Climate Change and what Northern Ireland is doing about it.

Tonight the Assembly is debating the following motion;

That this Assembly notes that the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Paris from 30 November to 11 December; considers that this is an opportunity to agree an ambitious global plan to tackle the threat of climate change; welcomes the Minister of the Environment’s attendance at this conference to represent Northern Ireland; further notes that the projected reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 33.3 per cent by 2025, based on 1990 levels, falls just short of the Programme for Government target of 35 per cent; and calls on the Minister of the Environment to work with his Executive colleagues to increase existing efforts and consider innovative approaches to help reduce emissions and move to a low carbon economy.

The Green Party does have an amendment tabled to introduce a Climate Bill for Northern Ireland with legally binding targets to bring down Green House Gas Emissions (GHG). However, I am told the DOE Minister, Mark H.Durkan is preparing such a bill.

So how has Northern Ireland been doing on this issue? The Department of the Environment has compiled some statistics of our performance from 1990-2013 (note these figures are never totally exact).

The departments statistical bulletin notes;

Northern Ireland’s 2013 GHG emissions are estimated at 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, similar to 2012 and only a small increase (1.2%) on the 2011 estimate. A significant drop in emissions was observed in the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector as the previous year had included emissions from exceptional forest wildfires. In the waste sector there was also a notable reduction in emissions from landfill. However, emissions in the energy supply sector saw a large increase as global fuel prices are causing a shift in power generation from burning natural gas to coal. Across all sectors, the 2013 emission levels show a longer term decrease of 16% since the base year.

Who are Northern Ireland’s biggest emitters?

The largest sources of emissions in 2013 are agriculture (29%), transport and energy supply (both making up 18% each) and residential (13%). All sectors, except for transport, show a decreasing trend since the base year with the greatest decreases in emissions observed in the energy supply and waste sectors (decreasing by around 1.3 and 1.1 million tonnes respectively).

Emissions NI

Agriculture issues

Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions account for 4.0% of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions. However Northern Ireland accounts for 7.8% of the UK’s methane (CH4) and 9.1% of the UK’s nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. The higher share of these gases is due to emissions from agricultural sources accounting for a higher proportion of the regional total than in the rest of the UK.

How are we doing compared to the rest of the UK? (note the health warning) 

GHG emissions in the UK have reduced by 30% since the base year. Scotland and England have the greatest percentage reductions (35% and 32% respectively). Northern Ireland and Wales have markedly lower reductions (16% and 12% respectively). Caution is advised when comparing relative performance due to the levels of uncertainty around each of the estimates.

Then goes on to note;

The trends in greenhouse gas source emissions since the base year for the UK countries are summarised below, but it should be noted that estimates for the individual countries are less certain than the overall UK estimate:
– UK has reduced emissions by 30.2%
– England has reduced emissions by 32.4%
– Scotland has reduced emissions by 35.4%7
– Wales has reduced emissions by 11.9%
– Northern Ireland has reduced emissions by 16.1%

Question for the Sluggerverse; are we doing enough? If not, then what else could the Executive do on this issue?

The debate is scheduled to being at 5:30pm this evening.

 

, ,

  • npbinni
  • Kevin Breslin

    The graph showing an increase in the amount from transport in a couple of decades while other sectors its declining might show that we’ve become less green in getting around, while other sectors’ emissions of carbon dioxide are either steady or in decline.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Daisy poor Daisy; what did they do
    They put you down to save us from poo
    They killed all the animals to save us from meat
    And will ban everyone from farting next week.
    They saved us from warming by killing poor Daisy
    It’s bloody well freezing and God bless the crazy.

  • terence patrick hewett

    You flatulent Fabians
    You cud masticators
    Digestive polluters
    Toxic gas generators
    You methane producers
    Seem harmless and charming
    But I’ve got the scoop
    On you and your poop
    You’re the primary cause
    Of Earth’s global warming.

  • terence patrick hewett

    If buds the Holly before the May,
    Global Warming’s on its way,
    If buds the May before the Holly is,
    Expect an Ice Age – sincere apologies.

