I make a point to apologise when I'm being patronising. I trust you'll have the good grace to do likewise.
You're quite right. Sorry, must try to stop doing that!
Quote:
Despite its existence, people had been quietly ignoring it for 40 years before it became politically expedient to raise its profile to "issue" status.
So it looks like what we are arguing about is semantics rather than science. To me, an "issue" is any important matter of debate, not just one which has an overtly political dimension. So yes, if we use your narrow definition of "issue", then climate change is arguably an "invented issue". But that does not detract from its importance or validity, and doesn't entitle us to ignore what the scientists tell us about its possible consequences.
Quote:
would that be the scientists who have assessed it objectively, and declared it to be bollocks, or the ones who have joined the hysterical brigade ?
You are deceiving yourself if you think that the only scientists who have looked at this "objectively" are the sceptical ones. Very few scientists who are actually qualified in climatology publish work which fits into either the "its all bollocks" or the "hysterical" pigeonholes. Those labels often apply to the output of politicians, campaigners and the media, but rarely to the scientists.
Quote:
That would be me doing you the courtesy of admitting that your argument has merit.
I appreciate your concern for my feelings, but there's really no need - so long as you don't actually insult or libel me, I can take it! I don't expect anybody to argue their case with any less force just because my response has merit.
Quote:
you go, girl...
Although I like to think I'm in touch with my feminine side, I'm actually a bloke!
Quote:
Not really interested in the similar reports.
Since they collectively cover virtually every policy area likely to be included in the Conservative manifesto, that's an odd admission from someone active on a Conservative blog!
Quote:
I can't believe you linked to The Independent and The Guardian. That's so cute! Bless.
Forgive me for wondering what that says about your objectivity, but perhaps you have more respect for The Sunday Times or The Telegraph?
You mention the problems caused by tunnel vision of the green theorists. Trying to re-engineer things with little idea of the impact of their actions on the real world.
Quote:
That is fine when it is also consistent with reducing fuel use but many of their proposals result in huge percentage increases in fuel use on the strength of fudged data. One of the worst is the proposal to reduce the height of air corridors to reduce contrails ........The CO2 lobbyists have also already altered the direction of development of the next generation aircraft to make them noisier just to produce a small improvement in CO2 emissions. This is a scandal kept very quiet by the CO2 lobby. We are talking about suffering twice the noise level possible with the latest techniques to gain a few percent.
Its not only aircraft operation where the green dream falls apart;
The carbon capture proposals,
Sounds good, reduce CO2 emissions, from coal fired power stations -
in practice it will mean at least a 5% increase in fuel consumption for a given power output.
Zero Carbon Homes - have a look at this Then stop and think about how much it will cost and how long it will take to convert or replace the whole UK housing stock.
Remember we can't keep up with housing demand at present.
There's a lot of talk about mini generation with each house or group of properties having there own generating system and combined integral heating system.
Solar Cells and heat recovery is OK (in the UK) as a support system, but to provide full power supply its not really viable.
Individual wind is even more suspect - and not cheap.
Central large scale generation is reliable, maintained to high standards and as the technology arrives easily upgraded.
It means that everyone can be plugged into a reliable power source at minimum cost to them.
Having a national grid instead of small distributed networks mean that generators can back each other up - and - as new technology arrives means relocating the power connection to the new generator system is easy.
We need a bit of joined up thinking;
How much will it cost, can Jo average afford it -
How long will it take to roll out and is that within the required time scale -
Is it just a fudge or will it really reduce fossil fuel consumption -
Will it mean some people are disadvantaged, and in what way.
Let us assume for just one moment that the CO2 lobby had converted me to the idea of tax it and ban it. Would it help the environment one bit if that money went to any social purpose whatever?
Personally I prefer it to go to families in this country rather than the back door foreign aid programs that the Kyoto agreement has diverted it to with the connivance of our PM. He firmly believes in an increase in aid to Africa as long as it comes out of our pensions and tax increases and not his own. If any party has a world Marxist agenda it is Brownian Labour.
If environmental taxation were to have any real benefit it should go to neither social program. It should go to grants directed to energy reduction programs with verifiable benefits, undertaken by preferably the payers of that tax and way down the list any foreign programs instead of the current reverse of that policy. That way I would be happy that I had taken on board CO2 sceptics who say the program was just yet another blood suck by the giant leech of government programs. It would have quantifiable and verifiable financial long term benefits as well, so clearly lacking in the taxation increases we are currently facing.
