Global warming

[j4bberw0ck]

Wouldn't it be good news if this approach (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1739124.ece) works? And imagine the agony, if it did, of those who seem to want the human race to retreat to a sort of 16th century subsistence farming existence :lol: .

[scotsboy]

Wouldn't it be good news if this approach (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1739124.ece) works? And imagine the agony, if it did, of those who seem to want the human race to retreat to a sort of 16th century subsistence farming existence :lol: .

You mean the kind of farming the majority of the World are required to practice, becuase of our greed and appetite?

[j4bberw0ck]

I suspect you misunderstand the economics that causes Third World poverty, but do please explain what leads you to pose the question in that way. How does "our greed" lead to subsistence farming in the Third World?

[scotsboy]

Because we want all there resources and we don't want to pay for them. Then we sell them material to enhance their productivity (which they can't afford) and rape them some more.

[Rheghead]

World oil production is 87 million barrels/day.

That would mean if we lived in a fair global society, our individual daily ration would be 0.5 litre per day.:eek:

[MadPict]

This was one of the five ways to save the world in the BBC2 programme of the same name.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369401.stm

[j4bberw0ck]

Because we want all there resources and we don't want to pay for them. Then we sell them material to enhance their productivity (which they can't afford) and rape them some more.

I'm sorry - you lost me. Can you be more specific?

[NickInTheNorth]

So to try and fix some of the problems caused by humankinds greedy overuse of natural resources some bunch of cowboys are going to carry out a large scale experiment that MIGHT help to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. An experiment that scientists have serious doubts about the merits of.

If only people would use less electricity in their daily lives, fly less on pointless journeys (I principally mean business trips that could be achieved just as easily by phone) and follow much of the other good advice which is readily available everywhere, the CO2 emmissions would naturally decline to a tolerable level...

[MadPict]

the CO2 emmissions would naturally decline to a tolerable level...

Ah but the doom mongers with financial interests in the green energy business would never let us know we can perhaps go on two holidays a year now that we've saved the world....

[j4bberw0ck]

So to try and fix some of the problems caused by humankinds greedy overuse of natural resources some bunch of cowboys are going to carry out a large scale experiment that MIGHT help to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. An experiment that scientists have serious doubts about the merits of.

If only people would use less electricity in their daily lives, fly less on pointless journeys (I principally mean business trips that could be achieved just as easily by phone) and follow much of the other good advice which is readily available everywhere, the CO2 emmissions would naturally decline to a tolerable level...

Oh lawdy........... Nick, you need to apply a little thought to this. More likely, a lot of thought.

Let's assume that all international trade and transport stopped overnight in the interests of CO2 reduction. Let's further assume for a moment that the problem is actually to do with CO2 production..... let's also put on record your dismissal of face-to-face contact - a necessary part of doing business, because we're descended from monkeys.

The net result would be a catastrophic implosion of global economies, leading to joblessness, poverty and quite possibly civil unrest on a scale not seen before. Caithness would wither and die apart from those few able to make some sort of living from land or water.

And if you use less electricity at home you'd do little good; most of your CO2 footprint from your home is from heating, not power use.

Air transport puts about 2% of all CO2 emissions into the environment, staying in sunny Caithness to save carbon won't achieve much.

So you can achieve 9/10ths of very, very little by what you propose, at the potential cost of making many, many people jobless. Or, you can try something that might just uncover a potential solution. If you scale up the quantities mentioned in the article - 100 tonnes of iron powder might remove 3 million tons of CO2 (notice I said might) by 1000 times you have something that might remove 3 billion tons of carbon. So a rapid and dramatic reduction, much more effective and far cheaper than fannying about with trying to persuade people not to fly (fat chance).

Will it work? I don't know. Might it work? Yes. So surely it's worth a try? Isn't that the purpose of an experiment?

[NickInTheNorth]

I most certainly do not pretend that the small steps outlined would be a total cure. However as with many things a few very small adjustments by a great many people can have a dramatic impact.

Certainly some international business travel is required, but not all that takes place. (I know I've been flown all over the world in a previous existence to attend meetings that could just as easily have been arranged as tele-conferences.

With regard to heating, agreed, and I should have added turning down the thermostat a couple of degrees, whatever heating is used (and better and more insulation).

Turning standby electrical items off. Switching out lights, using low energy bulbs...

The point I was, and am, making is that there are many very small actions that we as individuals can easily make, with no significant impact on our lives. However those same actions can have a significant impact on the overall use of energy.

[George Brims]

let's also put on record your dismissal of face-to-face contact - a necessary part of doing business, because we're descended from monkeys.

A lot of people routinely use video conferencing nowadays (I have a video meeting in just over an hour and had two yesterday). It really does save a lot of travel time and expense, while retaining a lot (not all) of the intimacy of personal contact.

Oh, and we're descended from APES. "Get your filthy minkey away from me!"

[j4bberw0ck]

Well, I suppose if we're lining up to exhibit our care for the climate as video-conferencing users (not to mention our distinguished careers as international jet-setting businessmen and heroes of the western world), I'd have to say that my trips Stateside were curtailed somewhat after my employer (1989 - 1994) introduced video-conferencing to link its 6 Regional headquarters, in 1992/3. Cost a fortune, and a great shame too. I enjoyed the regular jaunts to San Francisco and the weekends in Lake Tahoe, Monterey and such places. Business Class, natch. :cool: The trips to clients in Yurp and the Middle East just weren't the same, somehow. So mundane :lol:

However, it's not business travel that's fueling the growth in passenger miles; its leisure, and all those with second homes hither and yon. You'll not get them to change in a hurry.

