enhanced by
Bookmark:
Pray tell what difference will this make to temperatures?
"Future Shock: What Life Might be Like in 2050" - News media no longer publish alarmist global warming stories because the claims made around 2007 proved completely false. Eco-political group Greenpeace gone the same way as the dodo. Blackouts that dominated British electricity from 2008 to 2010 are a footnote to history. British economy is powering ahead.
Anyone can see the effects of globalwarming happening live on all the satellite and data feeds at www.globalboiling.com .
The previous poster's is silly.
Global Warming is now PROVEN as a total sham http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-45206654748994...Better watch it now as google keeps bringing it down :)
Global warming is being used as the excuse for the taxing...taxing and enslavement :)
#4 Far from global warming being used as an excuse for taxes, it seems more likely that your claims are an excuse for doing nothing. Global warming is an inconvenient truth, and understandably many would wish that it is not happening. But refusing to face up to the truth will only make matters worse for future generations. We have a very important opportunity to do somethng now, before it is too late. Unpopular decisions will have to be made, and it is good to see politicians graspnig the nettle. It is unusual for them to be putting forward policies that will be unpopular with some people like yourself.
Scottweb, as soon as you see a politician (al gore) put out a documentary about this (or any issue) that's well received by ALL PARTIES, you know something deeply sinister is afoot. TAXES it is. TAXES for a good cause? What better cause could there be? Feel good taxes. Taxes to save the world! We can all pay them with a smile on our faces.
The world has been warming and cooling itself for milennia, it's what it does. The effect of modern man doesn;t help, but it is not the cause of global warming.
Having said that, the world will indeed be a better place if we can embrace cleaner technologies like those theorized and invented by people like Nikola Tesla close to one hundred years ago.
The reason such technologies have never seen the light of day or rolled out for commercial use is down to the various dominant financial interests of the cartels, elites...etc.
#5 said "Global warming is an INCONVENIENT TRUTH" (Caps mine).
he's bought it - hook...line...sinker.
Bliar is intent on having a "legacy" of some form or another, even if it ruins the country in the process.
His "legacy" of his illegal war in Iraq is slowly crumbling into the sand, and now he want to financially hobble the country on the basis of junk science.
Global warming is a total, utter and blatant lie, propagated by those who have a vested interest in making money for themselves out of the lie; or, in the like's of Bliar's case, trying to gain some illusory kudos for himself in the form of his "legacy".
Follow the link given by #3 Scott, and if that goes down, it is available on the P2P networks. If you want the torrent file, let me know.
Could it just be that denying that global warming is caused by man's activities is the real lie? Could it just be that there are far stronger forces which would like to put forward this view? Such as the very powerful American coal industry?
#9 Robboz. No.
I DO believe in Global Warming. But I also believe that the planet is going through one of its natural cycles that it does every 25 or 35 thousand years or so. We live on an active world with tectonic shifts and vulcanology, tsunamis and earthquakes ... so what do you expect .... Moonlike conditions??
Blair unveils bid to cut emissions by 60%
When I read that headline, I was sure on arrival the jokes would be filling this page, but I was wrong :(
The evidence that global warming is caused by man is overwhelming. See for example:Global Warming - The Complete Briefing by John Houghton former Head of the Met Office. Since the publication of this book the evidence has grown even more convincing.
Global warming, if true, is not due to CO2 emissions.Try heating your bath with a hair dryer!Maybe the earth's core is getting hotter.Try heating your bath from beneath with a gas burner!
One thing's for sure - when Arnie loves Tony , you know it's full of sh$&e!
Robboz......WATCH the movie....THEN by all means spout off......BUT WATCH IT FIRST :)
We should cut emissions, no question.Earth is warming, no argument here.Human race is a contributing factor I have no doubt.But the natural cycle must also be considered.But to constantly harp on about CO2 and transport is wrong.Methane (8x worse than CO2) and NO2 (21x worse than CO2) are the "big bad gasses" and these are produced by (energy) industries and agriculture (in the main).Mr Miliband was on the Radio 4 today programme yesterday morning. He spun and jigged his was through the interview with hardly an answer to any question and said something along the lines of "Labour will not 'criminalise' air transport as the Tories are doing". Mad....with Browns recent air passenger duty hike just ignored totally!
It's waay beyond the time for timid comments :)
He could emissions by 60% if he just kept his gob shut.
If Blair doesn't have annual targets, this Bill is not worth the paper.
The sceptics have a half point, though. Climate change is absolutely real (for a rebuttal of the C4 nonsense, see here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/364852.html), but Labour, Tory and Lib Dem plans do indeed look like mere tax raises, not emissions reductions. Taxes are a total blunt instrument, don't work very well (see the fuel escalator), and hit the poor hardest.
Greens want real reductions, annual targets, new renewables, energy efficient houses, and international action.
True Lies
The initiative was praised by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the film star turned California governor, who hailed Tony Blair as an "action hero".
However, the Prime Minister admitted he would not give up foreign holidays to save the planet.
But he will be wearing his underpants over his trousers next time he flies to California and wearing a red cape.
Guess where the next job is after he packs up here.
Comment@21. Ted ....the point is free energy tech exists all over the world and always has done. Pollution free... If you spent a fraction of your time going looking for the proof of that as you do doing the elites bidding.......The rest of the world would already know :)
To all you "global warming is a fact" people. What is fact is that the ice has been receding now for 12 to 15 thousand years. Don't fall for the pc/politician propaganda.
We definitely could cut down on pollutants though. I live in China and it is bad. Very bad.
I'm beginning to despair, and really loathe that puffed up buffoon Blair.I'm playing catchup with bills as it is, perhaps I should just get myself fired and go on benefits.
#24 Graham. I was working in Guangzhou a few years back. Stayed at Holiday Inn and worked at the twin towers in GZ. The walk down the road was not a pleasant one, the pearl river was rather smelly too!
what will the fools come up with next,they have failed at all our services,law and order health care transport education ,we are being swamped by greenwash lies lies and more lies the loonies run amok in britian
more recommended reading: today's Independent!
I smell a very big rat! A 60% reduction translated for the 'home' will mean, no car, no travel, no electrical goods (TV, Computers), and no central heating. However no electorate will stand for that so the answer? Why Nuclear power. With this we have zero Carbon and lots of energy so people can keep their TV. By making the 'alternative' so uncomfortable we get nuclear by default. The choice will be clear. Back to the 17th Century or Nuclear power.
Fred's right: see this..
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/...
The climate change deniers from Channel 4 are starting to admit their lies.
the only thing the reports in the independent are good for are to line the bottom of my birds cages
Smoke & Mirrors
To be honest, I do not know what to believe on this issue. I saw Government inspired news management for the past year or so when out of nowhere, we saw Huw Edwards or someone, on a boat looking at the ice melting. When the raft of news stories (all shock horror ones with zip to balance the scientific "facts" on display) was backed up by the Tories and Labour trying to out-do themselves with new taxes, culminating in Cameron's ludicrous recycled shoes, I began to smell a rat.Simple fact is, Governments had a chance with Kyoto to do something about this 10 years ago. At the time, they did nothing due to an unholy alliance of vested interest from the US, Russia and China. Now, with an opportunity to create a new range of taxes in which you simply have to believe ("we the government don't like taxing you, but this is necessary for the survival of the planet") something is being presented as a fact and an inevitability....when I think we all know that Hank from Des Moines, or Mr Ho from China Inc will do absolutely nothing to change their behaviour. But the UK will lead the way unilaterally (pity we don't consider this strategy when dealing with Trident but hey ho!).If Blair is serious about this, then lets be having the massive upgrade in the UK's public transport infrastructure NOW. Go to every major city, tell them to draw up plans, and guarantee that these will all be funded. Tell people the car is not an option, and show them the trams, buses, underground system, whatever. Then, get developing alternative fuels that are "green" and get on with it.People are entitled to be cynical. When the PM scoffs at cutting his overseas flights, you can just see the old "don't do as we do" pish from politicians.
An interesting idea, Blair planning to tie future dovernments to his policies with legal penalties if they dont adhere.
CO2 levels are increasing, and while they might not kill off the whole planet, humans start getting ill at >1%, and 4% is immediately dangerous to health.
This is true regardless of what produces the CO2.
Plants, however, thrive on 1%, growing up to 50% faster than at current levels.
The ecosystem will cope with these changes, the only question is whether humans will survive.......
NOTE: Kyoto targets:
UK is already well ahead of schedule on the targets set in the Kyoto agreement.
Source=Defra.gov.uk
SW, P&K#" smell a very big rat! A 60% reduction translated for the 'home' will mean, no car, no travel, no electrical goods (TV, Computers), and no central heating. However no electorate will stand for that so the answer? Why Nuclear power. With this we have zero Carbon and lots of energy so people can keep their TV. By making the 'alternative' so uncomfortable we get nuclear by default. The choice will be clear. Back to the 17th Century or Nuclear power."Just one Rat?I smell many, try the Beauly to Denny pylons for example, the current grid running that route, already carries all the power generated from the catchment eitherside of that grid and it is only at 45% capacity, question why do we require to triple the capacity when all the power to be generated along the said route and beyond ( western Isles) would mean it was still running at 10% capacity.answer a bloody big atomic build of at least two to provide the carbon free base load that is required and be far enough away from the centeral belt and London.
