Film, Media & TV0 min ago
An Inconvenient Rant?
95 Answers
http://
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Answers
There would be no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned, Jim,. Let other nations do as they wish (which is pretty much what those outside the EU – and even some within - do anyway and we’ll do likewise. I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global...
17:04 Wed 23rd Sep 2015
“Like Gore, I can't understand why Britain is backtracking on its commitment to cut emission”
Hopefully, Mikey, because somebody in government has finally managed to get hold of a calculator and realised that 2% (the UK’s share) of 4% (mankind’s share) of global emissions is not all that much and that if it disappeared entirely tomorrow it would make not one bit of difference of any significance to the overall amount bearing in mind that China is opening coal fired power stations at the rate of about one a week. And please let us not go down the “overflowing bathtub” route. China has twenty times the number of taps feeding the bathtub as does the UK. Australia, Canada, USA and Saudi Arabia each produce twice as much in emissions per head of population as does the UK. Plenty of nations produce around 1.5 times our sum per head. Meantime I cannot buy a proper lightbulb and instead I am restricted to using those where I have to make an appointment ten minutes in advance of going up my stairs and stores can open their front doors and use 25Kw curtain heaters to heat the street in mid-February.
I haven’t had a good rant for some time over so-called “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or whatever it has now morphed into since the latest figures were published which fail to support the most recent theory. I withdrew from the debate a while ago when I was told “the science is done – there is no argument” and one or two AB members became personally abusive because I did not agree with their mantra. You may have resurrected my interest :-)
Hopefully, Mikey, because somebody in government has finally managed to get hold of a calculator and realised that 2% (the UK’s share) of 4% (mankind’s share) of global emissions is not all that much and that if it disappeared entirely tomorrow it would make not one bit of difference of any significance to the overall amount bearing in mind that China is opening coal fired power stations at the rate of about one a week. And please let us not go down the “overflowing bathtub” route. China has twenty times the number of taps feeding the bathtub as does the UK. Australia, Canada, USA and Saudi Arabia each produce twice as much in emissions per head of population as does the UK. Plenty of nations produce around 1.5 times our sum per head. Meantime I cannot buy a proper lightbulb and instead I am restricted to using those where I have to make an appointment ten minutes in advance of going up my stairs and stores can open their front doors and use 25Kw curtain heaters to heat the street in mid-February.
I haven’t had a good rant for some time over so-called “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or whatever it has now morphed into since the latest figures were published which fail to support the most recent theory. I withdrew from the debate a while ago when I was told “the science is done – there is no argument” and one or two AB members became personally abusive because I did not agree with their mantra. You may have resurrected my interest :-)
Judge, it's been a load of old pony forever. Science has a tendency to work on what they can get funding for and highlight findings that the suppliers of that funding want and ignore the rest. Any scientist brave enough to stand out from the pack can look forward to living on crumbs and getting abuse from all the fashionistas.
Whose "bathtub route" do you mean, NJ... ?
Really sad that you'd just dismiss it in such a back-handed manner. While I agree that the UK's own emissions aren't really all that much on the global scale, it doesn't mean that we should sit back and do nothing. It's hard enough to persuade anyone else to take action as it is, without also allowing accusations of hypocrisy into the bargain.
Really sad that you'd just dismiss it in such a back-handed manner. While I agree that the UK's own emissions aren't really all that much on the global scale, it doesn't mean that we should sit back and do nothing. It's hard enough to persuade anyone else to take action as it is, without also allowing accusations of hypocrisy into the bargain.
There would be no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned, Jim,. Let other nations do as they wish (which is pretty much what those outside the EU – and even some within - do anyway and we’ll do likewise.