Electrical items left on standby? That's right up there with mobile phones being dangerous on petrol station forecourts, aircraft, and in hospitals. It's years since valves were used in everyday electrical equipment, Nick. Your TV, even if a CRT, uses a few watts max; a TFT / LCD TV uses 1 watt on standby, typically.

When you've given up your car, your central heating and / or fossil-fuel burning fire, your tumble drier, your electric cooker, your fridge and deep-freeze, you'll find me much more receptive to your energy arguments. Just like Sir Stafford Cripps, a Marxist / Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1940's, gave away his family fortune because it was inconsistent with his political and social beliefs - a man deserving of huge respect for standing by his principles. Even if he was clearly bonkers.

[George Brims]

Well, I suppose if we're lining up to exhibit our care for the climate as video-conferencing users (not to mention our distinguished careers as international jet-setting businessmen and heroes of the western world)
Not in the business world, me. Lab rat by trade. And the damn video thing is robbing me of trips to Hawaii and Switzerland on my current project.


right up there with mobile phones being dangerous on petrol station forecourts
At least theoretically they are. A radio frequency signal can induce a small arc between neighbouring pieces of metal. Not that likely to ignite petrol (which is harder than you might think) but it *could*. Much more likely is static like the bloke in Washington State who went up in flames a couple of winters back and was caught on video. Our pumps here have warning signs telling you not to get back in your car while pumping fuel - that's liable to create a spark when you reach for the nozzle when you're done.


Your TV, even if a CRT, uses a few watts max; a TFT / LCD TV uses 1 watt on standby, typically.
It's not the standby mode. It's the teenagers (and the 20-somethings) who leave the damn TV on all the time. My son's ex went to the supermarket for an hour and left one on.

[sandy01]

Yesterday I did my bit for "global warming" and saved myself 5ltrs of fuel, by not driving the 12 mile round trip in my "gas guzzling" 4X4. just to put some silly numbers on bits of paper, so councilors and politicians can extract more money from me by more stealth taxes. I wonder how many people took their cars to go and vote, with just themselves in the car, or even when they could have walked a few hundred yards to the polling station??
I don't believe the "global warming" theory, as you hear on tv in various programs, thousands of years ago, the world was warmer and the sea level higher than today. records do not go back far enough to prove that this change is not a natural occurance.
Now co2 if I remember my school days, every time an animal (humans included) breathes it takes in air absorbs oxygen, and replaces it with co2.
So the best cure for the earth, global warming, water shortages, famine etc is less humans.
I believe the human race is hell bent on self desruction, it can not keep on growing at the same rate, (take lemmings overpopulation self destruct) or before long there will be standing room only, no ground for food, as houses will be built on it, you only have to look locally, to see more and more farm/crofting land being fenced off for new housing.

[badger]

Wouldn't it be good news if this approach (http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1739124.ece) works? And imagine the agony, if it did, of those who seem to want the human race to retreat to a sort of 16th century subsistence farming existence :lol: .
This kind of thing makes me very nervous - the crucial sentence in the article is the final one

He said that many oceanographers had concerns about the knock-on effects of man-made plankton blooms.

followed by some interesting comments from readers. It's all very well saying it will drop to the ocean floor and be harmless (or words to that effect). Really? Do we know enough about the life down there?

[Rheghead]

And imagine the agony, if it did, of those who seem to want the human race to retreat to a sort of 16th century subsistence farming existence .

Does that entail:

Sourcing our food locally to reduce the carbon footprint?:roll:

Relying less on chemicals to grow food?

Less cruel live animal exports?

Making local farmers accountable for food standards rather than multinationals?

Less GM contamination?

Less alien species?

:roll:

[j4bberw0ck]

I suppose in some circumstances, it might entail some of those things. But it also entails malnutrition, starvation when crops fail or can't be stored, having to spend every waking hour tending and planting, and pretty much precludes being able to earn a living, have a modern house which keeps you alive in the winter, and having a life expectancy much beyond 38 or 40.

Let's not kid ourselves that 16th century life was a rural idyll.

BTW, it's "fewer" cruel live animal exports and alien species..... :lol:

As for cruel animal exports, I suspect animals were much worse off in the C16, too - subsistence farming = no money for vets. You see that in operation now, too.

[crayola]

Soylent Green is people!We've gotta stop them somehow!

[JAWS]

Oh dear, it seems I, along with many others, are guilty of causing all the worlds ills.

I feel really terrible about it. I will have to have a long drive to calm myself down, after I've boiled the electric Kettle and made myself a mug of coffee with plenty of sugar to keep my energy up.

Don't worry, when the ice-caps melt Caithness will be ideally placed for the direct sea-route to China and South-east Asia which is where most of the future trade will be centred.

For those who think I should be feeling very guilty about living where, when and how I do I'll give you some sound advice. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen because it isn't going to.
For those who think that is a callous attitude then check what living conditions and life expectancy were at the start of the last Century in the so called "Third World" (I'd love to know where the other two Worlds are hidden I've only ever found one) and what they are like now.

[danc1ngwitch]

Oh lawdy........... Nick, you need to apply a little thought to this. More likely, a lot of thought.

Let's assume that all international trade and transport stopped overnight in the interests of CO2 reduction. Let's further assume for a moment that the problem is actually to do with CO2 production..... let's also put on record your dismissal of face-to-face contact - a necessary part of doing business, because we're descended from monkeys.

The net result would be a catastrophic implosion of global economies, leading to joblessness, poverty and quite possibly civil unrest on a scale not seen before. Caithness would wither and die apart from those few able to make some sort of living from land or water.

