Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scotland aims to lead world in global warming battle

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 January 2008
THE Scotsman joins forces with Natural Scotland on a campaign to promote greener lifestyles. Click below if you want to join in.




AMBITI
OUS new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were set out yesterday by Scottish ministers, who urged the world to follow their lead to tackle climate change.

John Swinney, the finance secretary, said Scotland would cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 – a third more than the UK target over the same period.

Mr Swinney said the Scottish Government would be tied to annual targets and to a tough new regime of scrutiny to make sure the overall reduction was achieved.


This will mean big changes in electricity generation, moving away from fossil fuels to renewables and heavy investment in clean coal technology and carbon capture.

More solar panels and wind turbines on Scottish homes, more recycling and tougher regulations on new buildings will also be introduced to meet the targets.

But both the Scottish Government and opposition politicians acknowledge that Scotland's achievements will count for very little without the same sort of commitment elsewhere in the world.

The Chinese government has set a target of a 10 per cent cut in emissions by 2010 while India has set an equally modest target of a 25 per cent cut by 2020.

The United States still has no national target for a cut in emissions, although all the main candidates to replace George Bush as president next year have promised to introduce nationwide targets for the first time.

Even the European Union, which has been leading the arguments for proper greenhouse gas reduction targets, only has a target of a 20 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.

Mr Swinney said: "It's essential that we tackle global warming as a planetary issue. We hope and believe that by announcing such ambitious targets for ourselves, that can, in itself, help to tackle it. But just as importantly, we hope it will encourage other nations around the world to follow suit. It is essential that happens because we have to tackle this on a global basis."

Maf Smith, director of the Sustainable Development Commission Scotland, added: "Governments across the world are shying away from taking the necessary action. The Scottish Government must be commended for its intention to lead the way for other countries."

But Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, said more needed to be done. "Even if Scotland meets the minister's ambitious targets to reduce pollution, we still need to see a concerted international action to make a real difference."

The 80 per cent target was chosen because that is the level of reduction scientists believe is necessary to have a 50 per cent chance of avoiding a dangerous rise in global temperatures.

It was set and agreed by scientists and published in the Climatic Change Journal last year as the best estimate to measure climate change and the best way to combat it.

Mr Harvie said that climate change experts had warned that a 90 per cent reduction was actually now required to stave off a dangerous rise in global temperatures.

Mr Swinney announced the new target as part of a consultation on the Scottish Government's Climate Change Bill, which was launched yesterday.

Environmentalists, business leaders and members of the public are being invited to contribute to the consultation, which will then be used to fashion the legislation.

The consultation set out a number of areas where action is needed. But instead of demanding new standards for each area, ministers have kept the paper vague and non-specific, asking instead for submissions before making definitive judgments for each area.

Professor Thomas Crowley, a global expert in climate change, said he believed the 80 per cent target was "ambitious but achievable".

Prof Crowley, a professor of geo-sciences based in Edinburgh, said Scotland would have a better chance of hitting the tough new limits than almost anywhere else in the world, because of the potential for renewables and the collective political will to drive the issue forward.

He added it would be difficult but possible. "I don't think it's crazy. It might be very ambitious but it is conceivable that it will be achievable," he said.

THE KEY AREAS

Microgeneration

Many more people are expected to have their own forms of electricity generation in their homes by 2050.

The usual forms will be wind turbines or solar panels, although some people will tap into underground heat sources or use biomass – biological material like wood or animal waste – as fuel.

Microgeneration plants can be used to produce electricity for the home or business. Jason Ormiston, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said: "Everyone has a responsibility at home to consider whether they can use microgeneration.

"It's not easy in all circumstances. We recognise that and we should make it easy. Indeed, it should be as easy to buy a solar panel as it is to buy a flat-screen TV.We are talking here, mainly, about converting existing buildings."

Combined heat and power

Combined heat and power is a relatively new way of saving energy and heat. Power stations divert heat, which would have gone up into the atmosphere, into electricity or use it to warm other buildings.

It can used on different scales, from a power station next to a major industrial site like a refinery, down to the level of a generating station for a small community. The use of combined heat and power stations is expected to increase dramatically over the next few decades.

Peter Smith, of the Combined Heat and Power Association, said: "Combined heat and power is incredibly efficient and cost-effective way of reducing these emissions.

If combined heat and power was to grow, it would be a huge benefit to the environment."

Cutting emissions and heat loss from buildings

New buildings are constructed to rigorous new energy standards, but most people live in older houses – many from the Victorian era or even earlier – almost all of which are poor at heat retention.

Mike Thornton, director, Scotland, for the Energy Saving Trust, said there were about 600,000 homes without cavity wall insulation in Scotland and tens of thousands which either had no roof insulation or were under-insulated. "There are large numbers of simple, cost-effective measures which can be done and installed by homeowners to reduce emissions and which will also save them money," he said.

By 2050, it will be unusual for homes not to have good insulation and for heating bills to be much lower than they are now.

Waste and recycling

More and more people are recycling their waste, rather than dumping it in landfill sites.

This has two direct benefits. It helps save raw materials – as recycled material is used over and over again – and it helps reduce landfill sites, which produce methane, a greenhouse gas. To hit the Scottish Government's emission targets, there will have to be more recycling and less waste. Lisa Macleod, from the Scottish Waste Awareness Group, said Scotland had improved, but there was a long way to go.

"We need to move away from landfill sites," she said.

"They emit the powerful greenhouse gas methane, which is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and if we are to play our part in the fight against climate change, we must significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions."

Carbon storage

This is a method of keeping carbon dioxide deep underground or under the sea.

Ministers believe it has the potential to deal with 90 per cent of the carbon dioxide from Scotland's fossil-fuel power stations, without that gas going into the atmosphere.

As these power stations produce most greenhouse gases in Scotland, that would go a long way to meeting the Scottish Government's target. Dan Barlow, the acting director of WWF Scotland, said: "This is a way of preventing carbon emissions from going into the atmosphere and we need to do that if we are going to reduce emissions sufficiently to prevent a temperature rise of two degrees. Work is required to make sure sites are identified where there is no risk of leakage, but there is a need for it globally, alongside a growth in renewables."

The public sector

This makes up a quarter of Scottish employment and accounts for the vast majority of the public buildings – including schools and hospitals.

It is the focus of government attention because ministers can regulate it and demand new standards in a way they cannot for the private sector.

Jason Ormiston, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said: "Some local authorities and some public buildings have done very well, the Scottish Natural Heritage building in Inverness is top drawer in energy efficiency and micro-generation systems."

Mr Ormiston said that he expected public-private contracts to be redrawn, forcing private companies to meet tough new environmental standards if they are building for the public sector.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Kipling,

30/01/2008 00:55:54
What a noble gesture of 0.075% of the world's population.
2

Roberta Burns,

30/01/2008 01:27:47
I'll do if if America does.
3

Roberta Burns,

30/01/2008 01:28:48
I'll do if if America does it.
4

Kipling,

30/01/2008 01:40:00
So if America doesn't, is that 0.075% of the world's population minus 1? Or if it does, 4.675% of the world's population including 1 ?
5

,

30/01/2008 01:43:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Roberta Burns,

30/01/2008 01:50:08
6# America won't anyway. But, to be honest, I'm with you on the junk science. There's big money in them thar ideas.
7

Iain fae Elgin,

London 30/01/2008 07:46:21
Here's a few for those in charge:

Scrap the lights on all public buildings at night.

Take public transport to work. All of you. Every day.

Micro manage your personal waste and dispose of every last bit correctly.


When you have shown you can do this for a year, come back and report to us that, yes, it is possible, it can make a difference, and enact strong legislation compelling people to do the same.


Until then keep your hypocritical noses out of our business.
8

Guga II,

Rockall 30/01/2008 07:51:50
I'd still like some of these numpties and junk scientists to explain to me why Mars is heating up at about the same rate as the earth. Are the wee green men building too many coal fired power stations, like the Chinese, or are they overrun by 4x4's?

Then again, maybe it is something to do with that big white ball that appears in the sky every day; and Swinney's plans will be as effective as a gnat stinging an elephant's backside.
9

Goat Boy,

30/01/2008 08:03:57
The Scottish Government has just published new The Scottish Government has just published new statistics that show that were "2.59 million vehicles licensed in Scotland in 2006 ...the highest figure ever recorded...32 per cent more than in 1996". And for all you folk who think we can reduce our CO2 emissions, how about this one: "Motorway traffic was estimated to have increased by 40 per cent since 1996." This is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, and look at the way it is increasing. The decision to build, build, build and the removal of bridge tolls is only going to exacerbate the situation.

Our leaders are failing to tackle the increasing levels of pollution in our cities. If they can’t sort the local problems - so how on earth are they going to tackle a world wide problem?
10

Number 6,

Germany 30/01/2008 08:05:25
There are plenty of fantastic recycling projects already under way in Europe. Austria has amazing systems in place, saving fortunes in energy, recycling nearly all their waste produced , and creating thousands of jobs, aimed at the long term unemployed. Scotland would do well to study and implement these systems where possible.
11

eddylongshanks,

30/01/2008 08:14:16
You are right off course Guga on that point - but instead of all the doom sayers concentrating on global warming the emphasis should be on the earths finite resources
12

Goat Boy,

30/01/2008 08:29:01
Dave from Barra: That's not quite right. Cars that cover long distances produce more CO2 than cars stuck in a jam (look at the way cars are rated - CO2 emitted per Km travelled). Look at how motorway driving has increased – 40%! An engine that is idling will emit less CO2 than one that is travelling at speed because uses less fuel. So by increasing the bridge tolls, you would discourage car use and reduce the amount of CO2 emitted.