I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global emissions said to be attributable to humans cannot be handled by the planet whereas sometimes quite large variations in the 96% attributable to natural sources can. The “bathub” explanation was said to explain it by suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere is delicately balanced rather like a bathtub that has water being released down the plughole whilst being topped up by a tap. A small increase in the tap’s rate (it is said) will cause the bath to overflow. Fine, I can get that. What I cannot get is that in fact our theoretical bathtub has two taps: one providing 4% of the water and another providing 96% of the water. I am asked to accept that variations in the flow of the big tap can be handled but small variations in the flow of the smaller one cannot. I am asked to accept that the bath can discriminate between the two lots of water.
Even worse than this, the UK provides only 2% of the flow to the small tap. Many countries providing the other 98% have no intention of reducing their emissions in any meaningful way. Many nations (including some of our “European Partners” who are presumably bound by the same nonsensical rules as we are) produce far more emissions per head and show no signs of a reduction. In the meantime we are covering the countryside and the coast with useless wind farms which cost a fortune to build yet provide little in the way of a useful and reliable contribution to the nation’s energy requirements. (As I write I have looked at “Gridwatch”. Despite the huge programme of turbine building – at huge costs in “carbon footprint” and £££s – that has been ongoing for many years, windpower is contributing a little over 6% of total demand. It must particularly breezy today because very often that figure is less than 1%).
I don’t dismiss things out of hand with no thought. In fact I have probably given more thought to this issue than many of those who take to the streets demanding we all go back to living in caves. However, a look back at my contributions on AB will show that I have raised this “2% of 4%” issue before. I have also raised the relative merits of forcing people to use unsuitable light bulbs and vacuum cleaners whilst allowing shops to heat the street. Nobody has really properly addressed either matter.
My position is quite simple: contributions made by humans to overall global emissions are small and the sort of variations seen in recent years are even smaller. Those variations cannot have a greater influence than the variations in the 96% which on occasions are much larger. Furthermore, the contribution the UK makes to the 4% means that this country is adding about 0.08% to the total. This could double or disappear entirely tomorrow and nobody would notice. If anyone can explain to me why we should become hysterically worried about such miniscule figures I may reconsider my position. Until then I want the government to secure the energy requirements of the UK by whatever means is necessary and without bankrupting the consumer. I don’t think that will be done by converting perfectly good coal-fired power stations to burn wood chips which have been processed on the other side of the Atlantic and ferried across to Yorkshire on the basis that, accompanied by the outrageous subsidies involved, it is “green” because the millions of acres of felled trees can be replanted. Yeah, right.
The planet can cope. People need to stop fretting and get on with their lives. I promised myself I would not get involved in these arguments any more, but when faced with such utter tosh I just cannot help myself.
I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global emissions said to be attributable to humans cannot be handled by the planet whereas sometimes quite large variations in the 96% attributable to natural sources can. The “bathub” explanation was said to explain it by suggesting that the Earth’s atmosphere is delicately balanced rather like a bathtub that has water being released down the plughole whilst being topped up by a tap. A small increase in the tap’s rate (it is said) will cause the bath to overflow. Fine, I can get that. What I cannot get is that in fact our theoretical bathtub has two taps: one providing 4% of the water and another providing 96% of the water. I am asked to accept that variations in the flow of the big tap can be handled but small variations in the flow of the smaller one cannot. I am asked to accept that the bath can discriminate between the two lots of water.
Even worse than this, the UK provides only 2% of the flow to the small tap. Many countries providing the other 98% have no intention of reducing their emissions in any meaningful way. Many nations (including some of our “European Partners” who are presumably bound by the same nonsensical rules as we are) produce far more emissions per head and show no signs of a reduction. In the meantime we are covering the countryside and the coast with useless wind farms which cost a fortune to build yet provide little in the way of a useful and reliable contribution to the nation’s energy requirements. (As I write I have looked at “Gridwatch”. Despite the huge programme of turbine building – at huge costs in “carbon footprint” and £££s – that has been ongoing for many years, windpower is contributing a little over 6% of total demand. It must particularly breezy today because very often that figure is less than 1%).