And if you use less electricity at home you'd do little good; most of your CO2 footprint from your home is from heating, not power use.

Air transport puts about 2% of all CO2 emissions into the environment, staying in sunny Caithness to save carbon won't achieve much.

So you can achieve 9/10ths of very, very little by what you propose, at the potential cost of making many, many people jobless. Or, you can try something that might just uncover a potential solution. If you scale up the quantities mentioned in the article - 100 tonnes of iron powder might remove 3 million tons of CO2 (notice I said might) by 1000 times you have something that might remove 3 billion tons of carbon. So a rapid and dramatic reduction, much more effective and far cheaper than fannying about with trying to persuade people not to fly (fat chance).

Will it work? I don't know. Might it work? Yes. So surely it's worth a try? Isn't that the purpose of an experiment?
Oh wow, turn of your computer and spend less time typing so much[lol]
The earth is a mother, a teacher, a healer. She gave us the wisdom, it is ours to take. ( for simple people like me ofcoarse )
Some times life is best at it's simplist.

[j4bberw0ck]

Oh wow, turn of your computer and spend less time typing so much[lol]
The earth is a mother, a teacher, a healer. She gave us the wisdom, it is ours to take. ( for simple people like me ofcoarse )
Some times life is best at it's simplist.

Hmmmm. Thank you, dancingwitch. I believe I may stick with my own beliefs and let you get on with your lovely "simplist" view of the world. The earth is a lump of (primarily) magma with a hard crust over. Our survival here depends on continued good luck (on a geological scale) and, to a lesser extent, to good management. Mother, teacher, healer? Nope. To be respected as a finite resource? Yes.

[NickInTheNorth]

Hmmmm. Thank you, dancingwitch. I believe I may stick with my own beliefs and let you get on with your lovely "simplist" view of the world. The earth is a lump of (primarily) magma with a hard crust over.

From my imperfect knowledge of geology I think you will find that magma is defined as being in a liquid state, and thus incapable of forming a "lump". :)





Our survival here depends on continued good luck (on a geological scale) and, to a lesser extent, to good management. Mother, teacher, healer? Nope. To be respected as a finite resource? Yes.

To be respected as a finite resource - exactly. And yet when I point out practical measures which anyone can take to make a little difference to the use of those resources the best you can do is offer ridicule.

I never suggested that we should all give up all the conveniences of modern life, far from it. But I stick by what I said that small changes to how we waste energy can (and if enough people do it) will make a difference to our overall consumption of the earth's scarce resources.

[danc1ngwitch]

Hmmmm. Thank you, dancingwitch. I believe I may stick with my own beliefs and let you get on with your lovely "simplist" view of the world. The earth is a lump of (primarily) magma with a hard crust over. Our survival here depends on continued good luck (on a geological scale) and, to a lesser extent, to good management. Mother, teacher, healer? Nope. To be respected as a finite resource? Yes.
Our survival :roll: no simplicity, left. Hell man/woman techy know it all's, [lol] More to life than some know.
Makes me glad i am who i am.

[peter macdonald]

"Wouldn't it be good news if this approach works? And imagine the agony, if it did, of those who seem to want the human race to retreat to a sort of 16th century subsistence farming existence "
Aye young Jwok you would be so happy as you had to use a crowbar to get the neeps out of the ground on a frosty morning to feed the sheep before trudging to the shore to get the seaweed for making a drop soap and fertilizing the kale which will break the diet of tatties and dried cuddies Then on sunday ye hed to get the herring out of the barrell but you forgot about the cut on your finger and ye near went out through the roof when the salt hit But what fun you could have sitting around a peat fire telling yarns except when the peats were wet and made your eyes nip like heck
Aye ye would be fine as long as the rhumatism or the bronchitis or the pure hard work did not kill you off in your 30s ...

Me Im old now and fair enjoying the weather we have had these last weeks and Im not missing those winters when you had sleet hanging off you from Nov to March I also notice my oil tank is keeping its level up better nowadays
PM
ps Jwok make sure you see to the kye before answering

[badger]

To be respected as a finite resource - exactly. And yet when I point out practical measures which anyone can take to make a little difference to the use of those resources the best you can do is offer ridicule.

I never suggested that we should all give up all the conveniences of modern life, far from it. But I stick by what I said that small changes to how we waste energy can (and if enough people do it) will make a difference to our overall consumption of the earth's scarce resources.

Oh how I wish those wise and great people who govern us would take this simple message seriously - it's really not so difficult. There are many ways to reduce the massive waste of energy but it requires a little effort and change of habits, which we know they (and we) are not very good at. Turn off lights, turn down heat (wear winter clothes in winter for heaven’s sake), close shop doors – and so on.

