A Gloomy But Realistic Plan For Dealing With Global Warming

[Gannex]

So it's going to happen, global warming, the only questions are how much, how soon, and with what effects. Even President Bush's advisers have accepted the basic scientific thesis that the world is getting hotter, and if we carry on the way we're going, it's gonna get a lot hotter still.

I'm here to tell you a few uncomfortable facts that even the greatest experts won't deny. First, of relevance to my own British countrymen and women, our country, the fourth biggest economy in the world (depending who you ask) produces as a percentage of all global greenhouse gases a grand total of two percent. We could all commit suicide tomorrow, put out ne'er another gram of carbon dioxide, and the saving in emissions would be offset totally, obliterated that is, by the end of 2008 by the power stations that the Chinese already plan to commision by the end of next year. Our two percent is not the problem, and cutting it back, by heroic measures, to something like 1.5% isn't going to make a ha'penny worth of difference. It's all gestures, and posturing, no more significant than if I were to ladle a cupful of ocean water each morning to reduce the threat of oceans rising.

Another interesting statistic. If the Chinese citizenry were to acqure cars at a rate of one per citizen, then the world's known oil supplies would last about six months.

Here's something to think about when you're feeling cheerful about the future. The easily (read, cheaply) available oil is going to run out in the next twenty to forty years, depending which model you follow. The price will go up drastically toward the end, till only the military and the super-rich will be able to afford petroleum. By then, global warming will have told different geographical regions in no uncertain terms where it's energy-efficient to live. Sub-saharan Africa will be a death zone, whereas Alaska, that ignored step-child of the twentieth century, will suddenly become of age, as people begin to realise that in a rapidly warming climate, a countyryside with increasingly warm temperatures, high, flood-proof plains and a sound legal system, is the only place to buy land and buildings in an era of global warming.

Meanwhile, London and Liverpool, two cities particularly dear to my English heart, will be going out of business. It therefore should be the job of the British government to have some plan in place, over the next twenty to thirty years, which will have the people of London and Liverpool catered for. We evacuated in the mid-twentieth century. In theory, we should be able to do it again.

Under some models, Britain may be one of the luckiest places on the planet during global warming. The Gulf Stream, everyone agrees, will move away from the British coastline, but under certain assumptions, the coldness that current displacement imparts will exactly neutralise the warming effects of the greenhouse gasses causing the atmosphere world-wide to gently simmer. We might be the only place on the planet in the fifties latitude with a moderate climate year round, not much different from today's.

Under such circumstances, if they occur, Britain wil be overrun. Everyone will want to take shelter here. They will want to live in a land where energy costs are manageable, air-conditioning is not necessary, public transportation is possible, distances are manageable, where food is available from local fields and temperatures are stable. We'd better keep that Trident nuclear force up and ready, and crusing the waters around the British Isles. It's nice to be popular, but it's nice, when that happens, to have the choice of being able to lock the doors.

[Hondo]

How much CO2 does the average human add to the environment every time it exhales a breath? Does England have enough land to feed it's population on it's own?

While I buy into the obvious fact that the climate is changing, I do not necessarily believe it is all due to mankind. There have been climate changes before in the history of the planet at times where we were of little or no signifigance.

However, based strictly upon the assumption that humans alone are responsible for global warming, I offer this somewhat morbid thought. By continuing to go like we have and are, we shall change the living conditions of the planet and indeed make some areas uninhabitable. Food shortages, disease, exposure to the environment, and wars over available land will thin the world's population out considerably. Taking the population down to a half or a third of what it is now should put the planet well on the road to recovery.

Until there is unanimous agreement that humans are the cause and absolute proof that one or more of the future senarios will definitely happen, I wouldn't look for the powers that be or the populations they govern to be in a big hurry to drastically change their lifestyles to something more spartan voluntarily. Humans aren't known for doing things they don't have to do.

I can remember a Dr. Paul Ulrich (might not be spelled correctly) that made a great living for himself in the 60's & 70's predicting how the world would have run out of food long before now and major world wars would have been fought for food by now. I believe he is dead now and the great food wars never happened.

[Mark]

How much CO2 does the average human add to the environment every time it exhales a breath?

Humans are 'carbon neutral' all the CO2 we breath out has previously been taken in by plants.



Does England have enough land to feed it's population on it's own?


England? Or the UK? Or are you assuming a future where the union is dissolved? Anyway the answer is yes, we wouldn't have the variety we currently enjoy but it is possible to feed the population on our own land. Efforts in the post war years saw to it that should we ever again be faced with a blockade, we'd survive.



While I buy into the obvious fact that the climate is changing, I do not necessarily believe it is all due to mankind. There have been climate changes before in the history of the planet at times where we were of little or no signifigance.

I assure you they were of great significance! The difference this time is that climate is changing over a period of decades, whereas previous climate changes have happened over thousands of years.



However, based strictly upon the assumption that humans alone are responsible for global warming, I offer this somewhat morbid thought. By continuing to go like we have and are, we shall change the living conditions of the planet and indeed make some areas uninhabitable. Food shortages, disease, exposure to the environment, and wars over available land will thin the world's population out considerably. Taking the population down to a half or a third of what it is now should put the planet well on the road to recovery.

I don't quite buy that, but it's true that some areas will become inhabitable, those unable to up sticks and move will perish unfortunatley.



Until there is unanimous agreement that humans are the cause and absolute proof


Science has provided all the proof anyone needs. It can never give it 100%.


I wouldn't look for the powers that be or the populations they govern to be in a big hurry to drastically change their lifestyles to something more spartan voluntarily. Humans aren't known for doing things they don't have to do.

Nor do I think we should do. We should live smarter, not less.

[Dave B]

My plan for dealing with global warming involves buying a pair of shorts and fitting an irrigation system to my lawn :cool:

:p

[Mark]

Meanwhile in the north, it may mean that we can have a window open some time before July :D .

[BDunnell]

First, of relevance to my own British countrymen and women, our country, the fourth biggest economy in the world (depending who you ask) produces as a percentage of all global greenhouse gases a grand total of two percent.

This is all very well, but I still don't think this is any argument for us doing nothing. Many countries will be churning out similarly small amounts in percentage terms. These totals all add up. Not an original thought, I know, but worth considering, no matter how much CO2 the likes of China and India go on to produce. Are we supposed to tell them to literally clean up their acts without doing something ourselves?

[BDunnell]

I assure you they were of great significance! The difference this time is that climate is changing over a period of decades, whereas previous climate changes have happened over thousands of years.


The other difference is that a significant element of the climate change process currently being experienced is man-made.

[BDunnell]

Until there is unanimous agreement that humans are the cause and absolute proof that one or more of the future senarios will definitely happen, I wouldn't look for the powers that be or the populations they govern to be in a big hurry to drastically change their lifestyles to something more spartan voluntarily. Humans aren't known for doing things they don't have to do.

For one thing, I don't know how much more proof you're after. God coming from on high and stating the same facts as scientists, world leaders, and large numbers of other people have now been stating for some time?

[Mark]

This is all very well, but I still don't think this is any argument for us doing nothing.

Indeed, we should do something. But I think it supports the argument that we shouldn't go too far. Taxing private transport out of existance for example, it would hurt the economy and result in very little difference to climate change.

We should be investing in things like renewable energy and fuels and letting them take the place of existing sources of CO2.

[Tomi]

We should be investing in things like renewable energy and fuels and letting them take the place of existing sources of CO2.

Agree, also it would be good to put some import tax on stuff manufactured in countries that have not signed the Kyoto agreement, now they get undeserved advantage.

[Daniel]

My plan for dealing with global warming involves buying a pair of shorts and fitting an irrigation system to my lawn :cool:

:p
Funny that. In Australia people would call you mad if you watered your lawn by hand.

[Andrewmcm]

I find all this climate change business a bit mystifying. Our knowledge of climate systems is virtually nil in the grand scheme of geological timescales, and there are powers at work that are far greater than those caused by humans at play in determining the large-scale trends of land and sea temperature.

For example, the changing of the magnetic pole in the Earth, long periods of high sunspot activity on the surface of the Sun, travelling through galactic dust every 30,000 years as we hurtle along with the Milky Way, the ever-so-slight but still important expansion of the diameter of the Sun - all these things effect our weather systems in interesting and subtle ways that we don't really understand - undoubtedly we have influenced the climate by our actions, but I'm rather skeptical as to the way in which the media is whipping us up into a mass frenzy. The media is very good at siezing on phrases of scientific reports and quoting them far from the context in which they were intended.

Let's face it, in Western culture religion is not the great force it once was in controlling people's actions, and nowadays the best way to affect people's thinking is through the media. Continually telling people that they're going to die because of a terrorist threat, or that our grandchildren will suffer because of climate change are pretty powerful ways of suberting our decision-making into particular avenues....

Not that I'm a cynic or anything....

[Andrewmcm]

And as a by-the-by, I think humans should do all they can to improve their efficiency. We are inherently wasteful beings and I believe that remedying this situation is not a bad thing. Thankfully I don't need a savage media to help me make my own mind up on that count.

[Viktory]

Just another thought to cheer us up:

If China and India were to use the same amount of paper as the Western world (per person) do today, our forests would be practically gone.

If the Asian countries keep developing, the number of cars in the world will double.

We can't stop the developing countries having the same lifestyle as the people in the West, therefore we have a problem. The Western countries have to take the main role in fixing it.

[BDunnell]

Indeed, we should do something. But I think it supports the argument that we shouldn't go too far. Taxing private transport out of existance for example, it would hurt the economy and result in very little difference to climate change.

We should be investing in things like renewable energy and fuels and letting them take the place of existing sources of CO2.

I agree with the last bit, but it strikes me that there is now a good opportunity to improve public transport and tempt more people out of their cars, which can only be a good thing in various ways. It is worth tackling the problems of congestion in many cities, and the only sensible way of doing so in many cases is to have less cars on their roads. Likewise, the main road network of the UK cannot expand much further without destroying huge swathes of the countryside. The same goes for air travel, the expansion of which cannot continue at the current rate for reasons other than to do with CO2 emissions.

[Rollo]

If there is anyone to blame for increases in CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 40 years then the biggest cuprit must surely be the Brazillian government for allowing the destruction of the world's biggest rainforest.
If you want to reduce the total CO2 on the planet, then there needs to be a carbon sink; and the best thing we have for them is trees.

It was once said that a squirrel could pass from tree to tree from John O'Groats to Land's End. The great Oak forests that Britain once had now all lie at the bottom of the oceans thanks to an Elizabethan policy of ship building.

It seems to me that the obvious solution is to undo the destruction of forests by a massive crash tree planting program on a worldwide basis. The problem is that no government would actually undertake such a plan because it would be the ultimate vote loser.
Doing something which does not have an immediate benefit before the next election? What's the point?

[Rollo]

In terms of actual spending (ie what the environment is actually worth to the government) this is what the governments of the world are actually telling us:

Global military spending for the year ended 31st Dec 2007 was $1.26tn
Global environment and landcare spending for the year ended 31st Dec 2007 was $984mn
Therefore blowing people up and killing people is 1280 times more important that the wholesale destruction of the planet - if money is a value of importance. Governments clearly don't give a rat's arse about the issue.

[Hazell B]

England? Or the UK? Or are you assuming a future where the union is dissolved? Anyway the answer is yes, we wouldn't have the variety we currently enjoy but it is possible to feed the population on our own land. Efforts in the post war years saw to it that should we ever again be faced with a blockade, we'd survive.




That's not strictly true.

It takes about 16 pounds of corn to make one pound of meat, roughly speaking. If we all want to carry on eating beef and chicken, but forget pigs and all the other animals we farm, we would still not be able to grow enough corn for bread, veg to accompany the meals and so on.

In years gone by we fed cattle up on things like mutton leftovers, human waste (see how polite I am there? :p : ) and chicken shed 'left overs', but we don't do that now. Now they have to have wheat feeds, soya oils, sugarbeet and so on. We cannot grow them here, and still feed ourselves.

So, in short, the UK would starve without imported foods.

As an example, five acres of land serves a maximum of two sheep who get no other food. That's about four lambs each year, if you can borrow some rams of course, providing only 20 to 30 meals each. There's what, maybe 55 million people in the UK? They eat one meat based meal each day, so that's 55m meals each from about 1 1/4 acres each day. I can't remember how many acres of farmland we have, but know over three quarters of it isn't good enough to hold two sheep per five acres. I'm on Grade One organic land and it's going to cost me about 250g of extra food per sheep per day if I start farming the wooly blighters. The extra food is grown where? On yet more land.

The government can say we are capable of feeding ourselves all they want, but it is not true if we want to eat meat and meat products. The maths simply do not add up!

If we all went veggie, it might just work. However, the first potato blight strike and we would be starving to death like the Irish.

[vanillagirl85]

If we all went veggie, it might just work. However, the first potato blight strike and we would be starving to death like the Irish.

totally hypothetical, since i only love my animals on a plate with salt and peper: could we somehow guarantee enough veggie growing diversity to prevent a single disease wiping out our food source? would a vegetarian diet provide enough nutrition for the population? what about sustaining moo cows for dairy, etc.?

[Andrewmcm]

..........However, the first potato blight strike and we would be starving to death like the Irish.

........Did in the 1840's - they ain't starving now - all that guinness is making most of them fat! ;)

[vanillagirl85]

........Did in the 1840's - they ain't starving now - all that guinness is making most of them fat! ;)

not just the Irish unfortunately.

or fortunately?

[BDunnell]

If there is anyone to blame for increases in CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 40 years then the biggest cuprit must surely be the Brazillian government for allowing the destruction of the world's biggest rainforest.
If you want to reduce the total CO2 on the planet, then there needs to be a carbon sink; and the best thing we have for them is trees.

A very good point. It is worth saying as well that the destruction of the Amazonian rain forest was allowed to happen in part because people, including politicians, were less environmentally aware. This included the whole international community, not just the Brazilian government. Therefore, the increased awareness of these issues being brought about at the moment is a very good thing, because hopefully it well help avoid the mistakes of the past. If this involves people taking their own small measures, it can only be positive. Being more green has plenty of advantages other than making a tiny contribution to reducing the world's carbon emissions.

[Hazell B]

could we somehow guarantee enough veggie growing diversity to prevent a single disease wiping out our food source? would a vegetarian diet provide enough nutrition for the population? what about sustaining moo cows for dairy, etc.?

Yes, we can manage to supply a variety of veg that wouldn't leave us too open to disease - but do you really want to eat turnips and parsnips all winter because the cabbage white butterflies wiped out all the brassicas? Me neither :p : Chemical use on farms would be sky high, but we could just about manage it.

Vegetarian diets are perfectly balanced and can happily keep us all not only healthy, but healthier if handled well.