  • Thomas Barber

    “So how has Northern Ireland been doing on this issue”

    Absolutely nothing when its a fact that those same politicians have been handing over thousands of pounds to those who care nothing about the environment to burn tyres and other toxic substances on annual bonfires. The only thing that will happen and the same in every other country is an acceptance that our carbon footprints will be taxable.

  • chrisjones2

    Why shouldnt they be taxable? To support a myth?

    And if there is global warming how much is down to us and how much to normal environmental factors and long term trends?

    And we hear all about the bad effects, what about the good ones?

  • Thomas Barber

    Chris what myth would that be ?

    I dont think there are any good effects from burning the likes of tyres and such on bonfires.

  • murdockp

    An innovative farmer comes up with a way of combating the effects of costal erosion caused in part by rising tides using waste tyres, for me a fantastic innovation worthy of scientific study.
    In other countries in the world they are doing the same thing with alongside academia as the search goes on for solutions to a wide range of environmental problems.
    What is the Northern Ireland solution, handing out the farmer a two year suspended sentence and a £20k fine.
    Mean while the loyalist mobs can burn thousands of tonnes of toxic materials not only causing environmental damage, but long lasting damage to their own health and nothing happens.
    Northern Ireland is a backwater, and innovation is soon knocked out of us by our civil service. Our civil servants are not capable of doing the very jobs they are employed to do.

  • chrisjones2

    The triple myth that:

    1 global warming is happening
    2 we are causing it
    3 overall it will be a bad thing for mankind

  • Thomas Barber

    You seem pretty sure Chris that increasing levels of toxic fumes and gases that are fatal to human beings if inhaled and there’s plenty of dead bodies to prove it, might actually be good for mankind.

  • 23×7

    That’s it. Thousands of scientists are wrong yet you know better.

    Just checking when you get on a flight do you think you reach your destination through the power of prayer or by magic? Or do you believe the engineering scientific theories of why a plane takes off? Do you think the moon is made from cheese? Or do you accept what others have told you?

  • Greenflag 2

    98 % of climate scientists believe its happening – 2 % don’t .
    If you needed a brain operation and 98% of surgeons said if you don’t have it you will die and 2% said not to worry you’ll be ok -who are you going to believe?

    The same people who told you for decades that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and that lead in gasoline is ‘harmless ‘ are the same people who are telling you that there is no global warming . As to why they do this it’s very simple .

    They make lots of money by getting idiots to believe their lies and make more even more money for them by promoting their lies . Wake up man !

  • Greenflag 2

    They expect another 14 or so ice ages before the Earth moves into a very warm period of a billion years or so. Paradoxically some climate scientists believe global warming might actually spark the next Ice Age already overdue by a couple of thousand years . Those living in Antrim might want to consider a non political move south . The Scots will be first to see the glaciers .

  • terence patrick hewett

    Now, in her iceberg-white, holily laundered crinoline nightgown, under virtuous polar sheets, in her spruced and scoured dust-defying bedroom in trig and trim Bay View, a house for paying guests, at the top of the town, Mrs Ogmore-Pritchard widow, twice, of Mr Ogmore, linoleum, retired, and Mr Pritchard, failed bookmaker, who maddened by besoming, swabbing and scrubbing, the voice of the vacuum-cleaner and the fume of polish, ironically swallowed disinfectant, fidgets in her rinsed sleep, wakes in a dream, and nudges in the ribs dead Mr Ogmore, dead Mr
    Pritchard, ghostly on either side.

    Mr Ogmore!

    Mr Pritchard!

    It is time to inhale your balsam.

    Oh, Mrs Ogmore!

    Oh, Mrs Pritchard!

    Soon it will be time to get up.

    Tell me your tasks, in order.

    I must put my pyjamas in the drawer marked pyjamas.

    I must take my cold bath which is good for me.

    I must wear my flannel band to ward off sciatica.

    I must dress behind the curtain and put on my apron.

    I must blow my nose.

    In the garden, if you please.

    In a piece of tissue-paper which I afterwards burn.

    I must take my salts which are nature’s friend.

    I must boil the drinking water because of germs.

    I must make my herb tea which is free from tannin.

    And have a charcoal biscuit which is good for me.

