| Scratch Box of Stories Under Construction
- OK to say too complex for public to understand, but no need to lie
NO we don't need regulation if the greens are right then they'll convince people to give up their cars.
- If one common pattern is that CO2 rise lags 600 years after temperature rise (even Gore's film shows this) then wouldn't CO2 increase 600 years after the medieval warm period ? Galileo + Shakespeare both say - God gave us the ability to reason so we aren't expect to switch it off.
from NPR debate ? Good point is science about consensus anyway it's about being right
If King Canute can't control climate how can we. We can effect it a little, but Can we manage climate PREDICTABLY by controlling one factor ? He say absolutely No
- I think it is OK to say "too complex for public to understand" which is what the alarmist Gavin Schmitt said and got boos for
|What's the Real question ?||
Pseudo - Questions -
Is it getting hotter every year ? over last 8 no, but over long term yes (but it's not an easy thing to measure)
is the Climate changing ? yep always Does
is the Climate changing more than normal ? what's normal ?
Is any of the 0.6 C rise due to man ? maybe
If we don't reduce CO2 emissions will there be a Catastrophe ? maybe yes maybe no
What is a Catastrophe ? "Big Flooding, big big climate change.
What will happen if there is a Catastrophe ? who knows Planet won't die. Worst thing is warming, the ice will melt we'll have more houses flooded and we'll have to adapt and we'll have time to adapt. They used to say more malaria, but they have changed their minds.
Maybe - Are we fucked if we don't stop sending up CO2 ?
|Actions Governments could do if they believed|
Once a government has decided on a line it should decide on actions. More research, agreements with other governments etc. If it wants to reduce CO2 it has decide how. Even skeptics cannot oppose some reduction in CO2, if it's a case of avoiding waste then it can cost zero or save the economy money. So lagging pipes etc is good such measures will make the economy more efficient. It's measures which cost businesses or individuals money over the long term that is concerning.
Put a bit of money into solar, windpower etc it's all good for research, though they secretly know they'll never be very efficient in most circumstances. (The German government puts a hell of a lot of money into solar research, not cos Germany will stop using oil, but because it hopes to make a lot of money manufacturing solar panels for sunny countries.)
Likewise governments can play around with carbon-trading.
Higher fuel taxes seem attractive, but unfortunately in practice people are irrational they still drive their cars and turn up the heating.
- And when governments try to micromanage people it becomes an inefficient mess.
- Set a a target for 50 years time, well fuck me that's brave ! and easy.
- They say the west pollutes so it needs to cut, so what's easier to get millions of westerners out of their high carbon lifestyle or to stop billions of developing world getting into it ? What makes sense 1. mothballing a functioning efficient coal fired power station in the UK and replacing it with loads of wind turbines and an energy storage system or 2. saying to the Chinese/Indians you know those 30 plants you are going to build in the next 6 months we'll give you some extra cash to build nuclear instead ?
If I have a 1000 quid I can spend it on driving and manufactured goods which will generate lots of CO2, or I could blow the lot on piano lessons and internet porn generating no CO2. If governments want to reduce spending on carbon they have to incentivise people to spend their cash on services (like paying me to write this). Maybe remove taxes on services. If increasing taxes on one thing doesn't change habits maybe reducing taxes on something else will. They should convince the Chinese and Indians to buy services with their cash and not things and I'm not talking about setting fire to stuff at temples.
I still think, changes in planning and getting people to live near their jobs would reduce travel, a 10 hour working day maybe ?
Scary People Page : scarer bad predictions page index -wrong number page : Princess Diana mentality in the press
Why western countries should be able to pollute 2 or 3 times more. Of course the western countries have higher per head consumption as they have restricted population. It's unfair of a father to claim a bigger salary just cos he chose to have 10 kids. America is much bigger than China. One way Americans could lower per capita emissions is to have 10 children each.
Why make a Big Lie ?
The public might increase energy efficiency as well, but they don't get he just don't consume so much message. Whole economy is based on cosume more.
1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.
How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?
What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.
2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"
It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely
New Invention - Ecoheat bulb - uses new carbon tungsten technology to give heat aswell as light.
Forcefeed CO2 to plants ? swamp bacteria ? Put factories in the forest.
double glazing which lasts 15 years
Saying you are saving the planet by building big dams etc which of corse harm the local ecology
Temp idea stupid
Surely when you such a large set of data the margin of error should be big ? Gray rubbishes the whole science quite logically. You can say in an ice age the Earth's average temp is lower that's about it. Other times an average is as useful as the average number in the telephone book. Look you could collect data and calculate the average noise on the earth. Collect enough data and you could plot it on a graph. It won't be the same it will always between 2 points, but sometime it will seem like there is a trend going up other times it will seem like a trend going own, other times it will be going up and down. Ask people for a random number between 1-1000
But for the media questioning "pseudo-green" buzz is like criticising Communism when you were a Pravda reporter
I would be happy if we all had a Carbon Footprint a 30th of Gore, but he's still nuts
plenty of food resources in the world it's the distribution that's the problem.
- is there power in diamonds
that announcer on end of In Business pod has a great voice good slow pace very clear
How am I supposed to believe Global Warming stories when everytime I hear a story, which I know something about it sounds really scary and then checks out to have a basis of truth, but to have grown huge legs in the telling ?
Dr Karl - Science god, but ungreen Greenie - He's always banging on about his solar panels, but on the BBC he's not allow d to mention politics, so it wasn't until the Skepticality Special on him that I realised in his failed dismal election bid he'd been standing for the Climate Change Alliance. - He's a petrol head and a big consumer, new contruction etc. But like most people his maths his terrible. Building a huge great water tank may seem green, but it's a massive energy and resource waste compared to cutting consumption.
Karl makes 1.5 times his use which is very large 18KWh per day
The thing is Karl is always going on about his love of cars and the new construction at his house --- so he's wasting lots of CO2.
- Karl solar $30K salary 0.5K electricity bill borrow : 30K 29.5K left to spend yr 1 30K pay 1.5K back $28.5K left to spend on other stuff.
- It would actually be a big problem if renewables saved you money as people would just spend the money which of course would generate more CO2
On analysis the scare stories don't checkout
solar on BBC Radio 4 Material World ?8,000 5KW 40 sqm claims 10 years to recover the cost crap as our bill is not ?,800 per year. I guess he is including an allowance for 80% of electricity being sold back to the grid.
22 December 2006 best and worst of 2006
checked Sci-Fri articles back as far as 27th July
- NpR Sci- Fri why's it plug organics (maybe for advertising ?)
has a 2007 article saying CO2 Rising Even faster it then has a graph ending in 2004 which shows emissions but not CO2 in air levels and shows China's emmisssions are 50% higher than the USA's http://www.sciencefriday.com/newsbriefs/read/116 - both ?? used emotive words like "dire"
which magazine ? I think AAAS Science
- Climate rationalists
- Good to see some talk about practical solutions like carbon capture etc instead of endless whinging CORAL - Iron Sulphate seeding near coral to reduce local CO2 Iron Sulphate is acidic so would make ocean more acidic ? CO2 ends up as bicarbonate is this alkali ?
- muggles learn then seem brainwashed to be stupid forget maths and logic.
-why is public so badly served by the media ?
there no free get out jail cards
change your lifestyle
|<-- Back to Climate Blog||HOME||ESSAY INDEX||