There wouldn't be any milk, no. Cattle for diary have to produce a calf every few months or they stop making milk, but those calves are very costly to produce. If they're slaughtered the day they're born they've still cost a good deal to carry through to birth, so milk would roughly double in price from that cost alone. If they're kept and fed until big enough to eat they've cost a good deal in feed.
The alternative soya milk is utterly repulsive, and needs land to grow on, so isn't a good alternative at all. On top of all that, a cow takes in about 2.5% of her bodyweight each day in feed just to stay alive. Up to 5% when she's being milked. Cows are roughly 500kg upwards, so that would be 18 (ish) kg each day of carn/beet/oil feed she would need to produce milk - and we have no land to grow her food on.

[LotusElise]

Would goats be better "value for money" than cows for milk production? Obviously the problem with lots of extra baby goats would remain, but do they produce more milk for the amount they eat? They are also more hardy and less particular about what they eat.

As for veg, there's always greenhouses and polytunnels to offer some opportunity to widen a plant's season. I've heard that nearly all veg grown in Iceland is raised in this way.

[Hazell B]

Would goats be better "value for money" than cows for milk production?



Goat milk isn't very nice - too fatty for most people - but it can certainly be produced cheaply for part of the year. There's a goat farm that supplies most UK supermarkets that was started by somebody near here and I had the misfortune to work there for two weeks before they moved to bigger sheds. Dreadful place :s The kids are already deadbagged (gassed and sacked up for removal) at birth, so they don't enter the equasion anyway. Goats, however, must be kept inside. They can't take wet weather and produce milk, so are rather costly to keep in the long term.



As for veg, there's always greenhouses and polytunnels to offer some opportunity to widen a plant's season. I've heard that nearly all veg grown in Iceland is raised in this way.

Do you want to live in a country covered in plastic? The heating costs alone would be enough to make it pointless for most crops, let alone the clean up after a gale :p : Great for lettuce, rubbish for cabbage and spuds.

[LotusElise]

I think I know of the goat place you're talking about. I bought a couple of their yoghurts once, which were all right but nothing special.

On reflection, the Icelandic greenhouses are probably a different proposition from those we have here, as they have geothermal heating over there which cuts costs. A friend of mine grows a lot of the veg for his restaurant in unheated polytunnels in a kitchen garden, but this is more to prolong the season than actually grow stuff out of season. There are greenhouses as well, but I don't know whether they're heated. The spuds, sprouts and cabbages grow outdoors normally.

My parents always tell me that you can store fruit and some veg you've grown yourself for quite a long time (months) without it going off. It was on a TV programme ages ago that supermarket apples are sometimes months old and have been stored, which is why they spoil so quickly. Did anyone else see this?
There's always pickling, drying and preserving as well; all things that people developed thousands of years ago to keep food longer, which still work now.

[harvick#1]

if there is global warming, why are these some of the absolute coldest days weve had in weeks, its been in - degrees F :mark:

[Rollo]

One of the consequences of global warming is that the difference between the water temperatures at the equator and the poles is less. There has already been a noticable slowing down of the Gulf Stream for instance.

What this means is that the heat carried by the world's oceans... isn't. Europe and some parts of the western US whose weather is semi-dictated by current flows, should find that as average world temperatures go up, they should decline but by a lesser amount.

[Sandfly]

Thank God for global warming - otherwise we would still be in an ICE AGE.

It is a cycle and nothing we do or do not do will stop it. We may have to move the antpile, but it will happen slowly and there will be other worldwide problems that determine how we are able to respond to this one - but plan to move inland.

[Gannex]

nothing we do or do not do will stop [global warming]. We may have to move the antpile - but plan to move inland.
Agreed, Sandfly. Unless the Chinese selflessly agree to put a complete stop to all economic development for the sake of humanity, global warming will continue, and it will continue at an ever-increasing rate. It will do so regardless of anything that we in the developed world might do to reduce carbon emissions. So all this business of driving less, flying only when necessary and planting trees, all this pointless gesturing by do-gooders and politicians achieves only two things; it makes us feel virtuous, warm and cosy inside, feel that we are doing our bit for the world, and it distracts us from the real job at hand, which is figuring out how best to reduce the human suffering that will be caused by the inevitable heating of the planet. So, rather than putting up windmills and making our car exhausts cleaner, we should be devoting resources to facilitating the abandonment of low-lying cities, preparing living space and metropolitan infrastructure in the regions which are now frozen and uninhabited, and devise methods for getting people there. We should be working out international arrangements that will permit these massive northerly and southerly migrations of people from the soon-to-be uninhabitable regions of the globe. We should be arranging for nuclear energy supplies to the frozen latitudes, and developing methods of food generation that do not rely on agriculture. The world needs to move onto a war footing, prepare for the onslaught of global warming, not make futile attempts to stop it. Those carbon reduction measures that are now being urged on us by people wearing earnest expressions and sensible shoes will look puny and pathetic when city after city is being destroyed by flooding, crops are failing, hurricanes are frequent, and people are dying by the millions from natural disasters and starvation on a regular basis. We will ask ourselves then not why we did so little to reduce emissions, but why we did so little to prepare for the almost certain failure of the emissions reduction policy.

That's why, if you ask me to get rid of my 4x4 or stop flying, I will not do it. But I will gladly contribute to construction of nuclear power stations in Siberia, or support the relaxation of migration restrictions from tropic to pole. That makes me a true environmentalist, while the supposedly enlightened green types are, in fact, leading us all down a merry path to ruin.

[Hazell B]

I think I know of the goat place you're talking about. I bought a couple of their yoghurts once, which were all right but nothing special.


My parents always tell me that you can store fruit and some veg you've grown yourself for quite a long time (months) without it going off.

St Helen's Farm, they're called.

You store, for example, apples in apple crates. They're wooden trays with paper shoved between each apple, and can hold a year's worth for all year eating. However, the term 'rotten apple' comes from just one apple making the rest rancid within days if not stored to perfection. It's a pain in the backside, is storing fruit. Veg is just frozen, so that's no worry.

[tinchote]

Gannex :up:

The debate over global warming has gotten to a silly level in Canada. It will surely define the next election, making politicians and people alike forget about many real and more concrete problems. The funniest thing is that we are talking Canada, where the average temperature in January for about 75% of the country is below -15 :crazy:

But, as Gannex said, people need to feel they are doing something good. It doesn't really matter if it is efficient in the long term. And the most worrying thing is that it is "totally unacceptable" to dissent in these topics :mark:

[LotusElise]

St Helen's Farm, they're called.


They're the ones.

I asked my dad about the fruit storage and he said they used to keep apples in crates under the bed in the spare room, covered with an old blanket to keep the dust off.

[Roamy]

hey get a grip you have two choices
1. there are too many people on the planet - nuke and move on
2. continue to over populate and pump water up to the highest peaks in the world to re=create glaciers.

WTF is so hard about this

[viper_man]

Im all for global warming, proper summers!

Id also like to know if the cavemen made such a big deal about global warming when it happened 60 million years ago, I doubt it.

Global warming has gone too far to be prevented, todays politicians are just doing stuff about it to make themselves feel better, win elections, and gain the support of the public by scaremongering. In 20 years time people like Tony Blair wont give a crap.

[Alexamateo]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

This link is to an interesting article about how we and the media have been alternating between worrying over global warming, and the coming of the next ice age over the past 125 years.

Those in science cannot seem to make up their minds so to speak. I know some will say that we know now better because of extreme advances in technology etc., but who's to say that in the future that some new variables will be discovered in weather patterns that we haven't even thought of yet. It wouldn't surprise me to be reading articles 40 years from now asking "Why did we work ouselves into such a state of hysteria?" Indeed, Rollo mentioned that by some measures the Gulf Stream is slowing, well some have theorized that the heating now could break the global ocean current pattern, and lead to the next ice age!

Tinchote also mentioned how it was almost "totally unacceptable" to dissent on global warming. (or I should say, the causes of global warming.) To me it almost feels like you are dealing with religious fanatics. To doubt is to be labeled a heretic. You must live as they say, you have no choice, no freedom.

I may not know the answers, but I do know this. In the past warmer years were associated with abundant harvests and human prosperity and increased wealth, while cooler years led to crop failure and famine and death. Indeed, the year 1816 was called the year without a summer. A couple of major volcanic eruptions the year before put so much dust and debris into the stratosphere, that it shaded the earth and caused massive crop failures in the northern hemisphere which resulted in famines, riots and death. (Although Mary Shelley did use the time stuck indoors to write Frankenstein.) :D

Of course, that could be the solution too. If, the warming continues, and If it truly becomes devestating, we could inject dust and ash into the stratosphere, sort of like a global shade cloth so to speak. There may come a time in the future to act, but honestly, I don't think now is it. We should watch and observe, but it would not surprise me one bit to be worrying about the next ice age 40 years from now.

[tinchote]

Alexamateo, my thoughts exactly :up:

And very interesting article :)

[Gannex]

Gannex :up:

The debate over global warming has gotten to a silly level in Canada. It will surely define the next election, making politicians and people alike forget about many real and more concrete problems. The funniest thing is that we are talking Canada, where the average temperature in January for about 75% of the country is below -15 :crazy:

But, as Gannex said, people need to feel they are doing something good. It doesn't really matter if it is efficient in the long term. And the most worrying thing is that it is "totally unacceptable" to dissent in these topics :mark:
Right, tinchote, and Canada is going to be a prime beneficiary of global warming. As long as Canada develops sufficient nuclear power I think her main problem from global warming will be keeping the rest of the world out. Everyone will suddenly want to live in Canada (assuming, of course, that their applications to live in Alaska have been rejected).

[Gannex]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.aspThis link is to an interesting article
Wow! I skimmed about the first hundred pages, and then glanced at the next two hundred, but then my concentration started to waver, I'm afraid.

But I have to say, I do accept the concensus that the planet is warming because carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere warms the earth. It acts like the panels of a greenhouse, apparently, and what a lot of people don't realise is that as long as those gasses are there, the warming effect will continue. If we never put one more gram of CO2 into the air, the "greenhouse panels" that have already been erected will continue to do their work for about a hundred thousand years. That's how long it would take for the gasses to dissipate, for the metaphorical panes of glass to all break and let the light come in and the heat leave directly.

I accept the conventional wisdom on that, so I disagree with you, tinchote. I'm convinced there is a carbon dioxide problem. But where I disagree with the majority is on the question of what we ought to do about it. They say "Stop emitting!", where I say, "Use all that oil while it's cheap. Emit as much carbon dioxide as you want. The amounts are not going to make much difference in the long run. But prepare like hell for an almighty catastrophe that will surely come in the next several decades. Mitigate the damage. Don't let global warming destroy humanity. Be prepared."

It must be my time as a Wolf Cub that gave me this attitude. Blame Baden-Powell.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's too late to cut emmisons. We rely on fossil fuels too much.

However the real cause of Global Warming isn't fossil fuel emmisions, but deforestation! If we replaced the forests we are destroying, then global waming could be slowed down significantly.

As for the worlds oil running out in 40 years time. Is there not a way to speed up the proccess of organic material becoming fossil fuels. (in a science lab possibly. :\ )

[BDunnell]

Wow! I skimmed about the first hundred pages, and then glanced at the next two hundred, but then my concentration started to waver, I'm afraid.

But I have to say, I do accept the concensus that the planet is warming because carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere warms the earth. It acts like the panels of a greenhouse, apparently, and what a lot of people don't realise is that as long as those gasses are there, the warming effect will continue. If we never put one more gram of CO2 into the air, the "greenhouse panels" that have already been erected will continue to do their work for about a hundred thousand years. That's how long it would take for the gasses to dissipate, for the metaphorical panes of glass to all break and let the light come in and the heat leave directly.

I accept the conventional wisdom on that, so I disagree with you, tinchote. I'm convinced there is a carbon dioxide problem. But where I disagree with the majority is on the question of what we ought to do about it. They say "Stop emitting!", where I say, "Use all that oil while it's cheap. Emit as much carbon dioxide as you want. The amounts are not going to make much difference in the long run. But prepare like hell for an almighty catastrophe that will surely come in the next several decades. Mitigate the damage. Don't let global warming destroy humanity. Be prepared."

It must be my time as a Wolf Cub that gave me this attitude. Blame Baden-Powell.

I take your point, but many of the sort of measures that are being suggested as ways of curbing global warming would be perfectly sensible even if global warming didn't exist. Wasting energy in the home is unnecessary, not least for financial reasons; the growth of air travel cannot continue unchecked, because it will be physically impossible to handle ever-growing amounts of air traffic and airports can't go on expanding for ever; much the same goes for road traffic (do we actually want our cities to be clogged up with cars making unnecessary journeys?); and the use of more efficient, sustainable energy sources is beneficial in many ways. But say that these are all necessary to combat global warming, and suddenly they become pointless.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dunnell, you must be out of your mind. You take Gannex's point and then you ignore what he is saying. Gannex is of the opinion whining about CO2 is a waste of time, start making plans to adapt to the fact the world will be warmer.

You go on about restricting air travel, people waste energy in the home, get rid of private use of cars and basically, turn our society upside down to accomodate the idea that if we all cut back on emitting CO2, life will be better. It will be WORSE my friend, and here is why:

First off, despite what many of you socialists out there might think, Kyoto and the theory that the West must take the lead in fighting global warming is the biggest pile of hot air going. Buying Carbon credits from Russia and China and India means diddly squat. IT is giving these nations money to develop their economies that will eventually emit MORE CO2. If you want to slow down the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere, stopping the destruction of the rain forests and planting new tree's and vegetation in tropical climates is a far more prudent course. Also, giving money to the inept economies of the former communist bloc will guarantee nothing but their continued exploitation of oil resources (You think the Russians care about global warming? They are one of the largest oil and gas producers on the planet and it is their main source of income right now). Kyoto was not passed by the US for this reason, and yet they are cutting their emissions growth despite the fact they own more private vehicles than anyone, and they are not shy about buying big ones. Could they do more? Yes, but the socialists in this world I think are glomming on to this war to stop co2 as an excuse to restrict freedom. Freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom to be an idiot or a genius. The last thing this world needs is yet another excuse for governments to control our lives. Dunnell, you have no issues with this but I can tell you the only thing any government knows how to do is waste my money it seems. You like that, I cant help it, but don't you tell me how to live my life.

For someone to buy into this global warming argument, they are not allowed to ask the relevent questions, in that: Is man made C02 the cause or are there any other factors? Is there anything really concrete that can be done to counter act it? Is the theory believable considering half the people explaining how it works were telling us 30 years ago we were about to go into a cooling cycle? Another relevent question, if global warming is happening (I believe it is, I just don't buy we have the answer why), would it be better to make plans to deal with the effects rather than waste large sums of money in the naive notion we can stop it?

