2011 A year of extremes

[Rheghead]

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.

[bekisman]

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..

[Phill]

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!

[joxville]

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.

[bekisman]

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..

[bekisman]

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]

Calm down children!

[bekisman]

Calm down children!

He started it, so there

[Rheghead]

He started it, so there

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...

[bekisman]

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..

[Rheghead]

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.

[bekisman]

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..

[Rheghead]

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.

[bekisman]

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?

[Rheghead]

Texas had the worse drought ever in 2011, a sure sign of climate change.

[Phill]

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/showthrea...ding-the-truth

[Rheghead]

"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.

[Moira]

"The 1915-1918 drought might also arguably be worse than the 2010-2011 drought overall."


Now, lets reflect: http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...ding-the-truth

I was just about to suggest that Bekisman & Rheghead sort out their differences by Private Message.
Then you spoiled it.........

[Phill]

I was just about to suggest that Bekisman & Rheghead sort out their differences by Private Message.
Then you spoiled it.........

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)!

[Rheghead]

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.