Blair unveils bid to cut emissions by 60%GERRI PEEV POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT UK to become first country to set legally binding targets Carbon trading scheme allows industry to offset emissions Bill would include plans to accommodate consumers becoming 'producers'
I am thrilled. More then thrilled to see Guga will have the green whether.Now back to point. UK has created the lousy name by the War in Iraq and WMD. I am pleased that some action is taken but how much do I believe in the politicians that have smeared the British History. English pride has been washed off by the Iraq and WMD and resignations of many cabinet members. Back to Global warming. Consumers are never prodders and producers are never consumers. This is the Economic Law. Let me elaborate. If the teacher teaches his child English the money stays at home and does not circulate. The money wheel that carries is on moving creates more money and more money and more money. If you hoard or if you create and keep this, the economy fails.If the teacher takes money from outside or send his child to another teacher then the cannons of economy start rolling.2What is the measure and how do I pack the emissions. In the balloons or are there special containers already in the Bank of England? They will be minding the monetary issue. Little pilferages of carbon and oxygen are bad for the emissions. The sparks fly out like the carburettors of the cars.3 HOW THE CARBON MARKET WORKSCONTROVERSIAL carbon trading schemes allow industry to financially offset the carbon dioxide they emit by buying credits. You can use the plastic ATM card to buy and sell if you find the fellow on the street or the special gas station. 4The year 2050 TRANSPORT: By 2050, gas-guzzling cars will be replaced with electric cars and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Osama is very unhappy about this year. Toyotas have already moved now to create hybrid cars.UK is
JayJay you should stand for election.I'd vote for you!
This decision is simply a proxy for the fact that this incompetent govt failed miserably to set in motion ten years agon an industrial policy that would have seen the country dramatically reduce its consumption of a dwindling hydrocarbon resource.
Now - given that we haven't invested properly in the new technologies needed - all this confounded, industrially treacherous, short sighted bunch of incompents have done is open up the market to European and American products. We won't even get the benefit of a govt led commercial opportunity.
They should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves.
Global warming is a complete myth.I will believe it is coming when Damart go out of business
A new slant on the 'Blair legacy' - Plan B:- save the world for future generations!!!
Of course, plan A:- solve the Middle Eastern/Islamic terrorist crisis and write one's self into the history books, went slightly "off track" Mr Blair!!!
So Mr Blair, could you no cut doon yer ain emissions by 60% and dae us aw a favour, you useless, arrogant, murdering, self centered swine!!!!
I think that Buckfast Abbey should jump in to the debate on 'do human beings cause global warming?' They've long maintained that drinking their medicinal tonic wine has no connection with the urge to beat up complete strangers on the streets.
Blairs proposals, as reported, are predictably glip and are, again predictably, not joined up.
The whole picture needs to be looked at as do the incentives, bar that of scaremongering induced fear.
Take water and waste water. The supply and removal require energy yet, and I have done an exercise recently, there is no financial incentive to install a meter and reduce consumption. Unless you are on the lowest council tax band the fixed charges are so high that the variable pales into insignificance.
Similar situations apply across the board from rubbish collection to the use of aluminium cans and returnable bottles.
Nothing is joined up. It is all fanfares, smoke and mirrors and no useful substance.
#42 Rules
I find myself agreeing with your analysis and your lifestyle -but doesnt the wood burning stove misses the point of the eco-warriors.
Anway good for you.
#42 Woodburning stoves are great but not allowed in "smokeless" fuel areas
What to do?
new labour has changed its name to dick turpin
I just looked for another brilliant vid done on the subject called .....Global Warming, Doomsday called off.................And surprise surprise google has brought that one down as well :)
It's sad, but not surprising, that so many people have fallen for the bilge that Channel 4 put on last week.
But now the programme makers themselves are admitting that that much of the "evidence" they presented was misleading or downright incorrect. But the damage has been done.
At the end of the day, no-one should be surprised that many people are unwilling - or unable - to accept that their own lifestyles are part of the problem. That's human nature, I suppose. But unless we - collectively - take responsibility for this problem, our children are going to face a fairly bleak time.
But by then the numptyish flat-earth deniers that infest this board will be dead, so why should they care? Very sad indeed.
Electric cars require require a great big fossil fuel burning power station somewhere to provide the electricity. Will they make that much of a difference?Hydrogen fuel cells make sense. If the UK is serious why don't we invest in making the technology for the future and sell it to the rest of the world.
Is no one out there even a little worried when politicians such as Gordon Brown start using phrasessuch as we must plan for : "A NEW WORLD ORDER"? It sure as hell puts the ----up me.
Why wait till 2050 for electric cars? We could have them now if Blair would just check sites like www.calcars.org and see what could be the reality for huge reductions in C02 and petrol consumption with plug-in hybrids and existing technology. Even Bush mentioned plug-in hybrids in his State of the Union Address.
The problem is that the major car manufacturers are finding all kinds of reasons (like batteries requiring years of development - when Lithion Ion technology is already out ther and proven) to delay their introduction.
It needs pressure and assistance from government to get them to market by changing the regulatory framework and making 100+mpg mandatory and achievable with plug-in hybrids. Merkel (a clever scientist who will know all this) in Germany is a prisoner of a big domestic auto industry. Blair (a lawyer) probably is too ignorant of the solution in the first place even to confront the lobby. All they understand is taxing peoples lifestyle and stopping them doing things.
Finally, why keep picking on the airlines? In Scotland on the periphery of the EU we need low cost air travel to do business here in the global marketplace more than any other part of the UK. Why not help the airlines out with international state funding for research and development of bio-kerosene as an alternative to fossil based aviation fuel? In some ways the dimming effects of airliners helps buy us some time in any case!
Any news from the Iraq about the petrol emmission
More targets! Just what the place needed!
Isn't flying 'public' transport? I mean, there are hundreds of people on one plan, unlike Richard Branson in his private jet.
Brown's New World Order means one set of rules for him and his ilk, funded by you, me and everyone else.
N0 51 You mean dance not ball? That is abusive but oh what the heck we are dying daily. Pardoned.
54 Glenboggle:
Only when they use the phrase 'New World Order 'coupled with 'we must reduce freedom of speech' - urrr both of which Gordon spouts on a regular basis.
So Tony and Gordon are showing the way on CC and will change China and stop it producing CO2.
What an arrogant pair they are. -yeh like they stopped Iran and have saved Africa.
As for Tony - think AJ said it all.....
Scotland is way down on the world list of poluters, so why doesn't Tony tell the truth, and say I want to cut Englands polution? Even then it will have zero effect on world polution, as long as the US, India and China continue to pump out vast ammounts of crap.
I'm with Jay Jay #33 on this , i don't know what to believe. I saw the report last night that said every household in the UK would have to stop using central heating, get rid of TVs, stereos, all electric games, all kitchen gadgets including kettles, install low energy light bulbs, get rid of the car no matter how economical it is, stop taking holidays abroad and we would reach a figure of 68% cut in emissions. Now if that is true, is it a price that everyone realistically is prepared to pay, and remember this is for every household in the UK.
59 Reading Republic,Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; natural factors on their own would have produced an overall drop in global average temperatures. See this and a lot more debunking of warming cynics mythology at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?month=3&id=5464. The fact that much of the warming is anthropogenic could be a good thing as it means we can do something about it. This legislation is a step in the right direction and the bickering fools whingeing about taxation should take a look at themselves, imho.
#52I think the problem is that, increasingly, what we see in the media is driven by an agenda - the trouble is, no-one tells us that they have a vested interest.A scientist, who is dependent on donation and Government Grants for his research, is never likely to be objective about his research if, by so doing, he cuts off his funding supply. Consequently, we get all sorts of cod science presented as "fact". Great recent examples include the triple MMR jab, the Iraq War, margerine or butter (trans fats) or, if you want to go back to the 1950's, smoking (good for you then because "research" was funded by fag makers!)The point I am making is that nothing is balanced any more. Everyone follows an agenda, and very often, that agenda is deeply surpressed.If global warming is real, and is a factor of CO2 emissions, then quite clearly the Government should do something. However, I fear they might raise taxes and do nothing, and that seems to me to be a monumental con. In years to come, it sets the platform for raising taxes yet further because past rises "didn't change our behaviour".Its very simple. If you want people out of cars, invest billions in a public transport system that is closer to free than prohibitively expensive. Make driving the car so expensive that it would be folly not to consider the alternative. But don't fanny around with the sort of guff we read about forcing everyone to use long life energy efficient light bulbs (a) when Government offices burn the lights all night long and (b) the environment minister ends up on the board of the light bulb manufacturer.We don't have politicians with the balls to do "what must be done". We never have, and never will. It infuriates me when they claim to be "tough" on these issues then roll over and grant concessions to the haulage industry, Ann Gloag or whomever. I will believe them when they act.
The big global warming scandal! For all those that will still be alive in 2050 who believe CO2 is responsible for global warming (according to the government paid scientists) be prepared to eat your hats!!
We should be looking at the devastation of forests all over the world and the destruction of marine habitants. Why is recycling not compulsory in this country just like paying council tax!! Or do the costs in recycling material out way the profits made by corporations?! Yeah it great promoting recycle on TV but it should be law!
Lets all wait and see where our green taxes go!!
Since China's annual INCREASE in CO2 emissions is as big as the UK's entire annual CO2 emissions, the words pissing and wind come to mind.
It's just an excuse to introduce more tax and more bureaucracy
Just watch what you say on here people, AM is watching, he has a little list you know.