The Motion on climate change in the Commons yesterday included this statement
further welcomes the Government's comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy and the proposals in the energy review to cut carbon emissions by up to a further 25 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020; recognises that home energy use for heating, lighting and appliances accounts for more than a quarter of domestic UK carbon emissions; applauds the Government's proposals to improve building standards so that from 2016 all new housing developments must be zero carbon; recognises the Government's commitment to improving the energy efficiency of existing homes and tackling fuel poverty through Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment; welcomes the Budget 2007 report statement that by the end of the next decade all householders will have been offered help to introduce energy efficiency measures; and looks forward to further development of policies in this area'

Well isn’t that reassuring. No urgency then, nothing to worry about just now. Why can’t all new housing be zero carbon in 2 years? It’s not as thought the technology doesn’t exist. Or if they can’t be zero carbon they could be miles better than they are now. Current building regs. are completely inadequate. If individuals can build houses that require no artificial heating, i.e. gas, oil, elec., why can’t everyone – at least in this country. Why do we have to wait a decade to introduce energy efficiency in existing houses?
During the debate David Cairns got very cross with the SNP saying
The previous Scottish Administration set separate targets, so it is entirely up to the new Administration, whatever their hue, to set their own target. However, a target set at a high level will not be achieved if the party in power opposes every application for a wind farm that is submitted. It is easy for the Scottish National party to demand higher targets here, but the truth is that it opposes every application for a wind farm to help promote renewable energy. I had no idea the SNP did this (if it’s true they’ll get my vote) but the £30 billion being spent on ROCs for windfarms could do wonders for energy efficiency and conservation.

[j4bberw0ck]

Aye ye would be fine as long as the rhumatism or the bronchitis or the pure hard work did not kill you off in your 30s ...
ps Jwok make sure you see to the kye before answering

Aye Peter, the kye are bogling in the byre and aa's well :lol:

Wow, isn't that 16th century subsistence bracing? So green! So eco-friendly! No petrol fumes! No fertilisers! Ah, yes.... that's the way forward all right, rosy-cheeked children playing carefree in the meadow and all of us on our knees worshipping Mother Gaia!

There's an old but'n'ben on the plot we built on last year. The box beds are still in it; I was amazed that they're only about 5' long. I assumed it was because, given the cold and damp, people slept in the foetal position. A friend who's a principal Inspector at Scottish Heritage tells me that's only part of the truth; mostly it was because people slept partially sitting up because of lung disease caused by damp, smoke and poor diet.

Well, eco-loonies, Gaia-ists, Earth-Mothers and the rest, you can shove your 16th century subsistence where the sun don't shine. The human race moves on and will either solve its problems by globalisation and increasing wealth and knowledge, or die out. If it dies out, then I guess many of you will consider it a fitting end, but regarding the human race as a viral plague on the Mother Earth has always seemed to me to be the last refuge of the terminally self-hating.

I like my 21st century existence, and regret only that I'll not see how things are in the 22nd, 23rd, and 30th century. And if the sum of human knowledge and technology continues to expand at the current rate, I'd like to think that (as I read in an article recently) if that failed politician Al Gore is right, and sea levels in 2600 are rising, we'll just need to tell them not to - and they won't :lol: .

[golach]

Hmmmm. Thank you, dancingwitch. I believe I may stick with my own beliefs and let you get on with your lovely "simplist" view of the world. The earth is a lump of (primarily) magma with a hard crust over. Our survival here depends on continued good luck (on a geological scale) and, to a lesser extent, to good management. Mother, teacher, healer? Nope. To be respected as a finite resource? Yes.
I tend to side with you J4bber, these Mother Earth beliefs dont sit well with me, when I hear that particular phrase I think of the Stone Ages, and we have come on a little further than that now.

[Rheghead]

...£30 billion being spent on ROCs for windfarms....

Where do you get your 'facts' from???:D

Is that per year?:confused

[j4bberw0ck]

The Australian Federal Parliament's Standing Committee on Science and Innovation recently completed a report entitled Between a Rock and a Hard Place, on the subject of "Geosequestration of Carbon Dioxide".

Four leading lights of the Committee have issued a Dissenting Opinion (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report/dissent.pdf) paper. It's as neat a summary of the politicisation of climate change, and the lack of science behind the scaremongering, as I've ever read. I know from posts here and pm's received that there are a few here whose attention spans don't run to reading more than a paragraph or two :lol: but this document is worth a read - about 5 minutes to skim it, and 15 to do it justice.

It doesn't disprove or prove anything though the arguments are interesting tin their own right. It merely underlines out that to allow politicians to take trillion-dollar, largely irreversible decisions that will fundamentally affect global economies, on the basis of the conjecture that passes for hypothesis these days, is a stupid thing to do.

I'd go one further, to be honest, and wonder why, exactly, politicians are so keen to legislate and tax and control and ban and restrict. Is it simply to be seen to be doing something, anything? Is it to raise more taxes for their own political ends? Or is it a concerted attempt to exercise ever-increasing control on the population?

I'm normally fairly cautious about conspiracy theories - I like Hansen's Razor, "Never attribute to conspiracy anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity" - but I'm beginning to wonder.........

[Ricco]

Interesting programme on BBC3 last night called Outrageous Wasters. Took a family bent on gross waste of resources and placed them in 'correction camp'. Even the dad eventually had a change of heart about their contributions and what changes they should undertake.

[KittyMay]

I'm normally fairly cautious about conspiracy theories - I like Hansen's Razor, "Never attribute to conspiracy anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity" - but I'm beginning to wonder.........

Thanks for the link j4bberw0ck. Well worth a read. As you say it doesn't prove or disprove the 'what if' projections and assumptions that settle the blame almost entirely on man for the current changes in climate. Man made or natural? As yet they don't have a clue.

As to why there's such support for the man made theory. I can't believe it's as simple as stupidity. What about the dwindling fossil fuel supplies? A bit of a coincidence maybe. Telling the population that we're running out of fuel might result in a bit of a backlash but blaming the population for destroying the planet by burning that very fuel - kills two birds with one stone.

Mind you, I still believe we must tackle efficiency and stop the huge waste of fuel/electricity - it's criminal IMO. But I see that we need anthropogenic climate change to force the issue and make the necessary changes.