First off, Global warming may be caused by our emitting CO2. It may be, but it wont stop if that is the case, by the nations of the UK, Canada and the Scanadavian nations all getting together and beliveing in the fiction of Kyoto. If the Chinese, Indians and Americans froze their economies and outlawed any further growth, global warming would still happen if you BUY into the argument that this is all man made. Yet there was reports from the Vikings of going to Vinland and finding grapes. Vinland is the north coast of Newfoundland, and my friends, it must have been a lot warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. We were not putting out one fraction of the CO2 then that we are now, yet the world was clearly warmer. The Vikings also were reporting Greenland actually had some green in it as well. There are other incidents that say that the world was warmer in a lot of places than it is now in ancient times.

Does all this CO2 emission add to global warming? Maybe, but we clearly don't have all the facts, but that wont stop those chicken littles like Dunnell from trying to control our society on the pretense that it is wasteful and harmful to the enviroment. I argue here and now that we don't know enough, and while some prudent ideas such as using more nuclear power for electricity, renewable resources will help, we need to know more about the processes that are causing the climate to warm up. It has happened in the past, and we had no industrial society to warm up the climate so why is it happening? Also take note that volcanos often erupt CO2 in large amounts and have at various times in the past had a far greater effect on our climate than anything we can do. You cant outlaw mother nature, so no matter what we do, one eruption could undo all of our efforts.

This naive assumption man is the root of all change on this planet is farcical. Nature will do what it does, and while we may be a factor, we are not the controlling factor. Doing something like driving less or flying less might make you feel better, but it wont really change things.

Gannex's premise is bang on. Doing something concrete to be able to deal with the effects of global warming is a far more prudent exercise in public policy than the left-wing's endless excuses to get their hands on the western lifestyle and mould it to their own socialist tendencies.

You want more proof about how much hot air is in the new left and this fight for global warming? That great global warming proponent, Al Gore wants to fly people down to Antartica for a live concert there to meet his goal of concerts on all the continents for some big fest he wants to have next summer to "raise awareness". I am aware of Al Gore alright. The guy flies around the world in a private jet pounding the table saying we are wasting the world's resources. Fly commercial Al, cancel the concert for the penguins on the last unspoiled wilderness and quit telling me how you are so much smarter than the rest of us. Al Gore was one of the creators of Kyoto, a Ponzi scheme to redistribute the world's wealth by guilt.....and if that doesn't say it all about his motives, nothing will.

Democracy, freedom of the individual and logic should never be sacrificied to serve up some god of global warming. Global warming is happening I wont deny, but what to do about it wont be solved by the endless guilt trip I get from the fools who believe in this fiction if we all just cut back....

The Chinese don't give a flying fig about the enviroment, and if you don't believe that, just remember the most worst examples of pollution are often from the communist world. Last time I looked, the Chinese were still using that system of government and I wouldn't trust them to do their part. Since the Chinese don't seem to care, and are the largest growing economy on earth, we could shut down Canada, the UK and most of Europe and in 4 years the Chinese will have replaced all of our emissions. So just forget this myth of Kyoto. I would rather roast then aid any system that would give them my money so I could feel better about carbon emissions....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Reforestation is needed to balance the effect of Co2 emmisions. But people can do a lot to reduce their own Co2 footprint. Turning a light off when you leave a room isn't difficult, only heating rooms in the house you use, not the spare room that is used only 2weeks every year, stop wasting electricity on pointless internet forums :erm: Turning the heating off when you go to bed! Just put an extra blacket on your bed and you will be just as warm.

These small changes only take a few weeks to get used to, they may not save the planet but they will make better use of the limited fossil fuels we have left.

I reckon that all new homes should be built with wind-turbines on the roof, people say that they are unsightly, but so are satallite dishes. I also think that it's crazy that large forests have been cut down for the development of Hydroelectric dams, it does more harm than good.

I think that a world without oil and gas will be far worse than a world effected by global warming.

[luvracin]

Everyone here is making good points.

But there is one very good reason beyond global warming to continue the work of reducing emissions from cars, factories, etc..

It's a lot healthier to breathe clean air than dirty, toxic air.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Luvracing...CO2 emissions and actual pollution are two different things. That is the great fallacy....you can clean the air so you think it is clean, but CO2 has little to do with pollution.

Two entirely different issues.

As for conserving energy and the like, it makes sense. I have the best way of having a reason for doing it. I pay for the energy I use, so I try not to abuse it because money in my pocket buys me freedom. Funny eh? No government official required to figure that one out....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here is an interesting article I found that really says a lot about the world of the Global Warming "industry", from Canada's National Post.


Global warming is a false myth
National Post
Wed 14 Feb 2007
FP Comment
Special to the Financial Post

From an interview with Vaclav Klaus, former president of the
Czech Republic, published by a Czech economics daily, as reproduced
on the Web site of the Independent Institute, courtesy of Lubos
Motl, Professor of Physics, Harvard University.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming
is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr. President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every
serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the
UN panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political
body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It's
neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of
scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there
with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an
undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in
May, 2007, but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the
summary for policymakers where all the "buts" are scratched,
removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such
an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to
politicians.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior
statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else
has such strong opinions ...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level
politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a
whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient
knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview
has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the
climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either.
Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The
second part of the sentence should be: We also have lots of reports,
studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are
diametrically opposite.

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I
really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However,
as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science
reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica.
I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And
inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the
media simply don't appear.

But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me, which is
why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The
article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will
be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions
about climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is
something very different from climate science. Various findings and
screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while
the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the leftwingers and
right-wingers. Nevertheless, it's obvious that environmentalism is a
new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ... I am right ...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with
our eyes that imply that man is demolishing the planet and himself ?
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger
nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr. Al
Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't.
I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I
don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a
thing. Look: You represent the economic media, so I expect a certain
economical erudition from you.

My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that
there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the
environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on
the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more
brutally it behaves with respect to nature, and vice versa.

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging
nature--by eliminating private ownership and similar things --much
more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in
the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on Feb. 8, 2007,
nature is protected uncomparably more than on Feb. 8 ten years ago
or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

That's why I ask: How can you pronounce the sentence you said?
Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation
only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me
to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you
actually believe what you say.

[tinchote]

Mark, post #42 was bang on. One of the best posts I've read in these forums :up:

[Jaws]

Mark, post #42 was bang on. One of the best posts I've read in these forums :up:

It was certainly thought provoking Tin, it makes me realise I need to do some research on this, but where do you find unbiased (on both sides) information on the subject??

[Roamy]

Reforestation is needed to balance the effect of Co2 emmisions. But people can do a lot to reduce their own Co2 footprint. Turning a light off when you leave a room isn't difficult, only heating rooms in the house you use, not the spare room that is used only 2weeks every year, stop wasting electricity on pointless internet forums :erm: Turning the heating off when you go to bed! Just put an extra blacket on your bed and you will be just as warm.

These small changes only take a few weeks to get used to, they may not save the planet but they will make better use of the limited fossil fuels we have left.

I reckon that all new homes should be built with wind-turbines on the roof, people say that they are unsightly, but so are satallite dishes. I also think that it's crazy that large forests have been cut down for the development of Hydroelectric dams, it does more harm than good.

I think that a world without oil and gas will be far worse than a world effected by global warming.

Basically Brown - HydroElectric comes from damming up rivers and has little effect on forestry. However if we all got together and Nuked China we would probably put a end to global warming. short of that start pumping water up to the glaciers to rebuild.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I tell you where you can read about both sides of the argument. Not in the Mainstream media or from the mouths of politicians. Read everything you can from the "alternative" media, read any scientific papers you can find pro and con, and use some common sense. Also understand that many of the arguments against Kyoto are being waged in Canada right now as many right of center and some left of center commentators in this country are bringing a lot of this to light. Read everything you can, and don't for a second dismiss any argument pro and con, but rather, read what they are saying, and then realize that if you apply logic, the answer is there is global warming, but after that, people are guessing. The radical fools who think it is all man's doing don't want to hear any arguments. As soon as the people believe in something like this as religious conversion almost, I worry. The people like myself on the opposite side just want some concrete evidence before disembowelling the economy for a lost cause.

When Kyoto was first proposed, I read all I could about it. Understand that I have a BA in Geography, and took a lot of resource management, introductry climatology and geo political courses. What became very clear to me Kyoto had nothing to do with actually solving the emission of greenhouse gases. When you realize that Kyoto was more about western nations being able to pay "carbon credit's" to nations with failed economies or developing ones, than actually making progress on the reduction of greenhouse gases, you begin to see the motivation of some of the author's of this treaty. Understand that the people making the most noise about defending the treaty are the most likely to try to run your life in a fashion that THEY see fit to meet this treaty.

When you understand all of that, then you have to dig through the miles of stats, theories and utter BS that has been uttered on both sides. The only undenialable truth you will see are these three things:

1) The earth is warming apparently compared to the last 200 years. Any further back we have no idea about because truly accurate temperature recordings are non-existent. We can guess by ancedotal evidence of climatic conditions in the past, but they are guesses on actual temperature ranges. Science can dial in by tree rings, and the like, and stories such as the Vikings finding grapes in "Vinland" tell us that the world was warmer at the end of the last millenium and the start of the first, but how much warmer we have no idea.

2) We don't know what is causing this warming. The popular theory is that it is mankind's emission of greenhouse gases, and there is some creedence to it, but there are media reports that some scientest's who disagree with this are labelled as heretics or political stooges. To believe it is just mankind's doing presupposes that we also have the power to stop the process. Since 4 billion people cannot disappear tomorrow, we cannot stop global warming IF we are the cause of it. Reducing our emissions 10% in the West means very little if the Chinese economy grows about 3 %. The fact it is growing faster than that, and India is going through a similar drive to achieve greater economic wealth, nothing short of disappearing will stop global warming IF you believe it is a man made problem.

3) The third undeniable truth? Mother nature has far more ability to change this process than we do. One volcanic eruption can emit enough greenhouse gas to set back any efforts Kyoto's implementation world wide would cause. Mother nature has created climatic shifts in our temperature over the millions of years and we have no concrete way of knowing if this warming is part of a cycle or something new.



The fools that created the Kyoto accords were not scientests, they were hot air wind bags such as Al Gore who have made a living out of taking Junk science and twisting it to their agenda, which is to gain more control over the common man for his "own good". When ever I see someone telling me that giving someone else control over another person's life for the good of the people or for their own good, I get worried. I get worried when many of the same authors of this treaty are the same sort of politicians that have also been telling me they can solve my health care woes, educational defieciencies and all the problems that Western society has through govermental intervention. That same rationale gave the Communist rulers of the USSR the justification for some of the most henious crimes against man and nature. That same rationale, no matter how well intentioned has created some of the most wortheless and feckless social programs in the western nations. In the 1960's, both Canada and the US decided to go to war on poverty. Billions of dollars were spent over the last 3 decades to fix all the social ills of our societies. Contrary to popular belief, urban poverty was not really that big a problem until government decided to do something about it. Forty years later, it is worse.....so if they cannot fix a human problem, why should I trust them to fix something that even the brightest scientific minds don't always agree on?

One thing is for sure. Most of the scientests who passionately believe in global warming don't see this push to control societal values as a bad thing, because they only see what they want to believe, but people who use logic and reason see this for what it is. A veiled attempt to yet once again force the world to accept a new "world order" where governements control more and more of our lives. I am not some whack job nut who fears governments, but I do see governmental control as a problem in Western Democratic states for every politician seems to see themselves as the self appointed solution to all problems. They live to pass laws that give more bureaucrats control over more and more of our lives.

The last thing I need is some fool telling me what to drive, where to drive and how to heat my home. The free market will dictate that. I will drive a small car because I don't like paying a lot for gas. It is MY decision. If I choose to turn the thermostat down, I am not doing it to save the bloody planet, I am doing it because the price of natural gas went up. I do not need some idiot telling me they will fine me, arrest me or harass me for "Wasting" resources. Most people don't use up more than they can afford. When the world's resources become dear enough that people cannot afford SUV's they will get serious about buying Hybrids and smaller cars. The free market will change people's attitude about resource usage far better than some treaty.

What is more, the same people who would tell me how Kyoto is good for me are not willing to say to Russia, China and India that they must industrialize in an enviromentally friendly fashion. Even if the Western nations gave up a lot of dough to these nations to assauge their collective guilt, there still would be no effort made by the Chinese or Indians to develop greenhouse gas friendly industry. The most polluted crap holes on the planet are in China, and their use of low grade coal is doing more to hurt the enviroment than anything we can do in the west. Until you actually solve some problems with pollution, don't come to me to tell me I am driving too much car or heating my house too much.....

[janneppi]

When Kyoto was first proposed, I read all I could about it. Understand that I have a BA in Geography, and took a lot of resource management, introductry climatology and geopolitical courses.
I thought you were a truck driver? ;)

[BDunnell]

Dunnell, you must be out of your mind. You take Gannex's point and then you ignore what he is saying. Gannex is of the opinion whining about CO2 is a waste of time, start making plans to adapt to the fact the world will be warmer.

You go on about restricting air travel, people waste energy in the home, get rid of private use of cars and basically, turn our society upside down to accomodate the idea that if we all cut back on emitting CO2, life will be better. It will be WORSE my friend, and here is why:

First off, despite what many of you socialists out there might think, Kyoto and the theory that the West must take the lead in fighting global warming is the biggest pile of hot air going. Buying Carbon credits from Russia and China and India means diddly squat. IT is giving these nations money to develop their economies that will eventually emit MORE CO2. If you want to slow down the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere, stopping the destruction of the rain forests and planting new tree's and vegetation in tropical climates is a far more prudent course. Also, giving money to the inept economies of the former communist bloc will guarantee nothing but their continued exploitation of oil resources (You think the Russians care about global warming? They are one of the largest oil and gas producers on the planet and it is their main source of income right now). Kyoto was not passed by the US for this reason, and yet they are cutting their emissions growth despite the fact they own more private vehicles than anyone, and they are not shy about buying big ones. Could they do more? Yes, but the socialists in this world I think are glomming on to this war to stop co2 as an excuse to restrict freedom. Freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom to be an idiot or a genius. The last thing this world needs is yet another excuse for governments to control our lives. Dunnell, you have no issues with this but I can tell you the only thing any government knows how to do is waste my money it seems. You like that, I cant help it, but don't you tell me how to live my life.

For someone to buy into this global warming argument, they are not allowed to ask the relevent questions, in that: Is man made C02 the cause or are there any other factors? Is there anything really concrete that can be done to counter act it? Is the theory believable considering half the people explaining how it works were telling us 30 years ago we were about to go into a cooling cycle? Another relevent question, if global warming is happening (I believe it is, I just don't buy we have the answer why), would it be better to make plans to deal with the effects rather than waste large sums of money in the naive notion we can stop it?

