Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[yurp 0]

Do we still let you vote in Britain, Strags? Labour are doing well these days. No gaffes and lots of votes - or did I get that the wrong way round? (If only Maure knew about Bigotgate!)

What we need in this debate right here is someone young, promising change, sitting on the fence and calling out the two 'old' views on this subject. You can't trust either the pro- or anti-AGW parties because they're not owning up to the painful details coming soon. Maure and his motley crew of rapscallions have so far failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that most experts think humans are changing the planet's climate. It's rather silly because hiding the truth detracts far more from their credibility than simply admitting that they disagree with most, but not all, experts.

I forgot about maure when bigotgate happened. He would love it.

Blair sold Labour's their soul to the devil.

I gave up believing anything politicians promise a long time ago.

That said, I disagree with some of the arguments on the other side too. The idea that pollution or human activity is self-evidently the greatest threat in our lifetime; that we should impose a 1-child per family policy; that we should buy local food from our subsidised farmers rather than Fairtrade stuff from Africa - none of this follows logically imho. The total concentration by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is now about 0.04% and before industrialisation it was about 0.03% - on the face of it, without a thorough scientific debate, it doesn't seem like this is the most pressing issue facing mankind, or that it merits the extreme policies that some activists advocate. Especially considering the figure has been 20 times higher for much of geological time, and considering also that it's going to cost us maybe 2-3% of GDP every year for the next 50 years to even make a modest impact on GW.

I disagree with a lot of the arguments coming from the green lobby too (can't believe I feel the need to say it again). They cherry-pick data just like the skeptics.

I agree CO2 isn't as big a concern as other issues right now. But certain environmental/climactic issues are becoming rather pressing...

Future (and present) food shortages over large areas of the globe are a distribution as well as supply issue.

The disintegration of icecaps and melting glaciers causes some concern.

My point is not that we shouldn't worry about GW. But I'm not convinced by these attempts (eg from Andres or Adam) to cut through what is inevitably a complicated debate by arguing that 'pollution is just bad, end of'. We should look at what scientists say, then weigh up all our priorities. Personally I still think there are other more important issues but that on balance, the AGW theory is more likely than not correct, even if it does seem that there was more dishonesty than (even?) I expected in some parts of the scientific community.

Naughty naughty - that's misrepresentation - If you read my posts, I've not said 'pollution is just bad' at all. Here's why...

There are instances where sustainable levels of polution can do more good than harm. Look at medicine production - small level of polution, big benefits. Look at food distribution to populations hit by famine. Right now in southern China there is a big drought and their transporting water in on trucks.

Don't make up my argument to suit your rebuttals. Remember, you wanted someone "sitting on the fence and calling out the two 'old' views on this subject".

I repeat (3rd time), much of human activity is completely sustainable, but we do need to think hard about how to curtail the unsustainable aspects of how we live...

Agribusiness is one such elephant in the room.

Vast amounts of unnessessary global freight is another.

Humanity's exponential population growth is yet another. Sooner or later, we or nature will put a stop on that growth.

I'm essentially saying the same as you've written (the red bit).

Take two types of bacteria - type A & B

type B eats type A and has a fission rate of X

type A has a fission rate of Y

put those bacteria in a petri dish and watch.

If X is too high, the B's eat up all the A's and then the population collapses (no food).

If Y is too low - same problem.

So if bacteria B is us and bacteria A is our resources we have to be sure that X (our breading rate) is not too high.

We also have to ensure that our resources have time to recover from our use of them (so we need to take care of the environment thus allowing Y to be as high as possble).

If Y is kept as high as possible, then the Earth will be able to support closer to the maximum possible human population.

If X is kept at it's limit, then we can avoid cyclical, mass starvation.

TBH - I think we're two people with very similar views on this, separated only by the pulling of the green lobby and climate change skeptics on either side of us. As always - it's a matter of balance. In this case balancing need and desire against what's possible ecologically.

[Rainmaster 7]

...What we need in this debate right here is someone young, promising change, sitting on the fence and calling out the two 'old' views on this subject...

Loved it dear Murray, loved it!

[yurp 0]

PS - I find this 'dishonesty' wrap rather bizzarre...

Scientist disagree.

Scientist collect raw data and interpret it in order to write papers.

Their raw data, figures, sums and working are all documented for us to see (just most people don't bother reading it).

Methodology differs and there's a debate over which method of interpreting data is more precise, but there's no actual dishonesty apart from in the press misunderstanding of how science works. Everything is documented and the differences accounted for.

Essentially the press relys on scientists to do all the hard work in collection and interpretation of data and then calls scientists dishonest when two groups interpret the data differently.

Falsification of raw data is very quickly weeded out by peer review, so not many try it.

I think there's a huge lack of comprehension of what science actually entails in the UK and in many other countries.