[Rheghead]

Global warming will have an impact on future generations and wildlife but things aren't all that bad from the biggest worries eg coastal flooding from rising sea levels. The GW alarmists will make us think that it will be sudden changes but the sea level rises are in the order of 1-2mm per year. Considering the average life expectancy of dwellings , eg 50-100 years, people will adapt where they can build at a faster rate than what natural forces will preclude them to be built.

As for the wildlife, we have been in and out of ice ages and life just adapts to slow gradual changes.

[j4bberw0ck]

Well said this man (from "Letters", Daily Telegraph) :

Sir - Last week rain fell not only on the rag-bag of climate-change activists camped outside Heathrow, it also poured on the whole global-warming parade.

First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions.

When will our politicians, especially David Cameron, recognise that carbon claptrap, not global warming, is the danger for our economic future?

Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, Gravesend, Kent

[oldmarine]

Well said this man (from "Letters", Daily Telegraph) :

Sir - Last week rain fell not only on the rag-bag of climate-change activists camped outside Heathrow, it also poured on the whole global-warming parade.

First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions.

When will our politicians, especially David Cameron, recognise that carbon claptrap, not global warming, is the danger for our economic future?

Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, Gravesend, Kent

The above words are what many would like to believe. Global Warming (Gore's favorite topic) has yet to be proven. We will continue to receive conflicting reports on this subject.

[crayola]

Crikey, j4bberw0ck, I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations on the most unbalanced sequence of contributions to the global warming debate I have yet set eyes upon. It is obvious that you have been unduly influenced by the claims of a particularly unedifying media man and his shabby brigade of renegade scientists and you have been digging out their contributions and posting them here for us all to marvel at your fantastically independent powers of independent analysis that you have come up with yourself, all independently of vested interests and sensible people.

You just play nicely now and Rheghead might tell you where you're going wrong. He's a proper scientist. That means he doesn't decide what the answer is and toodle off to search the web until you find a few articles by relatively unknown mavericks, with agendas bigger than the whole of Orkney, that support the point of view you've decided is right. They're quite hard to find aren't they? Perhaps there's good reason for that. Stick to pension funds where you know a bit about what you're talking about, although even there you're greatly exaggerating the effect of some tax changes that the clever Mr Brown made a long time ago. There's a good chap.

Oh, just one more thing, what do you do that gives you so much time to spend searching the web and creating thread after thread about your favourite hobby horses? I want to do the same job. :)

I had one once but they wanted younger women so I retired when I was still at the top of the tree and well heeled. So to speak. ;)

C x

[j4bberw0ck]

Crikey, j4bberw0ck, I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations on the most unbalanced sequence of contributions to the global warming debate I have yet set eyes upon.

Thank you indeed. I rather liked the phrase "carbon claptrap", which is what we've got since the politicians got involved, and why I posted the letter. No, I'm not a "scientist", but I do know the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, and theory. I surprised you think (or think you've read) that I know "the answers"; I don't, and never claimed to.

Like you, though, I'm old enough to know when someone's feeding me a line of drivel.

And now I can return safely to my work, before I have to spend too much of my evening and weekend catching up on things.

[rich]

One solution would be to encourage the use of horses. In Caithness they would be ideal. Imagine filling your saddle bags with the old computer and the rest of the business junk we accumulate, getting into the old duster coat, jamming the slouch hat on your head, making sure the horse pistols are loaded and off you go across the Ord and down to Inverness. Estimated time of travel three days later.
Yes, I know some of you are going to advocate bicycles for our travelling beurocrats but bicycle tyres are made of rubber and the more advanced models utilise metal alloys that might not be environmentally sound. But the horse eats and munches his way over hill and dale removing altogether the problem of fuel.
OK I know some of you will say why not just use the computer from home a la George Brims?
I fear that such an apporach overlooks the crucial reason we have meetings in the first place. It's not the agenda that matters, it's the politics behind the agenda. ANd there's no better way of thinking things out than on the back of a horse. I am not sure whether mobile phones have a role to play in all this because their service is so lousy and overpriced but it is a pleasing image the idea of one civil servant calling another - "where are you, Donald?"
"I'm at the sheep sheds at Lairg, Iain where are you?"
"I am somehwere on the west highland way I think. I have just fallen off the horse and he has disappeared into the bogs. I always said those Highland region nags were no good."
Well you get the picture. I am thinking of retiring to Inverness and getting into the horseflesh business....

[crayola]

Thank you indeed. I rather liked the phrase "carbon claptrap", which is what we've got since the politicians got involved, and why I posted the letter. No, I'm not a "scientist", but I do know the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, and theory. I surprised you think (or think you've read) that I know "the answers"; I don't, and never claimed to.

Like you, though, I'm old enough to know when someone's feeding me a line of drivel.

And now I can return safely to my work, before I have to spend too much of my evening and weekend catching up on things.Well w0cky, I read yer stuff and I don't think you do know the difference between conjecture and hypothesis, but that's a minor point because climate change models are based on theory. Pretty poor argument from you, as mr scoot would say.

[crayola]

Hey rich, I thought ye were going til retire til Thurso and deal drugs but now yer talking horses and their feed. Which is it man, grass or hay? :cool:

[j4bberw0ck]

I don't think you do know the difference between conjecture and hypothesis, but that's a minor point because climate change models are based on theory. Pretty poor argument from you, as mr scoot would say.

Sorry, chuck, I think you need to go check on the strict meanings of the words. Like theory for instance. Note how to qualify as a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), future events must be capable of being predicted with considerable accuracy from current data - patently untrue in the case of global warming, as any real scientist, Rheghead or otherwise, will surely confirm. Hence the doubt in the wisdom of basing multi-trillion dollar decisions on it.