    I may smoke one pipe of asthma mixture.

    In the woodshed, if you please.

    And dust the parlour and spray the canary.

    I must put on rubber gloves and search the peke for fleas.

    I must dust the blinds and then I must raise them.

    And before you let the sun in, mind it wipes its feet.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Are: Ireland the land of poetry:

    Ich am from Irlaunde
    Ant of the holy londe
    Of Irlande
    Gode Sire, pray iich the,
    For sayte charitie,
    Come ant daunce wyth me,
    In Irelaunde.

    The land of Saints and the land of Kings. Wales has only one High King but Ireland has more than you can shake a stick at: wealth indeed.

  • terence patrick hewett

    I love poetry:

    Fast and funny, smart and nimble,
    is his mind, the poet thinks,
    making what is complex simple,
    mixing metaphors like drinks,
    till becoming quite inebriate,
    his speech begins to slur,
    manic as a tom-cat mated,
    his poems they fail to purr,
    thoughts like lemming herds stampeded,
    fearlessly they dash,
    unrestrained by lousy software,
    on pixeled screens they crash,
    as slow as death and sadly humbled,
    like cats that have been fixed,
    static as statistics stumbled,
    in metaphors he’s mixed.

  • terence patrick hewett

    I am so old I remember Hugh Leonard’s Silent Song.

    I am so old I remember when Ireland used language as a bludgeon:

    or as Brian O’Nolan did : a lover caressed.

    The urine soaked gynells and byways of literature have more to offer than the pompous prickery of fashion.

    Contempt? Yes you would be right there.

    or has Tom Lehrer got it right in?

    Selling Out

    Sociology song

    youtube.com/watch?v=mB97Qe2D4V0

  • terence patrick hewett

    Will you do my football pools!

  • Greenflag 2

    I don’t yet have access to the algorithm that would guarantee putting Paddy Power out of business . But when I get there I’ll be sure to share it with nobody 😉

  • Greenflag 2

    Its NOT a myth and the scientific evidence points to humanity being a cause of the warming. Heres a link to help understand .

    http://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/457794505/big-data-predicts-centuries-of-harm-if-climate-warming-goes-unchecked.

    There have been 5 major life extinctions on planet Earth in the past 500 million years . The most recent was 65 millon years ago but the worst was 250 million years ago when up to 95% of life on Earth was destroyed . Previous extinctions have been due to climate change – and in at least one case the impact of a large asteroid and the resultant nuclear winters . Methane release as a result of warming was also a factor for the mass extinction of ocean life .

    While its estimated that 99.9 % of all species that have ever lived are now extinct – none of those species caused their extinction . Homo Sapiens could be the first to achieve that distinction at least on the Earth .

    We like to regard ourselves as a very unique species , for the most part unaffected by developments in our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that it was evolution itself which started its biggest experiment ever when it allowed the human race to play its predominant role. Once this experiment fails – and it will fail, it will – the “monkey in a suit and tie” will follow the path of all other creatures that disappeared from the face of the Earth.

    The only question is when , DInosaurs were around for almost 200 million years – Trilobites for 300 million years . Humanity may (at least in Homo Sapiens format) not even make it past 200,000 years .

    As Einstein put it

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.

  • Turgon

    There are two separate issues here which are frequently conflated: climate change and pollution.

    Climate change may or may not be happening and may or may not be caused by CO2. Even if it is there is relatively little one region such as NI (even one country such as the UK) can do about it.

    Air pollution on the other hand is a local issue to each local area and can have something done about it. China and India are worrying about pollution in cities.

    We also have major air quality issues in London and locally in Belfast. In Belfast’s case the geography makes matters worse (hills around the city).

    We in NI and the UK suffer a great deal sue to air pollution from motor vehicles especially diesel engined ones. These were pushed because they produce a little less CO2 but are actually much more polluting.

    One of the best ways to help air quality (and its impact on global CO2 would be negigible) would be to keep diesel to lorries, buses etc. and get private cars, small vans SUVs etc. to use petrol. This could be incentived by making petrol cheaper and diesel more expensive and changing the differential on vehicle tax to make diesel cars more expensive. This would have the side benefit of making diesel laundering (again very enviromentally damaging) much less lucrative as fewer people would want diesel.