Not sure if this is something that could actually go in the manifesto, but it's an interesting idea that I just spotted on another forum. I've no idea if this actually happened or not, but:
Quote:
In Bangkok, Thailand, the city government decided that at 9:00 pm on a given weekday evening, all major television stations would show a big dial with the city's use of electricity at the time. Once the dial appeared on the screen, viewers were requested to turn off unnecessary lights and appliances. As people watched, the dial showed a reduction of 735 megawatts, enough to close two coal-fired power plants. This experiment served as a reminder of the power of individual decisions to make a collective difference.
Maybe it would open the eyes of those who decline to reduce their energy waste "because the little bit I use is totally insignificant on a global scale".
Can anyone tell me whether there are any low energy lamps designed to be switched on and off frequently. We hear about the old style ones being banned but what about the use of dimmer switches and places where a low energy one on constantly is far worse than a high energy one on for short periods especially given the lengthy warm up times.
Providor, Glynne and others, Hi There is an article in the Telegraph today on one of my pet CO2 reducers... N power.
Here
We have to get someone to start this debate and get the facts out stripping away the old myths and terrors.
The Truth is that Modern Nuclear Power stations are safe, relatively clean and efficient ... They are not cheap so the cost of energy may rise somewhat but there is minimal atmospheric polution.
Anyway a direct quote from the article reflects the fuzzy and confused thinking about the whole issue on the vast majority of Britsh peoples parts
Quote:
The energy debate is confusing for many of us. Last week, a judge said Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained factual errors and two days later he was awarded the Nobel prize.
One group of scientists insists we are all doomed unless we change our ways; another group, albeit a smaller one, challenges the apocalyptic prognosis of the others. Again, when I was young we were being assured that the next great climatic event would be another ice age. Would global warming not cancel that out?
On this subject, more than any other, most people of my acquaintance are confused and uncertain whom to believe. But despite the evident difficulties, nuclear power seems an option that we cannot spurn.
For too long now, British governments have been in thrall to a green lobby that managed deliberately to concatenate opposition to nuclear weapons with hostility to nuclear power.
Clarity is what we need.. someone telling us the FACTS, such as they are, clearly without any political or interpretive spin or bias.. and then discussing the various interpretations of these facts.
We have to get someone to start this debate and get the facts out stripping away the old myths and terrors.
Over on the "In the News Forum" the debate on "errors in Al Gores Film" is providing some useful insights.
The argument over the rights and wrong, of showing this film to children, has demonstrated clearly that supporters of the Apocryphyl view of GW consider any statement correct or otherwise is acceptable to publicise their cause.
It is becoming obvious that the CND, and environmental activists, propaganda in the 60's and 70's, has had a major impact on the way N-power is considered as a power source by the population.
Exactly the same techniques (though less sophisticated) were used then.
The result we can see today, a population who reject the use of the technology as a gut reaction - not a considered evaluation of the need, science and risk.
The same response is being seen in response to the climate change propaganda.
Look at the QoL;
The data good, in fact useful,
The solutions based on knee jerk reaction, flawed thinking, inappropriate technology, and - dare I say it - a cynical way to justify raising new taxes.
The reason why I started this thread - to try to tease out ideas.
We need to get away from the GW argument - focus on what needs to be done - set some priorities.
We need to re-educate the public and most importantly the politicians.
The green lobby are not going to let facts or science get in their way.
They believe. - They are now walking the corridors of power with massive influence. - The High Priests are making huge amounts of money.
The politicians believe what they are told, and simply cannot see beyond the rhetoric;
They have a world to save.
They think they have caught the mood of the nation.
Is there a problem - yes.
Is the GW activist's answers the solution - No.
Glynne says "The politicians believe what they are told, and simply cannot see beyond the rhetoric;
They have a world to save.
They think they have caught the mood of the nation"
Quote:
Politicians need to look at issues closer to home as that is where the votes will come from,
Health,Education,Housing.Law and order,Immigration.
These are the issues we need to be fighting for,for our children and grandchildren in fact for ourselves.
The buzz word 'Sustainability' means the best possible life for ourselves without leaving a poorer one for our children
Quote:
My hope and vision for the future is for all to have access to health, education,housing freedom of choice and live in a law abiding society
Sorry if that does not fit in with the green agenda
Driving back from a meeting today, with a very well qualified friend & colleague as passenger.