First off, Global warming may be caused by our emitting CO2. It may be, but it wont stop if that is the case, by the nations of the UK, Canada and the Scanadavian nations all getting together and beliveing in the fiction of Kyoto. If the Chinese, Indians and Americans froze their economies and outlawed any further growth, global warming would still happen if you BUY into the argument that this is all man made. Yet there was reports from the Vikings of going to Vinland and finding grapes. Vinland is the north coast of Newfoundland, and my friends, it must have been a lot warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. We were not putting out one fraction of the CO2 then that we are now, yet the world was clearly warmer. The Vikings also were reporting Greenland actually had some green in it as well. There are other incidents that say that the world was warmer in a lot of places than it is now in ancient times.

Does all this CO2 emission add to global warming? Maybe, but we clearly don't have all the facts, but that wont stop those chicken littles like Dunnell from trying to control our society on the pretense that it is wasteful and harmful to the enviroment. I argue here and now that we don't know enough, and while some prudent ideas such as using more nuclear power for electricity, renewable resources will help, we need to know more about the processes that are causing the climate to warm up. It has happened in the past, and we had no industrial society to warm up the climate so why is it happening? Also take note that volcanos often erupt CO2 in large amounts and have at various times in the past had a far greater effect on our climate than anything we can do. You cant outlaw mother nature, so no matter what we do, one eruption could undo all of our efforts.

This naive assumption man is the root of all change on this planet is farcical. Nature will do what it does, and while we may be a factor, we are not the controlling factor. Doing something like driving less or flying less might make you feel better, but it wont really change things.

Gannex's premise is bang on. Doing something concrete to be able to deal with the effects of global warming is a far more prudent exercise in public policy than the left-wing's endless excuses to get their hands on the western lifestyle and mould it to their own socialist tendencies.

You want more proof about how much hot air is in the new left and this fight for global warming? That great global warming proponent, Al Gore wants to fly people down to Antartica for a live concert there to meet his goal of concerts on all the continents for some big fest he wants to have next summer to "raise awareness". I am aware of Al Gore alright. The guy flies around the world in a private jet pounding the table saying we are wasting the world's resources. Fly commercial Al, cancel the concert for the penguins on the last unspoiled wilderness and quit telling me how you are so much smarter than the rest of us. Al Gore was one of the creators of Kyoto, a Ponzi scheme to redistribute the world's wealth by guilt.....and if that doesn't say it all about his motives, nothing will.

Democracy, freedom of the individual and logic should never be sacrificied to serve up some god of global warming. Global warming is happening I wont deny, but what to do about it wont be solved by the endless guilt trip I get from the fools who believe in this fiction if we all just cut back....

The Chinese don't give a flying fig about the enviroment, and if you don't believe that, just remember the most worst examples of pollution are often from the communist world. Last time I looked, the Chinese were still using that system of government and I wouldn't trust them to do their part. Since the Chinese don't seem to care, and are the largest growing economy on earth, we could shut down Canada, the UK and most of Europe and in 4 years the Chinese will have replaced all of our emissions. So just forget this myth of Kyoto. I would rather roast then aid any system that would give them my money so I could feel better about carbon emissions....

You have totally ignored the premise of my post. I was saying that the sort of measures that I mentioned would be sensible to take even if global warming didn't exist.

I should add that I disagree vehemently with your opinions on most things and am pleased to do so.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Basically Brown - HydroElectric comes from damming up rivers and has little effect on forestry. However if we all got together and Nuked China we would probably put a end to global warming. short of that start pumping water up to the glaciers to rebuild.

So HydroElectric comes from damming up rivers and has little effect on forestry. :o hplease: I've been studying this all week at college.

Read the following article
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0813.htm

From this you will learn not to mess with an A-level Geography student because we know everything.

[luvracin]

Luvracing...CO2 emissions and actual pollution are two different things. That is the great fallacy....you can clean the air so you think it is clean, but CO2 has little to do with pollution.

Two entirely different issues.

As for conserving energy and the like, it makes sense. I have the best way of having a reason for doing it. I pay for the energy I use, so I try not to abuse it because money in my pocket buys me freedom. Funny eh? No government official required to figure that one out....

Yeah I know. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I was referring more to the other nasties that accompany combustion processes, particularly from vehicle exhaust. Apart from making combustion cleaner, the less you burn - by definition the less nasties you release.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I thought you were a truck driver? ;)

I am, but I wasn't always. Just driving a big rig brings in more money than most of the jobs I was ever able to land with my degree. There are a number of reasons why I am behind the wheel of a truck that I wont go into, but it is an honest living, and it allows me to see the real world in a way that many don't seem to pick up on.

As for you Mr. Dunnell, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me. Your dogmatic support of all things socialist has been patently clear for ages, and I didn't misunderstand you at all. You stated that you would love to tell me when I could fly, what car to buy, whether I should take the car and a lot of other restrictions on my freedom for the "Greater good". IT is however patently obvious that people who think as you do never once ask the question whether the rights of the individual are being unfairly restricted in this search for the greater good. The needs of many should be weighed off vs the rights of the individual, while in your world, the needs of the many are the only needs that are required.

Kyoto, and the theories of global warming have been hi-jacked by the political movement of mostly left wing/socialistic parties. The Green Party in most countries has also run with the agenda, and most Green's are of the left wing persuasion. Now this wouldn't be so bad if the hard science backed up what they were saying, but I have read and heard so much about this that doesn't add up, that I remain unconvinced.

Understand that I am a passionate defender of human rights, and a passionate believer in the tennants of personal responsbility and freedom. I also believe in personal conseravative tendencies in that I don't waste resources, I live within my means and I take a hard look at anyone telling me that they know better than I on how I should live my life. It is this theory that you would know best for me that offends my sensiblities so greatly Dunnell. You may be happy to be disagree with me, and that is your right.

Just I am willing to see this movement for what it is. Yet another effort on the parties of the worlds democratic left to give resources and control away for the premise that we are all doomed if we don't follow your great advice. Poppy cock, we could eliminate 5 billion people from this rock tomorrow, and global warming would still happen, even if your theories of greenhouse gas emissions from mankind is the problem. THat isn't proven 100% in my mind and I am not alone. So don't tell me you know what is best for the world. It is the same woolly thinking that proclaimed in the 70's that the world was heading to a starvation crisis for lack of food, that a new ice age was upon us, and that we would all be fried by the ozone layer being completely wiped out. Well, last time I looked, the standard of living was greater in more nations now than it was 30 years ago, the world still has enough food to feed everyone if politics and transportation issues were not getting in the way, and I haven't been fried on a cloudy day from a lack of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Also, that ice age is now global warming. Forgive me, but if the fanatical bleatings of the left were so wrong on those other issues, they can be wrong now on global warming.

Gannex is dead on the money. It would be FAR wiser to spend money on research on things we can do to offset the effects of global warming and it would be wiser to take the political meddlers out of the process of figuring out what is going on. Alas, that wouldn't give a socialist another lever of control over the rights of the individual for the "Greater good" would it? Cant have hard science undisturbed by political meddling can we?

[BDunnell]

As for you Mr. Dunnell, I wouldn't expect you to agree with me. Your dogmatic support of all things socialist has been patently clear for ages, and I didn't misunderstand you at all.

I am NOT a socialist. Please don't presume to tell me what my political views are. You clearly have no idea.


You stated that you would love to tell me when I could fly, what car to buy, whether I should take the car and a lot of other restrictions on my freedom for the "Greater good". IT is however patently obvious that people who think as you do never once ask the question whether the rights of the individual are being unfairly restricted in this search for the greater good. The needs of many should be weighed off vs the rights of the individual, while in your world, the needs of the many are the only needs that are required.

Please tell me where I said that in such terms. Please also tell me what is wrong with saving energy, and the idea that roads and air travel will be unable to continue their exponential expansion in the years ahead? Even if global warming and climate change didn't exist, it is a very good idea to save energy, and the growth in air and road travel will be impossible to sustain for purely practical reasons such as the space available for them. It therefore strikes me as sensible to acknowledge this now.


Kyoto, and the theories of global warming have been hi-jacked by the political movement of mostly left wing/socialistic parties. The Green Party in most countries has also run with the agenda, and most Green's are of the left wing persuasion. Now this wouldn't be so bad if the hard science backed up what they were saying, but I have read and heard so much about this that doesn't add up, that I remain unconvinced.

I am of the opposite view. In addition, you obviously have your head in the sand, because more and more politicians of parties other than those that are vaguely on the left are now coming round to a similar way of thinking.


Understand that I am a passionate defender of human rights, and a passionate believer in the tennants of personal responsbility and freedom. I also believe in personal conseravative tendencies in that I don't waste resources, I live within my means and I take a hard look at anyone telling me that they know better than I on how I should live my life. It is this theory that you would know best for me that offends my sensiblities so greatly Dunnell. You may be happy to be disagree with me, and that is your right.

I have never said that I know best for you. I do believe that there are people who know better than you about this subject, and therefore I have chosen to go along with their opinions on it rather than yours.

In addition, people on the right such as yourself don't have the monopoly that you seem to think you have on believing in personal responsibility and freedom.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dunnell, if you are not a socialist, you are in denial. You stated in post #41 this:

"I take your point, but many of the sort of measures that are being suggested as ways of curbing global warming would be perfectly sensible even if global warming didn't exist. Wasting energy in the home is unnecessary, not least for financial reasons; the growth of air travel cannot continue unchecked, because it will be physically impossible to handle ever-growing amounts of air traffic and airports can't go on expanding for ever; much the same goes for road traffic (do we actually want our cities to be clogged up with cars making unnecessary journeys?); and the use of more efficient, sustainable energy sources is beneficial in many ways. But say that these are all necessary to combat global warming, and suddenly they become pointless."

Now on some levels you are correct. We cannot fill the sky full of airplanes and do we want our cities clogged with cars? No, but that is a reality of modern life. You would mean to tell me that you wouldn't put restrictions on car travel on cities? London is doing it now by financially punishing those who choose to drive into downtown London. Would you tell me when I could fly because there are too many planes? Who is to judge how many planes there are? You? Your chosen representative?

Listen, if you are not a socialist, I apologize, but you say a lot of things on here that say to me that you are in a socialist in denial at times. You have stated on many other posts your distate for anything of the right of center, and your statement saying being on the right doesn't give us a monopoly on personal responsibility and freedom, yet it is the parties that are on the left that often are the ones doing just that. If you take half of my money in taxes, you are taking away my freedom to spend the money I earn. If you restrict where I drive my car, you are restricting my freedom of movement. IF you restrict when and where I fly, again, you are restricting my freedom. I don't have a monopoly on freedom and personal responsbility but I can tell you I don't need to be a rocket scientest to figure out you would sacrifice my freedom's for some fuzzy notions of global responsbility or the greater good of society.

What you have to understand about my arguments against this manic drive to go "green" and restrict greenhouse gases is that the science is NOT proven, that many of the same people pushing this agenda are the same people who also the same people telling us about other enviromental issues that have NOT come to pass in the manner they stated either. We have a political effort by certain politicians looking for a legacy to enforce a poorly thought out treaty that may not knock down one ounce the amount of Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. You choose to believe that, I do not.

You choose to believe a lot of things I do not. We agree to disagree, but the one thing you better figure out is I wont tell you how to live your life, but I am not 100% that the politicians you would support would not tell me how to live MINE.

You choose to believe that global warming is a certainty and that is caused by man made releases of Carbon. I choose to believe that global warming seems to be occuring, but the science behind the theories saying Man is the problem is NOT proven. I can tout a few prominent climatologists that refute what you believe, and you would find people you would say have more releveance. The fact that both sets of "experts" can disagree says that I am unwilling to jump on the bandwagon that is driving down the Greenhouse Gas hill. Sorry, I don't believe in kneejerk reactions when it could cripple my economic future for something we may not be able to stop in the first place. Since you do believe in this, I again say, well, good luck with that, but that is your belief, and that is all it is.

I may not be right about a lot of things, but on this I am sure. I should determine how I live and what I can afford as long as it falls within a moral struture and the mores of societal law. I conserve because it makes financial sense to me but I will be damned if I will allow you or any one else to dictate what I am doing in my life whether it is driving my car or flying away on a holiday should be dictated to based on what is good for the enviroment.

People should conserve the enviroment and not waste resources. That is a sound idea, but a waste of resources such as giving money to 129 nations that are "lesser developed" under Kyoto to assuage libreal guilt about the successful economic culture of the west is the most stupid idea going. A nation such as Canada with a large oil exporting industrial complex in the Athabasca tar sands is responsible for all the carbon, even if it is oil that is burned in China or the US. Canada is also a nation that is so large that to reduce transport carbon emissions would be difficult. Yet, we are held to these standards while the Russians who had their government basically collapse the economy would get money based on the premise of a lot less greenhouse gas emissions. What is more, under Kyoto, Russian oil and gas exports are NOT carbon emissions they would be responsible for? So let me get this straight, my country is to tie its arms behind its back and pay to have the privledge of selling oil and gas, while the Russians GET Money from Canada? Anyone who believes is this insanity would have to be a socialist.

This is not envriomental policy, it is insanity based on a premise that the world needs to reduce greenhouse gases to stop global warming. It is however just a cash grab by the lesser nations economically from the richer ones. It is no wonder AL Gore couldn't sell this one to Congress and his own President. Americans know when they are going to get screwed...and the Aussies figured out the same. If you are going to do something to stop greenhouse gas emissions growth, spend money on technology to replace the carbon based economy we have now. Nuclear, wind, solar, energy cells and hydrogen research would be a far better option, but instead we have bureaucratic fools trying to tell the world that Kyoto is the answer. Kyoto is a joke....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh one more thing. Not just the left wing politicians are buying into this theory of global warming. The Conservative Party of Canada is now on the green bandwagon because they see the polls saying Canadians want something done on Green house gas emissions. That said, they are chasing votes, not purusing policy based on scientific principles. The Libreal leader in Canada, Stephane Dion has dog named Kyoto and was the enviroment minister when Canada agreed to Kyoto. He is a intellectual professor from Montreal who has bought this whole thing hook line and sinker yet was part of a government that did NOTHING to actually reduce greenhouse gases in 10 years of talk. If this was the world's crisis that Stephane Dion and others would tell me this is, they would have done something more than talk about the problem.

Again, if the science is correct, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 100% in Canada wouldn't mean squat to the world's enviroment if the Chinese go on in the manner they are. So Canada did nothing because in the hearts and minds of Kyoto supporters at least in this nation, they likely know they are chasing the unachievable. Of course, talking like you care means you care, and don't look too close for results. Results are HARD to achieve and it would mean actually solving a problem. Politicians don't like hard solutions and long term problems because it wont get them re-elected, talking about it will. That is why I take what politicians say about this with a grain of salt. It is posturing for votes, by both parties onthe left who have always bought into this crap to get more control over society, and right wing converts who think they are getting votes from soft middle and moderate voters.