PSI meant to add, and if you don't believe me that they are all taking the proverbial, BBC Scotland is reporting that MSP's will today approve the £600m plus (with plus being the operative word) plan for the 9 miles of train track to Edinburgh Airport. Once you get over the cost per mile argument, ask yourelf this....if aviation is such a huge cause of global warming, why on earth are we spending £600m (and I will take best offers on the eventual cost - start the bidding at £2bn) on a train line to make it easier for people to take the plane.Politicians are playing at it. either that or they believe the electorate to be so stupid as not to be capable of joining two diametrically opposed stories together and concluding - you assholes have no idea!
Large UK institutions paid millions to IT consultants in the late nineties. This was after rumour started by scientists that there was an inbuilt millennium bug in computer chips that would lead to total chaos internationally. Consultants were hired, who basically told these managers what they wanted to hear, and charged them millions. There has been an embarrassed silence since then as at the stroke of midnight in the far east, and then moving round the planet, not one item of equipment went bonkers. Red faces all round.Before that in the seventies we were being told by scientists that we were facing extinction from a new ice age due to our use of ozone depleting gases. And if the ice didn't get us the hole in the ozone layer was going to fry us all to death with rays from space.Recently we were also told that the coming oil wars in the Gulf was going to lead to a nuclear winter, due to pollution from burning oil wells that would see most of humanity die of cold.And now the latest new witches, CO2, greenhouse gases, GLOBAL WARMING, coming to a street near you soon. Pay up or you are all doomed, come on pay up.And waiting on the subs bench we have, peak oil, super volcanoes, and the real biggy, ASTEROIDS.Scientists can tell politicians almost anything, and if there is votes in it they will pick it up and run with it.Never mind AM is watching.
Catastrophic warming is a lie.
This 60% cut either means complete dependence on nuclear for our electricity & probably to manufacture petrol or a massive reduction in living standards. Obvioulsy I favor the fromer. FoI's "it will not impinge too heavily. For instance, it could mean changing the fuel we put in our cars, or the way energy is produced at source, or more recycling." is completely dishonest, particularly for an organisation which expels people who suggest we need nuclear.
The bid parties are trying to push this through because it gives them more power over our lives & they care not a jot about reducing poverty.
The Scots Parliament should have absolutely nothing to do with it.
The fact is that nobody absolutely knows. Sadly in such circumstances the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork. Surely if we don't know what's round the corner it's sensible to approach with caution - just in case. As for taxes, I'm happy to pay them because otherwise there would be no roads and hospitals and everything else they fund. If the alternative is that the 'It's all a con, why can't I do whatever I want, everyone should be allowed to carry a gun' nutters look after the welfare of the world, then I'm for the establishment every time!
60%. It can't be done.
If it is a governmental figure however then cut it in half ,take away the VAT, add a bit for luck then you possibly have a more realistic number.
47 NavvyI think wood-pellet stoves are allowed but you are looking at anything up to £5000 although there is roughly 1/3rd back from a grant.You are cheaper putting on an extra jumper.
Its a complete disgrace that that the Blair government are falling for this crap!Yes there is Global warming, but it has nothing what so ever to do with manmade co2 emissionsWe are going through a cyclical change in climate.Something that the green lobby dont want us to know about and deny!Is it a conspiracy?, no its not, is it to do with greed and money?, you bet it is!It eminates from the IPCC, which is a UN body, which, in order to justify its existance, comes up with findings that, year on year, need 'further' research, but always find that man is the route cause of global warming. What is happening is the IPCC keep justifying that there on the right track and get more and more funding from the UN, not a bad thing, except, were paying them for it!The quote that they use the findings of 2500 scientists, the problem is that most of these scientists doont agree with the findings, but as there on kick back, tent to keep quiet.If anyone saw 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', would have seen a lead scientist who was on the IPCC, state that the findings regarding global warming were at best inaccurate and he had to take legal action against th IPCC to have his name removed.But people should consider the facts. Has Climate change only happened within the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, as we are being told, the answer is simple, its NOT!. The fact is the planets climate has cycled, between very cold periods and and very warm periods, for thousands of years. Case in point (as been mentioned here). We had a mini ice age which was around the late 15thcentury to late 17th century. Thats not here say, we have paintings of it, where there is depictions of the River thames frozen solid and fairs , carts, skaters on it!. Before that we had a very warm period, which lasted about 200 years, when temperatures were a lot warmer than it is today (this is being refuted by the green lobby), the proof for this is that for l
We are being conned by the UK governmentLabour and the undemocratic buddies the Libdems as well as conservatives all see this green issue as a cash cow.I think its about time thes parties were shown the door!Come May 3rd, DONT VOTE for them, show them who is boss
i notice this bill forces a reduction of 60% in co2 output, but apparently the writers of the bill have no idea, or interest in, the method by which the reductions are made.
CO2 is a by product of all life on earth, as it is a by product of natural processes. we might as well use a cardboard box to stop traffic on the m8.
sounds to me like climate based taxes are merely a novel way to lift yet more money out of our pockets so they can waste it on nuclear submarines for a threat that can't be determined. as nuclear power goes up the agenda, so the fear mongering continues - mankind must grasp the nettle and start to prepare for the effects of global warming: better sea defences, improved drainage, lay land to waste. this is what the human race has been doing for thousands of years - altering the landscape for the benefit of ourselves.
consider this: why raise taxes to combat global warming when those funds will not be used to mitigate the effects of climate change?is it possibly because the government are well aware they can use the hysteria generated by the doomsayers to make more cash to waste? i think so.
Here in 2100, the unsubmerged bits of Britain are a sun-scorched, over-taxed totalitarian wasteland. But we don't worry because the government tells us we can defend it with nukes!
I would like to see a balanced documentary giving both sides of the argument because at present we are being force fed only one side of the story whihc is in this Govt's interest to push, how many quangos etc like Environwise have been set up in the last 10 years, do not tell me that these don't have a paticular agenda because if they can't push the safe the environment theory there is no need for tehm to exist.Al Gore has a major stake in a similar organisation and remember this is the man that lost to Bush.Why are we not doing something about the destruction of the rainforests in the Amazon amd the Far East if we are so concerned about the planet, this is causing a lot more damage to the planet the CO2 emmissions, but that would not be trendy or politically correct to tackle would it
www.scottwebb.co.uk., ###The countries that are peddling this globle warming sham are the ones that are trying to keep the developing countries down. It is true many things have made globle warming, not just CO2. The great lie that industry in poorer undeveloped countries will suffer is another one of those lies made to keep money in big business owners pockets. Those who use gas or coal to make steel for instance can use a cleaner fuel, hydrogen, which most people know can be extracted from water, along with oxygen which is used in steel production too.
It strikes me that Blair will jump on any bandwagon that will shift the spotlight away from Iraq and Afghanistan. Watching him on PMQs today, yet again spewing crocodile tears over the latest of his victims in the conflicts churns my stomach in anger and frustration. This is an evil man who brags that in Dec last year excellent provision was put in place to care for the returning wounded service personnel. The war has been going on since 2003 and provisions are NOW IN PLACE!!! By Christ it did not stop Gordon Brown from getting IMMEDIATE dental care for his ache this week. Try getting a dentist in Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire!
#82 writes "Why are we not doing something about the destruction of the rainforests in the Amazon and the Far East "
Scotland is a country with about 3% forestation. We have a responsibility to put our own house in order before criticising deforestation in other countries!
By simply removing uneconomical and heavily subsidised sheep, huge areas of barren hillsides then forests would naturally regenerate trapping CO2 with it and stabilising soils and holding rainfall to prevent downstream flooding of towns like Elgin Milnathort and Perth without needing to construct expensive barriers.
Maybe the airlines should start buying Scottish Estates for CO2 offsetting. Heck I would not mind if the forests were allowed to grow back who owned them.
Much of our native forest was burned down by the Redcoats after the 45 to prevent cover for fleeing Jocobites. We have somehow been educated to think that these millions of acres of bald, eroded moonscapes are somehow 'beautiful' and must be preserved - escpecially by the anti windfarm lobby.
# 29 - You people that keep chanting that tired old line about Nuclear Energy being 'Zero Carbon'. The sheer magnitude of short signtedness is astonishing.
Do you think that processed uranium just pops up out of the ground, ready to be put into reactors? No. It has to be mined out, from some of the worst condition mines on Earth, using huge amounts of energy. It has to be processed, also a hugely energy intensive process, it has to be transported, the nuclear reactors require absolutely HUGE investments in energy use and carbon emission to construct. Then you get power out, oh yes, but afterward you have another very costly and not even yet worked out reprocessing and disposal process for the spent fuel, and another enormous expenditure of energy to decomission the nuclear plant.
Zero Carbon???? I am constantly amazed that folk can be so stupid as to beleive that.
Just for good measure, Nuclear power leaves you with highly dangerous waste that lasts thousands of years, the people that have to mine it are frequently the most socially exploted in society, and oh yeah, the supply of uranium is, comparatively speaking, just about as finite as the oil which is starting to run out, so even if it was a sensible solution it will not last long enough to make any real difference.
You can slag off windmills or hydro/tidal/wave power all you like, but guess what, you build the machine for (compared to nuclear power plants) comparatively modest amounts of energy and carbon and it sits there and to all intents and purposes the energy DOES just 'come up out of the ground' (or the sky, or the sea, etc).
Are renewables the ultimate perfect magic solution with no downside, of course not - no such solution exists, although guaranteed some sceptic will pipe up and pick on some flaw with renewables as if that completely invalidates their usefulness and somehow revalidates nuclear while ignoring all of ITS (many) flaws.
