Friday, March 16, 2007

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

1. “The Sun is responible for heating the earth , not CO2!!!”

   I heard about this, so I got the sunspot data that the graph is based on and did my own version of it. It is a very good match except for the most recent years where temperature increases more, suggesting that there is another factor at play, and this could very well be CO2.

   Try it yourself - it’s easy with Excel.

   Sadly, as the sun operates on 11 year cycles we will have to wait a few more years to be sure. But remember that the despatches program was designed to attract audience figures, not for scientific debate.

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:58 PM

2. ming, where do you get 99% from?

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:59 PM

3. Dk, the problem with CO2 is that between 1940 - 1970 the earth cooled and cooled so much that scientists were predicting an ice age even though (at that point) man made co2 emissions wre at their higheset

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:06 PM

4. “ming, where do you get 99% from?”

   He pulled it out of his ass:

   “Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.” Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
   And also: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/global_warming_myths.html#volcanoes

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:09 PM

5. try the IPCC which shows that natural emissions are over 150 billion tonnes, some 35 TIMES man made emissons (around 4 billion tonnes) prob closer to 98% but there u go

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:21 PM

6. The difference in the S.F. and the greens in their opposition to the Iraq war is the difference between the populist and the principled.

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:40 PM

7. methane is actually more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and is caused by farting animals.
   Cant wait to see how thats solved

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:44 PM

8. I didn’t seee the docu on channel 4 last week.... but I’m going to comment anyway.

   I was chatting to a friend of mine who is a TV documentary producer and has done a fair bit of work on the climate thing change.

   According to her the producer of this doc has a history of being sued, and indeed some of the scientists quoted on this programme are considering legal action for misrepresentation.

   Having said all that, the link between human activity and climate change is yet to be absolutely proven (Like evolution and atomic theory).

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 01:49 PM

9. On the subject, if the Greens were invited it was done as a matter of courtesy. When you receive such your reply should be equally courteous.

   Travelling to Washington for St Patrick’s Day does seem a bit esoteric to me, but it is bad form to reply in quite the manner they did. This probably came upon them unexpected and a pity they could not have sent a letter from say the Green Group in the European parliament saying yes we would like to meet to put these views, or drafted a good letter for others to support. It would have carried a lot more clout. 

   Ming
   The counter argument to the channel 4 programme is linked in 4 on page 1. It would appear the credentials of the programme are questioned and many of the quotes of those interviewed were taken out of context. Some of the people quoted are requesting apologies from Channel 4. Unfortunately this sort of programme helps no one as this is a subject that really does need impartial and open debate. Because Dispatches puts an argument does not mean that it is either correct or impartial. It would seem balance was not the remit of that programme.

   I am one of those that believe the question of global warning should be seen from a slightly different angle;
   1 We are experiencing global warming and we need to take precautions against the likely outcome such as sea level rises (more to do with expansion than melting of Greenland’s ice) increased rain fall etc.
   2 What causes global warming is something that needs continued research. It involves three elements which we know pathetically little about, the sun, our atmosphere and our oceans. We just don’t know with absolute certainty how these elements inter relate though many are drawing conclusions. There is a growing body of opinion that believe that man is playing a role, my own view is that we need to retain an open mind, fund research, but we need to prepare for some of the consequences.
   3 We should be moving to renewable forms of energy for other reasons than climate change. They are cleaner, they would create employment opportunity here, they reduce imports and for reasons of long term security of supply.
   4 We should aim to reduce energy consumption for the very obvious reason that wasting it costs us and our economy money. Recently there have been some changes in the Building Regulations aimed to achieve savings. Some of the recommendations are deeply flawed and a more flexible approach is perhaps required. The accredited details simply do not work in our wetter climate (than England) and some of the recommendations show a distinct lack of understanding of the construction process.  Could have been done a lot better and likely to be more costly to implement that necessary. We need less panic measures and fewer measures that are the consequence of gesture politics.

   Julian
   I note Dr Barry said all this.

   Indeed you are right, well spotted. I would put Brian Wilson down as a practical realist whose sights are set on things that are achievable. A Realist.