You see nothing wrong with Kyoto and the drive to stop greenhouse gases, and neither do a few politicians in my nation and yours, but they are playing politics with an unproven scientific THEORY. Not fact. They are making policy that is going to put people out of work and spend money to help other nations who really have no right to the money. Now, if it saved the world's climate from any further change, it could almost be justified, but I highly doubt that would be proven.

Political parties of all stripes are jumping on this because the MSM and chattering classes are demanding change...but that still doesn't make it right.

You want to improve this world, defend human rights, allow the economic levers of the world to be not be over regulated, and get the hell out of trying to use political goals to interfere with science. Spend money on achievable goals, not pie in the sky schemes......

Again, if you are not a socialist, you believe in their theories because this stuff is all pure socialism, in that take from the rich, give to the poor without anyone asking the question is it right?

[luvracin]

I haven't been fried on a cloudy day from a lack of ozone in the upper atmosphere.

I have.

I have been sunburnt in Australia on a 20degC overcast day. On a clear 20degC sunny day in Australia I can literally feel the skin burning.

On a 30degC clear sunny day in Michigan, and even further south in the USA I can go all day without sunscreen and not get sunburnt - and thats AFTER a Michigan winter.

The "Alleged" hole in the Ozone layer "Allegedly" resides over Australia.

You may not believe it. I do.

[jim mcglinchey]

in that take from the rich, give to the poor without anyone asking the question is it right?[/QUOTE]


Sounds good to me!

[tinchote]

[quote="luvracin"]I have.

I have been sunburnt in Australia on a 20degC overcast day. On a clear 20degC sunny day in Australia I can literally feel the skin burning.

QUOTE]

And I take it there was no sunburn on Aus a few decades ago?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have.

I have been sunburnt in Australia on a 20degC overcast day. On a clear 20degC sunny day in Australia I can literally feel the skin burning.

On a 30degC clear sunny day in Michigan, and even further south in the USA I can go all day without sunscreen and not get sunburnt - and thats AFTER a Michigan winter.

The "Alleged" hole in the Ozone layer "Allegedly" resides over Australia.

You may not believe it. I do.

Oh god, where do I start? First off, anchedotal evidence is fine, but I bet you could talk to 100 people in OZ who never get a sunburn. Is there ozone depletion? Yes, but the scare mongering 8 years ago we would have no protection at all by now. The truth is, it isn't that simple or cut and dried. I haven't gotten a sunburn on a cloudy day here, but I might get one in Australia because I would be dealing with a sun that is much higher in the sky and the UV rays would penetrate a lot less atmosphere. It could have no thing to do with ozone. Your statement is just as facetious as saying because Ontario just had a month where the average temp was -9 C that there is no global warming because December was about 5 C. It got colder, ergo no global warming. Nonsense.

What needs to be pounded into people's minds is that hard science to prove or disprove the effects of global warming has NOT been proven to any measure of satisfaction for an absolute majority of the earth's experts on Climatology. We all know that the climate of the earth appears to be getting warmer. Iam not some dinosaur who thinks the whole idea is crap understand, but I also know that there is a LOT of reputable scientests who state empircally that the cause of the warming trend may have little or nothing to do with man's use of hydrocarbons. The fact that people like Al Gore and some of the scientests around this argument go absolutely snaky if you say that mankind may NOT be the cause of global warming says to me that the science is not proven. I say this because if it were an "Inconvenient Truth", then you wouldn't have such controversay. Some scientific facts such as Newton's Laws of Physics, Bohr's laws in Chemstry and the theories of Einstein are hard and fast solid laws that modern science has used over and over again and the scientific method has backed up.

Greenhouse gas theory is a theory and not one that is solidly backed up by enough data to be conclusive. IF it was, it would not have been just popping up on the radar screen of the likes of Al Gore in 1997, it would have been presupposed back in the 70's. Oh wait a minute, it was, and the scientific community was predicting that ice age we were going to see in this millenium.

Spending money on theories that are unproven is a sad way to make public policy UNLESS you have another motive. I have told you guys in those posts that the motive is using the enviroment to get votes and get control over more aspects of our free society. It is liberalism, socialism and activism in a nice little ball. We talk about how we want to save the planet, use libreal guilt over our prosperity in the west to guilt people into believing they are doing something wrong by living in some of the best societies in the world, then tax them, tell them how to live their lives after a fashion, and turn around and give the money to less well run or poorer economic nations to pollute and build up THEIR infrastructure.

Get this into your heads people, global warming may be something we may have to deal with, but giving money to Russia, China, India and the nations of the the developing world to build up THEIR industry to compete with ours that was have handcuffed with high taxes and restrictions on their energy use is a suicidal waste of money, time and JOBS.

You want to stop global warming? Eliminate 4 billion people from the world and then maybe you might slow it down. IF Mankind's use of fossil fuels IS the culprit, nothing we can do now will change things.....we would have had to start using less fossil fuels 100 years ago.....

[Roamy]

right lets nuke and cool down the planet - its for your own good

[BDunnell]

Dunnell, if you are not a socialist, you are in denial. You stated in post #41 this:

"I take your point, but many of the sort of measures that are being suggested as ways of curbing global warming would be perfectly sensible even if global warming didn't exist. Wasting energy in the home is unnecessary, not least for financial reasons; the growth of air travel cannot continue unchecked, because it will be physically impossible to handle ever-growing amounts of air traffic and airports can't go on expanding for ever; much the same goes for road traffic (do we actually want our cities to be clogged up with cars making unnecessary journeys?); and the use of more efficient, sustainable energy sources is beneficial in many ways. But say that these are all necessary to combat global warming, and suddenly they become pointless."

Now on some levels you are correct. We cannot fill the sky full of airplanes and do we want our cities clogged with cars? No, but that is a reality of modern life. You would mean to tell me that you wouldn't put restrictions on car travel on cities? London is doing it now by financially punishing those who choose to drive into downtown London. Would you tell me when I could fly because there are too many planes? Who is to judge how many planes there are? You? Your chosen representative?

No, but those charged with ensuring the safety of our skies and airports can judge that, and there will come a time when a limit is reached. Airport expansion cannot continue at its current rate for perfectly practical reasons of space. The same goes for road congestion. As I said, even without global warming, this would be the case. Of course these are realities of modern life, but it is impossible to allow the growth of these two forms of transport to go on unchecked. I fail to see why this must always be tied up with the debate about global warming (although there are very good reasons for doing so which you seek to deny). This has nothing to do with telling you or others how to live your life.

[BDunnell]

Spending money on theories that are unproven is a sad way to make public policy UNLESS you have another motive. I have told you guys in those posts that the motive is using the enviroment to get votes and get control over more aspects of our free society. It is liberalism, socialism and activism in a nice little ball. We talk about how we want to save the planet, use libreal guilt over our prosperity in the west to guilt people into believing they are doing something wrong by living in some of the best societies in the world, then tax them, tell them how to live their lives after a fashion, and turn around and give the money to less well run or poorer economic nations to pollute and build up THEIR infrastructure.

I am always wary of conspiracy theorists, and this post proves why. Do you have any hard, factual evidence for your claims, or is it just your view based on your political standpoint? Those of us who are not scientists but do believe in taking measures to curb global warming and help the environment, and who get shouted down in rather patronising fashion by the likes of you, do at least base our opinions on what we have heard from many people who are experts in the field. You may say that many climatologists are unconvinced, but I have read and heard many others stating the opposing view.

[W8&C]

...What needs to be pounded into people's minds is that hard science to prove or disprove the effects of global warming has NOT been proven to any measure of satisfaction for an absolute majority of the earth's experts on Climatology. We all know that the climate of the earth appears to be getting warmer. Iam not some dinosaur who thinks the whole idea is crap understand, but I also know that there is a LOT of reputable scientests who state empircally that the cause of the warming trend may have little or nothing to do with man's use of hydrocarbons. The fact that people like Al Gore and some of the scientests around this argument go absolutely snaky if you say that mankind may NOT be the cause of global warming says to me that the science is not proven.
The problem is once you get that prove the damage is already - and irreversibly - done. Imagine the baseplate of your home gets more and more cracks but no one can tell you the reason for. Would you then calmly wait for the final prove what exactly causes that issue or would you start to fix the cracks, to refurbish the baseplate and to do everything imaginable to avoid further damage?

[luvracin]

Spending money on theories that are unproven is a sad way to make public policy UNLESS you have another motive.

You know... You're right.

Surveys and statistics can and will be manipulated in order to provide the result that the people who fund it see as favourable.

Theories will be promoted that reinforce people's agendas.

Just as discrediting those theories will serve other peoples agendas....

What was it you do for a living again Mark? .... oh thats right, you drive a truck across the continent.

So you are intimitely dependant on the continued use of fossil fuels. Any suggestion that your chosen source of income is a threat to the planet is morally offensive to you, and any potential threat to your ability to put food on the table due to increased taxes on said fuel or whatever other measures the ******* politicians come up with is also something you are naturally(and understandably) going to be against.

So you are right. Everyone has an agenda - INCLUDING you. Your arguments against the global warming theories are as tainted as the arguments supporting the global warming theories.

I work in the auto industry as a development engineer on fuel systems. I have an agenda too. My agenda is also to make sure I still have a job. So therefore I am in favour of continuing to improve fuel efficiency, because thats what I do - it's what puts food on MY table. If to do that the government needs to mandate reductions and blame global warming.....fine.

[Alexamateo]

Since the scientists say that global warming will continue even if we never emit any more CO2 from this day foward, We must adapt, so let's keep on keepin' on. :D :D :D

[Gannex]

What needs to be pounded into people's minds is that hard science to prove or disprove the effects of global warming has NOT been proven to any measure of satisfaction for an absolute majority of the earth's experts on Climatology.....
I think you are wrong about that, Mark. I am no expert on climatology, far from it, but my impression from what I have read is that the scientists have, in the last few years, reached an overwhelming consensus that the planet is heating up quickly and that the main cause of the very fast heating of the planet is the carbon emissions into the atmosphere that we humans have been putting out since the beginning of industrialisation. This is not a thesis that every climatologist agrees on, obviously, but it is a thesis which has now gathered such widespread support among the scientific community that most former sceptics have been won over and it has become the conventional wisdom.

Having agreed with BDunnell, rather than you, Mark, on that question, I totally agree with you, and not him, as to the proper response to global warming; the proper response is NOT to legislate lower emissions, but to prepare for a continually heating planet.

One more thing: Al Gore is great! (Even though I disagree with him on how to respond to climate change.)

[BDunnell]

Having agreed with BDunnell, rather than you, Mark, on that question, I totally agree with you, and not him, as to the proper response to global warming; the proper response is NOT to legislate lower emissions, but to prepare for a continually heating planet.

I understand where you are coming from on this, of course, but can you tell me why it is wrong to push for lower carbon emissions, even if it has little overall effect? Surely being more energy-efficient is always a good thing, whatever the circumstances?

[Gannex]

I understand where you are coming from on this, of course, but can you tell me why it is wrong to push for lower carbon emissions, even if it has little overall effect? Surely being more energy-efficient is always a good thing, whatever the circumstances?
The danger in pressing for lower carbon emissions is that it diverts attention and political pressure away from the much more important and useful task of creating conditions which will minimise the death and destruction that planetary overheating will inevitably leave in its wake. That is the job which, in my view, we should be concentrating on, but we are ignoring it, and will continue to ignore it if we devote all our energies and our political capital to reducing emissions, a fundamentally useless exercise.

[BDunnell]

The danger in pressing for lower carbon emissions is that it diverts attention and political pressure away from the much more important and useful task of creating conditions which will minimise the death and destruction that planetary overheating will inevitably leave in its wake. That is the job which, in my view, we should be concentrating on, but we are ignoring it, and will continue to ignore it if we devote all our energies and our political capital to reducing emissions, a fundamentally useless exercise.

It is possible for governments to do two things at once, and it is possible to focus on both these things. Reducing emissions is a sensible thing to do no matter what its effect on global warming is.

[Gannex]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, BDunnell. I do not believe you can come to the public again and again with requests to sacrifice for the planet; at some point the public says "I've already done my bit," so you have to, as a government, choose your campaigns carefully, not cry wolf, never say something is vital if indeed it isn't, and preserve your badgering, bullying, and legislation for those activities where you simply have to have the public's cooperation. In the case of global warming, we must all work together as a species to make sure that sustainable habitable regions are created in the extreme north and south, and we have to make sure that food supplies are adequate. This will involve tremendous sacrifice to notions of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to spend their gross domestic product on themselves alone. It will require international thinking, action and sacrifice, and that attitude will be notably absent if it is demanded AFTER thirty or forty years of sacrifice at the altar of emissions reductions. Weariness and cynicism will have set in.

That's why I say we should change our approach now. If we let the emissions fad take its course, it will sap the will of the people to tackle the problem in the future. It's called preserving political capital, and I think the need for that has never been greater than today, in this context, where we are facing a likely global catastrophe.

[BDunnell]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, BDunnell. I do not believe you can come to the public again and again with requests to sacrifice for the planet; at some point the public says "I've already done my bit," so you have to, as a government, choose your campaigns carefully, not cry wolf, never say something is vital if indeed it isn't, and preserve your badgering, bullying, and legislation for those activities where you simply have to have the public's cooperation. In the case of global warming, we must all work together as a species to make sure that sustainable habitable regions are created in the extreme north and south, and we have to make sure that food supplies are adequate. This will involve tremendous sacrifice to notions of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to spend their gross domestic product on themselves alone. It will require international thinking, action and sacrifice, and that attitude will be notably absent if it is demanded AFTER thirty or forty years of sacrifice at the altar of emissions reductions. Weariness and cynicism will have set in.

That's why I say we should change our approach now. If we let the emissions fad take its course, it will sap the will of the people to tackle the problem in the future. It's called preserving political capital, and I think the need for that has never been greater than today, in this context, where we are facing a likely global catastrophe.

Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree. I fundamentally believe that your approach is wrong, and that there is no argument for doing nothing, largely because of many practical issues. How on earth is air travel supposed to keep on expanding at its current rate? The answer is that it can't, global warming or not. The same goes for vehicle traffic.

[Captain VXR]

In a letter to Auto Express last wednesday, a very interesting comment says that global warming is not completely proven and we are at more risk of an ice age than global warming and also states that there is evidence that global warming stopped 10 years ago. Remember all the greens saying aircraft and cars made the ozone layer hole? That is now proven to be from aerosol can gases that are now banned from aerosols. My theory is that what we have now is a backlog of the 1950's terrible pollution. Anyone who remembers then will agree that air quality was much worse then and hardly anyone had cars aswell.