It's a shame, because people now begin question the field that gave us so much of what we appreciate today.

[maure 1]

If only Maure knew about Bigotgate!

But, of course.

[maure 1]

Maure and his motley crew of rapscallions have so far failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that most experts think humans are changing the planet's climate.

Your fiction, not my words or thoughts on the matter.

[AleHop 0]

Maure and his motley crew of rapscallions have so far failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that most experts think humans are changing the planet's climate.

Most experts thought the swine flu would be so dangerous... So much money wasted... Most experts thought Lehman Brothers deserved a very high rate of confidence... So much money blowing in the wind...

Kill them!!!

ALL OF THEM!!!

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Dear Adam, leader of the worshipful organisation of twatfaces....

I read your recent missive and felt deeply moved by your concern over the impact of humans on the planet. I have come up with a failsafe solution to resolve many of the problems you mention:

Stop breathing.

Yes, I know it may sound extreme, but hear me out....

- An average human exhales 0.3 tonnes of CO2 p.a. = 21 tonnes over the lifespan of three score years and ten.

- Assuming they consume average energy levels, they will produce 9.5 tonnes of CO2 p.a. = 665 tonnes of CO2 over the same lifespan

Now add these together, and the simple act of not breathing could save around 686 tonnes of CO2 entering our atmosphere. Let's imagine that one fifth of the population supports global warming passionately enough to follow my plan, this could result in a CO2 saving of 865 billion tonnes!!! Just think of the impact on GW!

Not only does this help CO2 its also helps fish stocks; based upon WHO estimates, an average of 22 million tonnes of fish would be saved every year!

I think I'm onto something here..... and I haven't even factored in the greenhouse implications of the reduction of methane from all of these people from doing less... well, you know....

So, stop breathing! Save the planet!

I vote we start with all politicians, bankers, pro GW supporters, timeshare salespeople and traffic wardens setting the example!

[yurp 0]

better idea - butt plugs.

[maure 1]

Dear Adam, leader of the worshipful organisation of twatfaces....

I read your recent missive and felt deeply moved by your concern over the impact of humans on the planet. I have come up with a failsafe solution to resolve many of the problems you mention:

Stop breathing.

Yes, I know it may sound extreme, but hear me out....

- An average human exhales 0.3 tonnes of CO2 p.a. = 21 tonnes over the lifespan of three score years and ten.

- Assuming they consume average energy levels, they will produce 9.5 tonnes of CO2 p.a. = 665 tonnes of CO2 over the same lifespan

Now add these together, and the simple act of not breathing could save around 686 tonnes of CO2 entering our atmosphere. Let's imagine that one fifth of the population supports global warming passionately enough to follow my plan, this could result in a CO2 saving of 865 billion tonnes!!! Just think of the impact on GW!

Not only does this help CO2 its also helps fish stocks; based upon WHO estimates, an average of 22 million tonnes of fish would be saved every year!

I think I'm onto something here..... and I haven't even factored in the greenhouse implications of the reduction of methane from all of these people from doing less... well, you know....

So, stop breathing! Save the planet!

I vote we start with all politicians, bankers, pro GW supporters, timeshare salespeople and traffic wardens setting the example!

Amussing satire.

You know, regarding the fish population and its salvation from doom, it would be of interest to some to know how it (the sih popultation) incredibly grew during the II world war. Simple reason, apparently (it is claimed). There were less fishing ships out there due to fear of warships (plus submarines and such) attacks. So, war seems to work for fish too... although, of course, correlation does not imply causality.

[spitfire 0]

Strags, Thank you for taking my thoughts seriously. Sorry about misunderstanding your thought re "cull needed" I thought it was implied but as you point out you never actually said that and only noted it's probability/inevitability.

I applaud your efforts to live your life the way you choose in order to meet with your own interpretation of sustainable and ethical living. I hope/trust you afford the same choice to others and respect them even when their choice and interpretation does not align with yours.

As to the temporal nature of environmental damage resulting from human activities, I have worked in the geosciences’ for nearly thirty years and do tend to think in geological time lines, I recognize this tendency and acknowledge it's short comings. However, I also believe this tendency brings, important perspective that can benefit our understanding of current anthro/enviro issues.

Now...back to work..... let see..... Oxygen isotope 18 is heavier than Oxygen isotope 10 ....and therefore it precipitates out first in colder conditions resulting in ...and...this is demonstrable and repeatable given certain conditions......current influences of the radiation levels and measures of trace elements reveal.... conclusions are...given biofringence and optical/electron backscatter patterns point to.....bla bla bla

cheers

[Medilloni 6]

............ Now...back to work..... let see..... Oxygen isotope 18 is heavier than Oxygen isotope 10 ....and therefore it precipitates out first in colder conditions resulting in ...and...this is demonstrable and repeatable given certain conditions......current influences of the radiation levels and measures of trace elements reveal.... conclusions are...given biofringence and optical/electron backscatter patterns point to.....bla bla bla

cheers

That's just bollocks, we all know Spitfire's used a swing axle rear end, and if they'd have carried on with that design, then we'd have Adam's answer to cutting the population down

[spitfire 0]

That's just bollocks, we all know Spitfire's used a swing axle rear end, and if they'd have carried on with that design, then we'd have Adam's answer to cutting the population down

You are correct about the Spitfire rear end being...well swingy...nothing to worry about though just add about 3 degrees more negative camber or bolt on a camber compensator. Truth is an active rear end is always more fun don'tcha think!