Open your eyes and look at t
Comment@83 Andrew Allan, totally agree mate, but they are also using the lie as an excuse to tag us and tax us till the burden breaks us..People need to wake up to the fact that we have utter scumbags running us.....programming us through the use of the media they own and their skills in mass mind control :)
Recycle was a big thing too. To my generation and older folks, we remember too well how recycling was done during WWII. After the war we recyclyd scrap medals for money ( we kids weren't rich and had to earn our money). We even collected pop bottles which had we would get a refund on them. That died out and then in the 60's-70's it became popular again but with a difference, Now you pay to have artricles recycled and then pay for the article. Can say a lot of bad things about capitalist but you have to admit they know how to get things their way.Now we have globial warming. True or false? How much is the human race causing? Ihave to believe that we are the cause for these reasons. In the Koyots agreement one can sell credits and China is making a fortune on that scheme because they are expempt. After all if China pollutes the air it really has nothing to do with golbal warming. It is only the developed countries that pollution will cause global warming. Another reason is that Mr. Gore was the inventor of the internet and that makes him a smart man. He proved that he could count chafs in Florida so he good in math. We all know that his book, must be true because he did so much research and has quite a bit of knowledge on climate changle. He earned his degree in Hollywood. The last reason I believe is that Governor Schwarneggar said so and he being a movie star and a governor he must not only know but be another expert from the university of
My view of PUPPET politicians these days could not be lower. There is not a longterm established party out there thats not full of these bought and paid for lowlife :)
88 cont. Hollywood make believe.Really we are running or will run out of oil and gas how soon I don't know. Why not use something that doesn't pollute the earth, it does make sense. The trouble is that the radicals have no arguement, nor does the politicans, unless they read Inconvient Truth. Scientist that have a different position and are able to show their reasons are censored. Too much politics and too much scart tatics are being used.
#88 sorry mate but Gore didn't invent the Internet as is bieng put about, he had a major investment in the company that invented it, so you could say that he is being economical with the truth
This whole "climate change debate" is getting a bit silly. The scientists observe an increase in temperature and the "causality/denial" industry is essentially this: "Global Warming is caused by (fill in the things that you don't like) and not by (fill in the things that you do like)". Humourously, has anyone else noticed that the temperature spikes mirror the utilization of the Internet, television, talk radio, video games, cell phones, Ipods and MP3 players?It takes alot of energy to keep these "entertainment sources" up and running. Are they carbon neutral? Are the environmentally pious finger-waggers walking the walk?
85Can you seriously see the sporting estates and landed gentry taking this idea on board?
Thought not.
www.scottwebb.co.uk.,#87 Have siad this my self, though I have made it clear it is being don't through paranoia.
# JDM
No it won't be powering ahead, JDM, because - climate change or no climate change - by 2050 peak oil will have long sent the costs of oil up into the stratosphere, and the oil economy will be long gone:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
we all know that excrement (s***e) produces methane. we all know that this Government and executive talk a load of S***E. we could cut emissions by 80% in a week if could get them to shut their yaps, as said by #20 who beat me to it, well done!
#88 Peter 100 That comment along with the others was meant to be a pun not fact. It was originally used by the DOD and when they made it public he voted for it and took credit for inventing it. If he owned interest in it he may have violated some laws there, Wouldn't call it inside trading but how about getting some "earnings" to cast a vote?
When it comes to globalwarming what planet is Blair's Labour Government living on certainly not Earth. when it comes to pollution the UK is to blame for less than 1 per-cent of the world pollution the big giants of world pollution is The People Republic of China. India and America therefore what the hell is Blair playing at could it be more------TAX?
An excellent review of conflicting opinion from the Royal Society is at
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761(Sorry can't work out how to get link copied over)
The following extract from this Royal Society Document, A guide to facts and fictions about climate change, made me smile
Begins-Shennan and Horton reported in the Journal of Quaternary Research in 2002 ...... During the last Ice Age, Britain was covered by ice sheets as far south as the Thames Estuary. The ice sheet caused the land beneath it to sink, while the land in front of it, in southern England bulged up. When the ice sheet retreated after the end of the Ice Age, the land that had been beneath it started and continues to rise slowly, while the land in the bulge is sinking slowly. .... Shennan and Horton found that, overall, central and western Scotland are rising at about 1.6 millimetres per year while the south-west England is sinking by about 1.2 millimetres per year- Ends
So its official Scotland is rising up; England is sinking.
Oh, I see the link comes up automatically. Am I thick or what!
As this is The Scotsman lets take a look at it from a Scottish point of view. You can tax us all you like and it won't make a slightest bit of difference. CO2 makes NO impact to our 'greenhouse gases' because almost all the land is rural and agricultural. Therefore our main worry is methane. So for Scotland to reduce its 'greenhouse gases' we would need to get rid of livestock and plant trees. That is the ONLY way we could help. And as has been said many times before unilaterally cutting down on a miniscule amount of the total is going to make NO difference whatsoever.
What irritates me most of all is the way CO2 is a term used interchangeably with 'greenhouse gases'. Why not start taxing the ones that really contribute?
The UK is going to have a large reduction in emission soon as part of Blairs legacy when Scotland finally decides to leave it. Thats a 5 - 10% reduction already :)
This prediction has far more chance of success than Blairs 60%.
#100 DaveJ.
That's a cheering thought.
I just do not know.......Eminent scietist disputes global warming caused by man....http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."
Eminent scientists claims global warming caused by manhttp://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?l...
Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact based on a "growing torrent of information," said the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, in its first consensus statement on climate change. The statement was issued at the association's annual meeting in San Francisco, which concludes today.
"Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies,"
Take your pick Ladies and Gents........Ich weiß nicht !
These lyrics seem to match this GovernmentEvery breath you takeEvery move you makeEvery bond you breakEvery step you takeIll be watching you
Every single dayEvery word you sayEvery game you playEvery night you stayIll be watching you
Oh, cant you seeYou belong to meHow my poor heart achesWith every step you take
Every move you makeEvery vow you breakEvery smile you fakeEvery claim you stakeIll be watching you
Since youve gone I been lost without a traceI dream at night I can only see your faceI look around but its you I cant replaceI feel so cold and I long for your embraceI keep crying baby, baby, please...
Oh, cant you seeYou belong to meHow my poor heart achesWith every breath you take
Every move you makeEvery step you takeIll be watching you
Ill be watching youIll be watching youIll be watching youIll be watching you...
By The Police
Anyone who hasn't got over the C4 sham "sham" programme hasn't been keeping up. Expect their C4 apology soon for being duped. Global warming is here and we need to invest in measures to reduce it. Trying to establish a market force is a nonsense when there are greater market forces driving up energy usage.
My Comments (under review) to David Milliband blog, copied here:Carbon pricing in personal road transport has not stopped the rise in emissions in this sector. Based on 47.1p climate related duty per litre (excluding VAT), the average motorist pays more than £200 per tonne of CO2. The European market price is less than £1 per tonne. With these figures, it is difficult to see how a carbon market could control road transport emissions.
In the past 5 year there have been many new instruments on taxes, controls and incentives, e.g., ETS, EEC, CCL, DTI Technology Programme, Carbon Trust funding etc. UK emissions have been almost static during this period.
The country requires energy to operate and grow; it must divert these efforts to meet emissions reduction requirements. Adding complex penalties does not help. The carbon market is just a lot of hot air. The best results come from investments in efforts to reduce emissions, not from taxes and artificial markets.
The Government collects £30bn per year in energy related taxes. I suspect that total annual government investment in energy efficiency, technology improvement and renewables is no more than 1% of revenues collected. I won't be the first to say to you that investment on a much larger scale is required to drive emissions reductions.
#102 LockExactly.....and NO2CO2 is the least pollutingmethane is 8 x more pollutingNO2 21 xfinally CFC's (which are no longer used throughout Europe but are used in some developing countries) around 3000 x more polluting than CO2.
Biggest producer of CO2 is industry"----------------------" methane and NO2= agriculture.
More propagand to tax us more global warming cods wallop how much rubbish does this man think we will accept from his mouth
If Tony kept his mouth shut the reduction would reduce GB output by more than 60%
Yesterday on NewsMax an article reported that a group of these global warming nitwits went off on an expedition in northern Alaska to "prove" the effects of this supposed warming phenomenon, only to be foiled by temperatures that fell to -100 F.
Al Gore has finally found his niche: but the inconvenient truth is that he really is a dope. We do not know why global warming occurs. Or, even if it is occurring as the doomsday claque moans and groans.
But the nutjobs have found themselves a perfect explanation to why the temperatures fell to -100 F: global warming brings on "unpredictable" weather and "great extremes" of temperature, precipitation, and etc. So if Hell freezes over, global warming is nonetheless to blame.
See how nicely this lunacy dovetails?
The Majority of CO2s output in the UK are generated in England - Independence she see Scotland reducing it’s Quota and falling well within reserves!
Southern Skye: the biggest producer of CO2 and of 02 as well is the OCEAN.
Swamps produce methane, called "swamp gas" here in the USA. Cattle also produce methane, but nowhere near as much as swamps produce. Thre are places in the American south where you can drive at night and nearly pass out when you go through low swampy terrain in Georgia, Florida, Lousiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Sometimes you can even see blue lights flickering in the swamp if the gas is particularly heavy.
Swamp gas is explosive, and houses in or near these swamps have been known to blow up on rare occasions as methane accumulates inside.
It would take one heck of a lot of cattle to produce the methane that one swamp generates.