[Gannex]

Indeed, we will have to agree to disagree. I fundamentally believe that your approach is wrong, and that there is no argument for doing nothing, largely because of many practical issues. How on earth is air travel supposed to keep on expanding at its current rate? The answer is that it can't, global warming or not. The same goes for vehicle traffic.
The expansion of airline travel and automobile use will take care of itself, without any intervention by government. As cheap fossil fuel supplies get used up, leaving only the deepest most inaccessible wells as sources, petrol prices will skyrocket. That will stop people travelling by air much more effectively than any whining by the Department of Transportation. Likewise, when car traffic starts to "flow" at about three miles per hour all over the country, like it does today in, say, Lagos, Nigeria, that will tempt people out of their cars far more effectively than an increase in the road use tax. As you say, there is no way travel can continue to expand at its current rate for ever, because there simply are not enough resources for that to happen.

My point is, why does the government have to artificially ration the travel? It will ration itself. The only effect government rationing will have is, as in London, to make travel available only to the rich. I'm against that. I say let everyone travel, rich or poor, until the gas supplies run out, and the only way to transport yourself is by using hugely expensive solar-powered or nuclear-powered vehicles, or using petrol at several hundred dollars per gallon. Those days will come, whatever government does. We don't need a hectoring group of politicians in London telling us to travel less. We'll have no choice but to travel less.

Similarly emissions. We put them out at the moment like there's no tomorrow, but that is going to stop as well. Emitting carbon dioxide is a byproduct of energy usage. When energy becomes prohibitively expensive, the carbon emissions will go down. No one will buy triple shrink-wrapped toothbrushes when the packaging costs rise to a twenty-spot per brush. You'll see green packaging, and low-emissions behaviour take effect throughout the economy perfectly naturally as fuel shortages bite, and prices start to soar. This is a fuel crisis that is coming, whether we like it or not, and there is no reason to pester people to economise today; they'll certainly economise tomorrow, regardless, because there will be no choice.

[luvracin]

I say let everyone travel, rich or poor, until the gas supplies run out, and the only way to transport yourself is by using hugely expensive solar-powered or nuclear-powered vehicles, or using petrol at several hundred dollars per gallon. Those days will come.....

Hmm... When you say this all I can think of is scenes from Mad Max....

[Captain VXR]

The expansion of airline travel and automobile use will take care of itself, without any intervention by government. As cheap fossil fuel supplies get used up, leaving only the deepest most inaccessible wells as sources, petrol prices will skyrocket. That will stop people travelling by air much more effectively than any whining by the Department of Transportation. Likewise, when car traffic starts to "flow" at about three miles per hour all over the country, like it does today in, say, Lagos, Nigeria, that will tempt people out of their cars far more effectively than an increase in the road use tax. As you say, there is no way travel can continue to expand at its current rate for ever, because there simply are not enough resources for that to happen.

My point is, why does the government have to artificially ration the travel? It will ration itself. The only effect government rationing will have is, as in London, to make travel available only to the rich. I'm against that. I say let everyone travel, rich or poor, until the gas supplies run out, and the only way to transport yourself is by using hugely expensive solar-powered or nuclear-powered vehicles, or using petrol at several hundred dollars per gallon. Those days will come, whatever government does. We don't need a hectoring group of politicians in London telling us to travel less. We'll have no choice but to travel less.

Similarly emissions. We put them out at the moment like there's no tomorrow, but that is going to stop as well. Emitting carbon dioxide is a byproduct of energy usage. When energy becomes prohibitively expensive, the carbon emissions will go down. No one will buy triple shrink-wrapped toothbrushes when the packaging costs rise to a twenty-spot per brush. You'll see green packaging, and low-emissions behaviour take effect throughout the economy perfectly naturally as fuel shortages bite, and prices start to soar. This is a fuel crisis that is coming, whether we like it or not, and there is no reason to pester people to economise today; they'll certainly economise tomorrow, regardless, because there will be no choice.

How about bioethanol and biodiesel?

[Gannex]

Biofuels gobble up countryside. You need so much land to produce biofuels that mass production of them would lead to steep price rises in agricultural land. Food shortages, destruction of the countryside and loss of forestation are the price of biofuels. Not a good option. I say we have to go wholeheartedly for nuclear power generation all over the world. True environmentalists should be pro-nuclear.

[LotusElise]

I agree with you about nuclear power. Although the waste it produces may be hazardous, it is low in quantity compared to other methods. There are also ways of dealing with it.
Nuclear accidents are very rare indeed and should become even scarcer with improved technology.

[BDunnell]

So do I. I can understand why there are concerns, but given the lack of major nuclear power-related incidents in the West over a long period of time, I think they are largely unfounded. If safe nuclear energy can be combined with the use of small-scale alternative energy projects, so much the better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok, Back from a week on the road, so here I go.

First off, Did a little surfing and listening to the world of wack jobs on the radio from the right and left and here is something to ponder:

A MAJORITY of scientests from the Geophysical society of the US, and leading climatologists in this group do NOT back the theory of Carbon based global heating. Most people can agree there is some change, but as it has been said, The world was a LOT warmer 1000 years ago, and we had no industry then, so it would be very wise to wonder what caused it then. It certainly was NOT heavy industry or CO2 releases. Heck, Mars apparently is losing its icecaps due to a global warming there. You going to tell me that is our fault too?

I want real science to say what is going on, and that isn't happening. Instead we have hysteria from a guy who got an OSCAR for a film where he warns us to change our ways, while he owns get this: 4 large houses, each of which can go through as much power in one month as my house will in a year. He flies on private jets, while telling me to conserve energy for the planet. He pays a "Carbon" offset to a company that he owns a piece of that supposively is going to take this money and "offset" his "Carbon footprint".

Here is a clue AL, fly Coach, live in a modest house, and shut up.
You Green Lefties out there, you want have a flag bearer for living within her "Carbon Footprint?" Daryl Hannah lives in a 2 bedroom house, never flies, and drives a diesel powered car running on waste french fry oil. I have a lot more time for people who want to save the planet that start by showing us how, rather than a propaganda campaign designed to get his lard ass elected.

[Hazell B]

I live in a two bedroomed house, never fly (no passport for starters!) and drive a diesel (on diesel, but with modifications to make it greener) and I grow trees for a living - yet there's still morons who bleat on about doing something and then laugh at me for my ways.

Does that mean I'll never be President? :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hazell, I would vote for ya, but only American born citizens can run for US president, and the last time I looked, you had the good sense to be born in the UK and be a royal subject of HM the Queen.

That said, your green credentials are a lot better than most of those who would tell us how to live. I think that is why I get so damned testy about this, the people ramming this crap down my throat are often hypocrites of the first order, but some normally smart people like Gannex keep thinking Al Gore is alright......

[Gannex]

. . .some normally smart people like Gannex keep thinking Al Gore is alright......
Better than alright, Mark. Gore is great! (But I don't hold it against you that you don't see it. Millions don't.)

PS Welcome back from the week's travels!

[janneppi]

A MAJORITY of scientests from the Geophysical society of the US, and leading climatologists in this group do NOT back the theory of Carbon based global heating.
Link Please! :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

Janeppi, I owe you and the rest of the guys an apology. The link I just spent an hour and a half digging for isn't coming because it seems I was told something that wasn't true (the AGU's stance on global warming and what causes it). That said, being on the road and listening to everything from NPR and Air America to the right wing cranks on American AM radio, I listened to this debate endlessly, and I will still maintain while there is global warming, I am highly skeptical of the motives of those who would advocate massive changes in our lifestyle, and I will very skeptical to the whole idea of carbon offsets, and the blathering of people such as Al Gore.

I will however do some digging for links of reputable scientests who are not caught up in the politcal movement that is hijacking science for their own purposes.

[Alexamateo]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, BDunnell. I do not believe you can come to the public again and again with requests to sacrifice for the planet; at some point the public says "I've already done my bit," so you have to, as a government, choose your campaigns carefully, not cry wolf, never say something is vital if indeed it isn't, and preserve your badgering, bullying, and legislation for those activities where you simply have to have the public's cooperation. In the case of global warming, we must all work together as a species to make sure that sustainable habitable regions are created in the extreme north and south, and we have to make sure that food supplies are adequate. This will involve tremendous sacrifice to notions of national sovereignty, and the right of nations to spend their gross domestic product on themselves alone. It will require international thinking, action and sacrifice, and that attitude will be notably absent if it is demanded AFTER thirty or forty years of sacrifice at the altar of emissions reductions. Weariness and cynicism will have set in.

That's why I say we should change our approach now. If we let the emissions fad take its course, it will sap the will of the people to tackle the problem in the future. It's called preserving political capital, and I think the need for that has never been greater than today, in this context, where we are facing a likely global catastrophe.

Gannex mentions preserving political capital. To an extent, I wonder if they have already wasted it. I believe that global warming is real, but I am not convinced that the dire consequences are going to come to pass. Like the boy who cried wolf, I have heard so much doom and gloom that in the end has not come to pass. (i. e. we should have run out of oil years ago, we should not be able to feed ourselves/massive starvation, the trans-Alaska pipeline will devestate animal populations etc etc.) On global warming, I am sure there is some unconsidered variable that will change the cycle in some way and lead us into the next ice age or whatever. One thing is certain, no matter how much we in the west do, we are not going to stop China and India. They want their cars, computers and cappuchino, and they want them now, just like the rest of us. If it is a problem, Resources should be spent, on removal after CO2 is emitted, rather than before, because it's going to happen whether we like it or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What really is irritating is we could eliminate all CO2 emissions tomorrow, and it may or may not change a thing. We have a global community that is obsessed with this Kyoto treaty going through, and as I have pointed out that is a very flawed document. Many nations want nothing to do with it, and for good reason. It would cripple the economies of any nation with a vibrant economy to knock their emissions back to 1990 levels. What is needed is the following:

Take the politicians to the woodshed and tell them to not sign any more treaties until the world of science can agree on what is happening and what are the best ways of managing the change. One thing I will tell you is that there are so many things that drive our climate, it is prepostrous to just claim man is the problem. Man is one factor of a thousand, and the same geniuses that claim we are the problem now were calling for an Ice age 30 years ago, famines 20 years ago, and more Hurricanes in North America last year.

Another thing that should be done, is what Gannex suggested, take the money and research how we can adapt our buildings, waterfront properties and techonology to deal with this situation, if it is as dire as it the doom and gloom of the Al Gore's of this world say it is, then that is a much better dollar spent.

People misunderstand I think those who refuse to climb on board with the Climate change express. What is boils down to is a lot of people, usually of the conservative bent and libetarian bent are not seeing the proof they need. Are we not concerned with the earth's enviroment? On the contrary, most conservatives are very in tune with the enviroment. Organizations such as Ducks Unlimited are populated mainly with conservatives. We have children and grandchildren and we don't want to hand them a crappy future with a polluted or screwed up enviroment either. What is more, many conservatives come from backgrounds steeped in outdoors based recreation (you don't see libreals out there hunting and fishing do ya?) where conservation is part of the duty to maintain the resource. We are NOT the enemy here. What we are calling for is sanity. As far as I am concerned, most of what has been said and done so far in the name of "saving the planet" has been just another way for the socialist left to try to either kneecap the American economy or gain more control over the economies of many western nations. I listen to Al Gore go on and on in that monotone drone of his, and I know just about anyone with half a brain should be hanging onto their wallets.

Take the politics out of what is going on with our climate, and you will have many receptive ears in the people who are center right to right, but you wont get anywhere while spouting how green you are, hopping on a private plane at every chance and then telling everyone you are buying carbon credits.

What the #$%#% is a Carbon credit really anyhow? Take the money and plant some trees to offset the 3000 lbs of CO2 you just dumped into the upper atmosphere with your private jet? Give me a break. How about just plant more trees anyhow? Encourage treeplanting in the rainforests. Put out technology that will pump CO2 into the substrata of the earth. WE dont' NEED Kyoto as it is. We also cant do anything about that CO2 that is already there and we are not going to tell the Chinese or Indians how to run their economy so why should we just kill our own economies based on this "theory".

As I have said more than once, the science is NOT 100%, and the same people pushing this hard are the same people who told the world we would be overpopulating the earth and going through an ICE age at some point.

Hysteria is no way to make public policy.....

[tinchote]

Even if "the science was 100%" on man causing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, I find it really hard to believe that scientists can predict what effects it will have. As far as I can tell, they cannot really predict what the weather will be a week from now, so I struggle to believe all those predictions about the next decades. And it is not obvious at all - to me at least - why an increase in temperature is necessarily bad; does that mean that a decrease in global temperature would be good? Or that the current global temperature in the world is "perfect"? I don't see why.

People have a really distorted image of scientists and what scientists can tell. And because of that, some theories are taken as fact. After having already "survived" the new ice age, the depletion of oil, the lack of food, the ozone hole, SARS, avian flu, etc., etc., I'm not particularly keen on these "prophecies". And just in case anyone wants to give the "it's scientific fact" or any similarly silly expression, my scientific background is good enough to understand how science works: the only "scientific facts" that exist are the collected data (which is itself subject to error, but that's another story); all the rest (including any interpretation of the data) are scientific theories, not facts. And theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.

[tstran17_88]

What the #$%#% is a Carbon credit really anyhow? Take the money and plant some trees to offset the 3000 lbs of CO2 you just dumped into the upper atmosphere with your private jet? Give me a break. In Gore's case, he's just buying into a company he already owns!

I just love the fact that a guy that consumes three times as much natural gas and electricity in a month than the average American consumes in a year has the jewels to tell us that we need to reduce the size of our carbon foot print before it's too late.

[luvracin]

Carbon Credit - an offer.

I will stop talking about global warming, and therefore reduce my greenhouse gas emissions if someone is willing to pay me. :p :

[Gannex]

What it boils down to is a lot of [us] are not seeing the proof they need.....

And just in case anyone wants to give the "it's scientific fact" or any similarly silly expression, my scientific background is good enough to understand how science works: the only "scientific facts" that exist are the collected data (which is itself subject to error, but that's another story); all the rest (including any interpretation of the data) are scientific theories, not facts. And theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.
True, tinchote, but there comes a point in the life of a theory when it has acquired so much weight that the only sensible thing to do is to stop arguing about it and assume it proved. The theory of evolution, I would say, has reached that point. It has never been proven, but only crackpots now doubt the conventional scientific wisdom, in large part because almost all credentialled biologists say the same thing: Darwin got it right.

Almost all credentialled climatologists now say the same thing about man-made global warming; they agree overwhelmingly that it is human activity that has caused most of the upward slope in the temperature charts. The theory of man-made global warming should be considered proved, just like we consider Evolution proved. We should be debating the more important question of what, if anything, we should do about global warming, rather than spending our energies worrying, like Catholics in the confessional, whether or not it's all humanity's fault. It is. Get used to it. Move on.

