Climate change

[nightrider]

Anyone out there worried about climate change? I'm not, who wants to live in the frozen wastelands, no greenery, no lush fields and only fish or whale blubber to eat.

Went out this morning and all the locks to my workshops were frozen up, van frozen up, snow belting down again and roads blocked.

Never heard of anyone on this forum saying that they were loading the van up to travel to the icecaps, they are all on the way to the south of France and Spain for a bit of sun.

[Guest Tracker]

Climate change does concern me in that we only have one planet and it is up to mankind to make it last.

 

That said, I am far from convinced that man alone is at fault in causing climate change - and it certainly is not the fault of the internal combustion engine as taxation would lead us to believe.

 

The planet is a living evolving entity and the climate has changed frequently and violently many times during it's evolution - and will do so again if left to it's own devices - but what unforeseen changes will mankind's well meaning intervention precipitate I wonder?

 

On the other hand I also have little doubt that mankind's activities are not helping but the big long term concern surely must be learning to live with a changing climate rather than trying to prevent it from evolving?

 

[nightrider]

Whilst we need to protect the earth as much as we can and not abuse what nature has given us.

I fail to see how puny mankind can effect climate change, climate change is an on going natural phenomena, after all we did have the ice age so what happened there?

During our industrial revolution we had thousands of mill chimneys belching out toxic fumes turning buildings black, killing off the populace and killing off the landscape, the Lancashire mill scene was a typical example, whilst man can clean up his local environment I can't see him cleaning things up on a global scale.

And this nonsense of a climate change meeting in Copenhagen? how much carbon emissions was created by all those private jets and big limos used to transport the VIP's about (prince Charles) take note.

[Brian Kirby]

We have two choices.  Either we take the scientist's warnings at (more or less), face value, modify our behaviour, and hope to have a beneficial affect on the outcome for the climate, or we ignore the warnings and assume all will turn out OK.

If we do the former and the scientists are wrong, so far as I can tell, we shall be doing no more than we shall eventually have to because nearly all the practises that are claimed to cause the harm also deplete known reserves of important resources: oil, natural gas and coal in particular, but also just about everything else we grub from the earth.  Future generations will need those reserves themselves, so it ill behoves us to waste them.  So, in short, it may turn out that we acted for the wrong reasons, but we shall, ultimately, have done the right thing!

If we ignore the warnings and the scientists are right, we shall, so far as I can see, screw the planet's climate and bring about a human catastrophe.

So, are we wiser to heed the warnings and act accordingly, or ignore them and to hell with the consequences?

Your call!!

[Syd]

So, in short, it may turn out that we acted for the wrong reasons, but we shall, ultimately, have done the right thing!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gosh Brian, for a moment there I thought you were Tony bLiar explaining his wonderful invasion :D :D >:-)

[nightrider]

How long will the oil and gas last? I have heard or read we have enough supplies for perhaps 50 to a 100 years.

As the oil and gas supplies run out, that I imagine will lead to wars on a magnificent scale as each major country fights for its share.

Is coal an option? by all accounts we in Britain have vast unexploited coal fields, modern day coal fed power stations are a lot more efficient than of yesteryear but still dirty.

So what happens in hundreds of years to come when the oil, gas and coal run out as they must surely do.

Will it be the tiger by the tail, nuclear power? unless of course the boffins come up with a solution.

[nightrider]

I think we are panicking and worrying too much, our man Gordon will surely have the answer.

[Syd]

Off topic Im afraid but here we go

 

The next war will come through DEBT

 

America will soon owe China so much money via the bonds that they have bought from America that it will be cheaper for America to go to war with China than to pay up

[nightrider]

Syd - 2009-12-20 4:20 PM

 

Off topic Im afraid but here we go

 

The next war will come through DEBT

 

America will soon owe China so much money via the bonds that they have bought from America that it will be cheaper for America to go to war with China than to pay up

 

How do you reckon America will fare in a war with China?

[nightrider]

If we do run out of oil and gas there will be an awful lot of campervans and motorhomes for sale.

[malc d]

knight of the road - 2009-12-20 4:46 PM

 

Syd - 2009-12-20 4:20 PM

 

Off topic Im afraid but here we go

 

The next war will come through DEBT

 

America will soon owe China so much money via the bonds that they have bought from America that it will be cheaper for America to go to war with China than to pay up

 

How do you reckon America will fare in a war with China?

 

 

If any two nuclear powers go to war - everybody will lose.

That's why it hasn't happened yet.

 

:-(

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2009-12-20 5:51 PM .......... If any two nuclear powers go to war - everybody will lose. That's why it hasn't happened yet. :-(

You're forgetting the cult of the (mass) suicide bomber, some of whose fans are working their little nuts off to get nuclear weapons!

