I freely admit I'm a climate change sceptic and the more I read the more sceptical I become.
In order to brainwash us doubters, the government is beginning a hard-hitting advertising campaign, which will start tonight on the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street. I seldom watch TV so their efforts will be lost on me.
The advert is here, but if you watch it remember computer screens are fragile!
It will take much more than a £6m advertising campaign for me to believe that the climate change issue is anything more than another licence to inflict more taxes upon all of us.
Posts
28 comments:
An Irishman meets a leprechaun. 'Have three wishes on me' says the leprechaun, who is in a good mood. 'I'd like a bottle of Guinness that never empties' says the man. It appears. The man drains it, and it magically fills up again. 'Next two wishes?' prompts the leprechaun. 'Just gimme another two a them' says the man.
I'll admit it does become vexing when it seems that one must, for a view of the world, attempt to distinguish between competing conspiracy theories. I entirely share your view that if the UK government says that something is so, then sensible men and women must immediately presume that it is not so.
However I try to cling to what little training I have. I studied maths and astronomy at uni (and since) and the stuff about planetary atmospheres is dead easy. In astronomy, more CO2 means more heating. You don't need a whole planet to try it out - you prove it every time you put cloches over your spring seedlings - CO2 has similar heat reflecting properties to sheets of garden plastic. The physics of this are not in dispute. Except on this planet, where leprechauns rule and the writ of physics does not run.
I wonder where you stand on Peak Oil? I see lots of people who are very 'right-on' about other matters, yet who say that this is another conspiracy - because the oil, like the Guinness, can never run out. You can have a finite amount of oil, and use it at an ever increasing rate, but you will never run out of it.
Pour me one of what you're having, sr, and tell the leprechaun, no ice.
This a very interesting site:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
It strikes me that if there wasn't something in it, they wouldn't bother. But the evidence is laid out for you to make your own decisions.
And whether you believe the evidence or not, do we not have a morale responsibility to at least try and look after the planet? It isn't just humans that live here, but we're the only ones with the power to affect what is happening.
My interpretation of your point of view is that you probably wouldn't care even if you believed the evidence. Whether that's because you'll be dead before it has the potential to affect you, or because you don't feel empowered to make the change, or just because you're selfish and like sitting around in your house with your central heating turned up, I doubt we'll ever know.
I thought your oil post was interesting as well. I don't know what the state of oil reserves are, but oil is a fossil fuel so it must run out eventually. That's a simple scientific fact. As for wether or not we're being lied to about the extent of the reserves, I have no idea, but again - don't we have a morale responsibility to try and avoid wasting it anyway?
By the way, I hope that wasn't too inane a comment for your sycophantic friends.
Cheers,
Brindy
Inane, no but patronising, yes
Scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Yes some will still believe that adam & eve begat the human population, it doens't make it real.
All the evidence points towards human activities, specifically those related to the bruning of fossil fuels are and have harmed our planet's environment and atmosphere.
I find it hard to disgaree with that.
What Subrosa highlights however is right, the means of tackling this issue doesn't need to be penalising.
Anyone who's frugal and look's after their money will understand the concept behind a low carbon economy. It's simply about being efficient in what we do not wasteful.
Some green taxes will help make that more likely with some people, but largely the majority will soon realise that it costs money to be wasteful.
I understand the basic science of the universe Vronsky and planetary atmospheres which are dead easy and have always made sense to me.
I understand the dangers of pollution and waste. What I don't understand is why the sudden interest by 'those who have interests' in saying the climate is changing so drastically, if we pay lots of money then it will stop. That's being rather simplistic of course.
Of course the oil will run out or, to put it more in financial terms, the oil will run out when the production of it is not longer financially viable. Some say the oil has been running out for 10+ years. I read this today:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=557
You wouldn't want one of what I'm having Vronsky, with out without ice. When your computer packs in and Apple tells you the insurance you paid handsomely isn't activated - meaning a 200 mile round trip to their only store in Scotland which is Glasgow, I'm still having a tantrum.
My letter of complaint even has to be done by hand can you believe! (I just can't set up the printer to this borrowed one - too much hassle).
Not contradicting you for the sake of it, but there is an authorised Apple retailer in Edinburgh. Might be worth a call to see if they can help, save the extra mileage to Glasgow (I'm presuming that Edinburgh would be easier for you?)
http://www.cancomuk.com/Our-Stores/Edinburgh
Rosa, there is no debate about climate change/carbon emissions/global warming.
When USA the pro-pollution lobby started to wilt in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the planet is suffering at our hands, they adroitly changed the argument to the reactionary view that the whole thing is just a wheeze to con us out of more more taxes. Mince.
Have a look at some of the clips from 'Everything's Cool', and then come back and reaffirm your cynical credentials.
http://www.everythingscool.org/article.php?list=type&type=10
I'm sure there's something in it Chris but nothing to the extent that this subject has overtaken world poverty, the eradication of disease and our troops fighting in wars which do not threaten our security and could cause more problems for future generations.
I find your assumptions amusing. Certainly I've never walked up and down my High Street waving a placard to convince anyone that we're fully responsible for the world's climate change by using our cars, my I consider myself a responsible adult by coming from a generation which respects what we have and detests waste.