Alex and his buddies seem to have missed this point.
13

Baltiboy,

Tain 30/01/2008 08:57:33
There is a fantastic opportunity for Scotland to develop its economy around new energy generation given our geographical location and committment to a nuclear free future. Yes the impact of our carbon reductions will be low in terms of the bigger picture but that is not the point. We have the chance to become global leaders in this new industrial sector bringing huge benefit to some of our more remote communities and make an impact on emmisiions on a bigger stage. The Government now needs to match its laudable intentions with deeds and award planning permission to the Lewis windfarm, otherwise these pronouncements are hollow and meaningless.
14

Goat Boy,

30/01/2008 09:01:44
Dave from Barra: I see where you get your stationary traffic argument? It’s not the traffic lights that are causing the problem; it’s the 1000s of cars trying to pass through them. The report also says that “Every litre of fuel burnt produces 2.4kg of our CO2 and other greenhouse gases” – commuter traffic is the problem and it only going to get worse. Tens of thousands of houses are going to be built in areas where there are no jobs. This will increase commuter traffic, because people will be forced to travel to work. Our leaders are throwing £500m at a tram that will fail to tackle this rapid expansion. It wasn't like this 25 years ago, so what has changed? Society has been allowed to evolve around the car - shopping, leisure, holidays, commuting - it's all car based.
15

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 09:05:12
#11, Guga- Mars is not heating up at the same rate as the EArth. Why on earth would you expect it to? The warming is due to dust clouds and the odd fact that Mars has seasons, only its year is 2 years long...
16

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 09:06:26
#6, harder truth- Smelting iron in your bathroom is silly. Do it in your back garden.
17

AJ Fife,

30/01/2008 09:11:30
Swinney is fast becoming a star of not just Scottish politics, but of world politics too! He displays all the characteristics of a true statesman.
18

GP,

30/01/2008 09:27:16
21# goatboy - and well named.
standing traffic is far less efficient than moving traffic. a car travelling at 56mph will use less fuel than if it is standing still. Motorway traffic should have increased I would have hope by more than 40% but then we don't have much motorway to count this on.
The climate change currently being evidenced as alleged by some politicians and scientists (but not all) has not been measured or evidenced over a long enough period for it to be attributed solely to man.

I therefore believe that climate is natural and the bigger worry is global dimming which has been proven.

Bridge tolls are simply stealth taxes and nothing more they will have no impact on climate changes. Neither will anything you or I do, whether that be degenerate into a feudal system again. I am sure those handfull of billionaires controlling the world would really like that.
19

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 09:31:08
Car ownership will increase until everyone that wants one has one. We are still a long way from that saturation point.
Meanwhile the car ads all show a lone driver on empty roads in the middle of a picturesque wilderness that few drivers will ever enjoy.
Aspiration will be followed by frustration and disappointment and gridlock.
20

Doh,

30/01/2008 09:43:36


There is also a report that the cost of nuclear decommissioning has risen a further £12 BILLION to now £73 BILLION. It is expected to rise further.

Nuclear power to cheap to meter if you dont pay for the clean up costs. It is almost as a good a deal as Northern Rock - energy companies can make the profit, but the government cleans up the mess at taxpayers expense.

21

GP,

30/01/2008 09:57:43
I will put a bet on that this paper will not be around in 2050. By that it will not be owned by the same people nor delviered in the same format. It may not even be called by the same name.
22

Unimpressed one,

30/01/2008 10:02:47
"John Swinney, the finance secretary, said Scotland would cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 – a third more than the UK target over the same period." So another idiot has nailed his colours to the 'dangerous climate' mast. Of course by 2050 he'll be long gone and would never have to suffer the drastic cut in living standards imposed on that generation. Bamstick.
23

Unimpressed one,

30/01/2008 10:04:36
#24, AJFife, your comment is a joke, right?
24

Pmonkey7,

30/01/2008 10:25:03
#15 eddylongshanks,30/01/2008 08:14:16
instead of all the doom sayers concentrating on global warming the emphasis should be on the earths finite resources.

Good point.
25

AJM,

30/01/2008 10:53:56
Was a bit surprised that this announced by Swinney as my first reaction doesn't the SNP have an environment minister. Yep they do but he reports to Lochhead, whose brief is about water rega et al, all the important matters are with Swinney. Doesn't Swinney have enough to do?

I think that the idea of asking us what we think is a waste of time. In fact a deliberate waste of time so they can be saying they are taking action. Nothing like it.
The cynic in me thinks, it will take about a year to complete the discussion, another year to come up with some proposals. Well we are now into a run up to an election, SNP going to take any unpopular decisions before an election, no way. So four years lost. They are playing the same game that Labour are playing,it is pathetic.
If we do need to take action on global warming, then sooner will be easier than later, for us, later rather than sooner is politicians game.
If they are serious, do not give money to a sponsor to run hovercraft across the Forth and increase instead dramatically increase insulation and microgeneration grants. Not rocket science, question of priorities.
26

wordsworth,

30/01/2008 11:09:56
AJfife Are you on something pal,or just another scottish numb nuts
27

peteedinburgh,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 11:10:48
Quite right too. Its damm cold here so fight the good fight for warmer weather.

Not sure about these wind farms that keep building though. Its windy enough already

28

ARP,

Scotland 30/01/2008 11:25:17
All great fun - let's all be greener than everyone else. But just look at the menu of solutions to the problem of keeping the lights on when our nuclear power is shut down maybe in just three years, after the next decennial inspection, maybe with a bit of luck a year or two longer.

Insulation - maybe if you live long enough, you might get a payback, but not one of the other proposed 'solutions' is a viable economic proposition and the technologies of many are far from proven.

Which is why the all the green merchants are swarming round to get grants of feasibility studies and whatever. If these were really runners, there would be big money in them- but they are not and there isn't.

Blue skies thinking, lateral thinking, thinking out of the box, call it what you will Mr Swinney business consultant, just ask two questions -

1 does it work?

2 does it pay off?

Otherwise we shall all be paying taxes for ever to keep the snake-oil salesmen in business for ever. Won't we, Mr Swinney?
29

kimba,

30/01/2008 11:26:41
34.LOL, he's on the dole,hence thr brain dead approach.
30

kimba,

30/01/2008 11:28:28
Well done alex,not that it will make a jot of difference!
31

GP,

30/01/2008 11:35:39
36# absolutely spot on.
You have hit this nail on the head.
32

AJ Fife,

30/01/2008 11:36:33
#37 Kimba wrote "34.LOL, he's on the dole,hence thr brain dead approach."

Interesting as per usual, especially as you can't spell a simple three letter word! Do you have a degree in making an *rse of yourself or is it just pure natural ability?
33

wordsworth,

30/01/2008 11:36:38
Kimba Not all scots are idiots,these posts seem to bring out the worst in them
34

Buttweld,

30/01/2008 11:41:16
Once the UK has significantly depleted its oil and natural gas (not too long away) we will need all the wind power we can get. I would rather have sensibly priced power and a load of wind turbines (including on Lewis) than be paying thousands of pounds a year for electricity so that Scottish Power can outbid the rest of world to buy Russian/ Norwegian gas.
35

Neil,

Glasgow 30/01/2008 11:57:01
So we are to cut CO2 even more drasticly than the EU or even England, thus no coal power generators, even as back up for wind, no nuclear because it isn't Luddite enough, so the lights go out when it isn't windy & tens of thousands die unnecessarily each winter. & even then they aren't satisfied:

"But Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, said more needed to be done."

As someone said on here recently the difference between a terrorist & an eco-fascist is that sometimes you can negotiate with a terrorist.
36

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 12:00:37
#8. "Cutting down on pollution always makes sense"?Please Rulesbutnotrulers ,how's about taking some of your own advice and start by not polluting these postings with your own bullshit?
"Atention all numpties"? Aye right!!!!!!!!!!
37

Ayrshire Scot™,

30/01/2008 12:03:01
Nuclear energy's a big no no, even if it's cleaner than anything else and the best way to meet emission targets, it's a bit like staying in the UK: it's something we're against and we won't hear anyone tell us otherwise.
38

AJM,

30/01/2008 12:17:11
What does not square up is the clean coal idea. Because AS wants clean coal, or really less dirty coal, which still belches out 80% of the CO2, we are going to have to make greater sacrifices than if we went down the nuclear route. One will be a financial penalty of clean up the other will be personal cost as our activity will have to alter to compensate for the CO2 in coal power stations.

#45 Good point that the SNP have no consideration of nuclear as a matter of no negotiation, even though it might be best for Scotland and the climate in the short term.
39

tomislav,

Home 30/01/2008 12:23:19
10 Elgin Ian ,,,, Where did you find all that sand in Elgin to bury your head in ,,,,,

Public transport ,,, Exspensive (very!), infrequent, inconvenient ,,, until it is,,, forget it ,,,end of story!!!

turn off lights on public buildings at night ,,, thats a cracker ,,, I want them to actually work longer, you want to send them home ,,, ehh ok !!!

Micro Manage every bit of waste ,,, Why when our society bombards you non stop, from every angle, "buy buy buy" where is the sense in buying what you dont need,,, just to manage the microns of watse


No mate before I take any notice of this "save the planet" rubbish I want to see intiatives such as

Government sponsored non stop, multi channel, relentless, campaign "Dont buy, you dont need it" ,, "buy less"

Restricted shopping ours, no more late all night shooping and definately no more Sundays, except perhaps for the more logical stores (DiY, Chemist, Newsagnet)

Free public tranport, everywhere, always

Massive punative really sore tax on new goods (I am sick of seeing good washing machines, cookers etc etc being dumped in the recycling centres because the owner wants a change of colour in the kitchen, or it isn't really worth getting it fixed !!!!!!!!!)

These are just a few ideas, I know they will never happen, but forgive me, until this type of emphasis is placed on this subject, yer all only playing at it, children in the sand
40

wordsworth,

30/01/2008 12:25:24
Salmond is going over the top on this one,when the lights go out don't worry England will be there for you
41

AJM,

30/01/2008 12:28:25
Reading the document they are plugging a new Scottish Committee on Climate Change, when there is already a UK one thats remit is to serve Scotland. Recent announcement on getting rid of quangos, perhaps only included Labour originated ones and clearing the way for SNP generated ones.
42

Miss H,

30/01/2008 12:43:19
Most of these comments are basically rubbish. I don't particularly care whether or not you cranks believe in global warming, according to whatever mad stuff you have been reading on the internet. If you guys were writing letters about this stuff they would all be in green ink. Do you know what I am saying?

The point is not whether or not you believe in global warming - the point is whether or not you believe these are sensible proposals. I think they are. I personally believe that they will benefit the planet but they will also benefit individuals as well by enabling them to be more energy efficient. The benefit from that is lower fuel bills - permamently. In a country which still suffers from scandalously high levels of fuel poverty that is something that everyone should welcome whether or not you believe in global warming.