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Everybody seems to be working tp prevent climate change. Some say it is too late. So what happens if they can't stop it. Is there a Plan B, to make it so we can live in a changed climate.

 

Strong men used to have slaves. Then they invented petrol to do all the difficult and unpleasant jobs. When oil runs out, will they go back to having slaves?

 

The politicians will find a way of selling all our coal, etc, to China. So we had better develop improved wind turbines, etc ........ unless they find a way of selling our wind too.

 

A child has a bigger carbon footprint than a car. If a tree hugger has more than two kids, he's a hypocrit. How much oil is used bussing kids to school?

 

Once upon a time, the planet was covered with obnoxious gases. Then trees came along, and filtered them all out, shoved them underground. Nobody complained about climate change then. Whatever, I am just trying to reverse the damage done by trees.

 

:-D

 

602

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Everybody seems to be working tp prevent climate change. Some say it is too late. So what happens if they can't stop it. Is there a Plan B, to make it so we can live in a changed climate.

 

Strong men used to have slaves. Then they invented petrol to do all the difficult and unpleasant jobs. When oil runs out, will they go back to having slaves?

 

The politicians will find a way of selling all our coal, etc, to China. So we had better develop improved wind turbines, etc ........ unless they find a way of selling our wind too.

 

A child has a bigger carbon footprint than a car. If a tree hugger has more than two kids, he's a hypocrit. How much oil is used bussing kids to school?

 

Once upon a time, the planet was covered with obnoxious gases. Then trees came along, and filtered them all out, shoved them underground. Nobody complained about climate change then. Whatever, I am just trying to reverse the damage done by trees.

 

:-D

 

602

[Syd]

You seem to be working twice as hard :D :D

[donna miller]

People need to be given the whole truth, not just what the government can use to increase taxes on us.

As someone who runs a recycling centre, I can assure you that it takes more energy to recycle a tonne of waste plastic, than it does to produce a tonne of virgin polymer. One of the obvious advantages to the Uk householders who religiously recycle and separate their waste, is that less of it is going into British landfill sites, and our waste reduction figures look good for the government, however, the story is not so good for the countries that our councils are exporting the waste to.

Where do people think all the thousands of tonnes of waste is going if it doesn't go to their local landfill site, it doesn't just disappear it has to go somewhere.

With ever more people living on this island, we need to secure a viable method for the disposal of all this waste, modern technology will allow incinerater plants to burn 95% of our waste, and produce electricity or heating as a by-product. The main objectors to these super plants, are people who saw similar sites running 20 or 30 years ago, and yes they were dirty and smelly, but so were diesel cars. Times change, and with modern air filters and scrubbers, the air that finally escapes from the chimneys of an incinerater is remarkably clean and pollutant free.

 

This country needs to sit up and make a decision, we either want to landfill our houshold waste, or we want to burn it, there are no other options, China has started to refuse our waste, India will be next, and yes, your bags of rubbish collected by the binmen inevitably end up overseas, but hey, our councils look good on the performance sheets.

 

If only people were given more than selective knowledge, this world would be a better place.

What I don't understand is why this, and every other country's government think the solution to climate change is for the world leaders to jump onto private jets and fly round the world for conferences, do they not have video links in the modern world we live in. Why should I make co2 reduction a priority, when our clown minister cannot lead by example.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, I'll venture just three replies to Donna's several questions.

First, on waste.  From our own experience, nearly everything we throw away is packaging, glass, or newsprint.  I don't think the newsprint is a problem, since although trees are felled to produce it, managed forestry can put the trees back again.  In essence, therefore that is just a management problem that can be solved relatively easily.  Our paper is recycled via the council.  Whether this is truly worthwhile I do not know, but they provide the service, so we use it.  The glass is re-cycled via the council, and I believe this just about makes sense in energy terms compared to the whole process of silica extraction and conversion for new glass.  The remaining packaging is almost all plastic, or plastic coated cardboard.  This comes, in the main, in the form of containers for liquids, including milk.  Re-introduction of milk bottles and re-cycling them via bottle washing plants may be better in energy terms: I don't know, and we no longer have that option locally.  Could plastics bottles be made multi-use?  Probably, if the bottle type could be standardised so that yesterday's milk container could be used again as tomorrow's detergent container.  Otherwise, chopping it up and re-constituting it should be better than land fill or incineration (on the basis that incineration merely converts most the constituent hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide, which is what we are supposedly trying to avoid).  This, in my view, is by far the biggest problem.  Other forms of packaging can best be dealt with by elimination.  So much stuff is ridiculously over-packaged.  Liquids, on the other hand, are problematic.  Maybe we should re-constitute the contents as granules and, where necessary, dissolve them in a purpose designated container when we get them home.  That, surely, would reduce the number of plastic "bottles" we chuck out weekly.