Conjecture is what it is, and what it remains, until someone builds a model that explains what we see now, let alone what we'll see in the future.

[Tubthumper]

I've been farting a lot recently. Does that make me a bad person?

[Anne x]

The above words are what many would like to believe. Global Warming (Gore's favorite topic) has yet to be proven. We will continue to receive conflicting reports on this subject.

My sentiments exactly !!!

[crayola]

Sorry, chuck, I think you need to go check on the strict meanings of the words. Like theory for instance. Note how to qualify as a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), future events must be capable of being predicted with considerable accuracy from current data - patently untrue in the case of global warming, as any real scientist, Rheghead or otherwise, will surely confirm. Hence the doubt in the wisdom of basing multi-trillion dollar decisions on it.

Conjecture is what it is, and what it remains, until someone builds a model that explains what we see now, let alone what we'll see in the future.You really have no idea, especially if you have to resort to Wiki to reinforce your arguments. Calculability and predictability are very different beasties. Ask any witch of your acquaintance.

[Tubthumper]

You really have no idea, especially if you have to resort to Wiki to reinforce your arguments.
Do you fart Crayola? I know J4bberwock does.

[crayola]

Do you fart Crayola? I know J4bberwock does.Of course I don't and I hope you sequestrate his emissions whenever he betrays his planet.

[j4bberw0ck]

You really have no idea, especially if you have to resort to Wiki to reinforce your arguments. Calculability and predictability are very different beasties. Ask any witch of your acquaintance.

Thanks for the edit; I'd wondered what you meant and assumed you'd maybe gone for another glass of Pinot Grigio, or something stronger.

Wiki served to clarify the meaning of theory. I think your views on "calculability and predictability" , though, are best glossed over if we're back to witches and witchcraft and their contribution to an explanation of global warming.

[crayola]

Was that an admission of defeat?

[Boozeburglar]

Actually Jabberwookkie,

Theory is thought or speculation.

If enough people think or speculate there is a problem; consensually there is most likely a problem.

The majority of the scientific community regard global warming as real.

I am loathe to rely on science for anything, but what do we lose by listening to them? We develop more efficient engines, televisions and stop leaving our lights on in the hall.

What exactly do we lose?

;)

[crayola]

The majority of the scientific community regard global warming as real.This is what j4bberw0ck has failed to grasp. It's his problem.

[j4bberw0ck]

Theory is thought or speculation.

Yes, in everyday conversation that may be. But if global warming is being investigated by scientists then talk of "theory" should be (and in my mind is) indivisible from the scientific standard. That's just the way it is, and a statement that the causes of global warming are the subject of a theory is just plain wrong.


If enough people think or speculate there is a problem; consensually there is most likely a problem.Yes. Cause or effect? What's the bigger problem we're facing? Some observations that the the earth has warmed slightly in recent years, or the baying of politicians grasping the first possible answer to give them a reason to make decisions which could bring the global economy to a shuddering halt?


The majority of the scientific community regard global warming as real.Yes, I know. I have never, or nor would I, argue that there's been no warming of the planet. It happens all the time, warming and cooling. And quite independently, it seems, of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the biggest inconvenient truth of the lot.


I am loathe to rely on science for anything,What a curious sentiment. Are you religious?



This is what j4bberw0ck has failed to grasp. It's his problem.

J4bberw0ck hasn't failed to grasp anything of the sort. I've grasped it rather well.

There is no doubt that there's been warming of the atmosphere and the seas. I think if you tried reading a little wider you'd find there's considerable debate about how much and why; within the limits of my reading on the subject, no one disputes some warming in recent years. There is no satisfactory, universally accepted explanation or consensus as to why or how. That's why there's no "theory" of the causes - just ideas of what it might be.

My problem is with politicians jumping in with ludicrous and ill-informed "targets" and prescribing solutions for a problem they cannot understand. Not that they can't understand it because they're incapable of it (but then again.........) but because no coherent explanation for what's happening has been found.

Boozeburglar asks "What do we lose?" - potentially, the range of answers lies from loss of the global economy more or less (in global terms) overnight through to slowed economic growth and continued repression of third world nations by trying to forbid them the economies we've enjoyed and benefited from over the past 100 years.

And finally, Crayola, defeat? You mean that because someone - someone, I might say, of whom I'd thought better - takes off on an intemperate, semi-intelligible late-night rant, that I should feel "defeat"? No. I just thought you were probably inebriated; not what you said, more the way you said it.

I'm frustrated of course at the inability to see my point of view, but I accept that a probable explanation is that I've not made my point well enough. There's another possibility, but I think I'll not go there.

Defeat's a curious word. One slant on it is the idea of a one-to-one contest in which one clearly "wins" in some definable way. Another slant is the idea of ants eventually wearing down their larger, stronger prey by sheer weight of numbers.

You choose! :lol::lol: But please don't feel obliged to tell me; I'm not really interested.

[crayola]

You were ignoring me so I had to get your attention somewhow; a carefully planned and out of character little monologue followed by a few provocatively glib claims usually gets some attention. Did you really think I am so one dimensional that I don't have these tricks up my sleeve?