43

Mcsnagpile,

30/01/2008 12:43:50
Whether we save or power not, there is only so much fossil fuel in the world if we do not burn it certainly somebody else will. Try telling the Paddi Wallers and company to stop development. Asia is building Power Plants as if there is no tomorrow and maybe there isn’t. How do we tell the third world to stop using resources.

As far as BP is concerned carbon capture is experimental with many down sides. UAE is a better place to build it, considering they flush desalinated water down the toilets, and keep shopping malls at freezing level when the ambient is 47Degree C.
We are already in peak oil production and demand will continue to rise even in recession. USA has increased demand for crude in recently years, more, than the entire UK demand.-- this in the face of reduced demand in the UK and Europe. Shall we give a good example to all the happy revellers.
44

AJM,

30/01/2008 12:44:01
Tomislav
Good points How about including:

Fines to shops who deliberately leave their doors open in cold weather so all the heat goes outside all day.

Give greater rights on the road pedestrians, cyclists and buses rather than King Car.

Make supermarkets, fast food shops, electrical stores pay for the packaging rubbish, rather than us. I never ask for an acre of plastic on a tiny item that takes 20min and an array of diy tools to open.

Put in place a 50 mile speed limit as they will be less bunching and queues.
45

Miss H,

30/01/2008 12:51:19
51 You are quite right that there is only so much fossil fuel in the world and when that resource runs out it runs out. In the lead up to that point we will see sky high prices, quite possibly wars, famine, disaster and general collapse of civilisation as we know it..

That's why it makes sense to prepare for a future which will largely be fuelled by renewable resources and to invest in developing the technologies we will need to get us there. Which is pretty much what this consultation is about.
46

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 12:52:33
#50Miss H "Lower fuel bills" Where do you live!

The sooner we get back to electricity bills being itemised, the sooner the gullable will see for themselves what all this green nonsense is actually costing the consumer in their pockets not least those living in fuel poverty who are already struggling to pay their bills now.
47

AJM,

30/01/2008 12:53:56
Miss H I have just read the SNP proposal, must have missed the low fuel bills bit, I thought that they would have to rise to make people not squander it as they do at the moment. Whatever fuel poverty is, then the these people that suffer it must be very depressed at the way governments allow businesses and organisations to waste it. This is not just a pop at the SNP as UK government has been as bad.

Although I did read the bit about wanting to spew out CO2 in coal fired power stations and then wanting it stuffed underground once they have done it. I do not know what energy it would take to do this, my guess is quite a lot.
48

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 12:57:15
Hello Guga II,

My dear fellow, for your #11, you're a true GEM!

The sheer idiocy of the Chicken Littles never ceases to amaze me; the growing number of reliable and recognized scientists who have gathered an ever growing mountain of evidence CONTRADICTING the dogmatic mantra "The Humans are Doing It!" (causing Global Warming), is IGNORED by the C.L.'s.

The only answer the C.L.'s have is:

More Taxes!
Fewer Cars.
More Taxes.
Less Electricity and HIGHER Electric rates.
More Taxes.
Double the cost of Petrol and Diesel.
More Taxes.
Fewer People on the planet (but NONE of THEM ever offer to leave the planet!).
and of course,
MORE TAXES!

Cheers from the Rockies
49

Miss H,

30/01/2008 13:01:30
I live in Scotland. You actually typify the problem. It is all about the price of electricity to you, not the usage. Would you go on forever using much more electricity than you need, forever complaining about rising bills, without even thinking about how microgeneration, combined heat and power, better building standards and so on can reduce the amount that you use?

I think the answer is probably yes.

The Government does have a massive job ahead of it to get people thinking in those terms instead of simply saying I want an itemised bill.
50

AJM,

30/01/2008 13:05:39
#53 Miss H
My reading of the document is that it is about how the government will be measured, who will do, how are targets going to be set and how much control will there be on local authorities.
It says very little on technologies, which I thought was disappointing, mush greater emphasis a lot of questions about creating a new quango for scotland.
51

Miss H,

30/01/2008 13:05:50
55 As I was just saying the less you use the less you pay. OK we are not all going to be living in carbon neutral houses by next Wednesday but you have to start somewhere. Getting people to understand that being more energy efficient and less wasteful has benefits for them as individuals, as well as for the planet, will I believe be crucial in actually changing behaviour.
52

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 13:08:12
#57 Miss H, get the blinkers off. I can only think you have an open cheque book at your disposal. Usage is what the elderly the sick and those living in to do to stay warm in this climate
53

Miss H,

30/01/2008 13:10:17
58 Yes I was referring to general policy more than simply this particular proposal for a bill. Obviously government does not develop technologies directly, the academic and private sector does that.
54

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 13:14:07
Hello Goat Boy,

Since you're one of the Chicken Little's running around screaming 'gloom and doom', allow me to educate you a little about the impact of automobiles on the Global Warming Issue:

Just ONE Volcano Eruption puts the equivalent in toxins and emissions (CO2) of the ENTIRE OUTPUT of ALL the automobiles in the ENTIRE USA.

Read that paragraph again will you Goat Boy?

Just one little ole erupting volcano pumps enough CO2 into the atmosphere to match the output of ALL the cars driving around in the USA, for an ENTIRE YEAR.

Soooooo......one would ask, "Just how many eruptions occur each year?"

Wellllll..........in 2006 there were 67 volcanic eruptions across the globe. Oh wait, that would be ABOVE GROUND eruptions of volcanos.

We have ZERO idea of how many sub-oceanic eruptions occur each year.

Then again, we have the Thermal Plumes in sub-oceanic territory. You've surely heard of those, have you not? They're the tall plumes on the bottom of the oceans of the world, which spew forth MASSIVE TOXIC GASES and PARTICLES into the ocean (and please take a moment to remember basic physics; heat rises, gases in water rise to the surface, and oh yeah, once they hit the air, they rise to higher altitudes in the atmosphere).

These Thermal Plumes are so hot, that the submersibles can't get too close to them: they're emanating about 700-800 DEGRESS Fahrenheit and anything hotter than about 375 degrees would melt the plexiglas and kill the submariners.

Soooo...........

Despite the anti-American drivel from Roberta Burns, were EVERY American to permanently park their cars tomorrow, it would have ZERO real world impact on stopping Global Warming.

Unless you or any of the other Rad Enviros can STOP volcanoes from erupting, CO2 levels will NOT drop.

Unless you or the Green Groups offering up draconian policies can stop the Thermal Plumes from spewing forth their toxic gases and materials on a 24/7/365 basis, CO2 gases will NOT drop.

How
55

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 13:14:48
Hello Goat Boy cont.,

How about you Chicken Little's stop running around screaming that the End of the World is Nigh, and DEAL with the FACT, that the Sun has a major impact on GW (Global Warming), that Natural Occurrences are making the major impact, AND lastly, that we had better come up with SOLUTIONS; NOT to stop GW (which can't be done), but to ADAPT to GW conditions.

In other words, pull your heads out and put your noses to the grind stone.

Cheers from the Rockies
56

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 13:15:41
#57 Miss H, get the blinkers off. I can only think you have an open cheque book at your disposal. Usage is what the elderly the sick and those living in fuel poverty are forced to do to stay warm in this climate.
In being forced to turn down their usage,which many ARE ahaving to do because of the ever rising costs, puts them at great health risk. All the "improvements"you are talking about cost a lot of money and it is money the poor and the vulnerable HAVE NOT GOT! Microgeneration indeed! Have you any idea of the costs and the meagre output,and the payback time!.
I have little doubt by your arrogant posting, you won't pay heed to what I have to say so please go and access the witings of George Monbiot( not least on microgeneration) and learn.
57

Miss H,

30/01/2008 13:25:22
60 My blinkers are off. The reason we have rates of excess winter deaths and fuel poverty that is much higher than in colder countries -such as Scandinavian countries and Germany - is because we do not heat our homes as efficiently as they do. Prices have been rising all across Europe and will continue to rise as fossil fuels become scarcer. You cannot do anything about that. We know that this is going to happen. That is why it is essential a) to increase the amount of energy generated from renewables and b) become much more energy efficient so that we use energy more efficiently and do not waste massive amounts of it as happens at present.
58

Neil,

Glasgow 30/01/2008 13:35:33
"Prices have been rising all across Europe and will continue to rise as fossil fuels become scarcer. You cannot do anything about that"

What absolute nonsense. Coal is not getting scarcer in fact it has never been cheaper. In any case we perfectly well how to produce unlimited power at half the cost of coal. The increase in costs (& excess deaths & the fact that ourv economy is growing at half the world average) is entirely because we have submitted to the hysterical demands of the eco-fascists.

We can indeed do something about that.
59

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 13:37:55
"We know" do we!!!!!!!!!! By your posting and having lived and worked in all the countries you mention I think not. I ask you once again! How are the poor and vulnerable going to pay for all this nonsense AND PLEASE go and do your sums as to the cost in the pocket of the consumer for INTERMITTENT UNRELIABLE renewables!
60

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 13:43:05
......and fossil fuels are not in short supply.There is coal in abundance....... that is why the Scottish Gov. for right or wrong and of course for political reasons,wants to invest in clean coal technology.
61

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 13:44:00
Neanderthal at #62- what volcanic eruptions are you talking about, that are currently putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Anyway, got to love your pseudoscience. You do realise that if thermal plumes in the ocean were responsible, it would be warming from the bottom up?
62

NovaScotia™,

30/01/2008 13:51:07
62. Quite right Neanderthal. Best to ignore the bulk of scientific evidence, and base policies on hoping for the best, on spurious conjecture largely funded by vested interest, rather than taking reasonable pre-emptive mitigating action now, just in case....

Those blights who complained about benzenes, azoic dyes in foods, lead in petrol etc were just a bunch of chicken littles proclaiming doom and gloom. Luckily they mostly died and we were spared their "told you so" crowing. Far better to wait and see if we all die then react I say rather then be bullied by scientists into reasonable preventative actions.
63

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 14:00:08
Hello Miss H,

Yes, as a matter of fact, the COST of the monthly electric bill DOES reside in the forefront of my mind: because I'm NOT an arrogant Elitist like yourself, without a bit of understanding or humanity for poor people (of which I am one such).

You're all for higher taxes and higher energy costs, because YOU don't have to scrounge, scrape, and search, for where you're going to come up with the money, to pay for keeping from freezing during a really cold Winter!