PHD, C.Eng, FIChemE. Very aware of the current GW debate.
His comments (summarised).
Written to the Tories - Told them the issues to sort out are;
Immigration, Crime, The NHS, Education, EU, Taxation.
The green stuff can wait - China is commissioning a 3K MW coal fired power station every week, we've only got 16 or so.
Our society is falling to bits, and all the politicians seem to worry about is the nonsense green peace are spouting.
No concern about sorting out the UK's transport and energy problems - they seem to think if they can stop us in the UK travelling, and using energy, they have fixed the World problem.
If they can tax something else along the way - well that's a bonus.
He said a lot more - but you get his drift - I agree with him.
I'm impressed by your measured replies to what I admit were my previous deliberately "spiky" points. Respect due.
However, I have to say (and I think this is a major point to address for those other than me, too) that I simply don't believe in action on climate change. My main argument(s) in bullet form:
(a) the Earth experiences climate change on a regular and rigorous basis across tens of thousands of years. Assuming man is the cause of the latest 30-year bout is just silly, unless scientific measurement can prove we are a major contributor.
(b) although there is a measurable increase in CO2 levels, and there is a conjectured link between CO2 emission and climate change, there is no proven link between HUMAN CO2 levels and climate change. Further, there is no measure of the significance of the link.
(c) there is no real consensus in the scientific community about proof for (a) or (b). What "consensus" exists among shared-interest groups is driven by either shrill "evangelism"** or the availability of government funding to conduct lengthy experiments to provide (but NOT to refute) such proof.
(d) the global warming / climate change debate has been seized upon by politicians of various parties as a distraction which runs along the lines of: "we can't really do anything about climate change, but it's happening, so let's get people all worked up / guilty about it, then they'll think we have a point of difference / forget about the stuff at which we're proving hopeless / have no real policies. And while we're at it, let's screw them for more tax money."
**forgive the "evangelism" term. Couldn't think of a better word.
So there you have it: my argument in bare-bones terms. I'd love for you to comprehensively refute me on any of those
points. Can you ?
Hi Terry,
These are searching questions which get right to the heart of the issue. They require a considered response which I'll do my best to provide in due course. But first, could you please expand a little on the background to your scepticism?
Quote:
the Earth experiences climate change on a regular and rigorous basis across tens of thousands of years.
How do you know that?
Quote:
unless scientific measurement can prove we are a major contributor
What level of "proof" would satisfy you?
Quote:
there is no real consensus in the scientific community about proof for (a) or (b)
Again, how do you know that, and how do you define "consensus" and "scientific community" anyway?
These are not trivial questions and I am not asking them as a way of avoiding the issue. It's just that I have spent many hours researching and attempting to answer all sorts of climate change questions, only to discover that the questioner didn't really understand what they were asking in the first place.
unless scientific measurement can prove we are a major contributor
How about even a shred of evidence that a true measure of natural emissions is known. Where is the data on the projects collecting information on natural emissions? Still waiting for you to point me to some providor. Even the ex IPCC scientist complains that it does not exist and should.
How about being more honest when using normalised data appearing to show a huge increase in temperature rise in the last few years. Putting the normalised data in the context on the variation levels that occur shows it to be trivial.
These techniques of data presentation manipulation are deemed criminal if used to promote an oil company and yet you say they and their scientists can't be trusted. They are way up on the integrity scale compared to the methods used for CO2 control lobbying.
When I first started looking I was a bit sceptical now I am furious that the methods they are using to promote the views of the AGW lobby using would be banned in a commercial context. The modelling just totally unsubstantiated projections with no corellating reference data. I am finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile what I am seeing with ignorance and becoming more convinced of a hidden and very corrupt agenda.
Even the use of Gore's film by renewable energy companies is a cunning ruse to get round the Advertising standards controls on integrity. If they had produced the film themselves they would have been made to withdraw it totally.
Still waiting for you to point me to some providor.
Still waiting for you to tell me what "natural emissions" you're on about Roverdc. I'm not going to waste hours ploughing through journal abstracts only to have you tell me that's not the emissions you're interested in.
Quote:
Even the ex IPCC scientist complains that it does not exist
Is this still Vincent Gray you're referring to here? If so, I don't think even he claims to be an "ex IPCC scientist"! You complain bitterly about information being "manipulated", but you don't hesitate to misrepresent facts yourself when it suits you! (Often repeatedly, in spite of having been refuted.)