[tinchote]

True, tinchote, but there comes a point in the life of a theory when it has acquired so much weight that the only sensible thing to do is to stop arguing about it and assume it proved. The theory of evolution, I would say, has reached that point. It has never been proven, but only crackpots now doubt the conventional scientific wisdom, in large part because almost all credentialled biologists say the same thing: Darwin got it right.

Almost all credentialled climatologists now say the same thing about man-made global warming; they agree overwhelmingly that it is human activity that has caused most of the upward slope in the temperature charts. The theory of man-made global warming should be considered proved, just like we consider Evolution proved. We should be debating the more important question of what, if anything, we should do about global warming, rather than spending our energies worrying, like Catholics in the confessional, whether or not it's all humanity's fault. It is. Get used to it. Move on.


Gannex, Newton's physics was considered perfect by the physicists for centuries until they starting finding cracks in it. Theories are just that, theories. Evolution is probably right, but as a scientific theory it is pretty weak: as Popper puts it, a good theory should give you the chance to try and prove it false; you may doubt Einstein, but you measure things in the right experiments and you conclude "wow, the old man new what he was saying". Now, how would you do that with evolution?

As for global warming, it might be the case that the current rise in temperatures is caused by man. But 1000 years ago (800-1300) it was warmer than now, and scientists have no idea why. Then it cooled down (1300-1900) and again they don't know why. As mentioned in that long article that you only skimmed through, during the last 100 years twice the scientists have said global warming was inevitable, and twice they have said that global cooling was inevitable.

Besides the discussion about how warm is warm, I repeat my question: why is it obvious that warmer is worse? Does than mean that cooler is better? Does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I don't think so.

[jim mcglinchey]

Wow, thats a relief. There was a great programme on Channel 4 debunking the whole man made global warming theory. It has nothing to do with fossil fuel CO2, but its entirely down to Sun activity and the problem is much, much less than we have been brain washed into believing.

Now an entire industry has sprung up whose own interest it is to promote the man made global warming idea, and the people who will suffer most are the poor people of the third world who are being told that they cant have oil or coal derived electrical power because of the harm it will do to the climate. Meanwhile they've to cook their meals on dried cow-dung fires.

[Gannex]

Wow, thats a relief. There was a great programme on Channel 4 debunking the whole man made global warming theory. It has nothing to do with fossil fuel CO2, but its entirely down to Sun activity and the problem is much, much less than we have been brain washed into believing.

And you think Channel 4 is concerned only with scientific truth? They are your authority? I would listen to those who have devoted their professional lives to understanding these things, before I would listen to the conclusions of publicity-hungry TV producers.

[jim mcglinchey]

Well, Gannex, if the programme had been written and presented by the Big Broter production team you might have a point, but throughout they referred to and interviewed scientists with all the right stuff. Guys, mostly Professors, who had proven track records in all the right fields. Nor were they in the pay of the oil companies.

If you didn't see the programme, try to get hold of a tape. Its probably the most important programme you'll see all year.

[BDunnell]

I would suggest that these scientists represent a minority of scientific opinion.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm amazed by the theory that C02 increase is caused by Temperature increase. But it makes sense as most C02 is emitted by the oceans as they warm.

And also the fact that average world temps decreased during the post war economic boom when it would be expected that they would grow.

[Captain VXR]

I can normally find fault with what when they support the theory of CO2 = Global warming as they twist facts and/or leave bits out but the Channel 4 program was faultless

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I can normally find fault with what when they support the theory of CO2 = Global warming as they twist facts and/or leave bits out but the Channel 4 program was faultless

Eh :dozey:

[Captain VXR]

Are you thick or am I a crap explainer?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Are you thick or am I a crap explainer?

Re-read your post because to me, it didn't make any sense. :p

[A Scotsman]

OK ladies and gentlemen. Let me explain this all to you. I work in the energy sector and part of my work involves me in looking at issues such as oil supply and liquid fuel supply both from a forecasting and from a "what technology can fix this" standpoint..

A climate “crisis” is on a 50-year horizon, if there is one. But, an energy crisis may be just around the next blind bend, perhaps as close as only five years away. That’s enough to provoke politicians into looking for a big bad climate wolf not, of course, of their own making.

The problem the politicians have is that any admission that the UK has been driven toward energy imports dependence and the high risk of physical shortages through mismanagement and wastage of UK technology talent and industrial capability would not help the Government's standing. Instead it’s much more convenient to blame climate change because that enables Commissar Brown to raise taxes to replace lost oil revenues and pay higher import bills.

It's important therefore to understand that all this sudden action over climate change is a proxy for the realisation that we should have started taking action to solve the energy issue about ten years ago.

So whether climate change/global warming exists or not and what its causes are may or may not be is all academically interesting stuff but actually it's completely and utterly irrelevant compared to the not insignificant point that based on current data it is more than likely that in five to seven years time there could well be a 10 to 15 million barrel/day shortfall in oil supply compared with demand..

[Captain VXR]

Re-read your post because to me, it didn't make any sense. :p
For the simple people:
The theory peddled by govornments and greens has been proven to be a pile o' crap by NASA approved scientists who have proved it to be the Sun's radioactivity that is causing global warming

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote=A Scotsman;. Instead it’s much more convenient to blame climate change because that enables Commissar Brown to raise taxes to replace lost oil revenues and pay higher import bills.

But as well as that, the scare will reduce the countrys dependance on oil because if everyone in the country thinks that they have to use much less fuel or it could be the end of civilisation, then the demand for oil will be much less, and ideally we'll be able to tell OPEC to stick their filthy oil up their collective ass. It couldnt come to that but I can see where Brown might be going with this.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

For the simple people:
The theory peddled by govornments and greens has been proven to be a pile o' crap by NASA approved scientists who have proved it to be the Sun's radioactivity that is causing global warming

Can you dumb it down a little :down:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I can normally find fault with what when they support the theory of CO2 = Global warming as they twist facts and/or leave bits out but the Channel 4 program was faultless

'I can normally find fault with what when they.....'

Who is what?

[Captain VXR]

Greens and Government people and the fooled public

[A Scotsman]

Instead it’s much more convenient to blame climate change because that enables Commissar Brown to raise taxes to replace lost oil revenues and pay higher import bills.

But as well as that, the scare will reduce the countrys dependance on oil because if everyone in the country thinks that they have to use much less fuel or it could be the end of civilisation, then the demand for oil will be much less, and ideally we'll be able to tell OPEC to stick their filthy oil up their collective ass. It couldnt come to that but I can see where Brown might be going with this.

Generous of you to believe that Brown is doing this for our collective good but highly unlikely. If we did reduce our oil consumption then sure as eggs are eggs he will find some other means of squeezing our tax pips.

Anyway, don't worry too much about reducing our consumption of hydrocarbons because the oil price will eventually achieve that. The question is what we can use instead... What can we produce in sufficient volume to replace current liquids by 100%? Well, the answer isn't biofuel but might be hydrogen..

[tinchote]

OK ladies and gentlemen. Let me explain this all to you. I work in the energy sector and part of my work involves me in looking at issues such as oil supply and liquid fuel supply both from a forecasting and from a "what technology can fix this" standpoint..

A climate “crisis” is on a 50-year horizon, if there is one. But, an energy crisis may be just around the next blind bend, perhaps as close as only five years away. That’s enough to provoke politicians into looking for a big bad climate wolf not, of course, of their own making.

The problem the politicians have is that any admission that the UK has been driven toward energy imports dependence and the high risk of physical shortages through mismanagement and wastage of UK technology talent and industrial capability would not help the Government's standing. Instead it’s much more convenient to blame climate change because that enables Commissar Brown to raise taxes to replace lost oil revenues and pay higher import bills.

It's important therefore to understand that all this sudden action over climate change is a proxy for the realisation that we should have started taking action to solve the energy issue about ten years ago.

So whether climate change/global warming exists or not and what its causes are may or may not be is all academically interesting stuff but actually it's completely and utterly irrelevant compared to the not insignificant point that based on current data it is more than likely that in five to seven years time there could well be a 10 to 15 million barrel/day shortfall in oil supply compared with demand..


Nice theory, but a little "Britain-centric", I would say ;)

Canada is an energy exporter, and people (and thus politicians) here are really freaked out with GW. So, it is a little beyond a local conspiracy theory.

What I keep asking (and never get an answer) is, why is warmer that bad? Is cooler better? Are the current temperatures "optimum"?

[Firstgear]

What I keep asking (and never get an answer) is, why is warmer that bad? Is cooler better? Are the current temperatures "optimum"?

Well seeing as you want an answer, I'll give you one. But it's only my thoughts - can't guarantee it's right, so take it or leave it.

I think the temperature now is optimum, simply because that is what our civilization, infrastructure and nature has grown up with and is accustomed to. A sudden shift would most likely devistate many species of animals and vegitation. Warmer temps would result in higher sea levels as the poles melt. This in turn would devistate coastal cities and perhaps entire countries like the Netherlands & Bangladesh. A swing to either warmer or colder may change ocean currents, resulting in changed weather patterns. This could make regions that are now inhabited uninhabitable. Cities may have to be abandoned, and crops could fail.

If this type of change happens slowly over a few hundred (or maybe thousand?) years, humanity and nature might adjust. But sudden changes (10 - 50 yrs) would probably be really tough to adjust to.

A good comparison might be your eyes adjusting to different levels of light. More or less light would be like a warmer or colder planet. Adjust the level of light slowly and your eyes can cope. Turn on bright lights in a dark or dimly lit room and your eyes feel a bit of a shock.

So the optimum temp could be warmer or colder (within reason) than it is now, but the change would have to come very slowly so that all the living things on our planet don't get a nasty shock.

Please don't take me as a GW freak. I'm not sure I believe that man can significantly change the earths temp. But whether WE are changing it or not, I do think a sudden change could be devistating.

[tinchote]

Well seeing as you want an answer, I'll give you one. But it's only my thoughts - can't guarantee it's right, so take it or leave it.

I think the temperature now is optimum, simply because that is what our civilization, infrastructure and nature has grown up with and is accustomed to. A sudden shift would most likely devistate many species of animals and vegitation. Warmer temps would result in higher sea levels as the poles melt. This in turn would devistate coastal cities and perhaps entire countries like the Netherlands & Bangladesh. A swing to either warmer or colder may change ocean currents, resulting in changed weather patterns. This could make regions that are now inhabited uninhabitable. Cities may have to be abandoned, and crops could fail.

If this type of change happens slowly over a few hundred (or maybe thousand?) years, humanity and nature might adjust. But sudden changes (10 - 50 yrs) would probably be really tough to adjust to.

A good comparison might be your eyes adjusting to different levels of light. More or less light would be like a warmer or colder planet. Adjust the level of light slowly and your eyes can cope. Turn on bright lights in a dark or dimly lit room and your eyes feel a bit of a shock.

So the optimum temp could be warmer or colder (within reason) than it is now, but the change would have to come very slowly so that all the living things on our planet don't get a nasty shock.

Please don't take me as a GW freak. I'm not sure I believe that man can significantly change the earths temp. But whether WE are changing it or not, I do think a sudden change could be devistating.

Thanks for answering! That sounds reasonable. But in a sense it only paints half of the picture. It is true that with a sudden (we could discuss the definition of "sudden" ;) ) increase in temperature some species might struggle; but others would equally strive. I still fail to see why that's necessarilly bad. The same happens with civilization. If all the ice melted (and I seriously don't think I'll live to see that), the rise in the oceans would still be gradual, and concrete solutions for each coastal city would probably be found, and at a cheaper cost than redefining the whole industry, energy production and transportation in all of the world, which is basically what GW fanatics propose. On the other hands, many places would probably be better; for example, with a warmer world, less frost would ruin crops (like it happened in California two months ago), so you could imagine that food production would be increased. I know that it is also possible to imagine bad things. But what I try to say is that a change in temperature would be bad to some, and good to some. It's not obvious to me that the overall balance would be negative.

And, I live in a place where the snow doesn't melt for almost 5 months, so I have to admit that I'm not really scared of a rise of a few degrees ;)

[A Scotsman]

Tinchote....... It isn't just a "Britain centric" issue... It applies globally..

We do though have a particular problem here because our Govt and our financial institutions aren't particularly interested in investing in innovation preferring to let others do it so we can buy what we want when we need it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The whole problem with Global Warming is it has turned into a religion of sorts, with Al Gore being the high priest. If you refuse to believe in the theory of "Global Warming as created by man's emission of Carbon Dioxide" then you are hating the climate and in favour of the extinction of various species and the polluting of the earth.

The truth is, there is a lot that has to be proven of why global warming is happening, if it is happening (some wont even buy that it is really is over a long period of time), and WHY it is happening. The global warming fantatics don't want a discussion, they want action, and if it means we all pay through the nose for it, so be it. Well, as long as there people governed by science and not by their junk science, then there will be some dispute.

Also, as Tinchote claims, who says global warming is a)bad? and b)going to happen so fast we cannot make accomodations?

This was the thrust of Gannex's original question was it not? Better to spend money on trying to do something about the effects of global warming then to spend billions, throw people out of work, and still have global warming happen.

This isn't gloomy, this is just be practical. Of course, the fanatics don't want practical, they want change tomorrow. What of course will happen is the ingenuity and resources of countries like the US, Canada, Australia and the countries of the EU will likely come up with solutions to problems that seem insurmountable now as time goes on. Look at the history of the last 150 years. Technology development is driven by market forces and the needs of society. Government programs have very little to do with it. If they did, the USSR would have invented just about anything worth having, and we know they invented NOTHING. Socialist government spending programs rammed down the throat of society have never solved anything, so for those of you out there, just stand back and let science and capitalism take its course. As time goes on, answers will be found. This running around making policy on half the information is a fools game, but as I have said before, I think Al Gore and his ilk are fools....

[A Scotsman]

Well actually Mark some countries are making a lot of progress. Even Norway is building a so called Hydrogen Road rolling out a bunch of hydrogen refuelling stations and building some small all electric cars. The Americans are of course pouring big buckets of cash into clean tech because they want to ensure they dominate the sector.. In fact I even came across a US company recently that's now building hydrogen fuelled static generators using internal combustion engines... The Canadians are heavily into ethanol (along with the USA) but also have the pleasure of owning Ballard which is probably the leader in fuel cell technology..... The Germans and Japanese are also working hard on hydrogen fuelled I/C engined cars (BMW/Mazda for example) and Australia is doing well on solar stuff and fuel cells.. You can add to all this the other Scandinavian and German companies building biomass (mainly timber) fired CHP and power generation technology... This btw is the short list...

So there is a lot going on except of course here in good old Blighty and that's despite Blair and Co driving the political agenda. But that's pretty normal when it comes to new technologies..

