Global Warming

[Guest starspirit]

Programme on C4 at 9.00pm might be worth watching?

Could fuel a good natured debate at least?

[Guest starspirit]

Well I never?

 

I never did believe that global warming was my fault and now it seems that it is that most unlikliest of all things that is responsible - the Sun.

 

No not the rag with the infamous page three as that generates a different sort of heat - apparently, but the big orangey yellow blob that we see in the sky when t'aint raining.

 

I wonder if that revelation will stop some of the political bull dung and dissuade Grasping Gordon from exacting his wrath on us mere mortals.

 

I think I know the answer to that one too?

[Brian Kirby]

Tax on sun cream?

[Guest starspirit]

Brian Kirby - 2007-03-09 6:46 PM

 

Tax on sun cream?

 

 

..................................and sun hats?

[chas]

Gorden will not have watched it... he is on to a nice little earner. chas

[CliveH]

The program certainly put a lot of things into perspective. I have felt for a long time that the religeous zeal of the GW advocates that trucks no dissenters is actually highly damaging. I believe that we should be reducing our carbon output but I do not believe that Global Warming = Catastrophe. It is clear that climate change has happened throughout history (the romans grew grapes in the UK and we can only just about do that now with a few hardy hybrids!) so the doom and gloom mongers need to be taken with a pinch of salt in my book.

 

I was pleased to see such guys as Paul Reiter (Prof @ Pasteur Inst. Paris) getting a good hearing. He had a hell of a time with the IPCC still wanting to include his name (he is possibly THE world expert on mosquito born disease) when he resigned in disgust at the numpty science issued by the IPCC - The IPCC just carried on issuing reports with his name on it! when he had gone on record as saying it was all a lot on nonsence!

 

If that is how they get their "Consensus Science" - then it is all a sham.

 

If anyone is interested have a look at his two memoranda to the UK House of Lords and the US Senate.

 

A lot there but very interesting!!

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060505/20060505_26.html

 

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/paul.htm

 

 

Certainly food for thought!

 

:-S

[enodreven]

Hi,

 

Is it not just part of the capitalist system,

 

I'm not sure that the whole thing is not orchestrated around the fact that the western powers are seriously worried about the possible rise of the third world and the destabilizing effect that could have on the western economies. As if you follow the thrust of the approach on this subject they are starting to point the fingers at China and India as being the worst polluters as they try to bring there countries and people into the 21st century.

 

Just my thoughts

 

Brian

[Brian Kirby]

It was very interesting and thought provoking.  It was also very puzzling and there was no balancing debate about any of the claims being made.

Unless I nodded off, the main claim about GW, apart from the fact that a number of the contributors were scientific heavyweights who said the GW science was basically rubbish, was that it was all invented by Mrs T as a ploy to get us off oil, whose suppliers she distrusted, and coal, whose miners she disliked, and onto nuclear, which she thought more secure on both fronts.  Now, if that is true, it must be the first time Britain has influenced virtually the whole world on the basis of our internal politics.

The argument that the reason all the other scientists favoured the GW theory was just to preserve their jobs also seemed a bit silly.  After all, you could level the same allegation at the programme contributors, or virtually anyone else, for that matter.  That was just cheap, not science!

The most interesting bit was the claim that CO2 concentration changes lag, rather than leading, temperature changes.  If it's that obvious, why haven't the GWers spotted it?

What struck me was that if this is all due to the sun and the solar wind, why do so few others agree?  If GW is so wrong, how/why has this theory become so widely accepted?  If the solar theory is correct, then we need do nothing, it will cost nothing, and the world can go on more or less as before.

However, countering the GW theory will cost billions and will seriously disrupt, in the way of a thousand cuts, all of our lives.  Since disruption on this scale is unpopular, why would the politicians have espoused it, as it seems they have?  It sounds like a political suicide pill, rather than what you do for popularity!  Where is the benefit?  Who gains?

Someone, somewhere, indeed several people, originally observed that the climate was changing.  They then sought explanations for this and, after a lot of debate, the theory of CO2 emerged as the best available explanation.  Not everyone agreed, it would be more worrying if they had!  Many scientists sought to knock down the theory and, as their attacks failed to carry favour, the theory gained credence.  It has now become the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community, which is how most science works.  It is possible it is wrong, it is very complex theoretical science, for which proof is difficult before events have progressed beyond the theoretical point of no return.