Ever more people on the island?  Ah, the elephant in the room!  Population.  Simply, there are far too many of us, and we can largely fix the carbon dioxide problem if we fix that.  If we don't, and the scientists are right, the climate change and the ensuing wars will in any case do it for us.  Again, we have a choice.  Do it in an orderly and sensible way, or have it imposed on us in a chaotic and brutal way.  Presently we have a choice, but the sands appear to be running away at an increasing rate.

Relative to the collective emissions of the whole race, a few politicians jetting here and there is a drip in the ocean.  So, if they can come up with solutions by doing this, untidy as it may seem, I'm not fussed.  The proviso, however, is they they do come up with solutions!  For such discussions I don't think video conferencing would work.  I have some limited experience of it, and it has its place, but the nuancing of meaning, and the expressions on the faces of those "off camera", are an essential part of reading the mood of a meeting, and that requires face to face contact rather than "one on one" screen based discussions.  The meetings will, in my opinion continue - lets just hope they are better organised and conducted in future!

[donna miller]

Brian

I understand your points on the CO2 problem, but we do not really have a choice, landfill creates far more emissions due to the rotting and decomposing waste that is laid there, along side that you have the potential for explosive dangers. Yes, we have an abundance of packaging in the modern world, but what are the alternatives, loose food back on the supermarket shelves, all and sundry picking up and examining goods before putting them back. The general public demand a more enviromentally friendly society, and yet they are the root of the problem.

A large part of our operations involve the processing of industrial waste plastics, what you see in your local bin is a fraction of the equation. Unfortunately, post consumer waste is the most difficult to process simply because of the diverse range of materials involved. How many people actually know how many different types of plastics there are, or how (un) suitable each one is for differing purposes.

Your idea about multi use of plastic containers is one that the industry has been in turmoil over for years, and as sensible as it may appear, practically it is impossible. Bottles can only be extruded from certain polymers, and each has it's own properties, if you have ever tried to transport petrol in a milk bottle you will see my point.

 

The other consideration that has to be thought through is the knock on effect in the industry. It is fine that the supermarkets no longer want certain goods packaged in plastic, but those containers were made in a factory near to you and me, workers will lose their jobs and companies will fold because their product is no longer needed. This has happened to various customers of mine, one invested £2.5 million pound on an extrusion line, this year, that line was cut up and scrapped because it couldn't be adapted to run any other product.At least 45 people lost their jobs and the company was wound up, so damamge to the environment is not the only issue.

[Guest Tracker]

In Scandinavian countries Coca Cola and other soft drinks come in a reusable deposit charged plastic bottle. These bottles are thicker and stronger than the disposable bottles that we have here.

 

I got the impression, only over a 6 week period admittedly, that many Scandinavians are not too bothered about actually recycling the bottles to get their deposit back as this can be done at most supermarkets and we never seemed to see a queue regardless of how busy the store and car park seemed to be?

 

In which case I suppose the deposit could be seen as a sort of ecology tax and maybe the same would work here - at least the countryside would soon become devoid of plastic bottles as the kids collected them for the reward!

[CliveH]

What Brian says is obviously true - far too much packaging/waste etc. And we must and should do something about it. Is it right that certain products have sell by dates after which it must be destroyed if not sold?

 

The waste is incredible.

 

And with the packaging of said produce also going to waste then the Carbon footprint is staggering.

 

However - where I do differ from many that say "where is the harm in doing what the scientists say?" is that from an economic viewpoint, a lot of what is suggested is pure spherical objects.

 

If we spend £Billions on Climate Change and it carries on regardless because our CO2 emissions have little to do with Global Warming then just think of what we COULD have done with that money.

 

So it is not a case of simply saying "we may as well go along with it because where is the harm?

 

Well the harm due to opportunity cost would be substantial

 

The money could be used to develop the Third World whereas the Climate Change extremists want to restrict their development by restricting the use of fossil fuels.

 

Use of fossil fuels has powered our western economies such that our standard of living is far higher and our mortality rates have fallen dramatically - infant mortality in particular.

 

Restricting the use of fossil fuel WILL cause the deaths of many in the third world.

 

But the Climate Change Alarmists would have you believe that they want to save lives by so doing. If you want a good analysis of what I am talking about – the Economist Bjorn Lomborg has been trying, and succeeding in getting a more prudent view across for some years.

 

Just google his name and you will get loads of interesting stuff the Alarmists would rather people not see or be aware of.

 

And if this is not bad enough the abuse of the scientific process and bullying of other scientists that dare to challenge the orthodoxy of those that "Believe" in Global warming has always been muted by scientists

 

Outside of the “clique” – but now the leaks of emails and files from the climate research unit at University of East Anglia confirms that an awful lot of what was hinted at is in fact true and that the science has been hyped up and that the reality of our climate is that we have not had Global Warming since 1998.