  • Reader

    They are paid not to burn tyres. That’s more or less how you can tell the difference between a sponsored bonfire and a freelance bonfire.

  • chrisjones2

    What toxic gases are you talking about? The main greenhouse gas is CO2 which we breath out

  • chrisjones2

    When you are forced to rely on an article from US National Public Radio that includes the phrase “The Earth is big and its climate is complicated” I can see why you find independent thought on this challenging. I assume you also use Sesame Street as a guide to relationships, budgeting etc?

    Well aside from Big Bird read my post

    There are 3 key issues

    1 is global warming happening

    Answer is perhaps, perhaps not. Yes the scientific consensus is that the world is warming although some dispute this and are immediately shouted down by the zealots who demand more research money and more grants for bigger computers etc.

    Taking advice from these is as reliable as asking Big Pharma what drugs are most effective for an illness you may have . Remember global rain from the 1970s? Look around. Have all the trees and crops vanished as predicted? Are we facing mass starvation? Have all our rivers and seas become so acidified that there are no fish?

    2 are we causing it

    There are many many potential causes of global warming including solar output. Many things in the atmosphere change cyclicly – for example we are overdue a period when the North and South Poles will reverse and that will make any climate change seem be peachy. Our data on all this is poor. We are relying on models rthat depend critically on what we feed into them. We are bombarded with scare stories of extinctions of Polar Bears (they are actually breading like rabbits) etc. We have the tripe / specious statements like 99% of species are now extinct – of course they are that’s what evolution does and if many of them weren’t we wouldn’t have evolved.

    3 overall will it be a bad thing for mankind?

    If it happens – see above – then it will in some states. Some places will get hotter and in some cases very low lying islands like the Maldives may disappear. In other areas zones that are now uninhabitable will become habitable and agricultural output will rise significantly due to higher temperatures and CO2 levels. Higher sea temperatures will increase the range and number of fish we can safely catch So net impact for mankind as a species may well be positive

    So dont just swallow the whole case hook line and sinker. DO some research and look at the actual evidence not Sesame Street. Then look at Paris where despots like Mugabe and leaders of failed socialist states like Bolivia are grandstanding claiming wicked capitalists owe them a living for, for example, wounding the Aztec Earth Goddess!!

    I know change is difficult but do keep trying – just don’t believe everything the man in the white coat tells you. Snake oil with a ‘science’ label is still snake oil

  • chrisjones2

    Engineering and physics rely on reproducible results not theoretical models whose outputs have to often be adjusted to match even today’s conditions, that cannot predict the weather next month never mind the climate in 50 years and above all cannot be reproduced and tested effectively.

  • chrisjones2

    Climate scientists depend on grants or they have no work or kudos. Without a global warming scare there would be no pressure for such grants.

    What impact do you think that has on scientific thought?

    Why is there such hysteria in shouting down any alternative voices?

  • 23×7

    I call bullshit. Jaysus you deniers gotta come up with a new script.
    The climate models are tested against past events and against what we know happened. If they correctly predict what we know happened we can be reasonably confident about their future predications. Look up hindcasting and get back to me.

  • Greenflag 2

    1) It is happening – 98% of climate scientists believe it is . I’ll go with the scientists unless proved otherwise . Keep on believing the oil industry and remember tobacco is not carcinogenic any more and lead is just a mineral supplement to make your hair grow.

    2) I’m aware that there are more factors involved than the human contribution to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere . The human contribution is the only one that humans can control . And yes there could be other factors which would make any human imprint irrelevant .

    3 ) Believe me I’ve researched all sides and I’m aware of the competing interests . There are over 150 states represented in Paris. Mentioning two that suit your neo con agenda is idiotic in this context . The Earth or it’s non existent Aztec Goddess of your imagination doesn’t care about left or tight -conservative or liberal .

    4) Stick with the 2% but if you ever need that operation
    I suggest changing to the 98% . Just don’t believe everything the men from EXXON or BP tell you. And yes snake oil with a ‘science’ label is still snake oil but especially so when its being sold by the Oil Industry.