It is akin to, but the opposite of, the arguments surrounding splitting the atom, when a similar group of respected scientists argued that splitting one atom would initiate an uncontrollable nuclear reaction that would destroy the earth.  The core group were right, the detractors wrong, and the earth survived!

This time, however, it is the core group that is arguing disaster of sorts will flow if we do nothing.  So, we prepare to spend our billions and put up with the disruptions, to stave off a theoretical problem.  I still go back to my earlier question, who stands to gain in either event?  I can see the gain if the answer is in the sun - we all win!  However, who wins if the GW theory is bogus, and we all go along with it?  We dont!  So who does?  I can't see any true winners in that case unless the theory is, in fact, correct.

Any offers?

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Endoeven wrote:

Is it not just part of the capitalist system,

I'm not sure that the whole thing is not orchestrated around the fact that the western powers are seriously worried about the possible rise of the third world and the destabilizing effect that could have on the western economies. As if you follow the thrust of the approach on this subject they are starting to point the fingers at China and India as being the worst polluters as they try to bring there countries and people into the 21st century.

I know! You've got to hand it to those cunning capitalists!

Our goverments are so worried about the emerging economies of India and China that, in order to ensure that Western industry can compete, they slap on to their own companies all sorts of punitive carbon taxes and other expenses such as draconian health and safety legislation, pollutions and emissions control, extended maternity leave and other welfare benefits etc. etc.

You've got to hand it to them - this will really give the Chinese and Indians something to worry about!

[Wingpete]

Now we are told to change all lamp bulbs to energy saving fluroescents types.

I tried to get some for the crystal chandelier, and they are all too big!

How are they going to achieve that in Buck house and all those other splendid building in our big cities ? :$

[enodreven]

Hi, Frank While you may be right, I do however believe in the capitalist system, however i am also reasonably sure that there is a great deal of concern over the effect at the rate of change that is happening in what was called the third world and the effects it will/may have of the existing western economies ?? As for who gains out of taking the GW (is happening) route, the capitalist system relies upon spending money, so to raise a concern that results in spending money is what makes the system work. Take the Cold War millions were and to a lesser extent are still being spent on a perceived security risk ??. Don't take this that I am saying there isn't/wasn't a risk as i am not I am just saying the system we enjoy only survives by spending money ??

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-03-10 6:02 PM

Endoeven wrote:

Is it not just part of the capitalist system,

 

I'm not sure that the whole thing is not orchestrated around the fact that the western powers are seriously worried about the possible rise of the third world and the destabilizing effect that could have on the western economies. As if you follow the thrust of the approach on this subject they are starting to point the fingers at China and India as being the worst polluters as they try to bring there countries and people into the 21st century.

I know! You've got to hand it to those cunning capitalists!

Our goverments are so worried about the emerging economies of India and China that, in order to ensure that Western industry can compete, they slap on to their own companies all sorts of punitive carbon taxes and other expenses such as draconian health and safety legislation, pollutions and emissions control, extended maternity leave and other welfare benefits etc. etc.

You've got to hand it to them - this will really give the Chinese and Indians something to worry about!

[CliveH]

How interesting that we all seem to have the same cynical views on things!!!!

 

If you want an overview on WHY Global Warming is todays political scare story can I recommend this:-

 

http://www.fundstrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=133856&d=pnd&h=pndh&f=pndf

 

I work in "economics" - and frankly the consensus view amongst all those I talk to about Stern and his "definitive report" is that he is a prat of the first order!

 

But hey! - Phoney Care has labelled it "definitive" - and he should know!! After all his track record on other "dodgy dossiers" (45min WMD!) is impeachable.

 

No - there is more to it - mainly tax and holding back the third world from developing is my view. :-|

[Brian Kirby]

If anyone's interested, have a look in today's Independent on Sunday.  Professor Wunch, who was majored on the above programme as being sceptical about GW, has come storming out of his corner shouting he has been seriously misrepresented, misled about the substance of the programme, quoted out of context by the programme maker - who it transpires has had earlier, similar programmes heavily criticised by the ITC for misrepresentation and lack of balance - and is, in fact, on balance convinced human activity is a major contributor to GW!