   By contract others in that party seem to be experts at gesture politics.  As someone else said, such people are more at home in the Students Union or perhaps in the unreality that is often academia.  I hope that Mr Wilson has the wisdom to plough his own furrow and help establish a much needed practical alternative that people can vote for. Yes let us have ideals in politics, but let us anchor them in reality and let us keep a sense of dignity.

   As in other threads there seems to be a distinct lack of Greens in this case defending their Leaders pronouncements.

   Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:18 PM

10. Evidence if evidence was needed about how far the Greens north of the border are from the levers of power.

    I couldn’t see the Republic’s Greens taking such a “stand� so close to a Dáil election.

    Posted by George on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:21 AM

    A stance more suited to a Students Union than to a party which aspires to seriousness.

    Posted by Henry94 on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:47 AM

    I think these two posts say it all in relation to where SF really stand on matters such as the illegal war unleashed on Iraq.

    For once, a party, albeit a small one, in Ireland has taken a pricipled stand on life or death issues for millions of people and they are derided by SF types.

    The SF stand on these topics is a lot less like a student union and more akin to a second car sales man.

    SF have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on issues like this in recent years and I think these posts are merely people lashing out at others that are going to show SF up a very shallow party when it comes to taking radical stands.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:19 PM

11. Mild winters are estimated to save 20,000 lives per year in the UK. Bring on warmer weather. Is there anything I can do to speed it up?

    Forgive me for not falling for the Green gibberish. Read the articles from the 1970’s, when again the ‘scientific community’ was united about climate change - except it was global cooling then. How stupid are we going to look 30 years from now?

    Yes, climate is changing. When you’re shown footage of glaciers receding, try to recall that Ireland was once covered in glaciers. I don’t think air travel and industrialisation were a big factor in ending the last ice age.

    I’m not a scientist, so maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we are causing global warming. So what? Rather than spend billions on imaginary problems, why not end hunger and disease in the third world? There is a real problem that could be ended at a fraction of the cost we are being lectured about by the Greens (and now unfortunately all the other bandwagon members, including Tories, Labour and the Liberals).

    God, I would love just one elected mainstream politician to just say about global warming ‘I don’t know what’s causing it, and don’t care either’.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:39 PM

12. All very interesting, but to address the main point of the posting, Are you better off on the inside trying to effect change or standing outside shouting at the voluntary deaf.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:02 PM

13. Were governments and organisations around the world putting as much effort into stopping global cooling in the 70’s? That argument seems like a bit of a straw man to me.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:04 PM

14. SDLP have been consistently against the war in Iraq and all three MPs voted against it at Westminster, and several members protested at at Blair & Bush using Hillsborough to plan further prosoquetion of their illegal war.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:06 PM

15. Inside, trying to effect change.

    Its just self-indulgent politics from a party which can afford to ignore and be ignored. They have this luxury, in common with all these single-issue parties.

    They hopefully won’t ever be in a position where they have to deal with the real world, with all it’s compromises and least worst options. It would be enough to drive them to drink - organic Duchy of Cornwall Ale of course!

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:09 PM

16. Mook

    Thankfully most people, governments included, had more sense in the 1970’s, than to take any notice of this scaremongering.

    They also had the helpful spectre of communism to keep the population cowed.

    A lot of this is traditional lefty-liberal self-hate of their own species. Thank God our ancestors didn’t worry about Co2 emissions and their carbon footprints, or we’d still be dying at 30 and living 10 to a mud room having sex with our sisters. As it is, we have so many good things: Medicine, cars, aeroplanes, nuclear weapons, electricity, TV, etc. etc.

    Cheer up everyone. Malthus was telling us we were doomed 200 years ago. We’ll always have these doomsayers. Don’t panic. We will survive, and if not, we will at least be able to fly somewhere nice to die!

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:19 PM

17. JohnT said:

    A lot of this is traditional lefty-liberal self-hate of their own species.

    Actually when I hear many of those concerned about issues such as global warming I’m struck by their concern for their own species.