Solar activity has by far the best record in matching temp changes.Ice core data proves higher temps cause higher levels of co2 and not the other way around. Cosmic rays do have an effect in cloud formation. Solar wind does block cosmic rays. The solar activity records in the last thirty years can be easily explained so there no inconsistency between the suns activity and Earth temps. Co2 does have a saturation point with regards to IR. Water vapour is by far the biggest contributor to the green house effect. Man only produces 3% of the co2 released into the atmosphere every year. Mount Pinatubo did produce more pollutants than mankind ever has in one eruption. At least 80% of all volcanic activity is under water. The Sun is more active now than it has been in the last 8000 years. All other objects in the Solar System are showing major climatic shifts, so what people will say you can't compare Mars, Earth, Venus and the rest, yes but the analogy is that if one animal in the pet shop is sick then it is a one off occurrence however if all the animals are sick at the same time then it is only reasonable to presume that there may be a common denominator.
Peter100: the first "internet" was the ARPANET, begun by the US Dept of Defense in the 1960s through its Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The scheme passed over into the civilian world in subsequent decades as the PC became ubiquitous. That's history. Amazing that somebody actually believes a "company" "invented" the internet, and just as silly as Mentally Challenged Al Gore's statement that HE invented it.
#113 Martha.No argument here. Sorry I should have clarified that I was making a reference to UK only and using the figures from Govt website (www.defra.gov.uk).
I know one of the major agricultural producers wold-wide is rice/paddy fields....I expect they are similar to swamps ;-))!
#76 Edward: the "Little Ice Age" you speak of lasted from c. 1350 to c.1850-- that's 500 years, not 200 years.
And, the earth has cycled between cool and warm periods for MILLIONS of years, not merely thousands of years. There have been many ice ages, not just one.
There was a supervolcanic explosion in SE ASia approximately in 7600 B.C. that plunged the earth into a mini Ice Age that lasted for a thousand years. The same thing could happen again at any time. When it does, the event will be a true catastrophe for humanity and many of us won't survive. If you've ever been to Yellowstone, you'll be aware of walking on the surface of a supervolcano that in fact is bulging upward and scientists believe that an explosion that would wipe out much of North America is not far off.
ARPA.....I used to work on that:Kelvin-Hughes Auto Ranging And Plotting Aid (ARPA) was high-tech radar system !
#102 Lock.Continuing the scottish focus. Global warming might not be all that bad for us.
Upside:Warmer weather, less heating, less flights abroad etc.Downside: Change in vegetation and animal species.
The upside most of us like. The downside most of us (unfortunately) dont really care about.
116: I don't know if rice paddies produce an equivalent amount of methane as even a swamp swamp in Florida-- just don't know enough about rice paddies to make an intelligent statement about them. Rice paddies are cultivated after all, so perhaps they aren't as guilty as natural swamps.
But enormous natural swamps in the Americas and in Asia, especially in Siberia, contribute mightily to methane in the atmosphere. I imagine most of the old swamps have been drained throughout Europe, but in Scotland and Ireland there are still peat bogs that continue to exude methane.
118: different ARPA. ARPA was a DOD agency with its own labs and projects and work force numbering in the thousands. ARPA later became DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 1972 and remains an important agency within the Dept. of Defense (DOD).
David MacVicar: right you are. The present warming trend, whatever its cause, will open up vast areas of land for agriculture in the northern countries. When you consider that Arctic creatures have survived for millions of years, there's nothing to suppose that they will become extinct now. Most animals are very adaptable. Polar bears survive in zoos in the southern USA, so why wouldn't they survive in Alaska and northern Canada? Seals and sealions abound in coastal waters of California and Oregon, which are far from being frigid, and polar bears eat seals. My guess is that if this warming trend continues, polar bears will adjust their hunting habits. They already, in places like Churchill on James Bay (Canada) have learned different feeding habits from the proximity to human settlements.
Other life forms will no doubt adapt as well, as will humans. The biggest threat to human survival in my opinion is another Ice Age. We are in no way equipped to sustain modern society if for any reason the temperatures suddenly drop worldwide for a sustained period of time.
Sorry....in all posts where I mentionNO2 - Nitrogen dioxide I actually meanN20 - nitrous oxide
Even Norway is building electric cars
http://www.elbilnorge.no/index.php?name=News&file=art...
http://www.think.no/company/english_summary
And - Norway is rolling out hydrogen refuelling stations...
Makes you proud doesn't it that this small nation on the other side of the N Sea is beating us hands down..
114. George. / 4:13pm 14 Mar 2007 writes
"Ice core data proves higher temps cause higher levels of co2 and not the other way around."
John Houghton former co-chair of IPCC, recently stated
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
"That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round [IS] TRUE.
"The [Channell 4] programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [THIS IS] NOT TRUE." My understanding is that CO2 is not responsible for initiating warming, but amplifies it once it is underway,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2...
#72 Peter, I fully agree with the sentiment of your post!
122. Martha / 4:37pm 14 Mar 2007
With a little luck they will come to Florida and feast on you Martha.
My concern is after eating you will they survive since you are so full of it.
Thanks for that info Martha, I was trying to point out that Gore didn't invent it as he claimed, but I had read that a company he was involved had taken the credit for inventing it, amazingly now he has a major stake in a company that is pushing the global warming theories
Phyl 86 Technically you are correct that nuclear power involves some CO2 production because everything done by breathing humans does.
The point is that it is a minscule amount per kwh, compared to burning things. indeed it is pretty small compared to windmills - each of which have up to 1000 tons of poured concrete in their bases - this amounts to over 1 million tons for a nuclear reactor equivalent.
I look forward to some self styled "environmentalist" attacking windmills for producing CO2. When that happens I will take his criticisms of nuclear equally seriously.
Phyl #86 before accusing people of chanting tired old lines, you should examine your own rhetoric.
You claim that nuclear power requires "huge amounts of energy" to mine its fuel. Consequently you imply that nuclear power has high carbon emissions but you don't attach any figure to this or give any comparison with other energy sources. (You are not alone in this - it is a common tactic.) In fact nuclear has total lifecycle emissions per kWh comparable to wind or hydro, lower than solar PV, and 99% lower than fossil fuel.
Take a look at the certified environmental product declaration for Vattenfall's electricity (charts on p22):http://www.vattenfall.de/www/vf_com/vf_com/Gemeinsame_Inh... I chose the Swedish Vattenfall because they produce electricity from many renewable sources such as hydro, wind and biomass, as well as nuclear. But the nuclear electricity has the lowest emissions of all. Note, this includes construction, mining, fuel processing, decommissioning and waste disposal.
An excellent rebuttal from the Royal Society of conflicting opinion on global warming is at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
Page five puts the issue much better that my earlier post#125.
Begins-It has been claimed that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is actually a consequence of climate change, rather than a cause. The IPCC report pointed out that chemical analyses of the carbon dioxide show that the increase in the atmosphere, and an accompanying decrease in oxygen concentrations, are primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Although some carbon dioxide taken up and released by oceans or land, it stressed that the average rate of increase in concentrations in the atmosphere since 1980 has been about 0.4% per year and that this is due to emissions. It stated “Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation”.- Ends
It seem it is best to look at the science from peer reviewed sources.
125. Davej"My understanding is that CO2 is not responsible for initiating warming, but amplifies it once it is underway"Fine. So why do the temperatures always drop before co2 then.
Another example of not revealing information. CFC's do damage the ozone layer, but how big a contribution do they make. We were told that unless we banned CFC's we would destroy the ozone layer. When the holes did not repair themselves we were told that it would take time for CFC's to reduce. CFC's have now been reducing for many years, but the holes in the ozone layer are getting worse. It now turns out that it is the very cold temps in the upper atmosphere combined with ionisation from the Sun (that nasty big bright thing in the sky that has been shown to match temp changes on Earth) is now causing the holes in the ozone layer to get bigger. So how big a role did CFC's actually play.
#117 MarthaThanks for correction, knew it was few hundred years but didnt know exact figure
#107 ETSCOClearly you didnt watch the excellent documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
It was clear and not hysterical about providing the facts about the lies were being fed.The labour government are showing there incompetence at not properly investigating and merely accepting the crap from the IPCC.No its not a conspiracy, its just a bunch of greedy self seeking people, milking it for all its worth and a government seizing an opportunity to apear greener than green while screwing its citizens for there money
Martha @ 115 - Al Gore never did say he invented the internet - that was a republican smear that has stuck with him to this day, the smear is a proven lie.
However, he is the cheerleader of another lie, this time he must share the blame for promulgating it. Mr Gore has found a job at the top table with the new world order and he is carefully advancing their agenda.
Was he promsied this job for not contesting the election he won all those years ago? Or does he need the money to run his huge energy guzzling ranch?
132. George. / 5:15pm 14 Mar 2007
No one is saying CO2 is the prime driver for historical variation in temperature. That CO2 concentration correlates to temperature change is not disputed. Warming produces CO2 which enhances the warming and so on. It is no surprise temperatures always drop before CO2.
I think the point is the more CO2 you have the hotter things get and carbon emmissions and deforestation increase that CO2 and amplify the underlying natural variation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have an excellent Summary for Policymakers for download. I would take a look at it. I think it is authoratative and it will help with your questions better than I.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05F...
134. Edward / 5:39pm 14 Mar 2007
There is an excellent critique of the Channel 4 program by John Houghton former co-chair of IPCC
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warmi...
21. Ted / 7:16am 14 Mar 2007------------------------------------Thanks for citing authoratative links, which have helped untangle the basic facts.
If he kept his mouth shut that would cut emissions by 70%.
who forgot methane and people.