So, how about that?  Apart from probably being today's longest sentence, it don't get any clearer, do it?

[CliveH]

 

Prof Wunsch (with an "s") is in the Oceanographic dept at Southampton and MIT. I am surprised given the programme briefing and past history of the programme maker that ANYONE could believe it (the programme) would be a fair and well balanced analysis!

 

The numpties like Monbiot in The Guardian who claimed that "GW Deniers" should be treated like holocaust deniers simply means that the door is open to the likes of Durkin (programme maker) for his particular type of programme.

 

However, whatever your views - it should be noted that what the likes of Stern and Monbiot advocate does have an opportunity cost.

 

If we wind back our economies, then at best there will be job losses in the UK (and elsewhere of course - unless we make a lone stand!) and at worst we will prescribe poverty and starvation for the third world.

 

The stakes are VERY high. What bothers me is the number of people who are now saying that the IPCC is "politicised" - (See Prof Reiters memo to the House of Lords (link is on one of my earlier posts) and "politicised" does not mean some sort of crazy conspiracy theory - it means that rather than being independent and unbiased, the organisation has taken up its own agenda and is seeking to unduly influence the decision makers.

 

The links again - but a couple of the points he raises:-

 

"41. The natural history of mosquito-borne diseases is complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, mosquito biology, and many other factors defies simplistic analysis. The recent resurgence of many of these diseases is a major cause for concern, but it is facile to attribute this resurgence to climate change, or to use models based on temperature to "predict" future prevalence. In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based on sound science. In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities. A creative and organized application of resources is urgently required to control these diseases, regardless of future climate change."

 

And more recently:-

 

"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious `science` is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ``experts.`` I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a `consensus of the world’s top scientists` on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."

 

The full report is available from the links I posted earlier - as I say - it is interesting reading.

 

When you have the likes of Margaret Becket (a caravanner!!!) saying in a speech that anyone who does not agree with the current fashionable view on Climate Change is as dangerous as Al Quaeda terrorists, then I start to get worried. (See http://www.fundstrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=133856&d=pnd&h=pndh&f=pndf for the full details and the reference to Margaret Beckets speech)

 

I thought science was all about asking questions??? - Not making your mind up as quick as possible and then labelling all those who dare to ask questions as akin to Holocaust deniers and Terrorists???????

 

But then Saddam had WMD that he could launch in 45 min didn't he!

 

On the News tonight on the issue of Air Mile Tax - a viewer posted on the networks website that he no longer trusted any politician.

 

I sadly find myself agreeing with him 100% whilst mourning the loss of true science to "Consensus" cr*p masquerading as science. :-S

[Guest starspirit]

I remember the fuss made about the hole in the ozone layer a few years back because that was wholly due to mankind's excessive use of aerosols and refrigerant gases - or so the political scientists would have had us believe?

 

And look, low and behold, the hole has mysteriously gone some way to healing itself and in much less time that it should have taken had the true cause been mankind?

 

So maybe it was largely a natural phenomenon after all, maybe made worse by mankind's activities, but still largely natural for all that?

 

I'm not saying that mankind is innocent of any crimes against the planet. Far from it and it would do the world (and me) no harm at all to use less carbon based fuel, less raw materials and less manufactured goods if only because all the resources not only finite, but their continued growth probably is contributing towards climate changes.

 

I'm only a simple cynic with no scientific background or expensive education and I became a cynic over many years of consistently being fed half truths, lies and bullsh#t by politicians - so why should I believe them now?

[Usinmyknaus]

All good points Richard and as a fellow cynic I have often wondered what is really behind all this stuff. Take the ozone layer for example. If I remember correctly - and like you I have no special knowledge - at the time of the all the hoo ha the chemical industry in the West just happened to be experiencing growing, cut price competition from developing countries that could make the out of patent CFCs for peanuts. Along come a few scientists trumpeting doom and suddenly CFC's are public enemy number one. The solution? The nice new, patent protected HFC's that were not so easy to undercut by price - or am I just too cycnical?