Quote:
How about being more honest when using normalised data
Could you point to an example where normalisation has been used dishonestly in this context? I mean a proper example which clearly shows the extent to which normalisation has been applied to relevant datasets and your analysis of how it has been done dishonestly?
Gray is not alone, while checking on how the Solar system is behaving as a result of changes in solar radiation - I came across this from our old friend Andrew G. Marshall.
As an aside;
Natural Emissions for me are those that are not man made - Volcanoes, forest fires, marsh gas, animal(including man)flatulence, Etc. Etc.
I understand that the emission hysteria, has reached the point where farmers are being advised on feed regimes which will reduce flatulence from stock.
The Greens will be proud.
Next step Kill of everything that f**ts!
Surely it is time we got our collective act together.
Glynne rightly says
"Surely it is time we got our collective act together."
Yet is is nearly a decade since issues we are talking about now, were aired. Why were they not acted on then?
Here are two 'consultations' put out in 1998
*Opportunities for change ,a revised UK strategy for sustainable development
Less waste,more value, a waste strategy for England and Wales
What went wrong?
By the way Fenlands Against Rural Turbines I believe lost their fight against wind.
The environment is important to me because it offers so much in spiritual and physical refreshment, peace and tranquillity, health and well being
Quote:
*Sustainable development is described as a new and integrated way of thinking across government and throughout society, so we all can share in the highest quality of life now without passing on a poorer world to our children
For me the issues of Health(dentistry)Education and Employment,Housing, Law and Order,a fair society and freedom of choice for all should be the priorities for any government
The Local Government Agency said that indications were that other European countries had also cut their landfill amounts since 2005, leaving the UK still "at the top of the rubbish heap".
It warned that an area of 109 square miles was already used as landfill in the UK
Also from the BBC website - the UK is approx 93,638 square miles.
Back of fag packet calculation from me .....
109/93,638 = 0.12 % of the UK land mass is landfill.
And I'm supposed to believe that we're running out of space !!!!
Assuming these figures are correct, a little honesty and objectivity in the manifesto (rather than scare stories that we're running out of space so we end up getting taxed on a pay-as-you-throw scheme or similar) would seem to be required.
I do hate being told we throw away too much when the same people made the rules that prevented them being repaired by sealing units for health and safety reasons.
Where can you buy spare parts for anything nowadays? I have in my home about 5 cubic metres of items that would have ended up in landfill if I wasn't so B****y mindedly determined to keep them going in spite of the officious regulation favouring throwing them away. Part of the reason is that the environmentally friendy replacements have a one year guarantee and an expected life of three at most.
When the same people shut down incinerators because they produced CO2 emissions.
Landfill close to urban centres is now in very short supply. So what is the CO2 cost of transport compared to incineration? Bet no one has checked for years.
One of the things that should definitely be in the Manifesto for the Environment is a considerable strengthening of the Planning Regulations so that local authority planners can insist that new buildings achieve a high standard of energy efficiency, and can include these requirements in their local development plans. So I'm heartened to see that there is a new EDM which deals with just these issues and highlights how progress in this field is being hampered by the continuing lack of joined-up policy.
It'll be interesting to see how many signatures it gets, (currently 56) what degree of cross-party support there is and if it ever gets debated.
And something else that should be in the manifesto is the forcible imposition of consistent recycling standards country-wide.
I moved house at the end of September.
Recyclables at my last place were - card, paper, metal (tins), glass. No plastics. No plastic bags.
Recyclables at my new place are - card, paper, metal, plastic (eg the stuff louvre / venetian blinds are packed in by stores like John Lewis). NO plastic bags, NO glass.
The recycling firm ?? SITA.
In both places.
Different councils, different contracts .... I think its time to stop the "postcode lottery" on what constitutes a 'recyclable'.
I may as well go for broke .... while we're at it, we can have the total fuel duty and other taxes on green fuel capped at 15% for the next 25 years to encourage migration to cleaner alternative fuels.
This, of course, needs to be allied to efficiency in public services rather than even more taxes elsewhere to make up for the loss of tax revenue currently being wasted in the bloated public sector.
Chances ?? ... somewhere south of zero and possibly as far down as "when hell freezes over".
Despite the fact that an honest green tax system would mean that ultimately the revenue produced would tend towards zero as people change their behaviours (which is supposed to be the point of the taxes in the 1st place !).