This Winter is MILD compared to normal Winters, but we've STILL gotten down to -24 (without Windchill factored in), with MANY days in the -10 to -15.

C'mon my dear arrogant Elitist, just how are me and my poor neighbors supposed to generate the EXTRA money to pay for all those days? Were this a Normal Winter, we'd have a WEEK of -50 to -60, with several weeks where two to three days a week would hit -20 to -35....all temps in Fahrenheit.

I'm NOT on the public dole, not suckling at the Public Teat, but still poorer than dirt (due to my health).

This is one of the major problems with the Radical Environmentalists (that's YOU Miss H); you don't give a flying fig for the poor, or the working lower middle class; you're stuck in that Ivory Tower of Arrogance, where Elitists live; wouldn't want to soil yourself with rubbing elbows with the Plebs, now would we?

I have called for PROPER and INTELLIGENT tax incentives (NOT raiding people's pockets) for both businesses and individuals, to CUT energy usage AND to CREATE energy. This can be done through HOME BASED Wind Turbines and Solar Arrays. Each and every home would have their own, with Row Housing sharing several Wind Turbines (not the megawatt sizes, 100Kw size).

These are the kind of solutions which would help, in the REAL WORLD (a place which you and your fellow Rad E's avoid at all costs).

Cheers from the Rockies
64

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 14:09:42
Hello Guthrie,

re your 70:

"What eruptions?" I take it you've just gotten an Internet Connection, cannot actually read (you've got the Voice Actuator of your OS turned on), and have been living under a rock in the Middle of Nowhere, to have missed all the eruptions of volcanoes.

I hate to burst your bubble further, but you also seem to have missed the cries and shrieks from the Chicken Little Crowd, loudly bemoaning the RISE in OCEAN TEMPERATURES during the last 20 years?

All this Global Warming business, all these bigger and more powerful storms ring any bells? Your fellow Rad Enviros (aka Enviro-Fascists) have been collaring every journalist, every periodical, every politician, every bureaucrat, they can get to listen to them, singing the blues about ever RISING OCEAN TEMPS!!!

Sooooo.......how about you get with the program and get someone to teach you to read, or buy a better Voice Recognition Program, to read multisyllabic scientific words?

Cheers from the Rockies
65

from_a_distant_shore,

Quebec 30/01/2008 14:10:39
Bravo Scotland the Brave!

Fighting climate change is a movement from the grassroots towards the more immediate lower levels of government with the hope of making a difference at the top.

In the US and in Canada, the positive changes are coming about at the municipal, state and provincial governments. In 2008, expect to see both the anti-environmentalist president George Bush and prime minister Stephen Harper replaced. In Canada, all three opposition parties and, in fact, the majority of the population is embarassed by the woeful performance of our federal government. In the US, the is a great possibility that with the arrival of either McCain, Obama or Clinton to the presidency, the US will ratify Kyoto.

Essentially, it is the smaller jurisdictions like Scotland, California and British Columbia that are assuming the leadership roles to show the way towards post-Kyoto objectives.
66

,

30/01/2008 14:17:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 14:36:01
Hello Nova Scotia,

Lovely area of the world you live in, but apparently the cold has frozen the synapses of your brain.

The 'bulk' of science about GW, is riddled with holes, 'facts' which are not actually facts, rather, they are suppositions based upon partial data.

Example: the Enviro-Fascists have claimed and keep claiming, that both the Ice Shelves of Greenland and Antarctica have been and currently are SHRINKING, that we've lost hundreds if not thousands of square miles of Ice Shelf. Their 'living evidence' are the Polar Bears; the bears are supposedly dying like semi-frozen flies, because the ice is going bye, bye.

Lo and behold 'Science Magazine' tells a different story:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

Greenland also has seen an increase in its Ice Shelf:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107080830.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_05_11_08_en.html

Polar Bear Populations are GROWING not declining, about which the Enviro-Fascists keep lying:

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/05/health_driscoll_polarbears/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138346,00.html

The bottom line my dear NS, is that Ice Shelves are growing, Polar Bear pops are growing, while at the same time there IS a slight median global temperature rise, marked changes in weather (COLDER oddly enough in many places) particularly destructive storms, more volcanoes are erupting and with greater frequency of the explosive variety, and desertification is increasing to a very minor degree.

So what does all that mean?

Scientists haven't the slightest idea.

They know all these events, occurrences, and all too often contradictory changes are occurring, but they do NOT know the sources for the changes, or why contradictory meteorological events can occur simultaneously (Ice Shelves growing while Oceanic Temps continue to rise).

These are the problems we face, but the Enviro-Fascists do not care about
68

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 14:37:04
Hello Nova Scotia cont.,


These are the problems we face, but the Enviro-Fascists do not care about the contradictory evidence. They do NOT care that so many scientists of note and quality reputation are coming forth to CONTRADICT the Enviro-Fascists doomsday "Humans are Causing It" dogmas.

Why in the world would any intelligent person want to throw TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS/EUROS through various policies and laws, which we have ZERO EVIDENCE, would affect one iota, GW (Global Warming)?

We know what the human costs would be though: an ENORMOUS RISE in poverty, human suffering (not being able to keep warm during Winter or cool during hot Summers), less money for the necessities of life (food, housing, clothing, transport, etc.), which would cause a massive increase of deaths.

The other negative outcome should the policies of the Enviro-Fascists be made reality, is the severe drop in all the economies of the modernized nations. Massive job losses (business costs go through the roof, which means layoffs), seriously higher unemployment, which translates into higher crime rates, higher government costs (public dole), which means HIGHER TAXES.

Sooooo........how about we actually try and figure this thing out, before we act like a bunch of Lemmings and leap off the cliff, looking for Paradise on the other side of the Great Body of Water.

I refuse to be a Lemming NS, you may if you like, but I have family about which I care, friends about whom I care, and I'm poorer than dirt right now, so my ability to survive in a future created by you and your fellows, would be greatly diminished.

Hope you don't mind if I choose to fight you with every bit of my remaning strength, to keep you from killing me.

Cheers from the Rockies
69

NovaScotia™,

30/01/2008 14:45:48
77 Neanderthal

what a pity you preface every contribution with some banal abuse - it positively screams of insecurity.

So your "holes" are some data on some ice sheets? Despite hunderds of studies on various glaciers and ice sheets? What do you make of data on CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere? Rising or not?

Carry on rejecting the evidence - hopefully others wil take a more balanced view and reasonable mitigatory policies will come into effect.

Cheers

70

Miss H,

30/01/2008 14:50:05
Neanderthal you are well named. You should team up with nl in Perth and set up a new political movement facing backwards!

If the cost of your electricity bill resides at the front of your mind, has it ever occurred to you to wonder whether most of the energy you pay such a high price for goes straight out the windows and walls and roof because your house is not insulated properly? That is the problem with many homes in Scotland. Not only are they not insulated properly, many of them are not even built properly. That is the key difference between Scotland and Scandinavia and why we have higher levels of fuel poverty than they do.

nl does make one fair point that there is a cost in improving building standards and installing micro-renewables etc but that cost does not have to be borne by the individual. I know of several pilots in social housing schemes across the UK using ground source heat pumps for example. Yes, there is a cost in installing them but thereafter you have a low cost source of heat which will never run out. These are the kinds of things that government at every level needs to be supporting because, whether you like it or not, we will not be generating our energy by burning fossil fuels in 50 years time.
71

Neil,

Glasgow 30/01/2008 14:58:09
"there is a cost in improving building standards and installing micro-renewables etc but that cost does not have to be borne by the individual."

You mean the cost will be paid by government. Which in turn means it will be borne by all us individuals, after including the substantial costs of government tax collection & administration of grants etc.

The net result is that we almost all pay far more though the eco-fascists don't pay directly for windmillery they would never dream of buying if the rest of us weren't paying for it. And we end up with more government control & more government employees of course, which may be the ultimate purpose.
72

Am-Bodach,

30/01/2008 15:02:32
However well intentioned, attempts to mitigate climate change through gestures such as wind and solar energy will fail. Indeed, the use of these technologies will be no more effective in reducing global mean temperature than bailing out the Titanic with a thimble. Notwithstanding "step in the right direction" arguments, the climate will change, and glaciers and ice caps will continue to melt at their present rate for a long, long time. The technology capable of mitigating climate change does not yet exist. Consequently, our financial resources would be better spent on R&D, rather than enriching shareholders in energy firms. In simplistic terms, we need a technology that can remove a few hundred petagrammes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - can mankind develop such a technology? I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect this is less likely than Forfar winning the European champions league.
73

AJM,

30/01/2008 15:04:11
#80 Miss H completely agree with you with. Now thats a change.

I would like to see the government giving proper grants to help fund fuel cost reductions. What has been to date has been bitty and confusing.

Although I was being a bit flippant earlier, I honestly believe that the public do need to see a government taking visible action like making shops shut doors at the moment the air conditioning is blasting away all year. Some may conclude that energy is still cheap nad not worth saving.
74

GP,

30/01/2008 15:08:11
Miss H - you started by supporting GW and now you are actually postign far more about social economics. I applaud your stance on improvind housing conditions but we have had over 50 years of local labour government and they have really done very little in this area. Yes after the war we could have adopted Swedish and Norwegian build standards, why did we not?
I suggest that you get very much on a soap box and start to prod those in power and who have side stepped their responsibility so far. Our pensioners (one group) who get a very raw deal and die in their thousands every year because of fuel poverty will not be able to afford renewable energy as it is more expensive than nuclear or coal and oil generated energy.
Instead of taxing more and more we should spend less on weapons and delvier the promise of a low energy using warm house for all.
It should never take a lie such as GW it should be a given in our wealthy society. The fifth richest yet 10,000 died last year due to fuel poverty.
You need to get out and sort it out girl.
75

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 15:16:03
Neanderthal (well named):

Volcanoes add less than 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that humans add through fossil fuel burning.
76

Highland Mighty,

30/01/2008 15:38:02
"John Swinney, the finance secretary, said Scotland WOULD cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 – a third more than the UK target over the same period."

Are sure you mean "would" and not "could", maybe make that a 'target' as opposed to what is a guarantee? Hey Swinney, can you back this guarantee up?

And by 2050? Is this so no-one can say you were "totally out of your head with this idea" for another 42 years?

