The 10:10 Climate Change Pledge. Will you be signing up?

mech_2

thescouselander wrote: »

Quite a few people actually. Nigel Lawson is amongst the most high profile critics on this subject. I suggest you read his book "An Appeal to Reason". It explains it all quite well.

Is there anything from someone who is a scientist or engineer as opposed to a politician? Lawson's understanding of the science seems to be rather poor. Though I agree with him that carbon taxation is preferable to carbon emissions trading.

We (the UK) are already way behind on this. Most of the green technology is developed manufactured abroad - Things like solar cells, wind turbines and batteries to name but a few.

An excellent case for putting more money into research then, if true. Though these three things are hardly the full breadth of the technologies to potentially research.

thescouselander

Lawsons book touches on the science but he assumes the IPCC's worst case scenario is correct in his analysis. The rest of the book looks at the economics of taking action. As an ex chancellor of the exchequer i'd say he's pretty qualified to comment in this area.

If you want the view of an engineer I can give you one. I happen to be a chartered engineer with my area of expertise being in modelling and simulation. I Have given many talks on this subject.

I can tell you that the way climate models have been put together makes the output very suspect. The fact that they have diverged from actual temperature values measured means they are pretty much useless - at least such a model would not be good enough to base decisions on in my area of engineering.

If you read the latest IPCC report it explicitly says the computer models need a lot of work and there are many factors in the real world that are not understood and therefore not modelled. Any conclusions drawn from the models need to be treated with extreme caution.

This doesn't seem to have stopped the alarmists making insupportable claims.

If you actually read the IPCC reports you will see the wording is actually very cautious and not at all like the rhetoric put about.

moonrakerz

thescouselander wrote: »

the way climate models have been put together makes the output very suspect.............

Any conclusions drawn from the models need to be treated with extreme caution.

This doesn't seem to have stopped the alarmists making insupportable claims.

If you actually read the IPCC reports you will see the wording is actually very cautious and not at all like the rhetoric put about.

Come on old man ! don't let the facts get in the way of a really good scare story !! :rolleyes:

Henwen

If you worry about your energy usage each day at work, try this site:

http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/global-warming/

It allows you to offset your carbon footprint roughly equivalent to a computer's use for free - you just have to open the page and click. No log in, no snags. It's like the breast cancer site that Martin publicises every year.

The site also contains links for free donations to other causes too.
:j
Hope you all find this useful. Feel free to spread the word.

RHYSDAD

moonrakerz wrote: »

I'm not going to say: "I told you so " - but I did !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html

This is so true. I was listening a week or so ago to a World Service podcast about the crisis in Darfur. This chap and his wife had arrived at the Dadaab (i think) refugee camp around 10 years ago or so. There wasn't/isn't enough food, water or medicine to go around the 250,000 or so people there. This chap arrived with three children, starving, in tow and so what did the genius' do? what any sane starving people would do. They had ten more children over the ten years. Is it any wonder there are a billion starving in the world? I find it hard to have much sympathy sometimes as much as it breaks my heart to say it....

ceridwen

Ste_C wrote: »

Overpopulation will wipe out the human race long before climate change has any effect.

There isn't enough food, water, land and natural resources to comfortably support 6bn as it is. With the developing world changing and becoming more demanding added to the fact that we're all living longer, the planet just will not be able to cope.

I'd sooner people were pledging not to breed like rats rather than pledge to turn off their tv at night. Governments can talk about cutting emissions as mush as they like, but they might as well not bother for all the good it will do.

Actually...I am quoting this because I do believe we should "do our bit" individually....(though...I personally laugh a cynical hollow laugh every time someone talks about those "eco-friendly" lightbulbs - with mercury in and the attendant disposal problems and the health problems that some people have from them.....) - so I am very well aware that some of the "teeny leetle so-called solutions" are just pure "windowdressing" and useless or worse than useless. But - there are many many little tiny things that we personally can do (apart from those worse than useless lightbulbs....) that help.

BUT - I do feel like literally screaming with frustration about those people who refuse to see that overpopulation is THE main cause of the problems we have. If I have literally one more person saying "it does not matter that Mrs/Miss X has had more than 2 children - because HER children will be ever so environmentally-friendly" I promise to head through my computer screen and tell that idiot in person JUST how stupid they are.....a body is a body is a body and needs feeding/housing/space on the Planet to take up absolutely totally regardless of how much that person "consumes". It is the number of "bodies" on this Planet that is the problem - NOT how much individual people consume.

"There is none so blind as those that will not see"........:eek::mad::mad:

It does make me SO angry that those who want to overpopulate the planet - ie have more than 2 children - refuse pointblank to see that they are the single biggest problem this planet has. But I then have to remind myself that people found excuses to keep slaves in the past/deny women the vote in the past/etc - so this is just the latest in the long long line of excuses that people make to be absolutely totally selfish - the one that goes "I have the right to have however many children I want".......not in the 20th or 21st Century they dont....but hey...they dont want to see this fact....so they WONT see this fact........

bert&ernie

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually...I am quoting this because I do believe we should "do our bit" individually....(though...I personally laugh a cynical hollow laugh every time someone talks about those "eco-friendly" lightbulbs - with mercury in and the attendant disposal problems and the health problems that some people have from them.....) - so I am very well aware that some of the "teeny leetle so-called solutions" are just pure "windowdressing" and useless or worse than useless. But - there are many many little tiny things that we personally can do (apart from those worse than useless lightbulbs....) that help.