  • Greenflag 2

    Don’t forget the methane . Global warming will cause more of that to be released from the Siberian Permafrost and from the ocean bed thus speeding up the warming even more
    . ://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

  • congal claen

    Hi Greenflag,

    98% of climate scientists? It was a small subset of a small subset of scientists. There are other surveys that the complete opposite opinion is the consensus. So don’t always believe the ‘consensus’. Afterall, not that long ago, the consensus was that the year 2000 bug was going to be a disaster amongst a host of other scare stories.

    One you even mention – lead in petrol. Remember lead is a heavy element. And lead oxide is a heavy molecule. Therefore, when emitted from an exhaust it tends to fall fairly rapidly to the ground where it remains as ‘dust’. The reason lead got banned was because of an American group who finally got it banned, after an ‘exhaustive’ campaign, by claiming kids who have a compulsion to eat dust, apparently a condition that exists but I can’t remember the name of, could possibly eat some of the aforementioned dust and ingest large amounts of lead. On the plus side lead free engines are less efficient so we can pump out even more lovely CO2 to help the plant kingdom. Irony enh?

    CO2 has been way higher in the past, upto 7,000ppm and the earth’s temperature has tended to fluctuate between 12C and 22C (from memory). There have been as many falls in temp as CO2 rises as there have been rises. And vice versa. So I see no link between the 2.

    Finally, the models have been consistently wrong. All they’re good at is predicting past events. They have failed miserably at predicting the current flatlining of temp. Name one that predicted it BEFORE it happened. Remember the hot, dry summers we were promised. Haven’t noticed many of those. Our children to marvel at snow? Don’t think so. JUst look at the Glencoe webcam today. Richard Feynman puts it better than me…

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment,
    it’s wrong”

  • congal claen

    If CO2 fell to 150ppm most plants would die.

  • congal claen

    The main greenhouse gas is water. Most people instinctively know this – clear night, could be a frost. Not many times I’ve heard people saying “could be frosty, not much CO2 about”…

  • Kevin Breslin

    If the tyres are securely anchored I see no problem with it.

  • chrisjones2

    You dont like the opinion so you label me as neo conservative. i am not but I know snake oil when I see it.

    You believe the scientists. i am suitable sceptical until i see testable proof. Anything else is like choosing Judaism over Christianity when both are wrong. Point me to a single model that has been tested to a 5 sigma level or anything close

    “The Earth or it’s non existent Aztec Goddess of your imagination .”

    Thats what the Bolivian President actually said. Thats the sort of arguments that are sometimes put forward at these political bean feasts

    But if you believe in Climate Change (as ina religion) then go ahead. Worship as you feel due. Some of us will wait for some proven data

  • chrisjones2

    Would those be the glaciers that we are told are melting away and may be gone in 20 years / 50 Years / 90 years

    Its a bit like the wait for a United Ireland

  • chrisjones2

    Depends what they leach and facing an Atlantic storm what does securely anchored mean?
    By the way I agree that the prosecution is ridiculous especially when the Department will do nothing to help prevent the erosion

  • chrisjones2

    Heavens this is a bit of a bugger

    “During the next four billion years, the luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will cause a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years, the level of CO
    2 will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method, allowing them to persist at CO
    2 concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life, since plants are the base of the food chain on Earth.[11]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

    Better start that CO2 pumping out as fast as we can then

  • chrisjones2

    I advise not to. Hurricane force winds caused by Global warming will make it impossible to kick a ball with accuracy leading to the total demise of football as a national sporty and its replacement by indoor tiddlywinks

    You heard it here first. My application for a research grant will be submitted tomorrow and an article in the Guardian – supported by 6 supportive peer review comments from close friends and fellow believers – will appear on Friday

  • Greenflag 2

    Go read up on the life of Clare Paterson who was the individual who finally got Congress to remove lead in gasoline . It took him 20 years during which time the Ethyl corporation pulled every stunt in the book to “prove ‘ that lead in gasoline was not responsible for the high levels of lead in American bloodstreams .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

    The ‘inventor ‘ of lead in gasoline was a Thomas Midgely among whose other inventions was chlorofluorocarbons which help deplete the ozone layer

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

  • chrisjones2

    “The climate models are tested against past events and against what we know happened.”