Clearly the SNP thinks that everyone is stupid.

Labour should say they could remove ALL greenhouse gases in the world by 2050. And actually reverse global warming. And also pay everyone £50,000 just for the hell of it.
77

Highland Mighty,

30/01/2008 15:44:04
Novascotia, why don't you post under your initial username of Ayrshire Scot™?

Or is this your 'serious debater' name while Ayrshire Scot is reserved for 'pointless comments'?

79. Love the irony of Ayrshire Scot accusing someone else of "rejecting the evidence"! Brilliant!
78

AJM,

30/01/2008 15:48:50
#87 Highland Mighty

Probably banking on getting CO2 free nuclear electricity from somewhere south of the border if all else fails.

Having read the document the one thing that stays with me is the sentence pointing out the SNP cannot control the weather, AS is setting the boundaries, he is clearly no King Cnut.
79

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 15:53:38
Neanderthal (77) thinks the ice caps are growing.

In reality:

'Antarctic ice cap melting faster than first thought':

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23052256-401,00.html
80

GP,

30/01/2008 15:53:44
How many of the posters will be hear to evidence 2050 GW?
81

Goat Boy,

30/01/2008 15:57:31
GP (25): You make an interesting point there...

"a car travelling at 56mph will use less fuel than if it is standing still".

So my car (that is currently sitting in my drive) is using more fuel now that it was when I was driving at 60mph. Goodness! No wonder I’m going through so much of the stuff. I had better have a word with Mr. Ford, he didn't warn me about this.
82

Goat Boy,

30/01/2008 16:01:42
Highland Mighty - you are so right. They can make all the claims and promises they want. 2050 is a long way off and they will all out of office (or even dead and buried) long before we see if they can meet this very ambitious target.
83

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 16:06:00
Hello Freddie Bloggs,

I see, you attempt to refute the SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS I've provided in the hyperlinks I cited, with your hyperlink to a newspaper link?

My, my, my, the latest (2007) SCIENTIFIC STUDY of the Antarctic Ice Shelf in your view, is TRUMPED by a reporter cutting and pasting snippets of quotes from Enviro-Fascists and similarly dishonest types?

Yeah, now THAT's what I would call "solid evidence."

Right.

Oh yeah, how about you tone down your ignorance about my people (Neanderthals) and actually study our history?

I'd go into more depth (the Shanidar finds), but I'd rather not continue to cast real pearls before fake swine.

Cheers from the Rockies
84

AJ Fife,

30/01/2008 16:12:39
#92,

If you park your car in Methil, it can often be the case.
85

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 16:17:56
Hello Again Miss H,

My, I must have hit a nerve my dear arrogant Elitist! You've got all these marvelous plans for spending all kinds of money which is NOT yours, and not content with that, you want to FORCE poor people to spend money we don't have to improve our homes!!!!

You see my dear, you really do NOT have a grasp of reality!!!

People who cannot afford to pay their fuel bills CANNOT, I repeat for your edification, CANNOT afford the hundreds to THOUSANDS of dollars/pounds/euros, to pay for new insulation and its installation.

Nor can we afford to pay for new energy efficient windows (which are enormously expensive), washers, dryers, refridgerators, televisions, radios, etc.

You just don't 'get it' do you?

What do you drive, a Jag, a Landrover, a Mercedes, or perhaps a Ferrari, or a Mclaren? Perhaps you just sit in the back and have your driver tool you around in a Bentley, or a Rolls? Hey, I know, you 'get around town' in a Maybach!!!!!

Must be nice.

I own a 1987 Suzuki Samurai and a 1998 GMC Safari (one as a back up when the other breaks down).

I can just barely afford these two rigs (insurance, maintenance, FUEL), much less anything newer.

This is why I call you an arrogant Elitist: not because I just wish to throw pejoratives around, but because the description is TRUE and ACCURATE!

"It ain't name callin' if it's true!", goes the old adage.

Lastly, like poor ole Freddie Bloggs, you need to stop displaying our ignorance concerning the history of my people and do some research (hint, Google 'Shanidar').

Cheers from the Rockies
86

Dr Coles,

USA 30/01/2008 16:20:45
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
87

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 16:21:24
94. neanderthal - your reference is 2 years out of date - you really should try to keep up:

'Greenland's ice sheet melts as temperatures'

'Greenland's ice melt area increased 30% in 30 years, one scientist says'

The island is now losing more ice each year than it gains from new snow

This melting ice is causing sea levels to rise around the world

'Scientists fear low-lying areas could be flooded if seas continue to rise'

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/23/greenland.melting/index.html
88

Miss H,

30/01/2008 16:23:14
96 You're a spoof aren't you? You are really an agent for Greenpeace.
89

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 16:49:33
Incidentally Neanderthal, if some of us are what you call 'eco-fascist' or 'enviro-fascist', what are you?
90

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 16:54:21
Hello Freddie B,

My dear lackluster Enviro-Fascist, please listen up:

CNN does NOT compare in quality or reliability to Science Magazine. Further, the Science Mag study was published in 2007, that was, UH, LAST YEAR!!!!

Quit toking so many joints will you-at least long enough for your head to partially clear!

Take a look at the link from post 97; European scientists and American scientists, are coming together to fight the the Enviro-Fascists who have tried to squelch open and honest debate on the issue of Global Warming (which is really nothing more than Climate Change).

The Earth has had MANY of these Climate Changes, which has been proven by, of all things, ice core samples, showing that CO2 levels have skyrocketed.....and guess what, NOT a single human, car, factory, corporation, cow, etc., to have caused it!

Climate Change is reality; look that word up will you Freddie, you don't seem to understand the actual definition.

Cheers from the Rockies
91

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 17:01:15
Hello Again Freddie B,

What do I call myself?

An empirically based Pragmatist: subjective emotionalism is utterly worthless in my book, when it comes to issues of science, physics, chemistry, anthropology, etc.

You may love to wallow in emotionally based subjective irrationality, but I do not!

Climate Change is an historical, geologic, and paleontological FACT Freddie, so you'd best get used to it-cause it's here to stay.

We need to start dealing with this REALITY (again, look that word up, as many times as it takes until you finally get that definition to stick in your grey matter), so that we can come up with SOLUTIONS to save lives, maintain solvent and strong economies, and to allow humans to ADAPT to the coming changes.

Cheers from the Rockies
92

Miss H,

30/01/2008 17:06:57
100

It rhymes with 'mutter'.
93

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 17:30:58
101. Are you now in Room 101?

Joking aside, as you say you prefer a scientific paper as opposed to a news item reporting the findings of a scientific paper, how about this:

'Climate change and trace gases'

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
in a journal of the world's most eminent scientific academy, The Royal Society.

from the abstract:

Palaeoclimate data show that the Earth’s climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One feedback, the ‘albedo flip’ property of ice/water, provides a
powerful trigger mechanism.
A climate forcingthat ‘flips’ the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Inertia of ice sheet and ocean provides only moderate delay to ice sheet disintegration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other
creatures.'

94

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 17:38:53
Yet more evidence

'Greenland Melt Accelerating, According To CU-Boulder Study'
Dec. 10, 2007

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/481.html

95

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 17:49:02
~103...Miss H,Your ongoing comments deserve nothing but derision. Please please please take yourself out into the big big world and live with people who have to put up with deprevation and poverty and struggle to square the books and pay the bills every day of their lives,most of which are increasing daily,and then come back hopefully a lot more informed than you are now. If you would also spend time lobbying the well off, whom we the taxpayer have to support in a life style most can only dream of at Holyrood and who also are as out of touch as you most certainly are, and that would be a bonus. Most people are not stupid..they know what needs doing.........but if money is in short supply there is little if nothing they can do. Until you experince such AND FOR REAL.............you should hud yer weesht!
96

Highland Mighty,

30/01/2008 17:57:15
This whole thread is ludicrous. Everyone knows there is no evidence for global warming, it is an idea thought up largely by environmentalists to promote their agenda. Typical racist SNP rubbish on here.
97

Miss H,

30/01/2008 18:08:22
107 You say that most people are not stupid and know what needs doing but you have not said at any point what you think needs doing. So why don't you tell us? Talk us through it. If you don't think that improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock and ending our reliance on the diminishing resource of fossil fuels is the key to eradicating fuel poverty permanently then tell us what is.
98

eyeswide,

home 30/01/2008 18:09:29
You will be praying for GW soon. Do your part now by burning as much "fossil" fuel as you can. It is going to get very cold very soon.
Peak oil and the equally absurd myth of AGW allows taxation, control and fear mongering to the max. They are scams.

Educate yourselves:

Peak oil - don't make me laugh. There is a "moratorium" on exploitation of the Antarctic and there is more of most resources there than anywhere.

Anywhere. Secondly. Why does America (they are not alone in this either) cap most of it's finds? Double edged sword. Use up the stuff that's furthest away so you can get it while it's cheapest and only use yours when everyone else's has tanked (pun intended) Thirdly. What was the "Falklands conflict" really about? Iraq? - and Iran? (clue - they were the only two entities to not agree to Kissinger's demands during the sixties and they will pay (except in the case of Iraq as they have already felt the lash)

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

AGW a la Al Bore - I would laugh if it wasn't so serious:

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest81.htm

http://educate-yourself.org/zsl/inconvenienttruth20jan08.shtml

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Up here in the north we are at real risk. When it is stotting we get it first and most fiercely.

Some of us have memories, despite what the mythology machine would like us to have instead. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
99

An English Voice™,

30/01/2008 18:10:22
109. Methalions. Who cares about this supposed global warming? It will not negatively impact us, so why should we pay the price for it?
100

Andrew Allan,

30/01/2008 18:12:16

#108., Highland Mighty. 30/01/2008 17:57:15
‘This whole thread is ludicrous. Everyone knows there is no evidence for global warming, it is an idea thought up largely by environmentalists to promote their agenda. Typical racist SNP rubbish on here.’

Highland Mighty, only those voices inside of your tiny mind think there is no evidence for global warming. What advantage to the environmentalists would creating such a notion with out an ounce of evidence, and if you say it was largely thought up by the environmentalists who are these other people who you suggest did? Just a thought for you Highland Mighty, how could this issue be seen as being racist, environmental issues are meant to benefit everyone, not just the select.