 

Now, as newly industrialised countries with burgeoning populations desperately try to develop, along comes carbon dioxide generated global warming, very convenient to restrict competition. Also, it seems to me as a cynic that a very large number of scientists stand to make a shed load of money out of endless research on "the problem" so its in their interests to promote a one sided view of the issue. After, all only so many people could actually get funding to study the sun and apart from recommending sun shades there is little they can exhort us to do about it if the sun is just going through a hotter cycle. Similarly, politicians have just about exhausted the public's patience with direct and stealth taxes so how very convenient to have a large pseudo-scientific bandwagon on which to jump and milk it for all its worth. Sounds like a three-way marriage of convenience to me.

 

Bob

[CliveH]

Oh yes! - I can remember the fear that we were all going to freeze from global cooling.

 

As for CFC's I do think it is good that we have got rid of these chemicals and indeed I also think that it is good that we got rid of high sulphur fuels via the Clean Air Act. Anyone who remembers the smog will no doubt think the same.

 

And of course this is proof that we humans can affect our climate, but not as the doomongers currently portray.

 

In fact one Nobel Prize winning scientist has said that squirting Sulphur into the upper atmosphere will give us back the "umbrella" that was predicted to Freeze all of our wobbly bits in the 1970's and so the problem would be solved!

 

Another has said that large sailing ships that trail a screw which then powers a water vapour producing machine would replace the clouds that seem to be "missing" of late - hence the GW.

 

Seeing as how we have examples of how we have altered climate for better and for worse - I despair at the politicians answer to the problem i.e.-

 

More Tax.

 

Less Freedom

 

More restrictions

 

More Government Control.

 

But hey! - this has always been the politicians answer to whatever fantastic threat they "uncover".

 

Finally with the "third world" taking on modern technology with enthusiasm, the world has essentially gone "flat" as regards skills. i.e. so many people can "plug in and play" (or work!) from anywhere that natural talent has started to trump geography.

 

This is causing jobs to be lost in the "west" and huge increases in the GDP of developing markets.

 

As pointed out in a post above - this is the real reason why governments in the "west" want to stifle growth in the rest of the world……

 

And that is a recipe for conflict. :-(

[Brian Kirby]

Well

I'll tell you what really frightens me just now.  That is the evident fashion for looking green, and the growing contest between Labour and Conservatives to see who can look greenest.

There seems no evidence at all that either party has the slightest intention of actually doing anything constructive, or even what to do. 

They've suddenly realised public opinion is running ahead of them, they don't have properly constructed policies, they want to look authorative, so they panic, and run around making silly pronouncements aimed solely at vote catching rather than problem solving.  Problem is, some of those silly pronouncements will become the policies!  Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[twooks]

C'mon 'chelle, add your tuppen'orth instead of just accusing us of nicking your jam!

 

My tuppen'orth - our ignorance on this and other matters is only surpassed by the arrogance of the 'opinion informers' and pontificators.

 

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"

 

B-)

[Tony Jones]

Wingpete - 2007-03-11 7:15 AM

 

Now we are told to change all lamp bulbs to energy saving fluroescents types.

I tried to get some for the crystal chandelier, and they are all too big!

How are they going to achieve that in Buck house and all those other splendid building in our big cities ? :$

 

I haven't got a crystal chandelier in my campervan. Where do you get them?

[Wingpete]

Maplins ! (lol)

[Tony Jones]

The electronics people, or the holiday camp from Hi-De-Hi?

[David Dwight]

An article in the press today regarding the new light bulbs.

They have to be left on continuesly to be efficient cancelling out the saving on energy, they are made with illegal toxins, and they will not be available as replacements for all light bulbs. estimated cost to the public to change light fittings etc £3billion.

We alsol had a recycling paper from our local Council today an article regarding bottles please keep the colours seperate, otherwise they cannot be used, so why is it when the lorry empties the bins they all go in together brown white and green all mixed up?

 

David

[michele]

Sorry for the above empty post I did not realise.

 

Yes david why is it that they take and mix them all together because the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing ..

 

Why is it I cannot recycle Plastic because the Council told me that they have no machine to biograde it down a little man comes looks if he dont like what he see's in your box he empty's it out and leaves it for you to rebag. But my cleaner can and she only lives round the corner ?.

 

MADNESS.

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

A recent DIY carbon footprint survey indicated that my footprint is bigger than my car's. Presumably the same for everybody else.

 

So any tree-hugger is a hypocrit if he tells me to stop using my car, then goes home and makes babies.

 

602