    Yeah I have seen some of those> I was especially struck by a major Antarctic one where the absence of actual data from stations at variious points across the continent forced them to extrapolate the numbers that should have been there and once they did that they found the model fitted.

    Now there is a surprise

    But back again – the fundamental premises is that we can design a model based on past data that will predict the future. But in what is alleged to be a change in data of crisis proportions can anyone tell me how you ensure that model is valid as a predictive tool as opposed to an historic descriptive one?

    And again, is there any published peer reviewed assessment on these studies of their accuracy to 5 4 3 or even 2 sigma level?

  • Greenflag 2

    ” but I know snake oil when I see it.”

    So 150 countries and many of the world’s leaders in Paris are there for ‘snake oil ‘ . Would they be there without the data ? And it looks like they’ll even agree on setting a target to reduce emissions .

    Nothing wrong with being a sceptic . But when 98% of climate scientists believe that global warming is underway and has been for a century or more that should be proof enough to take the problem seriously . I take it you accept the existence gravity and evolution as no longer matters for debate .

    As to Judaism and Christianity being wrong ? Is this a suggestion that Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism may be right ? Good thinking Not .

  • ronanpeter

    While technically true, debate remains on the fringes. The overwhelming consensus is that it is happening and is caused by C02.

    And I think to divide the issue by geographical boundaries or nationalities is a dangerous tactic leading to inaction. Nature does not recognise these concepts and so any solution to this global issue involves all people.

  • Greenflag 2

    Ah well look on the bright side when either happens hopefully not simultaneously you won’t have to wait anymore ? And the bonus is you won’t be able to claim that a UI is a cold place for former unionists only 😉

  • Greenflag 2

    There are four states of matter – Liquid -Solid- Gas -Plasma
    Water is a liquid at room temperature FYI 😉

  • congal claen

    Why would I bother reading up about her? Removing the lead has had no effect for the vast majority of people. For the chicken littles amongst us, worried about CO2, emissions have increased because engines are less efficient. I’ve actually looked up the condition I was referring to – it’s called pica or geophagia. Not surprising I forgot it! Anyhow if you lookup Pica on Wikipedia you’ll get this…

    “Pica is more commonly seen in women and children, and in areas of low socioeconomic status. Particularly it is seen in pregnant women, small children, and those with developmental disabilities such as autism. Children eating painted plaster containing lead may suffer brain damage from lead poisoning. There is a similar risk from eating soil near roads that existed before tetraethyllead in petrol was phased out (in some countries) or before people stopped using contaminated oil (containing toxic PCBs or dioxin) to settle dust.”
    Most people reading this probably believe that lead petrol was a danger to them. It wasn’t. Hardly anybody is affected by Pica. Do you know of a single person with the condition? Even less would happen to live close enough to a road to be affected by lead? Would it not have been better to treat the condition rather than increase everyone’s fuel bill by about 5%?
    Another environmental own goal. Rather like diesel which is quite topical now…

  • chrisjones2

    Water is a liquid at room temperature FYI 😉

    At room temperature and sea level pressure ….the further up you go it becomes a vapour hence clouds

  • congal claen

    Water can exist in 3 states in the air. I don’t really see any point here that you’re making?
    Also, water is only a liquid at room temperature for a certain range of pressure. ;0)

  • chrisjones2

    Indeed. We may even have to migrate south and displace the natives

  • Greenflag 2

    Theres lots of nice hotels if you can afford it . I would’nt bother trying to displace the natives . Based on previous experience it has’nt worked .

  • Greenflag 2

    Brilliant CC . I was just checking to see if you had managed O Level physics 😉 I ‘ll grant you a pass . Now go and read about that gobshite Thomas Midgely and that heroic chap Claire Paterson . And if that does’nt clue you up on how the oil barons among others will deny global warming exists until the sun explodes as long as it pays them -then you are beyond help .

  • Greenflag 2

    See my reply to Congal above – Well done you’re a near genius .

  • Greenflag 2

    I’m glad to hear you are not a neo con but just a regular con . If it sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck -is’nt always the case . Its the way you quack them CJ 2

  • Greenflag 2

    Humanity will be lucky to survive the next century or two -never mind 600 million years. The last major natural disaster approx 75,000 years ago the eruption of Mount Toba went very close to wiping out humanity .

  • Chingford Man

    If our climate is changing, maybe it’s the fault of the hot air guzzling environmental activists?

  • Starviking

    The survey which showed that “scientists” opposed the Anthopogenic Climate Change theory was the Oregon Petition. It has a lot of problems: the speciality of the signers, their qualifications, the lack of verification, and the fact it was faked-up to look like it came from the US National Academy of Sciences.

    As for lead pollution, the lead is found in compounds and on particles of varying size – they can be found close to roads, and can be re-mobilized like any dust particles.

  • Starviking

    Scientists make their money doing science, same for climate scientists. What you are proposing is not only that they do not do science, but they co-ordinate it amongst the 98% of them that believe in ACC, to get grants they would have got anyway – by doing the science.

    That’s tinfoil-hat land stuff.

  • Starviking

    Models are only a guide to the climate. Anyone expecting exact matching between any model and reality is naive. The reason for belief in ACC is the basic science says it will happen, and the scientific results show it is happening.

    Greenhouse gasses absorb IR Radiation from the Earth and re-transmit about half of it back to the surface. It’s as basic as that.

  • Starviking

    But water vapour does not persist long in the atmosphere, hence the frost. CO2 has a much longer residence time, which is why some term it the Earth’s Thermostat.

  • Mike the First

    An important point Turgon – sometimes action on climate change and ‘local’ pollution can actually conflict.
    Take government encouragement of diesel, for example.
    Another one, which is a bit of a bugbear of mine, is encouragement of wood burning to heat homes – something that can cause a loy of local pollution, releasing particulates which are damaging to human and animal health.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Oh dear Greenflag, we’re all going to be just as dead in a few years time as I seriously doubt that the mighty oil industry will ever let anything challenge it. But at least we CJ2 will perhaps then realise we were right! Not exactly solice…..

  • Greenflag 2

    “Removing the lead has had no effect for the vast majority of people.”

    Lead is a neuro toxin i.e in sufficient quantities it destroys the nervous system and the brain and causes death . In petrol or gasoline some of it ended up in people’s bloodstreams . Once legislation was passed banning the use of lead in gasoline the amount of lead in American bloodstreams dropped immediately . Lead was even used as late as the 1990’s for soldering the lids on canned foods in the USA some 20 years after most of the major European countries stopped the food industry from using lead .

    Claire Paterson was a he not a she -btw .Your choice whether to discover the facts re lead and the role of the Ethyl Corporation denying the harmful effects of their product long after it was proven that they were killing people -including their own employees .

    Wikepedia is an ok source sometimes . I don’t use it as a source unless I know its backed by genuine scientific research in whatever field is under discussion .

    As to Corporations deliberately ignoring environmental concerns for profit and extra sales think of a more recent example than the Ethyl corporation – how about Volkswagen . .

    The oil industry and the fracking issue is another area in which the ‘profiteers ‘ and ‘warmongers ‘ use bought lobbyists to obfuscate and keep people ignorant from the hard facts of their trade . Not unlike the tobacco manufacturers who even today get away with ‘murder’ in developing countries more so than the west – simply because they can .

  • Greenflag 2

    Profit alas is more important than lives – Whether its oil or tobacco or lead or ozone destroying chlorofluorocarbons or the arms manufacturers -some corporations will lie , steal , obfuscate , deny, in short do whatever they can legally and too often illegally to hold on to the ‘money ‘ . I would add drug cartels to the list but that might be seen as a little crass.

    Not all corporations I hasten to add . But common sense should tell us that without citizen oversight and environmental laws and electing governments that promote the rights of citizens to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc things would be much worse .

    We need corporations to be as considerate of citizens lives just as much if not more so than they are considerate of their shareholder’s dividends .

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I’d agree with everything you say, but sadly in the world of “greed is good……”