101

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 18:12:52
The whole thread may be ludicrous.......... but the plight of the many many poor and vulnerable in this society having tolook on,whilst the few become rich is also ludicrous........ and the present overpaid encumbants at Holyrood,warm and cosy in their very costly talking shop, are a major part of the problem.
102

Miss H,

30/01/2008 18:18:40
117 Still waiting for your solution.
103

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 18:29:02
Big oil anc coal are so terrified of the twin threats of peak oil and global warming they have spent $$$$$$$ setting up bogus 'think-tanks' to rubbish the work of honest scientists and to try to spread doubt in the minds of the public about the truth.

It's not surprising. After all, it's their products, oil,gas and coal that are causing the problems.
They are fiddling while Rome (the Earth) burns.
However, with oil at $100 a barrel, they are going to suffer because that is the level at which users start to switch to alternative sources of energy.
By the time they realise peak oil has passed it will be too late. By the time they realise that global warming is unstoppable because they told lies and delayed remedial action it will be too late.
104

eyeswide,

home 30/01/2008 18:39:48
hi fred

#112 - read it and weep
105

GP,

30/01/2008 18:40:57
92# as before well named boy!
Your pathetic attempt to mock the discussion is childish for sure.
In 2050 if you around re-read some of the crap you have posted and celebrate those that educated you as I for one won't be around to receive your apologies.
106

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 30/01/2008 18:45:35
I agree with one of the posters who stated that not all Scots are idiots and the idiots seem to end up on these forums.

Maybe it is because they have a grandstand to spout their ridiculous theories and then become abusive and rude if you correct them or call them to question. Sad, really.

An extra feature of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is a well-researched documentary on global warming AND freezing and it is worth the cost of buying the DVD.

The special effects in the movie are truly harrowing and much too close in time for comfort.
107

eyeswide,

home 30/01/2008 18:55:54
#128 isn't it a tad cold where you are?
108

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 30/01/2008 19:08:56
129 eyeswide

As a matter of fact, we are having downpours of freezing rain and ice pellets and there is a "Flash Freezing Warning" out today.

It is a balmy +5C here in Ottawa but the numbing winds blowing in from Alberta are freezing up everything.

And to think that it gets to +40C in Ottawa sometimes in the summer.

We are VERY hardy folk here in Canada - almost as much as you Scots and our tiples of choice to warm ourselves up or cool ourselves down are Rye Whisky with Coke or ginger ale, Bombay gin and tonic with Schweppes tonic water and a lime slice, beers of any kind, and whisky and whiskey.
109

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 19:35:51
Miss H......I have advised you in the nicest terms possible ,what by your postings, you need to do. Go and work among the poor in say the inner city of Glasgow or the East End of London,and comprehend and whilst doing so read the works of Thomas Paine, William Morris, Tolstoy,Bernard Shaw,John Wesley etc etc etc and yes even read yer Rabbie Burns on the Lairds..................the list is endless. Until you do all of these things.........I winna waste ma breath. A blank canvas such as you seem to have is a poor starting point...........and that is all I have to say. If some see these suggestions as the ravings of an idiot.........fine. It is not meant to be..........it is just staight forward advice that if you are able ,you should heed. Bombay is also well worth the experience! The less fortunate are everywhere ....you just have to open your eyes and go live among them.
110

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 30/01/2008 19:52:40
Revised headline - 'Scotland aims to lead world in hot air battle'. Much the same methinks.
111

Miss Jean Brodie,

30/01/2008 20:05:23
Hey! Let’s expand the airports - that should help !
112

n/,

Perth 30/01/2008 20:25:38
#134 Been done. Next suggestion!
113

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA GU BRATH 30/01/2008 22:16:44
40 AM2,Glasgow,UK 30/01/2008 14:45:41
#37 Nikostratos

"Thanks. Not very friendly. But it only reveals the nature of the nationalist fringe.

I also noted the comments of Duncan (Hen Broon 5) on that same page, referring to me as “it”:

“I hate it with a passion. I'm glad I don't know where it lives and I hope that I never find out.”

Actually, he's an SNP canvasser, so I'm not sure if he represents the fringe. I thought it was quite funny, actually, especially as his name, address and phone numbers are on his blog!"



AM2 I WOULD BE OBLIGED IF YOU WILL JUSTIFY YOUR ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MY IDENTITY. Please feel free to post all cuts and pastes you have to back up your allegation or withdraw it.

Misusing and involving another persons identity on a public forum is a serious matter. I do believe it to be illegal.

I also note that some one has cloned my HEN BROON 5 moniker which is quite flattering as only those that rile a certain individual on here get cloned so I am in the cloned club, to be one is to be among the group that really bugs the virulent troll.

Here is my clone at work.

(84 Hen Broon 5 ,30/01/2008 18:39:52
#83 Spook: a quango is yet another instrument of the unionist oppression which has been dogging this country for centuries.)

The cloned one is as above from the Quangos thread with the space and then a comma.

85 george alexander,north lanarkshire 30/01/2008 19:00:02
George you are absolutely correct. I have noticed the ease with which it can access huge a database and the massive collection of remarks from users of these forums. A very unhealthy situation. it appears to be able to get any post removed, I have challenged it and had the post allowed as you have done.

114

eyeswide,

home 30/01/2008 23:47:27
#136 ^ - now THAT looks like an interesting thread ;-)


...and while I am at it -
#26 fred
"Car ownership will increase until everyone that wants one has one. We are still a long way from that saturation point" - reconciles with your theory that the oil companies are so worried about us giving up their drugs (or being forced to) that they feel the need to covertly influence their addicts' opinions, or options, how exactly? I hear the Chinese are adding 20 - 30 million cars to the mix this year. And next year. And the one after that. Etc. Bit of a captive audience.

#11 Guthrie
The planets we had measured previously have been found to be warmer when measured more recently. There are a few theories as to why, but none so intuitively wrong, bonkers or suggestive of autophobia as the A in AGW.

I had some fun following the "Day After Tomorrow" trail. It led to some interesting information on Solar System warming. I should get out more.
115

syntax,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 03:04:37
“BBC - Focus Magazine #169 October 2006

Why do ice ages occur?

The most widely accepted explanation for the occurrence of ice ages is that they are due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun which periodically conspire to create a minimum of summer sunlight in the arctic regions.

The three most important factors are the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis (which varies cyclically with a period of 41,000 years), changes in orientation of Earth’s orbit around the Sun (the ‘precession of the equinoxes’, with a period of 23,000 years), and changes in the shape of the elliptical orbit from almost round to more elliptical (a period of 40,000 years).

Ice ages occur at approximately 100,000 year intervals but, in between, there is a more chaotic cycle of mini ice ages that occur every 1,500 years or so.”

So ice ages, their cause and subsequent thawing, are a perfectly normal and cyclical event and has little, if anything, to do with man’s influence………

Global warming is a reality - and - it has nothing to do with me........

116

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 09:59:46
#83- Am Bodach- your use of the word petagrammes suggests you have some scientific knowledge. However, the simple fact is that there is no method currently known of removing gigatonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. By contrast, we know of most technologies current and foreseeable that would enable us to reduce our CO2 output by perhaps as much as 80%. CO2 removal by human agency is a red herring and waste of time.

117

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 10:08:15
Neanderthal #74- your yahhh booop attitude is childish. Since you lack any evidence for your position, it is your only weapon.

Syntax- global warming is happening and its partly your fault, like its mine. The BBC focus article will not have said any different.
118

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 10:15:14
Neanderthal- you parade your ignorance again. Increased snow fall in Greenland is due to increased temperatures and moisture, i.e warming. Meanwhile, glaciers are moving faster towards the ocean, and suffering from melting on the surface due to warming. As for Antarctica, who has been saying that the continent is losing ice? Nobody I know. Classic straw man position, atribute to others what you know to be false, so you can beat them up on it.

Miss H- you're one of the few posters on here making sense, just ignore the morons.
119

eyeswide,

work 31/01/2008 10:50:06
#139 Guthrie

The carbon cycle removes gigatonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year without fail. Humankind's paltry addition is, patently, not sufficient to prevent the cooling that is occurring as we speak. The natural cooling that was bound to come no matter where additional gasses introduced into the atmosphere originated.

People that disagree with you are morons? Nice attitude. Best just believe the powers that be and prepare to pay the price(s).


Fear mongering about ice loss in Antarctica continues. Here is the "news" from yesterday:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24654

They are going to tax us back into the stone age:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663


120

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2008 11:34:47
#142 eyeswide

"Humankind's paltry addition" to the CO2 in the atmosphere has so far increased concentrations from c.280ppmv in 1750 to c.390ppmv, now, an increase of some 39%.

As for the "cooling that is occurring as we speak", that is called winter. In order to establish climatic trends you need to look at global records over several years. Those show average global temperatures have been increasing for over three decades and are continuing to do so.

Globally 2007 was the second warmest year ever recorded (tying with 1998), and 2005 was the warmest.The following article, based on the NASA GISS series of global temperatures has lots of graphs so you can make your own judgement from the actual data: I have my hat lying by my computer. If you come back to me after studying the following article by Tamino and tell me that you still think global warming stopped in 1998 I will eat it**. Here is the article:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/

** I won't actually - I just said that to raise your interest, I'm blowed if I'm going to choke to death just for you; besides, it's a nice hat.
121

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 31/01/2008 12:06:05
Hello Freddie B,

Your first citation STILL doesn't answer the questions I've posed, NOR does it negate the evidence from the citations I've offered for all to peruse (should they desire more than mere subjective emotionalism from the Rad Left websites).

Your second citation actually made smile and chuckle: I live in the same region and CU-Boulder is a hotbed of Rad Left Enviro-Fascists! The few sane people at that university have to walk with their heads down, keeping their mouths shut 99% of the time, because all those Politically Correct Swine whom supposedly believe in 'tolerance, diversity of opinion, and open mindedness' target anyone with the temerity to offer differing opinions, which are contrary to the GW Enviro-Fascist mantras.

Professors at other universities have been threatened with job losses; the idiot Governor of Oregon actually FIRED the State Meteorologist, because he wrote an article offering evidence which contradicted the prevailing PC dogmas on GW.

Yes indeed Freddie B, you E-F's and PC Fascists really do believe in 'tolerance, open mindedness, and diversity of opinion'; just so long as anyone speaking or writing AGREES with your positions.

You can't answer any of the points I've made, you haven't shown me a single reliable source where Rad Leftists of the Enviro-Fascists hold sway, nor have you bothered to answer why the Antarctic Ice Shelf has grown in size equivalent to the area of the whole of Manhattan, New York!!!!

Global Warming is occurring, but neither you nor any other E-F bothers to provide VERIFIABLE evidence; all you lot do is to call for:

HIGHER TAXES
HIGHER FUEL and ELECTRICITY RATES
FEWER CARS
HIGHER PUBLIC TRANSPORT COSTS
HIGHER FOOD PRICES
and
HIGHER TAXES

You lot are nothing exemplified by Miss H's attitude: arrogant Elitism at its worst.

Cheers from the Rockies
122

eyeswide,

publunch 31/01/2008 14:28:23
#143 Slioch - I have read that blog before. Nice people.

Showing that the very concept of a "global temperature" is piffle:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

You will need that hat for, progressively, more months in every year from now on. Keep it. Buy matching gloves and scarf. Eat them all during the 2012 Olympics when transfer between Birmingham and London will be an athletic, even Herculean, feat of its own. Time will tell.

What must be appreciated here is that there is momentum in the "you done it, bad monkey, slap" argument. Nothing so trifling as the truth should come between the people and their taxation. Hence the IPCC's underwhelming assistance offered to anyone who wishes (has the temerity) to read the actual review process that produced a "consensus" that "proves" their position. We should be collectively punished for the crime of "assisting" the CO2 level to approach that of the Pliocene.
So proud were they of their theory and it's "peer review status" that it took the invocation of The Freedom of Information Act to get these slimeballs to release this:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
and it is not trumpeted (at all) as loudly as any rehashed scary CO2 story is. It should have been front page news worldwide. Does that not tell you something of the agenda?

As you well know, CO2 concentration has been far (up to 5x) higher many times in the past. Of the last seven epochs the level has been lower in the last two, including the Holocene we inhabit. In the Paleocene the level was 2050ppmv as opposed to the current 387ppmv. Even that is irrelevant as the levels follow temperature, not vice versa as Al Gore would have us believe.
123

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 16:44:35
#142- eyeswide- Yes, the carbon cycle. Its called a cycle for a reason. But you seem to have forgotten that it cannot actually absorb all the CO2 we have been putting out. In fact, you seem to be unaware of the physics showing that such an amount of CO2 can affect the climate. You can find more in the IPCC report here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Come back when you understand it.

Where do you get this idea things are cooling?

That fear mongering as you call it is in fact a summary of a scientific report supporting the positions of myself, Fred Blogs, and Slioch. Therefore, I can only conclude that you do not understand what is going on.

124

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 16:45:56
Neanderthal- your people hatred is showing. You should see a psychiatrist.
125

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 18:44:02
144. neanderthal:

You obviously have not read or understood the paper I cited at 105. It gives a detailed analysis of what is going on in Greenland and the Antarctic.
126

eyeswide,

home 31/01/2008 18:58:52
#146 Guthrie

Your arrogance equals theirs'. Please keep up.

The carbon cycle never absorbs all the carbon - that's why it's called a cycle.

"Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed."
"According to UNEP, the 7 billion tonnes of human-made CO2 pales into insignificance beside the 150 billion tonnes entering the atmosphere each year as a result of natural causes..."

How can I put it....?

THE IPCC ARE LIARS. CHARLATANS. FAKES. They avoid inspection and have obfuscated their (non)review process:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

They wish to party at taxpayer expense until such time as they must foist draconian penalties on us "little people" and if you had read the pages I provided above you would see the obvious link between them and the economic mess the world is in today - Al Gore and Billary Clinton.
Do some research. Start with Googling - Clinton presented pen Goldman Sachs -. The same people will bring you..... down.
If you can't be bothered, or misunderstand, this IS on topic.
Same perpetrators, same day, different crime. 1999. Clinton and Goldman Sachs = sub-prime fiasco (and worse to come) Gore and Goldman Sachs = carbon credit traders (ditto). These are crimes folks.

Buy into their lies at your peril.
127

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2008 19:10:48
#145 eyeswide

Complaining that "the very concept of a "global temperature" is piffle" in almost the same breath that you assure us of "the cooling that is occurring as we speak" must stretch your double think capacities to the limit. If there is no concept of global temperature how could we know whether it is warming, cooling or staying the same?

The link you point to, concerning Bjarne Andresen, is a classic example of a straw man argument made to mislead persons such as yourself.

Andresen states, "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth" Of course, that is true in an operational sense: it is impossible to ascribe an average temperature for the Earth. But then nobody is claiming that that is being done: that is why it is a straw man argument. He claims that "they" are claiming something to be the case when in fact "they" certainly are not. And he does it because he knows scientific illiterates like yourself will be duped by it and conclude that therefore the NASA GISS series is false. It is quite pathetic that you fall for such rubbish, but there it is.

In fact, the Tamino article I pointed you towards does make that very point: the NASA GISS and the HADCRU series of global temperatures provide COMPARATIVE not absolute temperatures. The NASA GISS series uses a baseline of 1951-1980 and the HADCRU serires 1961-1990. And it is those comparative figures that have been increasing since 1975 and so far show no significant sign of decreasing.

As for your comments about CO2 levels in the atmosphere: these have now been measured fairly accurately from ice cores stretching back for more than 800,000 years, through a series of glaciations and inter-glacial periods. Briefly, CO2 levels are presently about 390ppmv, and have increased by over 30ppmv in the last 17 years, and by about 110ppmv since 1750. Ice core evidence shows that over the previous 800,000 years, CO2 never exceeded 300ppmv and neve
128

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2008 19:12:33
#145 eyeswide

contd.

As for your comments about CO2 levels in the atmosphere: these have now been measured fairly accurately from ice cores stretching back for more than 800,000 years, through a series of glaciations and inter-glacial periods. Briefly, CO2 levels are presently about 390ppmv, and have increased by over 30ppmv in the last 17 years, and by about 110ppmv since 1750. Ice core evidence shows that over the previous 800,000 years, CO2 never exceeded 300ppmv and never increased by 30ppmv in less than one thousand years. That is, CO2 levels are now increasing at a rate about 60 times faster than ever before in that 800,000 years. (You can find this information from the British Antarctic Survey, amongst others)

Based on current trends, carbon dioxide concentrations are likely to increase to 500ppm this century. The last time the planet experienced levels as high as 500ppm was about 20 or 40 million years ago, when sea levels were 100 metres higher than today.
129

eyeswide,

home 31/01/2008 19:18:30
#146 Guthrie

The initial second order draft (the last allowed) comment on chapter two (I cannot cut and paste because of the non-citation agreement entered into when first visiting the site - doesn't that tell it's own story) - states that:

the first defect of this chapter is the complete absence of water vapour - the main greenhouse gas. By comparison the others are insignificant (not a quote per se but the kernel none the less)

Thats the first line !!!! It only gets worse.

It gets more incriminating as it progresses. The entire report is a treatise on perjury, lies, disinformation and has a willful intent to deceive.

Not a document to be proud of - or to recommend to someone who has the integrity to actually read, and absorb, it.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Not for the faint of heart but required reading for anyone on the fence on this issue. I guess that discounts you Guthrie.
130

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2008 19:55:30
#149 eyeswide

"7 billion tonnes of human-made CO2"

You can't even manage to get your figures on CO2 correct: it is c.27 billion tons of CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone, plus another more difficult to estimate amount (approx. 6bts) from land-use changes, particularly forest destruction.

Though, to be fair, that is an easy mistake to make in a blog when you are in a hurry and don't have time to check. But that does not excuse your hero Prof. David Bellamy OBE., BSc., PhD., Hon; FLS,. DSC., DUniv., C.Biol., FIBiol., FRIN.** in the article you posted to at:

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest81.htm

where Bellamy says "of the 200 billion tonnes of CO2- carbon circulated every year, less than 8 billion comes from human causes thus only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human activities."

Wrong Bellamy: it is 27 + c.6 bts CO2 and c.39% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human activities.

**Bellamy's desire to show off all his credentials reminds me of some lines from Bob Dylan:

"Now the preacher looked so baffled
When I asked him why he dressed
With twenty pounds of headlines
Stapled to his chest."

If he didn't make such a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth about climate change he might retain some of the respect he once had - he was a good botanist and a good teacher and campaigner - but I fear that respect has gone forever.

131

eyeswide,

home 31/01/2008 19:58:49
#151 Slioch please stop calling me names like "scientific illiterate" when countering argument. You know nothing about me, thankfully.

It makes you look like a prejudiced fundamentalist bigot with a superiority complex.

The overused words ad and hominem come to mind.

I have responsibilities to attend to so will leave the rest until later.
132

Hickory,

US 31/01/2008 20:06:15
Aye, these dribbling and blathering comments by tree huggers are usually an emotional flash of B.S. The real problem they will face some day is the increased sunspot activity of the sun and the decay of the earth's orbit. Not to mention the change in polar wobble. I suppose their answer to all of these is to ride a bike to work. If you really want to make the earth a better place to live, contribute to an orphan or help an oldster.
133

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/01/2008 21:23:38
#149 eyeswide

You say, "THE IPCC ARE LIARS. CHARLATANS. FAKES."

And you don't like being referred to as "scientifically illiterate". Probably at least 90% of the population could be thus described - that's the problem.
134

eyeswide,

home 01/02/2008 01:35:09
At midnight all the agents....

#Slioch

"27 billion tons of CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone..."

Here be little secrets:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

Nice to be as "wrong" as someone like David Bellamy.

Funny, almost everywhere I look the numbers are 6, or 7, or 8.

6)^ as above x2.

7)"At present the burning of fossil fuels releases 7 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year in the form of carbon dioxide gas, C02."
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

8.4)"The growth in emissions from fossil fuels increased from 1.3% per year for 1990-1999 to 3.3% per year during the period running from 2000 to 2006; total carbon emissions now stand at 9.9 Petagram per year, of which 8.4 comes from fossil fuels and 1.5 Pg from land-use changes"
http://biopact.com/2007/10/growth-in-carbon-emissions-accelerating.html




Your bonus link:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1042




135

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 11:21:45
#157 eyeswide

Glad to see you're Dylan literate at least - there's hope for you yet.