    JohnT, shooting from the hip might look cool, but you’ll find it harder to hit the target.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:33 PM

18. Red Mist,
    “I think these two posts say it all in relation to where SF really stand on matters such as the illegal war unleashed on Iraq.”

    What on earth does me saying I couldn’t see the Republic’s Greens taking such a “stand� so close to a Dáil election as it would affect their chances of getting their mitts on the levers of power have to do with Sinn Féin?
    

    “For once, a party, albeit a small one, in Ireland has taken a pricipled stand on life or death issues for millions of people and they are derided by SF types.”

    And on what do you base your claim that I am a “Sinn Féin type”? I’m genuinely interested.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:41 PM

19. JohnT

    we have many good things.........nuclear weapons

    ???

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:47 PM

20. As a matter of interest do SF elected types accept invitations to Hillsborough to see the Royals who drop in every now and again?

    Should they go for the photo opportunity, opportunity to meet people, shake hands and bow and scrape? Should SF take the seats in Westminster they are entitled to?

    If not what is the difference between that abstention and the Greens deciding to decline such an invitation?

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:27 PM

21. bootman

    I can certainly mount a defence of nuclear weapons. Do you think the cold war would have stayed (mostly) cold if it weren’t for the horror of mutually assured destruction? Ironically the existance of the most powerful weapons ever, ensured that they would never be used.

    Yes, yes, I know...hiroshima etc. Those weapons weren’t a patch on the h-bomb which came later. Different scale of destruction. The planet survived the use of the a-bomb, it wouldn’t have survived the h-bomb, and the superpowers knew this.

    I did add in nuclear weapons to my list slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I have convinced myself now!

    Damien Okado-Gough

    I think if they were concerned about their own species, they would want the third world to have the economic development that has enable us the luxury of these debates, rather than worrying about nonsense like the climate. OK, maybe the climate is changing. Its the height of arrogance and stupidity to think that we can do something about, or even should try. We should rather adjust to the changed climate, as we always have done. Some areas will suffer, some will benefit (siberia for instance). Lets be optimistic. The lefty-liberal clique’s concern for the human race never seems to factor in any belief in human adaptability or ingenuity. Their worldview is rooted in a pessimistic belief that whatever we do to advance the human race must be wrong, and one can’t help get the impression that they regret the industrial revolution and all that flowed from it.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:32 PM

22. Can anyone tell me the DUP’s and the UUP’s policies on:

    1. Global warming

    2. The war in Iraq

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:34 PM

23. merrie

    does it matter?

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:54 PM

24. Seems there might be a few guilty conceonces swiping at the Greens here, I doubt it would matter if an election was due, as the Greens not going to Bush’s shindig over Iraq would be a vote winner imo, so I expect they would have refused whatever the date.

    After all as Sammy wrote, the Alliance were against the war and their vote went up on 7/3.

    The Greens are only a single issue party if you consider destroying the planet a single issue, and of course it is not, thus like most parties they have a host of policies. Although having watched Mr Adams performance recently when asked to explain SF economic strategy, it made me feel the Greens were particularly articulate and rounded when for example explaining their economic policy ;)

    I feel the issue which has been made here of politicians flying around the world to junkets will increasingly gain legs, especially as they clearly intend to tax us ordinary mortals out of the sky to some degree.

    Many of these conferences, etc, could be equally conducted by video phone, saving the environment and economic cost to tax payers. What are these Irish politicians doing trooping over to Washington to be part of a photo opportunity, so that the US President can brown nose the Irish American electorate.

    It is not student politics to refuse to go, but both principled and practical politics. Surly it is within the wit of these politicos to turn down the invite with politeness..that few do is because they see the invitation as the Emperor demands your presence, in other words they see it is a summons, which they refuse at their peril. The replies of some shinners here, but not all, almost prove this point.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 05:17 PM

25. Yes it does. This list is going through the policies of other parties, and I’d like to know what the unionist parties’ policies are.

    NI may end up being the only spot in these offshore European islands not to reduce carbon and other emissions.

    Posted by  on Mar 16, 2007 @ 06:06 PM
Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.