I've been following your education in global warming scepticism for a while and I think I know what your trains of thought are because I've seen it several times before and heard similar tales from my climate change scientist friends. Yes, I have those too. Your new twist was your attempt to dismiss anthropic global warming by going off on a tangential exploration of semantic pedantry regarding 'theories, conjectures and hypotheses'. That was funny because these guys rarely use that language and when they do they have different meanings from the ones you so painstakingly copied from Wikipedia. Fyi you need to lookup the word 'model' if you do want to talk their language. Anyways, I think your image of what they do is so far off the mark it's almost funny. From what I gather by intense listening and half baked attempts to participate in the discussion at dinner parties is that Climate Science is intensely quantititave and involves massive data collection and gigantic computers. The relevant basic science is old hat. It's as far from hypothesising and conjecturing as you can get. The basic science of anthropic global warming seems well established and the arguments are about whose input data is most reliable or complete and whose model includes the minimum salient science.

They do have one thing in common with you though. I once asked how I'm supposed to know which media reports are trustworthy. The answer was that if it's in the media it's probably wrong! They are particularly scathing about Rob Edwards of the Sunday Herald (eco-fascist) and from the other side, the guy you probably read in the Telegraph, I forget his name, and the former editor of Nature, both eco-denial types. And of course Mr chip on shoulder himself, the attention seeker that made the infamous Channel 4 show that started so many people off on the eco-denial road.

I've tried to get hubby's best pal to post on here but he says he doesn't have the time. I'll try again.

[j4bberw0ck]

You were ignoring me so I had to get your attention somewhow; a carefully planned and out of character little monologue followed by a few provocatively glib claims usually gets some attention. Did you really think I am so one dimensional that I don't have these tricks up my sleeve?

Never dreamed you’d be so insecure.


I've been following your education in global warming scepticism for a while and I think I know what your trains of thought are because I've seen it several times before and heard similar tales from my climate change scientist friends. Yes, I have those too. Your new twist was your attempt to dismiss anthropic global warming by going off on a tangential exploration of semantic pedantry regarding 'theories, conjectures and hypotheses'.Come off it.

Please read the following paragraph with - for the avoidance of doubt - the phrase "As I understand it" in front of each statement:

My entire point is that no one, no group, has managed to use current data in their models (yes, I know about models, too) and explain historical phenomena where the input values are known and the output values are too. Neither can contemporary events be neatly explained by current models. As for future results, there are so many conflicting versions of "truth" that it's like a pick'n'mix.

Anthropogenic climate change is an attempt to explain the warming that's been seen, by linking warming to output of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases", is it not? The problem is, listening to the quality of debate in the meejah you’d be forgiven for thinking that actually, someone noticed greenhouse gas emissions increasing and figured out from that that we’d boil all the polar bears.


Wikipedia. Fyi you need to lookup the word 'model' if you do want to talk their language.I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia and you'll have noticed I rarely link to it, but in this instance the contrasts between theory, hypothesis and conjecture were more user-friendly than a dictionary. The reason's simple: Controversial subjects are written up and edited in a highly partisan way (if you doubt it, check out the biog for our noble Prime Minister) and so the more controversial the subject, the less it can be relied upon. Just recently there've been a number of instances of pcs on the BBC IP address being used to edit and amend articles on climate change and politics to make them agree better with what the BBC believes.

As for models, no, I'm not qualified in any way at all to talk about climate change models, but I'm very familiar with the concept - if you need someone to model your business plans and help you review the effects on your cash flow, P&L and Balance Sheet of different marketing strategies / promotions / price and cost structures, and so on, I could just be the very man. Not as exalted as your clutch of scientists and of course I stand on the shoulders of giants (those who provided the world with Excel spreadsheets) but in my humble way etc etc.


From what I gather by intense listening and half baked attempts to participate in the discussion at dinner parties is that Climate Science is intensely quantititave and involves massive data collection and gigantic computers. The relevant basic science is old hat. It's as far from hypothesising and conjecturing as you can get.Yes, I know. And the data are as good as the quality of the measurement. And with great respect, the fact that there are terabytes of data being gathered and used does not of itself prove anything. It certainly doesn't prove that global warming is anthropogenic. It may be that once someone has a model that works (in the sense of accurately reflecting present and future observation) that the conclusion may be drawn that warming is anthropogenic. Just think about it.

So, here we are with thousands of scientists, real ones all, beavering away with their data and models. All trying to prove whatever is they believe is in fact the truth - the anthropogenickers, the solar-warmers, the cosmic-rayers and all the rest. But - and here's the crux of my argument - the politicians, with their own agendas, have hijacked what anthropogenic results there are and accepted them as fact. And being politicians they want to control things and Be Seen To Be Doing Something, so they start legislating and agreeing between themselves and imposing on us all – and they don’t even know if what they’re doing is appropriate! But what they’re playing with is the thing that keeps us alive – the economy. Loss of that will kill zillions far quicker than climate change – however it’s caused. A reasonable simile for politicians and their actions is something like you hear a rumbling noise from your car while driving along. Someone says “the big ends are worn!”.- so you just buy a new engine hoping that that’ll cure the problem – maybe it will. Or maybe it was a wheel bearing…… a little more investigation might have saved a lot of money and far more effective in solving the problem.


They are particularly scathing about Rob Edwards of the Sunday Herald (eco-fascist) and from the other side, the guy you probably read in the Telegraph, I forget his name, and the former editor of Nature, both eco-denial types. And of course Mr chip on shoulder himself, the attention seeker that made the infamous Channel 4 show that started so many people off on the eco-denial road.

Never heard of Rob Edwards (don’t read the Sunday Herald). By former editor of Nature I guess you mean Nigel Calder – years ago (in the Sixties arrgghh) I bought his book about the Universe and still have it – fascinating, though outdated now, of course. I like Calder. He’s not bothered what people think of him and has (as far as I’m concerned anyway) a good way of cutting quickly to the real heart of an issue, and of explaining complex issues in terms a layman might follow.

