.
secrets in symmetry
09-Jan-12, 01:14
I dont like to make fun of people SIS. I try to use humour to discuss certain human activities that often cause trouble. You on the other hand have difficulty in that department. Just some consructive criticism. Circus performers I ask you.Lol! You are missing more points than I thought you were!
they are the religious ones because they are religious in their denial.
Enlighten me then. What exactly are you trying to communicate to me?
As for that above statement. What does that mean? :lol:
Enlighten me then. What exactly are you trying to communicate to me?
As for that above statement. What does that mean? :lol:
I'm not waiting all night for a response but I will expect one so as we get off on a level footing. If we must discuss the future of the world :eek: then we have to lay all the cards on the table. You guys are playing with a marked deck but youve been rumbled..
secrets in symmetry
09-Jan-12, 02:33
I'm not waiting all night for a response but I will expect one so as we get off on a level footing. If we must discuss the future of the world :eek: then we have to lay all the cards on the table. You guys are playing with a marked deck but youve been rumbled..I'll show you one or two of my cards when I next log on - you've probably seen one trick that I won already - but the order of the cards in my personal deck - especially the whereabouts of the joker - will remain a secret (in symmetry) for the time being.
New cars with smaller engines emit much less CO2 than old ones - road tax and fuel costs are lower too.
I saw an interesting article somewhere a few weeks ago.... Unfortunately, I forget where it was, and I can't find it right now.... Anyway, it claimed that new technology (and the resulting profits) will rescue us from global warming.
New cars cost too much, a minimum of £10,000 and if you want a hibryd or electric one-£30,000. They need big nasty factories, loads of energy and mining and oil (plastics) to build them. Better keep your old car and spend the money on Solar panels.
The new tech? That is what the Americans were saying twenty years ago so they didn't have to do anything about lowering carbon emissions.:roll:
or the stubbornly uninformed circus performers evident on this thread. SiS you are SO rude! Given that you want people to accept what you say about Global Warming and CO2 emissions you do your damnedest to irritate people and turn them off to your message.
So lets see as far as I can see the message is insulate, recycle, write to your MP and support planning applications. Buying a new car is out just now, our 10 year old diesel zafira will just have to do. Solar panels and a new boiler are out also, our dusty multifuel stove will just have to do. None of this is Rocket Science and is what most people are doing anyways (apart from the MP thing) so why the need to beat us about the head with a big stick, repeatedly? If you concentrate on getting people to be energy efficient and do the things suggested, does it matter if the man in the street is the despised and ridiculed "denier", sceptic or just plain confused? By concentrating on encouraging recycling and insulation for example you are less likely to irritate and annoy and more likely to persuade people, surely. The end is the same, reduced CO2 emissions.
or the stubbornly uninformed circus performers evident on this thread.
Spoken like a true Ringmaster !!! The Ringmaster in his red jacket and tight black trousers, the big "I am" of the circus. The Guy who loves no more than whipping Lions, Tigers and chained Elephants to perform for him and make him look good!!!!
Lets hope that one day those animals will beak free and get their revenge on the cruel Man of the Circus.
Get off your high horse s-i-s before you end up squashed under an Elephants foot!!!
C3..............[disgust][disgust]
November floods in 16 regions of France and Italy caused $1.2 billion of damage.
November floods in 16 regions of France and Italy caused $1.2 billion of damage.
I see Google is being pushed to it's limits again!!
C3.......:eek:
ywindythesecond
09-Jan-12, 23:50
Finally, don't take any notice of statements, articles or links posted by the wilfully uninformed. These get more ridiculous and more deluded by the day.
Just out of interest SiS, would you describe me as "wilfully uninformed"? Perhaps you would like to provide a list of orgers you would describe as "wilfully uninformed"?
July floods, 5000 lightening strikes in Denmark caused $1 billion of damage
secrets in symmetry
11-Jan-12, 00:09
SiS you are SO rude! Given that you want people to accept what you say about Global Warming and CO2 emissions you do your damnedest to irritate people and turn them off to your message.No. These people aren't interested in (or capable of reacting positively to) carefully argued rational analysis. Direct talk (using indirected vernacular, in this case) is necessary to counteract the repeated posting of lies about climate change that have been gathered from the most wilfully lunatic of sources by the most gullible of foolish posters - (a).
So lets see as far as I can see the message is insulate, recycle, write to your MP and support planning applications. Buying a new car is out just now, our 10 year old diesel zafira will just have to do. Solar panels and a new boiler are out also, our dusty multifuel stove will just have to do. None of this is Rocket Science and is what most people are doing anyways (apart from the MP thing) so why the need to beat us about the head with a big stick, repeatedly? If you concentrate on getting people to be energy efficient and do the things suggested, does it matter if the man in the street is the despised and ridiculed "denier", sceptic or just plain confused? By concentrating on encouraging recycling and insulation for example you are less likely to irritate and annoy and more likely to persuade people, surely. The end is the same, reduced CO2 emissions.I'm not putting my big stick anywhere near you, and I didn't mention recycling. I'm not big on solar panels, partly because I think solar panel technology will become much more efficient very soon. The new technology will be very different from the old technology. I think air or ground source heat pumps are better, especially if you can get grants to install them.
The denier in the street needs to be reminded that he is wrong (and frequently), if only to protect those that may be influenced by such circus performers - (b).
Cards (a) and (b) are to some extent for gleeber's benefit. I won't reveal the trick that I won because I might not win it again if the marks know what it is. :cool:
Ducati's idea of making cars (and other forms of mechanised road transport) last for much longer may have some merit, but in the long term we need to replace our current vehicles with new ones which pollute less. The new vehicles should of course last much longer too, so (in that sense, at least) ducati is of course correct.
Ywindy, of course you're not a wilfully uninformed denier. Your schoolboy report shows some promise, but you'll be needing to speed up your learning process a bit! :cool:
Does anyone else see 'denier' and think tights??? It cant be right. It must be spelled differently
Yes, I see denier and think 'bank robbery'. :-)
, ducati is of course correct.
Things you don't often read on a forum.
[lol][lol][lol]
58% of the USA experienced their hottest or wettest year on record.
58% of the USA experienced their hottest or wettest year on record.
Wish the same could have been said for Staxigoe !!!
C3..................:eek::roll:
secrets in symmetry
11-Jan-12, 23:07
Things you don't often read on a forum.
[lol][lol]There's a first (and perhaps a last!) for everything. :cool:
secrets in symmetry
14-Jan-12, 18:15
The BBC report: Green Deal 'means 1.5m homes lose insulation subsidy' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16552404)
More than a million households will miss out on getting help to insulate lofts and cavity walls as a result of changes to government subsidies, research suggests.
Changes proposed in the Green Deal mean 1.5 million homes will no longer qualify, Europe Economics said.
It added the changes would deprive the UK economy of £5bn and cost the insulation industry 3,000 jobs.
If true, I think this is a mistake by Government. Home insulation is one of the best ways (perhaps the best way) of reducing our CO2 emissions. I think it's far more important (and better) than high FiTs for home photovoltaics.
I've lost track with this thread as I've bin busy doing stuff, there are some replies I owe a reply too, I hope to get round to it.
The BBC report: Green Deal 'means 1.5m homes lose insulation subsidy' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16552404)
If true, I think this is a mistake by Government. Home insulation is one of the best ways (perhaps the best way) of reducing our CO2 emissions. I think it's far more important (and better) than high FiTs for home photovoltaics.
Quite agree.
More emphasis should be placed on reduction of our energy needs. More insulation = less energy = less CO2.
There are so many other things too. Not just stupid CFL's but switching things off rather than let them fall to standby, there should be a worldwide manufacturing regulation to ensure electrical items when not in use for a period of time disconnect fully.
We should stop spending a fortune lighting up the sky [evil]
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/IMG_0620-1.jpg
This example is one of about 14 around a kind of roundabout. Roughly 800w pointing straight up at the sky!! Why??
secrets in symmetry
24-Jan-12, 00:37
Arctic freshwater bulge detected
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16657122)
UK scientists use radar satellites to measure a huge dome of fresh water that is developing in the western Arctic Ocean.
UK scientists have detected a huge dome of fresh water that is developing in the western Arctic Ocean.
The bulge is some 8,000 cubic km in size and has risen by about 15cm since 2002.
The team thinks it may be the result of strong winds whipping up a great clockwise current in the northern polar region called the Beaufort Gyre.
This would force the water together, raising sea surface height, the group tells the journal Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1379.html).
I was reading that earlier, interesting stuff. But, and here's where I'll get screams of denier, how do we know this is truly a new phenomenon as we've only very recently had the technology (satellites) to record and track this.
secrets in symmetry
26-Jan-12, 23:50
I don't think you can say for definite whether (i) the phenomenon is truly new, or (ii) whether it's caused by global warming via melting ice. I read the paper in Nature Geoscience - the authors' claims regarding the effects of ice melt are quite conservative, probably because the predictions are model dependent. That's reading between the lines - they don't spell it out explicitly.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.