BUT - I do feel like literally screaming with frustration about those people who refuse to see that overpopulation is THE main cause of the problems we have. If I have literally one more person saying "it does not matter that Mrs/Miss X has had more than 2 children - because HER children will be ever so environmentally-friendly" I promise to head through my computer screen and tell that idiot in person JUST how stupid they are.....a body is a body is a body and needs feeding/housing/space on the Planet to take up absolutely totally regardless of how much that person "consumes". It is the number of "bodies" on this Planet that is the problem - NOT how much individual people consume.

"There is none so blind as those that will not see"........:eek::mad::mad:

It does make me SO angry that those who want to overpopulate the planet - ie have more than 2 children - refuse pointblank to see that they are the single biggest problem this planet has. But I then have to remind myself that people found excuses to keep slaves in the past/deny women the vote in the past/etc - so this is just the latest in the long long line of excuses that people make to be absolutely totally selfish - the one that goes "I have the right to have however many children I want".......not in the 20th or 21st Century they dont....but hey...they dont want to see this fact....so they WONT see this fact........

I find this view to be deeply misanthropic. You clearly see people, your fellow human beings, as nothing more than a problem - each new one is just another mouth to feed and body to clothe. In your view, we are all just consumers of resources. No doubt you consider yourself to have a higher purpose - persuading all us idiots just how stupid we are and saving the planet in the process.

You exhibit the smug satisfaction of someone who thinks they have discovered some undeniable truth that lesser mortals just simply cannot accept either through ignorance or self-centered moral terpitude. Yet the theory that overpopulation will lead to disaster is hardly a new one. Then again, even the Rev Malthus couldn't stop at two - the selfish idiot!

Ben84

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually...I am quoting this because I do believe we should "do our bit" individually....(though...I personally laugh a cynical hollow laugh every time someone talks about those "eco-friendly" lightbulbs - with mercury in and the attendant disposal problems and the health problems that some people have from them.....) - so I am very well aware that some of the "teeny leetle so-called solutions" are just pure "windowdressing" and useless or worse than useless. But - there are many many little tiny things that we personally can do (apart from those worse than useless lightbulbs....) that help.

Lightbulbs alone are just a small thing, but they do work for their intended purpose. The reduction in energy use is measurable and the resulting reduction in pollution from whatever energy source is used to power them seems clear enough.

As for mercury, each bulb contains a very small amount, but at least in the EU they are no longer intended to go in the general rubbish for landfill and recycling facilities are very widely available. The mercury is captured and reused so that it is not released in to the environment.

Hopefully things will get better for the disposal of all types of electrical waste, as these lightbulbs are not unusual because they contain heavy metals or pollutants. Nearly all electrical items from TVs to telephones are full of toxic materials, and recycling for them is very limited, so these materials will likely end up in the environment once the item is thrown out. Low energy lightbulbs however are unusual as they are the only item that you can recycle nearly anywhere in the EU. I feel quite positive about them because of this.

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

I find this view to be deeply misanthropic. You clearly see people, your fellow human beings, as nothing more than a problem - each new one is just another mouth to feed and body to clothe. In your view, we are all just consumers of resources. No doubt you consider yourself to have a higher purpose - persuading all us idiots just how stupid we are and saving the planet in the process.

You exhibit the smug satisfaction of someone who thinks they have discovered some undeniable truth that lesser mortals just simply cannot accept either through ignorance or self-centered moral terpitude. Yet the theory that overpopulation will lead to disaster is hardly a new one. Then again, even the Rev Malthus couldn't stop at two - the selfish idiot!

Wow!

Not sure of your point above.

Are you saying that the huge increase in the world's population is not a problem?

Sure the same concerns on over-population have been trotted out for decades; does that make it any less valid? However what causes you to be so upset?

Can you please explain what you mean by 'self-centred moral terpitude(sic)'

P.S.
If Malthus did have more than 2 children(did they all survive?) he would appear to have a lot in common with Al Gore in that they failed to practice what they preach.

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

Wow!

Not sure of your point above.

Are you saying that the huge increase in the world's population is not a problem?

Sure the same concerns on over-population have been trotted out for decades; does that make it any less valid? However what causes you to be so upset?

Can you please explain what you mean by 'self-centred moral terpitude(sic)'

P.S.
If Malthus did have more than 2 children(did they all survive?) he would appear to have a lot in common with Al Gore in that they failed to practice what they preach.

Population growth is not a problem in itself. Its not undesirable for there to be more human beings. It may present challenges, or problems if you prefer, but these are not insurmountable. Neither is inexorable population growth a certainty - when people have reasonable living standards, education and access to contraception, then they often choose to have less children entirely of their own volition. I support giving people the right to make their own choices and the power to take control over their own reproduction. I don't see the need to berate people for having a third child and brand them as "stupid" "selfish" "idiots" who want to "over-populate the planet"

Apologies for my poor choice of words and spelling. I was groping around for a term to describe how ceridwen might view those so selfish and arrogant to believe that they have "the right to have however many children [they]want".

As you can probably tell, I don't tend to visit this board often - I just noticed the title of the thread in the front page listing. Even more surprising, I found myself agreeing, at least in part, with George Monbiot the other day - here's what he recently had to say about overpopulation...
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

I think its fair to say that George drives a coach and horses through the arguement that:

ceridwen wrote: »

...a body is a body is a body and needs feeding/housing/space on the Planet to take up absolutely totally regardless of how much that person "consumes". It is the number of "bodies" on this Planet that is the problem - NOT how much individual people consume