Are your dinner party guests equally scathing of Al Gore? His film – scandalously, being distributed as The Truth to every school in the UK by the government – has also been widely undermined. Think “hockey sticks” and “Stern” and “assumptions”.

On the subject of scathing, of course, once there was a man called Nicolaus Copernicus who was regarded as a heretic because he believed the Earth rotates about the Sun, instead of the dogma accepted in the place of truth. Heretics are always mocked and sometimes far worse, but sometimes they’re right. The anthropogenickers have simply assumed the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Copernicus’ day, and to disagree with them is the new heresy.

[Neil Howie]

On the subject of scathing, of course, once there was a man called Nicolaus Copernicus who was regarded as a heretic because he believed the Earth rotates about the Sun, instead of the dogma accepted in the place of truth. Heretics are always mocked and sometimes far worse, but sometimes they’re right. The anthropogenickers have simply assumed the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Copernicus’ day, and to disagree with them is the new heresy. __________________

Are you a flat-earther, or new Copernicus?



and figured out from that that we’d boil all the polar bears.


Let's boil those bears!!

Melting sea ice is driving mother polar bears onto land in northern Alaska to give birth, scientists have found.
Pregnant polar bears build snow dens to protect new cubs from the Arctic winter. The researchers found that between 1985 and 1994, 62% of polar bear dens were built on sea ice – but that number dropped to 37% between 1998 and 2004.
"In recent years Arctic pack ice has formed progressively later (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10072), melted earlier, and lost much of its older and thicker multi-year component," says Anthony Fischbach of the US Geological Survey (USGS) and one of the research team. "Together, these changes have resulted in pack ice that is a less stable platform on which to give birth and raise new cubs."



But what they’re playing with is the thing that keeps us alive – the economy. Loss of that will kill zillions far quicker than climate change – however it’s caused.

Oooh - I looove - sensationalist speculation !! Combating global warming = No Economy!

!z!

<Insert misquote>

[j4bberw0ck]

Are you a flat-earther, or new Copernicus?

Neither.


Oooh - I looove - sensationalist speculation !! Combating global warming = No Economy!

There's a good deal of sensationalist speculation revolving round the causes of climate change. Are you by chance the climate scientist Crayola was threatening to whistle up?

[Neil Howie]

Are you by chance the climate scientist Crayola was threatening to whistle up?


Oh hell no.


There's a good deal of sensationalist speculation revolving round the causes of climate change

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I am not sure whether this serves to draw this possible (see below) climate change to the public conscience or to turn off those who take a healthy cynical view of the press. And lazy journos don't help.

Possible :
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and
cooling influences on climate ... lead to very high confidence [[I]thats 90%] that the global average net effect of human activities since
1750 has been one of warming, draft IPCC report 2007, edit is mine

So lay off those polar bears. And sort out your mis-attributed footnote/tag/whatever-you-call-it:


"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening."— Jean Monnet, founder of the European Union


!z!

[j4bberw0ck]

Oh hell no.

Good. You must be a policeman, then.


So lay off those polar bearsDid polar bears suddenly appear out of nowhere? If not, I dare say they've dealt with ice cap advances and retreats before. After all, it's been going on cyclically for hundreds of thousands of years.


And sort out your mis-attributed footnote/tag/whatever-you-call-itThe full quote - the bit that says: “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” was too long to fit in the space permitted for signatures. As for mis-attributed, the weight of opinion is against you; it doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, just that most people think you are.

In principle, somewhat like the fuss many people kick up when someone questions the mechanism behind global warming. The difference is

1. it's not heresy to believe that Monnet didn't use those words (yet!); but
2. it is heresy to believe the IPCC, most investigating scientists and certainly all politicians are self-interested and have no incentive whatever to find anything other than anthropogenic warming "to blame" for climate change,

Now if we can just sort out this regrettable tendency to give commands instead of explanation, you never know, we might have something to talk about ;) .

[Neil Howie]

Good. You must be a policeman, then

And you must be a poem of nonsense verse? (Restrains self not to put in a digging quote)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6KsgbwE3g


After all, it's been going on cyclically for hundreds of thousands of years.

Are you some kind of ..... buddhist?!



1. it's not heresy to believe that Monnet didn't use those words (yet!); but

Burn! Burn the heretic!... oh wait he could be referring to me.... damn I hate double negatives...

umm.. in the spirit of science, please present your evidence, *cough*, by say, giving me the title of the book, or journal.


Now if we can just sort out this regrettable tendency to give commands instead of explanation, you never know, we might have something to talk about

I agree. Oh wait is that a command? In which case I disagree! At least let's disagree on something that has some solid facts!


!z!

[j4bberw0ck]

Hadn't seen that Jabberwocky before. Thanks. The policeman reference is from one of my favourite films - The Wicker Man. The Police sergeant (Edward Woodward) sent to the Summer Isles to investigate a child's disappearance is called Neil Howie.

As for Monnet, you could try here (http://www.speakout.co.uk/road-to-ruin.aspx#top), a non-party-political oganisation campaigning for a referendum on the new European Constitution sorry, Reform Treaty, the one that's nothing at all like the Constitution rejected a couple of years ago, oh dear me no, nothing at all like that, guv.............

or, here (http://thesocietyofqualifiedarchivists.blogspot.com/2005/02/balkanisation-of-britain.html), the Society of Qualified Archivists, who don't sound like Hamas or the Ganjaweed Militia to me.......... :lol: