General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Gray-Wolf]

Just joining in - let's attack the person (someone didn't turn up at some meeting) with an attack on another person. Both true, but as for their meaning? Personally, I prefer to play the ball and not the man,

I thought he turned up and suffered a heart attack in front of the world media? (just joining in you understand?)

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Must have missed that C-Bob there was I thinking that it was more than Harvard and the Smithsonian that thought evaporation and incoming solar did the 'iris' thing to balance out the minuscule variance on solar output....how foolish I have been. Tell me again about this variable delay in impact and how it squares with the 'instant' impacts (was it just a L.I. idea or was it real?).

Just a casual observer C-Bob, remember I care for a tri-somi 10P+ impacted child so be gentle on me? Remember words are oh so easy ,it is our actions that define us as men.

And I have spent literally years of my life working with and for the disabled - from people with dyslexia and RSI all the way up to cerebral palsy and motor neurone disease.

If words are so easy then why do so many people have such a hard time using them correctly?

[Gray-Wolf]

And I have spent literally years of my life working with and for the disabled - from people with dyslexia and RSI all the way up to cerebral palsy and motor neurone disease.

If words are so easy then why do so many people have such a hard time using them correctly?

Some of your past charges may have better ways of describing that C=Bob, not one to measure a man by his deficiencies you see, I know we all carry gifts and only the few have those that 'enable' the in the scholastic world.

In fact , are we completing another of our tortuous circles? I remember bemoaning the elitism that drove the start of the L.I. thread? If you dismiss folk because you judge them lacking you will be the one to loose out in the long run.

Eugenics and elitism.....hmmmmmm

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

If you dismiss folk because you judge them lacking you will be the one to loose out in the long run.

And if you are lacking and continue to judge...

Hmmmm eugenics .....

[Gray-Wolf]

And if you are lacking and continue to judge...

Hmmmm eugenics .....

Hmmmm....

[jonboy]

I thought he turned up and suffered a heart attack in front of the world media? (just joining in you understand?)

Unfortunately for me GW your recent posts have become both boring and distasteful as you seem hell bent on personal attack rather than discussing in any meaningful way a very plausible alternative to AGW

[VillagePlank]

Hmmmm....

There never is a good answer to poorly thought out ideas. A bad idea is a bad idea. Eugenics was a bad idea - I'm sure we can all agree on that, and move on ... I do not want to accuse anyone of subscribing to such a horror.

Edited December 14, 2009 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/100-reasons-why-the-copenhagen-governments-and-other-proponents-of-manmade-global-warming-theory-of-.html

100 reasons why AGW...............is wrong.

Goodness, this'll take some ploughing through.

[Gray-Wolf]

There never is a good answer to poorly thought out ideas. A bad idea is a bad idea. Eugenics was a bad idea - I'm sure we can all agree on that, and move on ... I do not want to accuse anyone of subscribing to such a horror.

Since the Roman's practiced 'exposure' it has been more than an idea though , and yes I do not wish to linger here.

Unfortunately for me GW your recent posts have become both boring and distasteful as you seem hell bent on personal attack rather than discussing in any meaningful way a very plausible alternative to AGW

And I appologise for that so let it end here.

As for a plausible explanation for the changes we are seeing around the world? Nope ,I have to accept the main stream scientific view (however flawed it proves itself to be) as being the most logical reason for the warming.

I do not dismiss the other mechanisms for global warming but they only compound the problem as the GHG's (in part) capture that heat and lead to the feedback mechanisms we see (like the move from trip polar to bi-polar as described on the Arctic ice thread).

We may provide only the smallest 'push' but that 'push' is crucial.

[Devonian]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/100-reasons-why-the-copenhagen-governments-and-other-proponents-of-manmade-global-warming-theory-of-.html

100 reasons why AGW...............is wrong.

Goodness, this'll take some ploughing through.

I wish I had the time to put together such lists of nonsense. But I don't, what with me not being a political party activist...

[Methuselah]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/100-reasons-why-the-copenhagen-governments-and-other-proponents-of-manmade-global-warming-theory-of-.html

100 reasons why AGW...............is wrong.

Goodness, this'll take some ploughing through.

That's 100 more reasons not to vote Tory???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

That's 100 more reasons not to vote Tory???

I suppose you do know that is not the view of the Conservative party, but just an associated blogsite?

But even so, 100 reasons not to vote Tory beats 1,000,000 not to vote Labour

[noggin]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BE5EW20091215?sp=true

It's stuff like this that gets my back up. We all want a cleaner planet. We all want cleaner fuels. We all want fairness and chances for all. We could all work together towards this, but as long as there are people like Gordon Brown ( ) saying that, unless an agreement re "climate change" is reached, we face.....

"an economic catastrophe equivalent in this century to the impact of two world wars and the great depression in the last"

.....then a wedge will continue to be driven between all "sides".

Edited December 16, 2009 by noggin

[Devonian]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BE5EW20091215?sp=true

It's stuff like this that gets my back up. We all want a cleaner planet. We all want cleaner fuels. We all want fairness and chances for all. We could all work together towards this, but as long as there are people like Gordon Brown ( ) saying that, unless an agreement re "climate change" is reached, we face.....

"an economic catastrophe equivalent in this century to the impact of two world wars and the great depression in the last"

.....then a wedge will continue to be driven between all "sides".

Say GB compromised and dropped that line, what would you be prepared to compromise on?

[noggin]

Say GB compromised and dropped that line, what would you be prepared to compromise on?

Blast and bother........I thought I had posted this in the Copenhagen thread.

Dev, I don't know what else I could do. I am the most unmaterialistic person you could meet, apart from an old tramp! My use of fossil fuels is as low as can practically be. I don't possess a tumble drier nor a dishwasher. Lights are on where required for safety and practicality (stairs, reading). We wrap up warm before turning the heating up....most people find our house too cold....tough. We don't go on holiday as we can't afford it (we stay with family in Devon). Even if we could afford to go abroad, I'm terrified of planes, so it wouldn't happen anyway. I walk to work as often as I drive, my annual car mileage is a couple of thousand. Weekly petrol cost is about £8. All garden and kitchen waste is composted. I plan my week's meals so that no food is thrown away. This also helps to keep the cost down.

I have recycled and reused all my life,and not wasted anything, having been brought up by war-baby parents. See, this consumerism bug never got me, either....I've lived all my life like there's a war on, practically and financially!

I am in a low-paid job, so any green taxation which may be brought in will hit me hard.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the hypocrisy of it all really sticks in my craw. I do not want to be lectured verbally and screwed financially by people who are living filthier and more polluting lives than I am, and who also are better able to bear any additional taxation.

I hope that covers it all, BUT, I am willing to listen to find out if there is any more that I could do.

Edited December 16, 2009 by noggin

[Devonian]

Blast and bother........I thought I had posted this in the Copenhagen thread.

Dev, I don't know what else I could do. I am the most unmaterialistic person you could meet, apart from an old tramp! My use of fossil fuels is as low as can practically be. I don't possess a tumble drier nor a dishwasher. Lights are on where required for safety and practicality (stairs, reading). We wrap up warm before turning the heating up....most people find our house too cold....tough. We don't go on holiday as we can't afford it (we stay with family in Devon). Even if we could afford to go abroad, I'm terrified of planes, so it wouldn't happen anyway. I walk to work as often as I drive, my annual car mileage is a couple of thousand. Weekly petrol cost is about £8. All garden and kitchen waste is composted. I plan my week's meals so that no food is thrown away. This also helps to keep the cost down.

I have recycled and reused all my life,and not wasted anything, having been brought up by war-baby parents. See, this consumerism bug never got me, either....I've lived all my life like there's a war on, practically and financially!

I am in a low-paid job, so any green taxation which may be brought in will hit me hard.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the hypocrisy of it all really sticks in my craw. I do not want to be lectured verbally and screwed financially by people who are living filthier and more polluting lives than I am, and who also are better able to bear any additional taxation.

I hope that covers it all, BUT, I am willing to listen to find out if there is any more that I could do.

Sounds like our house...

If you are low paid I don't see why green taxes will hit you hard.

Anyhow, I'm sorry but the more I think about 'hypocrisy' the less it seems to me to make a difference, because what matters is NOT whether someone is a hypocrite but whether what they say is right.

Thus I could say it's bad for your health to smoke cigarettes, but be caught smoking 60 high tar cigarettes a day and be an employee of BAT. That would make me a hypocrite but would that thus make smoking a healthy thing to do? No it would not, because it's the facts/evidence and data that shows smoking is detrimental to people's health whether or not someone is hypocritical about it.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scienceda...91220143921.htm

This is the second time this month that S.D. have given us a report (from different institutions) that we are goosed already.

I hope I am right to place my faith in you guys who do not rate our GHG's outputs as posing any future climate issue.

I must admit the 'couldn't care less' attitude works for me and after No Hopenenhagen I prefer the 'monkey see,monkey do' approach!

Edited December 21, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

I must admit the 'couldn't care less' attitude works for me and after No Hopenenhagen I prefer the 'monkey see,monkey do' approach!

Me too - being a true 'green' and almost the ultimate non-consumer,I am nothing but a hapless bystander watching the madness go down all around. Sometimes I feel like a passenger on a plane (though I've never flown in my life,take note all you 'warmers' who are tempted to play the hypocrisy card) which has suffered catastrophic engine failure and I'm expected to be the one who fixes it before destruction. I've got me bacca(home-grown),I've got me beer(home brewed),I've got me veg plot and a woman who knows. I'm alright,Jack.

[Gray-Wolf]

Me too - being a true 'green' and almost the ultimate non-consumer,I am nothing but a hapless bystander watching the madness go down all around. Sometimes I feel like a passenger on a plane (though I've never flown in my life,take note all you 'warmers' who are tempted to play the hypocrisy card) which has suffered catastrophic engine failure and I'm expected to be the one who fixes it before destruction. I've got me bacca(home-grown),I've got me beer(home brewed),I've got me veg plot and a woman who knows. I'm alright,Jack.

You are right Laser (I believe) but you forgot to mention that when you are on the road your vehicle is always at least 50% full and has a set of carbs that is balenced to each cylinder so uses as little fuel as poss.

[VillagePlank]

I must admit the 'couldn't care less' attitude works for me and after No Hopenenhagen I prefer the 'monkey see,monkey do' approach!

You see, this is what bugs me; some alluding to some 'devil-may-care' attitude.

In the work that I do, I have reduced server emissions by some 75% (through virtualisation), and I have started to remove the need to travel (internationally for over 200 people) I have been running some 1.25 Fiesta for 3 years, for God's sake. My house is well insulated, I have energy saving light-bulbs in every light socket, nothing is left on standby. We buy local food that we can walk to, to collect. And this is no easy task for a family with five chilren, a dog and a cat.

It's not because I agree with the CO2 hypothesis, it's simply that I disagree with pollution - and what gets me, is that you, the standard bearer of the vehement lobby, still simply doesn't get it.

Sell it as pollution (I am already sold) and forget the armageddon stuff. Worked for CFC's didn't it?

Edited December 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

You see, that's this is what bugs me; some alluding to some 'devil-may-care' attitude.

In the work that I do, I have reduced server emissions by some 75% (through virtualisation), and I have started to remove the need to travel (internationally for over 200 people) I have been running some 1.25 Fiesta for 3 years, for God's sake. My house is well insulated, I have energy saving light-bulbs in every light socket, nothing is left on standby. We buy local food that we can walk to, to collect. And this is no easy task for a family with five children, a dog and a cat.

It's not because I agree with the CO2 hypothesis, it's simply that I disagree with pollution - and what gets me, is that you, the standard bearer of the vehement lobby, still simply doesn't get it.

Sell it as pollution (I am already sold) and forget the armageddon stuff. Worked for CFC's didn't it?

No V.P., I don't 'get it'.

I never did did I?

I just got what I got and stayed there (in the belief that all of the stuff that poured out since I became fretful about the planet....some time back in 77'/78....was generally sound and pointed me in the right direction).

Should I come across enough to tell me that GHG's won't cause warming I promise you that then I'll worry a little less but until that point I'm stuck.

No matter what other drivers we find that tweak our planets temp's if we continue to pour out 'pollution' that can trap some of that temp then there is only one way that the trend will go, it always did before didn't it?

I can't get past that and ,for the past few years, you have seen that of me.

Don't worry for me, your energy is probably better spent on folk who aren't as afflicted as I obviously am.

We done it ,we continue to do it, we will do it until such a time as we can no longer do it. End of.

You see? No point in wasting your talents here I just don't get it.

All that said I do hope you have a wonderful Chrimbo (or that the kiddies do and you can survive it with your nerves intact!) and a better new year for us all.

[Solar Cycles]

You see, this is what bugs me; some alluding to some 'devil-may-care' attitude.

In the work that I do, I have reduced server emissions by some 75% (through virtualisation), and I have started to remove the need to travel (internationally for over 200 people) I have been running some 1.25 Fiesta for 3 years, for God's sake. My house is well insulated, I have energy saving light-bulbs in every light socket, nothing is left on standby. We buy local food that we can walk to, to collect. And this is no easy task for a family with five chilren, a dog and a cat.

It's not because I agree with the CO2 hypothesis, it's simply that I disagree with pollution - and what gets me, is that you, the standard bearer of the vehement lobby, still simply doesn't get it.

Sell it as pollution (I am already sold) and forget the armageddon stuff. Worked for CFC's didn't it?

You know VP, after years of being on the merry go round of debating AGW. That for me, would be the best way forward, for all parties. Would it happen, sadly I doubt it!

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly I doubt it too!

CFC's were easy enough to wean humanity off, CO2 production obviously isn't (if no Hopenhagen is anything to go by!!) so even though we pump out lot's of other pollutant's, that also compromise our planets climate, we will never drop our fossil fuel addiction until the industry has bled every last pound/dollar from us.

As for the 'cold turkey' that will follow on from that .......well I'd be back on the 'armagedon stuff ' there wouldn't I?

[laserguy]

You are right Laser (I believe) but you forgot to mention that when you are on the road your vehicle is always at least 50% full and has a set of carbs that is balenced to each cylinder so uses as little fuel as poss.

I can't afford to fix it. Anyone wanna buy an '89,very low mileage FJ in mint condition (just requires an exhaust) ?

[VillagePlank]

Sadly I doubt it too!

CFC's were easy enough to wean humanity off, CO2 production obviously isn't (if no Hopenhagen is anything to go by!!) so even though we pump out lot's of other pollutant's, that also compromise our planets climate, we will never drop our fossil fuel addiction until the industry has bled every last pound/dollar from us.

As for the 'cold turkey' that will follow on from that .......well I'd be back on the 'armagedon stuff ' there wouldn't I?

You see the problem with the Armageddon approach is that we've all heard it before, with, at least, once instance being climate related. Now, that this time there might actually be a point to the whole affair is neither here nor there - it's exactly the same as the boy who cried 'wolf' one too many times. For sure, it has been amplified by the media many times over, and that they must take the lion's share of the blame. But scientists cannot be wholly let of the hook, here, either. Where spurious comments and articles have been published the inertia of the scientific community to agree/disagree has been monumental.

The idea that we sell it as pollution is to change people's attitudes in the hope that they will modify their behaviour. Most people don't drop empty crisp packets on the floor, even though they know, firstly, that that contribution to land-fill is miniscule. Why is that? Because they see it as pollution, and pollution is dirty. Thirty years ago people wouldn't have thought twice about drinking six pints and then driving their family home.

The key is to change what is considered the social norm - so if you drive a big 4x4, then you are a polluter, and people will sneer at you in the same way as if dropped a crisp packet. Selling fear simply doesn't work anymore - did it ever?

The current approach needs a rethink, and, my personal view is, the mess that Copenhagen is, vindicates that view.