If I could afford, on my pension, to sit here with my heating turned up, yes I would be selfish but it would be no concern of yours. If I need to be warm I will do everything to ensure than I am. That is not selfish but sensible in my book or are you the type who thinks pensioners should just die off because they're poluting your atmosphere?
I have only just posted a link about oil (see above).
As for your last sentence, it is quite unnecessary to use insulting language to make your point. Then again it may well be your style.
Many thanks for the link Chris. Yes I know about that one but during a telephone conversation with Apple support the other day, they informed me it is not an official Apple store and does not have technicians available for repair services. The only one in Scotland is Glasgow.
You're right, Edinburgh would be nearer but I'll leave the car at Perth and take the train to Glasgow tomorrow. There are roadworks on the M9 which I'm told are causing lengthy delays so train will be quicker.
It appears my less than 2 year old machine needs a new hard drive - as per the expert on the telephone. :(
There have been cyclical weather patterns on Earth since the dawn of life.Periodical heating and cooling are proven fact.
However fossil fuels haven't been dug out and burned in increasing quantities in all that time until now.
What I am not sure of is that amount is affecting these cycles in any measurable way. Are our emissions comparable to a cigarette being thrown onto a bonfire, or are we starting a bonfire of our own?
The roadworks are on the A80 and it can be murder, but I should have thought you'd be ok on a Saturday.
You could always drop by to see us in Duke St for a wee cuppa :)
Now Wardog, put like that it's a good message 'It'll hit you in the pocket if you're wasteful.'
Is it any wonder I'm sceptical about this sudden climate change bandwagon starting to roll? All I see is £££ signs for those involved.
The government is going about this the wrong way. What they should be doing is rewarding people for using energy wisely. Unfortunately there are many elderly who can't afford to use it at all and, if today's news is correct, more will die from hypothermia this coming winter.
It isn't usually my style, I'm usually quite affable. I just don't respond well to insults myself, especially since I don't consider my comments inane. If my comment truly sounded inane it is probably because of lack of comprehension on the part of the reader.
You don't happen to have a MacBook do you? One of the laptops with a plastic shell? My wife's hard drive has failed twice now, but Apple Store in Glasgow were very helpful even without an Applecare agreement, it's just a shame you have to travel there for their help.
I could imagine the shop in Edinburgh would easily be able to fix it to be honest, it is probably more a case of not invalidating your Applecare agreement. And since you don't have that cover anyway (even though you paid for it) just use the convenient option - they may not even charge you other than for parts.
Sorry, wildly off-topic now.
I will do Monty. I've taken a note of that link and once I'm back in my own seat, I will read it carefully.
Thanks for the invitation Alan. I'm presently trying hard to negotiate a deal here because I can't see me carrying the thing through the streets of Glasgow. It's heavy.
The deal is a dinner at a favourite restaurant. Not bad eh?
My own is a 20" iMac Chris, desktop and quite heavy to be carting around.
Presently I'm grudgingly being given the intermittent use of a Macbook Pro, but I'm petrified something happens to it during my use.
It's all to do with the Applecare agreement. I paid top whack for the 'home repair' but they've messed up and not activated it (whatever than means) so they can't authorise any home repair until that is done - time quoted three to four weeks.
So it's all a mess and I'm disappointed with Apple. I shall make my complaint formally to them.
It's no wonder people bye PCs when they can be repaired by the local PC shop.
I'll have a look in the Edinburgh shop when I'm next through there just out of interest. It is supported by Apple they said but a no no for repairs.
Having spoken to Apple on the phone for nearly an hour, they have sent the case details to Glasgow I understand.
Thanks for your help though. I'm definitely going to get a cheap PC laptop just to keep as a reserve.
Which restaurant?
Ebuyer have 'notepad's starting at £200! and laptops starting at £280:
http://www.ebuyer.com/
It's really not worth spending more than that for a backup.
I am going to ring Apple right now and make sure my Applecare includes home repair! So thanks for the heads up!
Don't know yet BL but I'll let you know once the choice has been made. :)
Chris, you should have received a box with a DVD (I'm telling you this second hand now as I didn't speak to the technician at this point).
Anyway I do hope yours is covered. It may be a bit late now, they seem to only have office hours these days. How things have changed. I bought my first Apple back in the late 80s and telephone support was 24x7 then.
Thanks - I was so worried I rang them up. I have 800 more days of cover and they'll collect it if needed. :)
It's only a year old, so I'm not expecting it to die just yet.
Thanks,
Chris
That's good news then Chris. My email confirmation is on the dead machine and my external hard drive but I don't want to do a restore from the external on this machine.
It's an error from Apple and I'll see to it once I have my email etc back online.
Maybe this will help, if you feel daring. :)
http://forums.macnn.com/90/mac-os-x/387194/how-can-i-access-my-timemachine/
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenario have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
Thank you so much for posting all that KBW.
What I have gleaned is that climate change is a natural process perhaps hastened along by human activities but no scientist has clearly shown how much human activity is involved.
And tonight on the tele we have dad telling a night time terror story to his lovely little angel - drive less and turn off the lights lest the boggie man gets you. Now since she doesn't drive and can hardly reach the light switch......
Now I do and can and if I don't drive and do turn off the lights, what happens next chaps? Cheerio!
Never saw it Dram but I'm sure it would have made my blood boil thinking of the £6m it cost and they intend to cut the TA.
Post a Comment