137.Davej"No one is saying CO2 is the prime driver for historical variation in temperature. That CO2 concentration correlates to temperature change is not disputed. Warming produces CO2 which enhances the warming and so on. It is no surprise temperatures always drop before CO2."
What?. Yes they are. Are an idiot. If warming produces more co2 which enhances warming how can temps drop if they are being enhanced by co2.
#139 DaveJThe critique by John Houghton is nothing but utter crap!He doesnt address the issues raised on the program, instead he attacks Nigel Lawson, who appeared on the program, because Nigel Lawsonis not a scientist. The fact that Nigel Lawson wasnt providing any scientific theory seems to be ignored. What John Haughton also ignores is the actual scientists that did appear on the documentary, one being a former member of the IPCC, who resigned, due to the IPCC meddling and altering the facts to fit the doomsday scenario, also ignored was the co founder of Greenpeace.Now lets look at John Houghton and the organisation he is head of.First John Houghton is President of the John Ray Initiative. He has held positions as chairman or co-chairman of Scientific Assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1988-2002, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford, 1976-1983, Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office, 1983-1991, Chairman of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1992-1998, member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development, 1994-2000. He has received numerous awards including the Japan Prize, Fellowship of the Royal Society of London and the International Meteorological Organisation Prize. His publications include The Physics of Atmospheres (3rd edn. CUP, 2002), Global Warming: the Complete Briefing (2nd ed CUP 1997) and The search of God, can science help? (Lion, 1994).His scientific credidetials are questionable as most of his involvement is in quangos, so its actually his self interest to keep the myth about global warming going as he will be heavily funded by government, if he acknowledged that Global warming was not manmade, he would stop getting his funding, simple as that!Secondly the John Ray Initiative is a quasi christian charity. Quote 'JRI's mission is to promote responsible environmental stewardship in accordance with C
Well it looks like you folks have gotten caught up in the world's biggest scam, namely so called Global Warming. It should really be called"how to scam the public, make a lot of money and gain power at the same time". A look back at climate factors over the past shows that periods of varying lengths of cold and warm periods are quite the normal and can be very pronounced. As far as carbon dioxide being behind the so called warming it has been shown that maximum carbon dioxide levels trail the increasing temperature curve by some 800 years. Main source of CO2 is the oceans which release CO2 as the water warms and absorb CO2 when the water cools. Man's contribution to the volume of CO2 is negligible! As far as the generation of electrical power, Nuclear Power is the answer!
Scotland! quit bitching and just bend over!
If we have to save the planet could we have the goverment leading from the front?At present all the goverment departments are way behind target on saving energy.It's OK?! to disturb the environment by throwing about missiles/depleted uranium/whatever else in Iraq but we have to do our bit or electric will be cut off, etc,It's just an excuse to raise taxes to waste by this goverment on ridiculous schemes, ie: monitoring infants at nursery, are they making the correct noises/movements.The lunatics are running the asylum!
# 145 ..... The "Governator" doesn't seem to share your opinion and neither do Californian investors who put nearly $2bn into new clean tech start-ups last year..
Whatever they come up with you can be guaranteed two things:1. There will be some kind of tax;2. It will be a case of do as I say, not as I do.
#135 Malky's back.
Yip, there's a lot of money to be made out of selling books, making films about Climate Change.
It's a bit AL too Convenient going round the world stage making everyone feel that wind turbines will save the world, whilst being chairman of an investment house!
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
142. George. / 6:35pm 14 Mar 2007 wrote
"If warming produces more co2 which enhances warming how can temps drop if they are being enhanced by co2."
I am not qualified to answer your question except to share with you what I have learned trying to understand the real science.
I wrote earlier the more CO2 you have the hotter things get and carbon emmissions and deforestation increase the CO2 and amplify the underlying natural variation.
As I understand it, if natural variations act to reduce temperatures then temparatures will fall. The point is the more CO2 we add, the hotter the hot periods will be.
143. Edward / 6:53pm 14 Mar 2007 wrote
"The critique [of the Channe 4 program) by John Houghton is nothing but utter crap!"
As you rightly point out John Houghton is a very well qualified individual. If your doctors tells you you are sick do you tell him he is talking crap because he makes a living in medicine, or because he works in Christian hospital.
Do have look at the science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have an excellent summary for download.
I still recommend the critique of the Channel 4 program by John Houghton former co-chair of IPCC
George, Edward, you are right to be sceptical, but make up your mind up based on the best available consensus among some of finest minds in the world. Check out the IPCC report above.
Members of the inquisition refused to look through Galileo's telescope, for fear of what that might discover. Instead they persecuted him as a heretic. As we now agree man is not the cente of the universe.
#3 Scottwebb
Yes, it's funny! A lot of people seem to be experiencing problems with certain links that question the Climate Change scam.
YouTube is owned by google and as one article stated:
"investors will want to watch carefully how Google manages public and shareholder relations. "
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2189531
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/chn-310106-action-eng
145. librtyship, Sacramento California / 7:17pm 14 Mar 2007
My post #151 might assist you.
Have look at the science though
Of course you are right, "Nuclear Power is the answer," or at least a useful part of the answer.
Just don't fall for the climate change scam scam.
Could I just pick up on a few points that have arisen today?
#15 Rulesbutnotrulers said "Man made CO2 is so tiny contrasted to natural CO2 from volcanoes ..."#114 George made much the same claim, saying "Mount Pinatubo did produce more pollutants than mankind ever has in one eruption."The C4 Climate Swindle programme made the same claim.
You and the C4 programme are completely wrong.
All volcanoes together release on average about 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (US Geological Survey). Human burning of fossil fuels released 26,400 million tons of CO2 per year in years 2000-2004. Thus volcanoes release less than 1% of that released by burning fossil fuels.
CO2 in the atmosphere has been monitored continuously since 1958 (Keeling curve). The curve picks up slight seasonal changes in CO2 levels, but is otherwise a SMOOTH upwards curve, showing CO2 to be increasing in the atmosphere. If Pinatubo, or any other volcano were producing a sudden input of CO2 into the atmosphere the curve would show a sudden lurch upwards: that is not present.
3 very interesting minutes about google :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFORXiD18S8
"Blair unveils bid to cut emissions by 60%"
What's he going to do? Breath it all in himself? And then back out again as more hot air?
Why oh why is this moron still in power?
Concerning the discussion between #151&153 DaveJ and George earlier about the correlation between CO2 and temperature during the ice ages:
There are two quite distinct processes at work:a) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere traps more infra-red radiation that would otherwise be lost to space (the greenhouse effect) and thus causes warming.b) the warmer the Earth (for whatever reason) the greater the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, mainly because warmer oceans hold less CO2.
The glacial/interglacial cycles were caused by changes in solar input, due to regular changes (with a period of 100,000 years) in the Earth's orbit.
Thus, at start of interglacial: more warmth from sun caused warming of Earth's surface. After several hundred years, oceans warmed sufficiently to release CO2, so atmospheric levels increased, thus increased greenhouse effect from CO2. However, levels of CO2 never went above 300ppmv during these times (present level is 383ppmv).
At end of interglacial, less heat from sun (due to change in Earth's orbit remember) caused cooling, even though there was a slightly enhanced amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) IE the cooling effect of less sun was greater than the warming effect of more CO2. As the Earth cooled, more CO2 was absorbed back into the oceans, leaving less in the atmosphere, so cooling enhanced by lack of CO2.
In the both cases, the initial warming/cooling caused by more/less sun was enhanced by more/less CO2 after a while (a positive feedback).
This was also mentioned on the C4 Swindle programme, which FALSELY claimed that these events (recorded in ice-cores) disproved the CO2 greenhouse effect. The C4 argument was entirely spurious and wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary is a political document.
It states quite clearly that changes made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. Can you believe this; they are openly admitting that they will change the scientific evidence to match their summary.
Davej "As I understand it, if natural variations act to reduce temperatures then temperatures will fall."So you have admitted co2 is not the major driving force in climate change."The point is the more CO2 we add, the hotter the hot periods will be."
Sorry. I hate to say it, but wrong again. Once co2 has reached the point at which there is no more available IR to absorb it can't effect temps. CO2 absorbs IR at specific wavelengths as you move away from these, absorption drops rapidly.
'Blair unveils bid to cut emissions by 60%', you say?
Well, I realize he and his wife had a baby a few years back.
But, he's getting on in years now and I suspect his emissions will be cut by at least 60%, quite naturally and quite unavoidably.
;>
#105 Southern Skye mentioned "Eminent scientist disputes global warming caused by man....Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia"
Fred Singer was one of the main commentators on the C4 Swindle programme. I think many would call him a charlatan, rather than an eminent scientist.The ClimateDenial website reports: Fred Singer: Despite the caption on the C4 programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more… ). In 1990 he founded “The Science and Environment Policy Project”, which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO.
The US Union Of Concerned Scientists reports that Fred Singer is affiliated as a spokesperson with ELEVEN ExxonMobil-Funded organizations "Providing Disinformation on Global Warming"Other contributors to the C4 Swindle programme were similarly affiliated to ExxonMobil funded groups:Patrick Michaels 11Frederick Seitz 5Richard Lindzen 3
(see http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon
157. Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 10:55pm 14 Mar 2007
The mountain is making a better job of summarising the science than my efforts.
Perhaps you might develop the argument a little further, Slioch, to include the impact of man made emissions and de-forestation.
#158 George said "Once co2 has reached the point at which there is no more available IR to absorb it can't effect temps."
True, but it has not reached that point - the absorption spectra for CO2 is not saturated, therefore an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in heating (though the relationship is not linear, it is approximately logarithmic).
You misrepresent the IPCC. What is undeniable is that it presents the most reliably collected set of data relevant to climate change, and to dismiss that is absurd.
157. SliochHowever, levels of CO2 never went above 300ppmv during these times (present level is 383ppmv).Are you sureLate Ordovician Iceage 12 times todays level of co2in fact we are in a period of very low levels of co2. Some more information on past levels of co2.
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today
Blair is off his rocker. Desperate for a legacy. He's got one he will never be rid of....Iraq.
The question is: why? Why would this "global warming" question arise in the first place? Is it sui generis or is it an effort by someone or something to distract the public?
You can't blame Al Gore; he's just part of the effect, not the cause. That he (finally) found a vehicle to make a lot of money by his doomsday movie is probably just a blip in the law of averages: most really stupid people don't get that far-- but then, Al Gore was a legacy Congressional member, with his constituency handed to him along with his silver baby mug and spoon.
I LOVE the statement "C02 levels have been continuously monitored since 1958." Wow!!! That long? Gee, this must prove we're at the bringk of human catastrophe! Forty-nine years of monitoring, and the C02 levels rise every year!!!! Instruments become more sensitive every year too, as technology expands.
Of course, energy use especially including automobiles have increased during the same time-- no one's arguing that. And, HELLO!! human and some animal populations have increased even faster, ESPECIALLY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD THAT IS SO DAMNED ANXIOUS TO GET ON THE KYOTO MONEY WAGON; and rain forests have been burned down, and are burning at this moment, to accommodate a human, out-of-control, population explosion. Just like the enormous city dump south of the border in Tijuana, which has been burning for decades now, nobody even tries to put it out; and how much C02 does it produce? And is it comparable to the money the Government of Mexico (read: corrupt and greedy Mexican politicians) stand to gain from Kyoto? I would venture, quite a lot. They signed up for Kyoto, but do nothing to slow their incredible population growth, nor to quench their incessant burning, nor to create solid and equitable government programs to ensure that Mexicans can find jobs and housing INSIDE Mexico instead of having to sneak into the USA by the millions to do it. And Mexico is only ONE third
158. George. / 11:00pm 14 Mar 2007 wrote
"you have admitted co2 is not the major driving force in climate change"
George you really need to look at the science. No one is saying that it is.
Man made carbon emmissions and de-forestation increase CO2 and amplify the underlying natural variation.
I think it would help if you cite your peer reviewed sources. It seems to me you are playing back Martin Durkin's misguided material.
162. Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 11:43pm 14 Mar 2007
Thanks for the post on absorption, this is not my field?
At the end of the day you can lead a bore to science but you can't make him think.
Good Night.
Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature.Heinz Hug showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.
#161 DaveJ
Thanks for that Dave. It was Rulesbutnotrulers and perhaps a few others perhaps (sorry Rules - I know you are doing far more than most to reduce your CO2 emissions, just a pity you don't recognise the best reason for so doing!) who suugested that man-made CO2 is insignificant. It isn't.Before the industrial revolution (1750) CO2 stood at 280ppmv, now it is at 383ppmv, an increase of over 36%, and that is ALL due to human action.
The IPPC AR4 gives emissions of CO2 as: 26,400 million tons per year from burning fossil fuels and 5,900 million tons per year from land-use changes (in 1990's).
The "forcing" (extra heating effect compared with 1750) effects of the greenhouse gases at today's levels are:CO2 1.66Watts per square metreMethane 0.48 W/sqmNitrous oxide 0.16W/sqmHalocarbons0.34W/sqm.
This means, for example, that the extra heating caused just by the extra CO2 present is equivalent to having a 60 Watt light bulb in every 36 square metres of land surface everywhere on Earth, or a one kilowatt electric fire in every 600 square metres everywhere on Earth, switched on day and night.
#163 George said "However, levels of CO2 never went above 300ppmv during these times (present level is 383ppmv).Are you sure?"
Sorry - I was referring to the evidence from ice cores showing the correlation of temperature and CO2 going back about 800,000 years into the present ice age. I agree that CO2 levels were much higher in earlier ice ages, but then we don't have the fine data about them that we do with the latest one.
Nuclear power it is then, just as well the figures don't include emissions for mining the radioactive sources required for making nuclear energy.
Way to go Tony. You won't rest until you've turned Britain into a third-world country, and given every adult a criminal record. Do the math; out-of-control population expansion, finite resources. That asteroid that "prehaps" is on collision course with Earth (you didn't know about that?) just might be doing us a big favour. If Catholicism hadn't put the brakes on science and technology development (see pi story), we'd be out there colonising the planets by now, instead of "cooped up on this totally insignificant little blue/green planet, whose ape-descended life forms are so amazing primitive, they still think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea". The window of opportunity is rapidly closing. We're all doomed. Get used to it. So you might as well use the remaining time saying goodbye to life.
167. George. / 12:05am 15 Mar 2007
It appears, from a quick check that Hug has received very little peer-reviewed recognition, though it seems widely cited by the denial lobby.
But thanks anyway for presenting you arguments and thanks Slioch for yours.
170. fergiewergie / 12:26am 15 Mar 2007 writes
"Nuclear power it is then, just as well the figures don't include emissions for mining the radioactive sources required for making nuclear energy."
See 130. Colin, Glasgow / 5:12pm 14 Mar 2007 "Nuclear has total lifecycle emissions per kWh comparable to wind or hydro, lower than solar PV, and 99% lower than fossil fuel.
Take a look at the certified environmental product declaration for Vattenfall's electricity (charts on p22):http://www.vattenfall.de/www/vf_com/vf_com/Gemeinsame_Inh... I chose the Swedish Vattenfall because they produce electricity from many renewable sources such as hydro, wind and biomass, as well as nuclear. But the nuclear electricity has the lowest emissions of all. Note, this includes construction, mining, fuel processing, decommissioning and waste disposal."
#165 Martha said "LOVE the statement "C02 levels have been continuously monitored since 1958." Wow!!! That long?"
That is quite long enough to answer the question 'are individual volcanic eruptions pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? which is the question that was being addressed. During that time of very fine monitoring of CO2 levels (on a four hourly basis) the amount of CO2 produced by huge eruptions like Pinatubo hardly register on the graph, showing that volcanoes have not been a significant source of CO2 in recent years, and that anthropogenic sources are paramount.Records of CO2 going back 800,000 years are available from ice cores - though obviously at not such a fine scale.
As for your comments about the dreadful pollution of Mexico etc. perhaps you should consider the following:
Data from the US Dept. of Energy CO2 Information Analysis Centre, shows the US has the highest per capita emission of CO2 of any large country in the world (exceeded by only a handful of tiny rich Gulf or Caribbean states and Luxembourg).The representative figures for 2003 are (in tons CO2 per person):USA 19.8 tons CO2 per person per yearMexico 4.0 tons CO2 pppyChina 3.2 tons CO2 pppyIndia 1.19 tons CO2 pppy
Perhaps you should start taking the plank out of you own eye before complaining about the mote in other peoples.
#167 GeorgeWith respect George, I don't think you know what you are talking about as far as absorption spectra for atmospheric CO2 are concerned. That is nothing to be ashamed about - it's a darn tricky subject. I think I've seen that argument before, and I'm sure it is false, though I would need to do quite a bit of reading to be able to counter it effectively, and it is getting late. The best I can offer is the www.realclimate.org website and look for "21 Jan 2006Calculating the greenhouse effect".I think one point to bear in mind is that the absorption spectra of CO2 is a broad peak and that once absorption on the peak is saturated it moves down to the shoulders (hence the approx. logarithmic effect) - but don't quote me on that one - I would need to study it some more.Goodnight all.
Slioch, you are one patient guy.
Are you really at Kinlochewe?
Anyway goodnight again and thanks.
There's no beam in MY eye, Slioch. I went to the DOE site you mentioned and here's what I found in an article entitled :"Monthly surface air temperature time series area-averaged over the 30-degree latitudinal belts of the globe " by K.M. Lugina,* P.Ya. Groisman,** K.Ya. Vinnikov,*** V.V. Koknaeva,**** and N.A. Speranskaya****
" In the 60°S-90°S latitude band, an increase in the annual surface temperatures is shown (0.17°C/10 yrs; most of the warming having occured by 1970), with the largest trend apparent in the winter (June-August) months (0.47°C/10 yrs). The annual trend can be compared with the Jacka and Budd (1998) finding of an Antarctic warming of 0.12°C/10 yrs and Reid and Jones (2001) with a warming of 0.15°C/10 yrs. These three data bases, while not representing the same network of stations, essentially reflect temperature changes at Antartic stations, most of which are near the coast of the continent. While these warming trends for the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere are quite large, it must be remembered that:1) There is extreme interannual temperature variability at these latitudes;2) The atmospheric/surface thermal inertia for this region is low;3) This area is a rather small fraction of the globe's surface; and4) The period of record for the region is quite short.Therefore, one should not place nearly as much emphasis on trends for this polar region as any significant changes nearer the equator, where the atmospheric/surface thermal inertia is the largest and the percentage of the globe's surface is much larger."
There you have it, straight from the Russians. You see? When you come down to the nitty gritty, the temperature in this "small" polar test zone appears to be rising by .5 C every century; BUT, you can't really depend on the information because the test period has been very short compared to the five billion years of the earth's climate; and in
Rennie, yes, and it's all the fault of the [expletive deleted] Americans, who as we all know do nothing but pump gas into their SUVs, herd methane-producing cattle, and fart all day.
The fact that the United States is still the world's largest economy-- hence also the largest user of energy-- is used against Americans as some sort of accusation. I guess you'd prefer China or India as the world's largest economy (you won't have to wait long for China) especially since they have few if any restriction on pollution from industry OR from farming-- especially compared to the USA where every person lives with recycling, emissions standards, daily warnings about conserving water/energy/anything else you can think of, and where conservation is taken very, very seriously.
Think about it. You people go around collecting birds' nests and wild bird eggs for fun-- but here across all 50 states, it's a federal crime to meddle with the nests of wild birds. In Florida, you go to prison for ONE YEAR (mandatory) for disturbing or even walking on the nest of a sea turtle-- plus a hefty fine. There are more white-tail deer now in the continental USA than there were in pre-Columbian times. Our cars have the highest emissions control in the world, as do our factories.
You, meanwhile, have exterminated the Irish elk, the wolf, every land carnivore larger than a red fox or badger, your eagle population (it's being reestablished via Scandinavia) and you have the nerve to criticize the United States? We BEGAN government-led conservation efforts; Yellowstone National Park was the world's FIRST such animal refuge, begun under President Theodore Roosevelt. Your people deforested the Scottish highlands, kicked out honest working folks and reduced them to beggary, deported them for being poor, leaped enthusiastically into the slave trade where you visited it upon this continent to our eternal shame, killed everything that moved, and you have the unmitigated effronte
179. Martha / 1:43am 15 Mar 2007
"The fact that the United States is still the world's largest economy-- hence also the largest user of energy-- is used against Americans as some sort of accusation. I guess you'd prefer China or India as the world's largest economy"
Hello, Hello, Earth to MARTHA...DID YOU FORGET THAT GEORGE BUSHY BOY SAID THAT THE REASON WHY THE US SHOULD NOT ADOPT KYOTO WAS BECAUSE IT WAS MEETING THE SAME STANDARD AS SET BY CHINA AND INDIA AND THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
BIG OUCHIEEEEEEEEEE.
#177 Rennie. Yip, Al Gore, Soros, Bush et al are really fleecing the herds of sheep! Soros managed to fleece us here in the UK on that dreadful day, black Monday. It was our government's day at the races!
#179 Martha. Another good post. Well researched. You are right about all those re-introduced eagles from Norway but what will happen once the eagles have been extirpated by wind turbines?
This green energy is being promoted by unelected charitable groups. What does that mean for some of those who have donated money to these oganisations especially if a wind turbine factory is about to be developed on a donor's doorstep. Yip, a home that is worthless - courtesy from your not for profit charitable organisation!
Don't get me wrong, we all should be saving energy but what's the point of promoting turbines, including roof top turbines, when people haven't even insultated their lofts or made much effort to conserve energy.
Martha (it's really an alias for DUBYA) nobody else could rave like that.
Why she/he can't be content inhabiting it's own strange little world or filling the pages of the NYT with her ranting, I don't know.
We all know that everything is America's fault---there you are Martha, fuel for another million words.
Can I suggest everyone who has access to a computer that can produce graphs and charts take part in a small visual experiment that might raise a few eyebrows?Construct a pie chart. Enter 2 values, for two 'slices of pie'. These are 99.94% and call it 'Other Gasses'. Then enter a second value of 0.54 and call it 'Co2'.If you can even see that slice, there is a clear representation of how small an amount of allegedly harmful gas we're talking about.But this is ALL the Co2 there is. You then have to look at the 5% - 20% of that fine hairline slice (depending on who's figures you believe) which is the man-made element, and that gives you an idea of the size of the problem. Can anybody seriously believe that Co2 now drives the weather?
And our politicians' answer to the 'problem' Let's change all the lightbulbs and make everyone have rewiring carried out to get rid of dimmers, and buy new light fittings to hide or even hold the ugly things at an energy cost of Lord knows what. Then we'll get rid of standby buttons, so to make any TV recorder work, you have leave it fully on all the time.Then we'll have eco-snoopers penalising you for everything that has a switch on it.Meanwhile, we'll leave millions of commercial premises lit 24/7 even when they are closed for the night!You couldn't make it up!
183, Steve F., Worcester / 9:42am 15 Mar 2007 wrote
"Can anybody seriously believe that Co2 now drives the weather?"
Have look at the science. No one is saying that CO2 is driving climate simply that man made carbon emmissions and de-forestation increase CO2 which amplifies the underlying natural variation in positive feedback.
However if you insist on selecting the science that confirms you preconceptions, rational study will not help. I would not live too close to the Severn though.
In response to #183 Steve.
There should really be no more difficulty in accepting that changes in the relatively small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause significant changes in warming than accepting the advice “Do not exceed the stated dose” label on medicines. The normal dose of Paracetamol, for example, is 1gram (two 500mg tablets). If you weigh 100kg (that is 100,000g) the dose represents 1g in 100,000g in your body or 10ppm by weight (ie 10 in 1,000,000). If you increased the dose to 540ppm by weight (which is approximately the amount of CO2 presently in the atmosphere) you would probably be dead. In other words, changing the amount of medicines we use can have dramatic effects even though the actual amounts are relatively tiny, because they are inherently potent. It’s similar with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Incidentally, your figure of 0.54 as the percentage by weight of CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong – it is 0.054%. But when your argument is totally spurious it doesn’t really matter if you start off with the wrong figures. Talking nonsense with correct figures or with wrong figures is still talking nonsense: and that is what you are doing.
In answer to George, #167 who said “Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.”
Without going into all the complications with respect to absorption spectra, consider the following:
At present there are about 3,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere (2250bt before the industrial revolution). That is 3,000,000,000,000*1000*1000 grams.The surface area of the Earth is 509,600,000 sq km, ie 509,000,000*1000*1000 sq metres.So the amount of CO2 above every square metre of the Earth’s surface is:3,000,000,000,000*1000*1000/509,600,000*1000*1000=c.5760grams
Now, as every Higher Chemistry pupil knows, 44g of CO2 occupy about 22.4litres at room temperature and pressure. So 5760 grams CO2 represents 5760*22.4/44= about 2,900litres. 2900l over a square metre makes a layer 290cm thick.
In other words there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make a layer of pure CO2 290cm thick over the whole Earth’s surface.
So, if it is correct that CO2 absorbs to extinction in 10 metres (I haven’t checked) then we have a long way to go before we get there – at present we have a layer less than 3 meters thick.
Gee, Wizard, how clever!! You've found me out!! No wonder your blog name is Wiz!! You must be SO CLEVER!!!!
Actually, I hate to burst your self-congratulatory bubble, but here are some clues:
I'm not from Texas.I don't live in the White House.I'm not married to Laura Bush.I don't have twin daughters.I don't read the NY Times anymore, not since it went entirely over to the looney-tune camp.I read and post comments on The Scotsman because it's amusing to see what passes for thought on your fog-bound island, and how consistently the same people take perfectly good data and make something ludicrous of it.
Slioch: now there's an example of apples and oranges if there ever was one. Paracetemol, which for US readers is Tylenol-- leave it to the Brits to extend a perfectly good brand name by two syllables to make it sound more incomprehensible and important-- is not the same as an atmospheric gas. Chemically it's not the same. Its effects on the human body are not the same as CO2, nor are its effects on the human liver the same. Our bodies don't make Paracetemol, but they do make CO2.
You can even kill yourself with 10 grams of Paracetemol. Of the 70,000 suicides each year in the British Isles, a number are from this OTC drug.
As few as 10 grams of Tylenol/Paracetemol can cause acute liver damage ("The Lancet"). So keep on slamming your 500 mg of Paracetemol, because you'll die of liver cancer some time hence if you do, especially if you take your 500 mg dose every 4 hours as the package indicates. Paracetemol is oxidised into paracetemol radical in the liver tissue by liver enzyme, cytochrome P450. The free radical formed will cause liver injury.
Unless you think that all medicines are equal in dosage to all atmospheric gases, in which case, we'd all be dead already because we'd have suffocated long since from all the hydrogen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, along with helium, oxygen, CO2, ozone, etc. etc. etc. Could it just be that we are already adapted to handle C02, since it's always around in our lungs?? Huh?
And, during the Juassic, the CO2 levels in the air were much higher than today; but our small mammalian ancestors were dealing with it just fine. Must be they bequeathed this ability to their descendants, because I don't see anyone suffocating from CO2-- although there are suffocations from those supposedly innocuous volcanic eruptions you like to mention.
Incidentally, if your suicide rate in Britain (70,000 per year according to your leading professional medical magazine) is .0011666 percent of the total population of 60,million, then I guess things are pretty tough over there.
In the USA, our suicide rate is 10.8 per 100,000 population (note how we use a much smaller scale; makes figuring out percentages that much easier) or .000108 percent of the total population of 300 million.
Must be the atmospheric CO2.
AND: you forgot to mention that plants NEED CO2 to live. No CO2, no plants.
Reducing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere might actually cause the extinction of some plants. And here's another little non-inconvenient truth: without plants, we all die.
Florida is full of CO2 and methane-producing swamps, and around and in and on these swamps, plant (and animal) life is amazingly abundant. Wow! Do you think we ought to tell Al Gore? How will he take it? Will he overdose with Paracetemol upon hearing these grim statistics, empirical though they be?
Okay?
#191 Martha. Al Gore is too busy salivating wildly at the thought of his stake in http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
Who'd want to take an overdose of Paracetemol, least of all Al, that would be really inconveient!