 

But those on the Climate Change Gravy Train do not want the rest of us to know that.

 

Just Google “Leaked emails CRU” or “hacked emails CRU”

 

As for the weather – I know one swallow does not make a summer but I did have to laugh on Friday morning when I dropped a friend off at Gatwick (flight was delayed 4 hours because of the snow so we could all have had a lie in!!) – there standing outside the Airport was the Climate Change = Global Warming = Catastrophe zealots (all 5 of them) standing there with about of foot of snow all over them!

 

As I looked around at other drivers as we waited to carefully pull away due to the dreadful conditions we were all having a smile and a bit of a laugh of the Alarmists expense.

 

[arthur]

Whatever the scientists say, it is freezing here.

[Basil]

There have been several comments saying 'the scientists' say, but this in itself is part of the misinformation, there are still more scientists that disagree with Global Warming Theory than support it. The scientists that are normally quoted as 'the majority of scientists' are mainly meteorologists one of the normally poor relations of the science fraternity that are not normally taken notice of.

Some of the latest information is contained in 'heaven and earth' by Ian Plimer who is a Geologist whose book is described as giving 'compelling evidence that our fear of global warming derives from politics and dogma rather than from scientific proof'. The book takes all the so called proof and systematically disproves it scientifically. This book is one of several that have recently been published by some of the scientists that are trying to be heard against the flow of misinformation.

Well worth a read particularly by those that still believe the lies to be true, but of course as with any other 'religion' all the proof in the world would not change a believer.

 

Bas

[CliveH]

Spot on Bas.

 

The CRU leaks are damning.

 

A reasonable review of the debacle -

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[Guest Tracker]

As the climate changes so it throws up unexpected anomalies which, together with the 'chaos' theory means that there are often too many variables interacting over too long a period to enable accurate forecasting.

 

I suggest that this means that the occasional cold spell no more indicates that we are not experiencing climate change than the occasional hot spells indicate that we are experiencing climate change?

 

Those who jump on the every warm spell band wagon to reinforce their global warming point of view do themselves no favours in the credibility stakes and would do well to remember that if we get a hot summer next year - and pigs might fly - on both counts!

 

None of this means that the overall underlying temperature is or is not rising, but evidentially what does not seem to be in doubt - unless we are being seriously conned - is that the underlying global air temperature is gradually increasing.

 

That said, I venture that with the best will in the world, the climatic end result can only be guesswork?

 

That said it makes perfect sense to conserve resources and if this is the excuse or reason for now at last taking a long overdue hard look at our throw away lifestyles then that must be a good thing for all of our futures?

[CliveH]

Agree totally on our horrendous waste.

 

But I do feel the biggest "waste" of all would be the spending of £billions to reduce CO2 emissions when we humans only account for 14% of all CO2 on the planet and the total percentage of this trace gas is 0.038% of the total atmosphere. And historic data indicates that it has been at far higher levels in the past.

 

All the models assume that there is a cascade effect between CO2 levels and water vapour so that a "tipping point" is reached whereby CO2 levels cause a huge increase in atmospheric water vapour which then causes the "Global warming Blanket"

 

Latest results indicate that the reverse is true. There is not a positive feedback but a negative one - so as CO2 increases, we see a decrease in water vapour not an increase.

 

NASA'a Aqua Satellite data proves this and there was a fair bit of noise about it even before the leaked emails from the CRU. In fact it seems that the leak was instigated by researchers appalled at the manipulation of the data by a few "controlling" climatologists and so stepped in to stop the biggest scientific fraud in history.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

 

As for surface based temperature - there has been a regular critiscm of the data due to the weather stations in the USA in particular being subject to "urban sprawl" - whereby a weather station was out in the sticks 20 years ago but in many cases now find themselves in urban areas where roads and pavements soak up the heat and so skew the data upwards and in a few notable cases there are pictures of these weather stations now being only yards away from heat sources such as factory airconditioning outlets.

 

A good analysis is available from a website that a student set up when doing a thesis on the reasons why the USA data was so much higher than the rest of the worlds. She received so much bile and anger for daring to question the dogma of the alarmists that she set up a website that is called "Ponder the Maunder"

 

The Maunder Minimum is referring to the mini Ice Age we had a few hundred years ago when the Thames froze and we held fairs etc on the ice.

 

It is interesting to note that it is the new younger scientists that are questioning the mindset and belligerence of the Climate Change Alarmists, who incidentally - from analysis of exactly who says what to the IPCC etc as revealed by these CRU leaked emails, are numbered at about just 27.

 

So we have a mindset out there that wants to spend £billions on an unproved theory set out by just 27 people on a gravy train. Not much of a "Consensus" to shout about if it only exists in 27 people.

 

Seems like the CRU leaks have derailed this gravy train judging by the lack of willpower at the Copenhagen debacle.