[Medilloni 6]

You are correct about the Spitfire rear end being...well swingy...nothing to worry about though just add about 3 degrees more negative camber or bolt on a camber compensator. Truth is an active rear end is always more fun don'tcha think!

[monza gorilla 1]

Rotoflex!

[monza gorilla 1]

Avoided this thread for reasons of low boredom threshold. But, got to ask the doomsayers something. Whatcha doin' about it? Other than wailing and gnashing the old teeth.

[yurp 0]

Avoided this thread for reasons of low boredom threshold. But, got to ask the doomsayers something. Whatcha doin' about it? Other than wailing and gnashing the old teeth.

Hi Monza - long time.

I wouldn't call myself a 'doomsayer', just a pragmatist.

Any way - I answered your question 3 posts ago.

My wife and I are having no more than 2 children, quite possibly just 1 (if everyone did this, the global population would decline)...

...my line of thinking leads me inevtiably to...

I live next to where I work and use public transport when walking isn't an option when moving around the city or China. I don't own a car in China or the UK. We take a 10 hour overnight train rather than a 1/2 hour flight when we visit my wife's family.

We eat very little meat compared to the average western diet.

We recycle, reuse and repair as much as we can.

We limit our time spent using the computer each day.

We don't use the air-conditioners in our flat (and it gets really hot here), instead we make do with one fan.

We buy our food from the local market which is supplied by local farmers rather than the supermarket across the road.

We don't buy out of season food as it's usually flown in or grown with water wasting methods.

We make the above lifestyle choices for several reasons - it's cheaper, it's better for our health and it's better for the planet.

This thread's getting as repetative as a discussion with creationists.

Can someone call a tree hugger / green peace supporter / looney lefty / anti-human again now please.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Avoided this thread for reasons of low boredom threshold.

I can't believe it...this thread is a goddamn 25 pages long!!! Glad I avoided it too!

[monza gorilla 1]

Hi Monza - long time.

I wouldn't call myself a 'doomsayer', just a pragmatist.

Any way - I answered your question 3 posts ago.

Kudos to you Adam. I might have avoided that faux pas if I'd read more than the thread title I suppose....... BTW, I've nominated you for the "In the spotlight" thread, should you wish to contribute.

[dribbler 6]

You are correct about the Spitfire rear end being...well swingy...nothing to worry about though just add about 3 degrees more negative camber or bolt on a camber compensator. Truth is an active rear end is always more fun don'tcha think!

Reminds me of t'old christmas carol, 'Hark, the Herald angles swing'. (The Spit' bouncy bits were Herald derived, me thinks? No? Fine, carry on bitching about gasses and people.)

[monza gorilla 1]

Reminds me of t'old christmas carol, 'Hark, the Herald angles swing'. (The Spit' bouncy bits were Herald derived, me thinks? No? Fine, carry on bitching about gasses and people.)

Indeedy. The Spit is a Herald in drag.

[yurp 0]

Kudos to you Adam. I might have avoided that faux pas if I'd read more than the thread title I suppose....... BTW, I've nominated you for the "In the spotlight" thread, should you wish to contribute.

What?

Buggery

I'm getting gradually dragged into this chat area.

Thank god Spain's on the way.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Anyhoo...

Back on Global Warming:

Runaway CO2 farting microbes may not go as mad as was originally thought.....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/27/soil_microbe_peril_no/

[maure 1]

Do yourselves a favor and, at least, skim over the following articles. You don't need any specialized knowledge to understand what is happening here. Do consider the actions of the people involved and not their alleged "lofty" goals of "saving the Earth from us". It's an issue of respect towards this, our one and only, planet. In fact, there is not "our" here. The planet is us and we are it. There is no way of escaping the fact that without Earth and all its complexity, there is no humanity. Thus the need for critical thinking... although, of course, the "need" is very, very insignificant (read the last article first if you prefer).

Climategate report: 'Campaign to win hearts and minds' needed

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/page2.html

Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/

Info commissioner finds saintly CRU crew guilty

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/08/foia_climategate/

On another (yet related) topic:

Life on Earth gets wiped out every 27 million years, say boffins

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/12/nemesis_extinction_theory/

[maure 1]

Planet haters.