[Mark in Oshawa]

Scotsman, I am aware of the research into Hydrogen, and about Ballard. The problem is that to produce enough Hydrogen, you need right now lots of electric power. With brownouts in California and possibly in Ontario every summer, North American electric power supply is limited right now. The problem? No major power facilities are being built and nuclear power is always the solution, but the Green movement over here seems to think we can make it all happen by just conserving the power we make now. Again, my point is being made. Bad decisions being made on half truth's and bad science.

The oil industry isn't out to screw the people, they know that at some point they are out of the game, but they will make their money while they can, while putting their research money into making oil work better, and on their role in alternative fuels.

Hydrogen is obviously the solution, but in a tiny nation such as Norway to put their Hydrogen road is one thing, but as anyone will tell you who has seen your average American interstate, the sheer volume of traffic in North America dictates that massive amounts of research are going to need to be done to produce enough Hydrogen to make the switch. The greenies and tree huggers who have pretty much halted all nuclear development in the last 30 years now are looking pretty foolish, because it with Hydro are about the only two rational solutions we have to getting off the carbon cycle.

This of course, is presuming that Carbon Dioxide IS the reason for this warming cycle. As I have argued before (with limited success) this is not a sure thing, and even if we stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, the process has already been started.

I am optmisitic that solutions can be found, for I have faith in human ingenuity and the ability of the capitalistic society to find solutions to solve problems. The fact the companies make money is the driving force. Ballard and other pioneers have been doing the work all along, just it is a few short sighted fear mongers that don't get that we don't need rhetoric and people buying "carbon credits", we need serious science and we need serious thought on how to solve the problems we face.

Political grandstanding by the green movement, the left and the short sighted right has screwed up the natural progress of man as we find a way away from oil. The fact we have a global warming scare going on right now is just confusing the message, the medium and the role of government in all of this.

The last thing we need is people telling us how to live our lives and that we should reduce our standard of living while the political elites pay their "carbon credits" to fly about the world in their private jets.

[tinchote]

And now, according to this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070310.wclimatereport0310/BNStory/Front/home) article, they are about to unveil an "official" version of the gloomy predictions.

Apparently, an increase in temperature will be terrible for most of the world :erm:

Nature always has ways of balancing itself. But not in this case, it seems. Somehow I struggle to believe this catastrophic prophecies :mark:

[A Scotsman]

Tinchote.. Well do as I do and don't listen to them... Start worrying about where your fuel is coming from and at what price in five years or so.. That tends to focus the mind better !!

[Captain VXR]

Bioethanol :up:

[A Scotsman]

Bioethanol is great stuff... Unfortunately the world is incapable of growing enough of the feed stock that requires and feeding ourselves at the same time.. :-(

[Captain VXR]

How about the 60 million tonnes of wheat surplus to requirements just in the UK alone?

[Captain VXR]

Double post

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In order to reduce fuel emmisions caused by stop/start driving, why not stop building traffic calming measures like speed humps and chicanes?

Also why not tax domestic air-travel to encourage people to go by train?

[tinchote]

Also why not tax domestic air-travel to encourage people to go by train?

That might work in a small place like UK. But in North America it doesn't make any sense. The trip from our city to Toronto is three hours by plane; that changes to way more than 30 hours if you want to do it by train (and - reasonably - nowadays there are no passenger trains doing that trip).
Similar things happen in all of the big countries: Canada, USA, Russia, China, India. Brazil, etc., etc. Even in western Europe, going from one corner to the opposite is a couple hours by plane and a couple days by train.

[A Scotsman]

How about the 60 million tonnes of wheat surplus to requirements just in the UK alone?


The UK only produces a total of about 15m tonnes of wheat....

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Brown, Jon Brow"]In order to reduce fuel emmisions caused by stop/start driving, why not stop building traffic calming measures like speed humps and chicanes?

Thats what I said, amongst other things, when objecting to a load of spreed ramps round our way, but if the emergency services, by themselves, wre not a good enough reason not to install speed humps then the council arent going to listen to the environment argument.

[BrentJackson]

Bioethanol is great stuff... Unfortunately the world is incapable of growing enough of the feed stock that requires and feeding ourselves at the same time.. :-(

Currents ways of making ethanol suck, that's part of it.

Cellulosic ethanol is a better option, and that doesn't require a crapload of energy. It's simple. Organic plant matters combined with enzymes that are apparently found naturally in termite guts. They eat the cellulose and produce sugars from it, and ferment that with yeast and you have ethanol. It's requires about 1/5 the energy to produce of gasoline and about 1/2 that of current ethanol, and can be made from just about anything.

Nuclear energy has become something worse than Satan to the greenies, and that seems without reason. There have been a grand total of four major nuclear accidents in history, and two of them were from plutonium-producing reactors, not power stations. Which leaves just Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. TMI made a mess of its reactor, but hardly any damage to the outside world. Chernobyl was a big mess, though.

One big accident in better than 50 of nuclear energy in dozens of different countries? That's a pretty admirable record. Better still, Canada perfected heavy water reactors decades ago, and ones built by AECL are in operation in India, Romania, Japan and Mexico right now, and heavy water plants also operate in South Korea, France and Germany, and planned are ones in South Africa, Namibia and China. Heavy water reactors are failsafe, as they require their moderator to work correctly, and the moderator is a liquid. Reactor goes into meltdown, it boils off its moderator - starving the reaction of neutrons and killing it right there. Such plants can't have meltdowns, and when even African nations are able to build and maintain nuclear facilities I don't think its such a big issue. Instead of millions of tonnes of CO2, you get a small amount of radioactive waste, much easier to handle.

In Canada, James Bay-style projects in Ontario and the Northwest Territories could provide a LOT of energy to Canada, or maybe for export to the United States which keeps having brownouts. (Much of that of course is that California has a lot of power production capacity off-line - which seems odd.) Ontario has brownouts because four of Pickering's eight reactors are down and two more are out of commission at Bruce Point, and that's combined with the fact that the GTA Area is growing like a weed - over 100,000 new residents a year. But the hydro project in Quebec was very expensive to build and it would be worse now for sure know how much crap the greenies will give to those projects too. It seems they all have the same mantra - conserve, conserve, conserve. Reality would tell them that given a chouice between saving energy and being comfortable with air conditioing or heat, they will take comfortable every time.

[luvracin]

Hydrogen is obviously the solution, but in a tiny nation such as Norway to put their Hydrogen road is one thing, but as anyone will tell you who has seen your average American interstate, the sheer volume of traffic in North America dictates that massive amounts of research are going to need to be done to produce enough Hydrogen to make the switch. The greenies and tree huggers who have pretty much halted all nuclear development in the last 30 years now are looking pretty foolish, because it with Hydro are about the only two rational solutions we have to getting off the carbon cycle.


I just read a Popular Science article the other day which was about Plasma Regasification of rubbish.

Basically, shread rubbish(unsorted) up in a mulcher and then it goes into a chamber where it's vaporised-ish by a plasma gun. The remains consist of some type of obsidian-glass substance and a "gas". The article says the gas can be reformulated into Hydrogen for vehicle propulsion.

NY-city is looking at the tecnology to save money due to not needing landfill anymore, the power used is less than power that can come out of the reaction, and they can use the Hydrogen to power the buses. Apparently there's also a couple plants being planned in Florida too.

"Sounds" to good to be true but may have potential.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

One question about nuclear waste.

Space?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/437/1

[Hazell B]

Bioethanol is great stuff... Unfortunately the world is incapable of growing enough of the feed stock that requires and feeding ourselves at the same time.. :-(

Plus the stuff we grow here in the UK for it's production won't grow as well if the temp stays up and rainfall down in coming years :(

Somebody asked why warm is bad and would cool be good.

Warm's bad because it doesn't help the cool climate crops we grow and that our UK soils can cope with. Put simply, this warmer than normal spring has made many fruit trees and so on blossom early, but the bugs that make them produce fruit haven't woken up and started work yet, so pollenation is poor. Less fruit is the result we will probably see later this year probably. Plus of course water becomes a more serious issue in heat.

Cooler would be equally unpleasant as we'd have a shorter growing season.

The world's sorted itself out to produce things at certain temps, it can't alter evolution fast enough to resort, basically.

By the way, Channel 4 have once again employed a few 'profs' to play Devil's advocate. It doesn't make it right, just makes good TV :rolleyes:

[Alexamateo]

Bioethanol is great stuff... Unfortunately the world is incapable of growing enough of the feed stock that requires and feeding ourselves at the same time.. :-(

I also am wary of trying to produce fuel from food crops. It's much better to make bio-diesel using waste products like used vegetable oil or to make ethanol from other non-food crops.

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/

On another note, I heard Race was growing his own fuel, but then in another thread, he said he didn't own a car. :confused: :D :p :

[tinchote]

Plus the stuff we grow here in the UK for it's production won't grow as well if the temp stays up and rainfall down in coming years :(

Somebody asked why warm is bad and would cool be good.

Warm's bad because it doesn't help the cool climate crops we grow and that our UK soils can cope with. Put simply, this warmer than normal spring has made many fruit trees and so on blossom early, but the bugs that make them produce fruit haven't woken up and started work yet, so pollenation is poor. Less fruit is the result we will probably see later this year probably. Plus of course water becomes a more serious issue in heat.

Cooler would be equally unpleasant as we'd have a shorter growing season.

The world's sorted itself out to produce things at certain temps, it can't alter evolution fast enough to resort, basically.



But are we talking the World, or the UK? I cannot really discuss how good or bad warming would be for the UK. I still find it hard to believe that "warm is bad". What did people eat there 1000 years ago when it was warmer than now?

As for the World, I don't really know. But I know that anywhere on Canada, a little more heat wouldn't heart any crop. Here at home you cannot plant anything before May 20th, and by Oct 1st you cannot water anymore. So, hotter is definitely better here in that respect. And it could be the same in many other places. I don't doubt that it could be worse in other places. But I challenge the "quick conclusions", because I think that it is really hard to predict the real outcome.

[Firstgear]

[quote="tinchote"]But I know that anywhere on Canada, a little more heat wouldn't heart any crop.QUOTE]

If the heat came with a corrosponding drop in precip - it could definately hurt. I don't believe anyone knows what will happen, and how all the pieces that affect the weather impact eachother. We can't even get a 5 day forecast correct more than half of the time.

[Hazell B]

But are we talking the World, or the UK?
As for the World, I don't really know. But I know that anywhere on Canada, a little more heat wouldn't heart any crop.

Sorry I wasn't at all clear there, I meant UK.

Heat in Canada may lengthen the growing season, but as firstgear said it would almost certainly mess up water a bit. Plus, you have forests that only have a three to four month growing season and they'd be ruined with longer warm spells appearing each year, but slowly ruined (unless they burned down :( )

Hemp isn't the best crop for fuel production - too much waste sadly. They grow hundreds of acres to horse bedding at the moment and it's a wasteful crop I'm told. No experience of it myself, so I don't know how true that is overall, but hemp uses are limited at the moment I believe.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The trick to knowing what will happen with a warmer climate is to have computer model that can cover all the variables. The problem that I have with the whole theory of man causing global warming is the computer models we have now have to account for so many variables, there is really no way of knowing which parts of the world will be actually warmer, how their precipitation was to be predicted, and what was causing it.

So much speculation, so little real information has made this whole subject everyone's opinion, not hard science, and hence the source of much of my skepticism.

Brent up there has it dead on, people who want us to do nothing but conserve constantly usually have another motive of social engineering under a lot of their goals.

[Daniel]

I've just thought of a way to reduce the carbon footprint of the country.

Involuntary euthanasia for gormless/irritating children. Think about it! Imagine how much carbon one person will release into the atmosphere just by living their pointless and irritating life? Why not cut down on carbon by cutting down on people? :mark:

You know I'm right :p :

[luvracin]

New scientific evidence has discovered previously never before seen oceans on one of Saturns frigid moons.....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/03/14/saturn.titan.ap/index.html

Scientists shocked as it appears global warming is a universal problem!!!

However, another body of scientists have attributed "Universal" warming to be due to the amount of "hot air" being released by contributors to the "A Gloomy But Realistic Plan for Dealing with Global Warming" thread at Motorsport Forums.

A further subset are blaming the phenomenon on arguments on the Champcar Forum... :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

Luv Racin, the ice caps of Mars are melting too.....So should we suppose the traffic on the trans-Mars expressway is causing the problem? OH wait a minute, only MAN is causing global warming. I know this because Al Gore told me so.....it is all my fault.

[luvracin]

Luv Racin, the ice caps of Mars are melting too.....So should we suppose the traffic on the trans-Mars expressway is causing the problem? OH wait a minute, only MAN is causing global warming. I know this because Al Gore told me so.....it is all my fault.

Well, I was going to attribute your truck driving across N.A. to the warming of the solar system but wasn't sure if you'd see the humour. :D :

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, first off it isn't MY truck, the company owns it, so if I didn't drive it, some other poor schmuck will, but I do see your point, and I am proud to be part of the problem!!!!

Seriously though, trucking likely puts out a whack of CO2, but products are shipped in the cheapest way possible, and that is trucking. On a continent as big as North America, as spread out, small amounts of product have to be moved around efficiently, and despite all the rhetoric by the railroad fans out there, trucking is what does it.

By the way Luv, I always see the humour. I know I can be a windbag on here at times.....unlike some people though, I can poke fun at that.

[jim mcglinchey]

Windbag or no, I think you've been mostly right all along. News headlines yesterady reported how two Professors of climatology are now worried that the whole scientific community is going to be totally discredited if their overstating of global catastrophe, based on man made CO2, turns out to be a load of hogwash.

[Captain VXR]

Windbag or no, I think you've been mostly right all along. News headlines yesterady reported how two Professors of climatology are now worried that the whole scientific community is going to be totally discredited if their overstating of global catastrophe, based on man made CO2, turns out to be a load of hogwash.

Channel 4 proved it to be a load of hogwash

[Hazell B]

No, Channel 4 took the views that fitted that theory and ignored the ones that didn't - different thing. Just like saying "motorsport is fun" but not mentioning the people killed during races at all.

Frankly, does it matter just how responsible we are for the problem? It's here, deal with it. Adding carbon, as we know 100% we certainly do, is speeding it up to some extent. How much is the debate, not if we do or not.

Either way, if we add less we are only helping the situation.

[tinchote]

Either way, if we add less we are only helping the situation.

Indeed, but at what cost? That's the big thing. Because of the media pressure, many governments are on their way to go into great spending because of this, and even into hurting the economy. The same amount of money could be used way more efficiently to address the concrete consequences of GW (whatever they are, but you would be addressing real things) rather than the possible cause.

[Hazell B]

I'd like to see figures about how the economy would be hurt before answering.

If it's unemployment, I'm not buying that excuse either.