James Neill

iTrader: (1)

I guess a lot of people are switching utility companies due to gas prices, etc. But on the basis that we're a pretty lazy bunch, but still a bit worried about the latest environmental news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm

I found this site that lets you be "green" without actually doing very much by switching to a Green electricity supplier. Most of which are not very mainstream so don't appear on sites like Uswitch.com.

http://www.greenelectricity.org/

Might make you feel a bit better inside when you get that Decat downpipe installed

Hanslow

Did you read the report about how much cleaner the atmosphere is becoming, and as a result, more of the suns rays are getting through and warming things up more. Apparantly when there was more smog and the like around, this acted as a barrier against the sun. So in reducing emissions and the like, we're actually contributing to making the earth warm up.

The solution? Dunno, maybe a giant mirror reflecting the sun back

Here's one of the articles.

Fuzz

I think the emphasis should be on a bit less take take take and just let the planet do it's thing...
It's about time we worked WITH nature instead of against it all the time.
Green energy.
Get them wind farms built off shore for a start. (nobody seems to want them on their doorstep.
Given the choice of a rather large windmill, a nuclear plant or a coal or gas fired powerstation... I wonder which they'd choose.
This world is such a wasteful one. < and yes it does make me
I cant believe the amount of packaging we get through either
Why do manufacturers have to double and tripple wrap everything these days.

Rant over

Andy

Martin_Aimless

Just more government propaganda. Please don't fall for it.

I mean - just look at the source: "The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, says the UK government's chief scientist." Delivered as 'headline news' by the media wing of the state propaganda machine the BBC.

It a complete crock of sh*t purposely released on a public holiday so that when people sit around discussing the weather (as they do) the topic will automatically have been hijacked by the cranks and false prophets of the left.

Brit_in_Japan

You say this (and let's be honest about it, most of us say things like that) but what have any of us done to really cut our energy consumption?

One of the big increases in the last 10 years has been in aviation fuel. How many of us are willing give up our overseas holidays (or 2nd/3rd overseas holidays, or weekend breaks to Europe)?

We demand cars which are "better", including lower NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) which usually translates into more sound deadening material, which consumes natural resource and which requires extra fuel to lug all that extra material around. Should we accept higher levels of NVH for environmental reasons? Cars also weigh more because of crash test regulations. Are we prepared to see a freeze or lower those standards to keep weight down and reduce fuel consumption?

You just have to read the thread to see how many are buying plasma TV screens, yet they consume much more electricity than regular CRT TV's. Maybe we should ban plasma TV's and wait for OLED's to become mainstream technology, but who would ever vote for that?

It's a consumer society, business is all about selling newer, later gadgets with more features and throwing away the old model. We are a wasteful society where machines and electrical appliances are designed for obsolesence so we have to keep buying new products. Until the time comes that society becomes less material, we will continue to be wasteful of the earth's resources.

Answer's on a postcard please......

Luan Pra bang

The global warming debate is so vague and misunderstood that it carries no real weight with anyone who closely studies the information available. The fact is no scientist has come remotley close to a genuine understanding of macroclimate and pollution effects and they base their info on extremely dubious computer models. While using sustainable resources makes complete sense most of the global warming debate is total bollocks seeing as the earths climate has been changing and evolving since the dawn of time. MOst scientists will say what they have to to conserve their own funding and jobs.

hedgehog

Well, I think that is one of the best summarys of the current climate debate that I've ever seen. Perhaps you should write for the newspapers to try and get some sense into the minoriy of the general public who have fallen for the lie?

Anyone wanting a good climate change laugh should read the following, it is all so familiar and yet so different :-)


http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Tim...June241974.pdf

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/ice_age_cometh.htm

Brit_in_Japan

That's not true now is it. There is a good understanding about the main mechanisms of global warming. Can they predict it to within 1%? No, of course not, the earth's weather systems and climate are large and complex, but they can predict trends.

They have validated the models by turning back the clock several hundred years and then simulating what the global weather would be today given known data about what we have pumped into the atmosphere since then. The world's largest supercomputers are doing this type of simulation continually to refine the models and make them more accurate.

Yes, there is a history over hundreds of thousands of years of the earth warming and cooling in cycles. But the key message is that the current rate of increases in global temperature are unprecedented in the measurable history of global temperature. Such fast increases will cause severe ecological problems because the adaptation of flora and fauna to the new climatatic conditions will be difficult in such a short period of time. Current high productivity agricultural areas may be unable to sustain the same crops with a 2 or 3 degree C temperature rise and as weather patterns change. Sure, other and may become more productive, but it would still cause a huge sociological problem where currently productive areas become unproductive, migration of people to more fertile areas, countries which are currently net exporters need to import food etc.

Increasing sea levels is a real problem to contend with too, as is the possible change in the North Atlantic Drift which affects the climate in Western Europe.

James Neill

iTrader: (1)

Do you believe there is the possibility that you could be wrong? Do you think you could be as wrong as you think Brit_in_Japan is?

Could you explain why you think it is all about Power? What I don't understand is that the "ruling elite" (not necessarily just politicians) who crave power and money already have it. The environmentalist solution (ie, green energy, carbon trading, etc) is only going to serve to cost these powerful people money. What is it you think politicians will get out of this? They don't think long term as chances are they'll be out of power at the next election. Politicians have a window of 4-5 years that's about it and then it's all about peerages.

Put simply, I can't see who these people are that you think would get a perverse power gain out of pushing an environment agenda?

hedgehog

The following open letter to the Canadian PM is interesting in light of this debate, especially in view of those who put their signatures to it:



An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:



Dear Prime Minister:



As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chrétien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.



Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.



While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.



We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.



"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.



We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.



We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.



CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -



Sincerely,



Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa



Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa



Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa



Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa



Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards



Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.



Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.



Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant



Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology



Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa



Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.



Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta



Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.



Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria



Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax



Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.



Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta



Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.



Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.



Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary



Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.



Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.



Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology



Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.



Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists



Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia



Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia



Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review



Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute



Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand



Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia



Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden



Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.



Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville



Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.



Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS



Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)



Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland



Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment



Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change



Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey



Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway



Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand



Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.



Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut



Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.



Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.



Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000



Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service



Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society



Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University



Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.



Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland



Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany



Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland



Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden



Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.



Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.



Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health



Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist



Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Brit_in_Japan

That's an interesting open letter Hedgehog. It doesn't rubbish global warming, it just says that it's not clear, or not fully understood, what role man has in causing the warming effect that's been observed. It's main thrust seems to be - let's spend a little more time to discuss the data before we rush into adopting the Kyoto protocol.

That's fair enough, reducing carbon dioxide emissions is one way we can reduce a known greenhouse gas. Other questions need to be asked about reducing methane or nitrous oxide and even the CFC replacements, HCFCs and HFCs. In terms of global warming, will implementing Kyoto give us the best bang-for-the-buck?

I believe there is global warming taking place, it's more than just noise in the normal variations that you would expect to see.

Mossman

It makes me FURIOUS that the bl00dy USA will not even enter into negotiations - ARROGANT, ignorant idiots.

Mossman

PS and they are the worst offenders!