Yes, I've come across German high-school teacher, Mr E.G. Beck, before. Gosh, you don't half pick 'em. I know this becomes a bit like WWI - lobbing shells into one another trenches, but do have a look at what those nice people in Realclimate have to say about Mr Beck's beautiful curves:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/langswitch_lang/in

Incidentally, we know that the Keeling Curve is correct because it picks up the annual change in atmospheric CO2 due to the northern hemisphere winter/summer - it couldn't do that if it was being overwhelmed by errors. The reason it was started in 1958 on isolated Mauna Loa was precisely because of the chaos of ludicrous CO2 reading from around the world that if they were true would require gigantic amounts of CO2 to flow back and forth between the atmosphere and oceans/land.

Back to Bellamy and CO2: Yes, reading his sentence carefully again I accept that his "of the 200 billion tonnes of CO2- carbon circulated every year, less than 8 billion comes from human causes" is scientifically nearly correct (but pretty poor English!). In other words, he does appear to be referring to the carbon, as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, not the carbon dioxide as such, as I first read it, so I owe him an apology on that one point:

8bts Carbon = 8*44/12 = 29.3bts carbon dioxide, (which is a bit low, it should be "more than 8bts carbon").

The second half of his sentence, "only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human activities." is still wrong, and reveals his confusion. The 3% figure is the approx. ANNUAL human contribution to CO2 emissions. The amount of "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities" is c.39%. And besides, the whole piece is based on misunderstanding and con
136

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 11:23:41
#157 eyeswide

Gontd.

The second half of his sentence, "only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human activities." is still wrong, and reveals his confusion. The 3% figure is the approx. ANNUAL human contribution to CO2 emissions. The amount of "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities" is c.39%. And besides, the whole piece is based on misunderstanding and confusion: the 3% figure (which he misunderstands) is in anyway totally irrelevant. It is frequently used in denialist nonsense, like Bellamy's, but has no relevance to answering the question "What effect have human activities had on CO2 levels in the atmosphere in recent centuries?" To which there is a simple answer: They have increased the level from c.280ppmv in 1750, to c.390ppmv now, an increase of c.39%. That is all you need to know. (Unless you insist on following the hallucinations of E G Beck, in which case there is no hope for you).

137

eyeswide,

work 01/02/2008 13:29:39
#159 Slioch, There are zero "nice people in Realclimate"

RealClimate.org was created by the PR company EMS.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=realclimate.org

"Environmental Media Services" was created by Arlie Schardt, a journalist who became Al Gore's PR guy, He is a former sports writer who became a professional scaremonger:

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/2808

nice guy.

Please refrain from using their links in an attempt to prove(disprove) anything other than their own unending, funded, rabid hatred of anyone, or thing, that goes against their blinkered, self-loathing theories. You may as well claim that Exxon, or whoever, are so worried that people/countries/industry will stop consuming their drug that they pay people to trawl Internet looking for cracks into which their propaganda may be inserted.

I have never denied that we are increasing the CO2 level in our very lungs but I will reaffirm my instinctive reaction when first told that that was what was "causing" the temperature to rise.
It is a premeditated, spiteful falsehood that will be used to tax those that can "afford" it, repress those that can't and scare everyone in between.

There is nothing significant that can be done to stop China and India from increasing this amount still further. Plunging the world, as we know it, into a new dark age is not a solution. I don't know what is but I know justice when I see it and attempting to halt progress ain't it.

We are through the looking glass and black is the new white, night is become day and Friends of The Earth are the real bad guys.


Have we shot up from 6-7 billion tonnes in 2000/2001 to 8 or 30 in 2007? If it is 30 then the percentages are wrong somewhere.

138

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 14:06:35
#160 eyeswide

It seems you are beyond help, eyeswide. You combine paranoia with scientific ignorance.

Not once have you been able to respond to any of the scientific points put to you, instead you respond with hurling abuse at those who provide rational, scientifically objective evidence, like the climatologists at Realclimate, without showing the slightest sign of understanding what they say.

Your final paragraph illustrates this: "Have we shot up from 6-7 billion tonnes in 2000/2001 to 8 or 30 in 2007? If it is 30 then the percentages are wrong somewhere."

Do you not understand the difference between the mass of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) being emitted by burning fossil fuels, (ie presently nearly 8 billion tons per year), and the equivalent mass of carbon dioxide being emitted (ie nearly 8*44/12 = 29.3 btpy)????

That is elementary schoolboy science. But you still don't understand it, even after I've gone through it a couple of times already.

Yet you have the gall to refer to the climatologists at Realclimate in terms of "unending, funded, rabid hatred of anyone, or thing, that goes against their blinkered, self-loathing theories." etc.etc.

Science is there to free you from your ignorance and paranoia, but if you won't or can't grasp the hand of understanding that is offered to you then you must remain in the darkness of your own creating.
139

eyeswide,

work 01/02/2008 15:24:34
#161 Slioch

The darkness. Ah. Like the ether. Phlogiston. The flat earth.

That is why I jokingly asked the question. Now it is serious.

We have the figure(s) 6/7 billion tons thrown at us for years (1996 at least until 2005 at least) but then, suddenly, the numbers are 29.6 billion.

Similar to "global warming" morphing into "climate change" on what would appear to be a whim unless you believe that the scaryness would diminish when/if temperatures dropped.

It is no wonder us ordinary folk is left with our combobulations dissed.

Trawling through the muck raked up "in the name of science" reveals a large amount of wrongdoing and fraud. Agendas must be supported using all means available.


140

eyeswide,

work 01/02/2008 15:25:15
Riddle me this.
Here is a table from NOAA that shows the growth of CO2 per year. The growth rate should only change very gently with time because there are millions of emitters, yet it fluctuates wildly. Why?

year ppm/yr
1959 0.94
1960 0.50
1961 0.98
1962 0.62
1963 0.73
1964 0.25
1965 1.02
1966 1.25
1967 0.70
1968 1.06
1969 1.34
1970 0.98
1971 0.88
1972 1.72
1973 1.17
1974 0.82
1975 1.10
1976 0.90
1977 2.08
1978 1.33
1979 1.61
1980 1.84
1981 1.41
1982 0.71
1983 2.18
1984 1.39
1985 1.23
1986 1.51
1987 2.30
1988 2.14
1989 1.24
1990 1.32
1991 1.00
1992 0.49
1993 1.26
1994 1.96
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.93
1998 3.00
1999 0.88
2000 1.73
2001 1.63
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.58
2005 2.54
2006 1.72

Well it looks like it follows temperature!!
141

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 19:46:30
#162 eyeswide

You ask "We have the figure(s) 6/7 billion tons thrown at us for years (1996 at least until 2005 at least) but then, suddenly, the numbers are 29.6 billion."

And you say you are serious. So, OK, I'll go through it in some detail.

The natural carbon cycle involves the carbon dioxide in the air being absorbed, for example, by plants, which turn it into carbohydrates (sugars, starches, cellulose) or by the ocean, where it may become carbonate shells, or other longer term processes that form oil (containing hydrocarbons) or coal (containing carbon). In other words carbon atoms can become part of various carbon containing molecules: carbon dioxide, methane, carbohydrates, hydrocarbons etc. THEREFORE, it is sometimes convenient to talk about just the carbon content of these various substances, for example:

16kg of methane contains 12kg of carbon. If that methane is burnt (or becomes oxidised in the atmosphere) it produces 44kg of carbon dioxide, but that 44kg of carbon dioxide still contains that 12kg of carbon. So, traditionally figures for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere often just gave the carbon content.
That is what your 6/7billion tons means: 6/7/8 billion tons of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide going into the air every year from human burning of fossil fuels.
With the increasing interest in carbon dioxide however, many people prefer to refer to the mass of carbon dioxide. That is why "the numbers are suddenly 29.6 billion". Using the round figure of 8 billion tons of carbon (which is slightly high for fossil fuel consumption), the calculation is as follows:

Each atom of carbon has a mass of 12 atomic mass units
each atom of oxygen has a mass of 16 amu
So a molecule of CO2, which is made of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, has a mass of 12+16+16 = 44amu.

Hence, burning 12 tons of Carbon produces 44 tons of carbon dioxide.
burning 1 tons of Carbon produces 44/12 tons of carbon dioxide.
burning 8 billion tons of Carbon produ
142

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 19:47:20
#162 eyeswide
contd.

Hence, burning 12 tons of Carbon produces 44 tons of carbon dioxide.
burning 1 tons of Carbon produces 44/12 tons of carbon dioxide.
burning 8 billion tons of Carbon produces 44/12*8 billion tons of carbon dioxide = 29.3 bts CO2.

That is where your sudden jump comes from. Add to that the fact that fossil fuel consumption is increasing over the years, and also that forest destruction is another, separate, source of a few more billion tons of CO2 per year - that is why the figures are creeping up.


143

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/02/2008 20:03:10
#163 eyeswide

Refering to the annual CO2 increments you say "yet it fluctuates wildly. Why?"

see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Well you can see from the NOAA graphs, which you have obviously consulted, that the averaged line is reasonably smooth, but yes, on an annual basis it is certainly a bit wriggly.
Incidentally, did you notice the beautiful sine-like red curve - that's the one I meant that is picking up the annual variation in northern hemisphere vegetation.

But to get back to your question. Yes, I am sure that variations in sea surface temperature have a strong influence on those variations. When the sea surface is warmer, less CO2 will be absorbed - notice that 1998 had a particularly large anomaly, and that was the El Nino year when the surface of the Pacific ocean becomes abnormally warm - both heating the atmosphere and reducing the amount of CO2 the ocean absorbs. Other changes in vegetation have an effect - the very hot dry summer of 2003 in Europe increased the amount of CO2 emitted for example.
144

eyeswide,

home 01/02/2008 20:17:45
#164 You know who you are ;-)

Thank you. That could not be more clear. Unlike the bait and switch that is going on in the mainstream. I hope you understand why I am annoyed at scientists for doing this. A baseline is useful for covering decadal, and greater, measurements and changing it, seemingly arbitrarily, is counter to good relations with lay people. I spent some time and effort chasing the excuses as to why global warming "became" climate change for the same reason. We need clarity and common standards if we are to agree on data interpretation and the consensus we all deserve.
To a large extent the divide between the warmers and the deniers is widened by the semantics.

I'll be back (kids=bed)



 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.