I don’t dismiss things out of hand with no thought. In fact I have probably given more thought to this issue than many of those who take to the streets demanding we all go back to living in caves. However, a look back at my contributions on AB will show that I have raised this “2% of 4%” issue before. I have also raised the relative merits of forcing people to use unsuitable light bulbs and vacuum cleaners whilst allowing shops to heat the street. Nobody has really properly addressed either matter.
My position is quite simple: contributions made by humans to overall global emissions are small and the sort of variations seen in recent years are even smaller. Those variations cannot have a greater influence than the variations in the 96% which on occasions are much larger. Furthermore, the contribution the UK makes to the 4% means that this country is adding about 0.08% to the total. This could double or disappear entirely tomorrow and nobody would notice. If anyone can explain to me why we should become hysterically worried about such miniscule figures I may reconsider my position. Until then I want the government to secure the energy requirements of the UK by whatever means is necessary and without bankrupting the consumer. I don’t think that will be done by converting perfectly good coal-fired power stations to burn wood chips which have been processed on the other side of the Atlantic and ferried across to Yorkshire on the basis that, accompanied by the outrageous subsidies involved, it is “green” because the millions of acres of felled trees can be replanted. Yeah, right.
The planet can cope. People need to stop fretting and get on with their lives. I promised myself I would not get involved in these arguments any more, but when faced with such utter tosh I just cannot help myself.
As it happens I've advanced the bathtub analogy on AB several times myself, so I was wondering if you'd remembered it coming from me. Although it's probably not original, and works very well. Even the natural variation bit can be accommodated with not much work at all -- the point being that the human contribution is a consistent, and growing, addition to annual carbon emissions, coupled with a consistent, and growing, destruction of "carbon sinks". The natural variations average out, for the most part (and when they do not, that's what causes natural climate change), so you are left with a strong, consistent, and at this point pretty undeniable signal of increased CO2 levels driven heavily by human activity (to say nothing of the artificial greenhouse gases that have no natural variations because they are never produced naturally, although CO2 is the most prolific).
If you're thinking in terms of the UK, there's little we can do ourselves to deal with the problem, it's true. It will take a global effort, and the will is not there. In part, that's because even nations that have historically tried to do something seem to be giving up. In part too, perhaps, it's because there is no way to solve the problem that doesn't also involve such a radical overhaul of how we live that it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing to it.
All the same, 0.08% (or 2% if you neglect the natural CO2) can have a surprisingly large impact when it's 0.08% of such a large number. 2013 human-sourced CO2 emissions were in the order of 35 billion tonnes, so that 2% of that is still a hefty 350 megatonnes. It might well be that if we stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow then it would only take six months or so for Chinese output to make up the difference, but then the effects are cumulative anyway so it is still important to at least try and reduce the amount we pump out ourselves.
If you're thinking in terms of the UK, there's little we can do ourselves to deal with the problem, it's true. It will take a global effort, and the will is not there. In part, that's because even nations that have historically tried to do something seem to be giving up. In part too, perhaps, it's because there is no way to solve the problem that doesn't also involve such a radical overhaul of how we live that it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing to it.
All the same, 0.08% (or 2% if you neglect the natural CO2) can have a surprisingly large impact when it's 0.08% of such a large number. 2013 human-sourced CO2 emissions were in the order of 35 billion tonnes, so that 2% of that is still a hefty 350 megatonnes. It might well be that if we stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow then it would only take six months or so for Chinese output to make up the difference, but then the effects are cumulative anyway so it is still important to at least try and reduce the amount we pump out ourselves.
Clearly not deliberate. One uses a rare nickname which is 1 letter different to sceptic in a post the issue of which has sceptics and believers. Of course there is a risk of misreading.
However small human effect is, if it the balanced system is near the point where it may change with a little "shove" it should be taken seriously. To deny measures that may save a world if implemented, or at least many species upon it, is not a risk worth taking.
However small human effect is, if it the balanced system is near the point where it may change with a little "shove" it should be taken seriously. To deny measures that may save a world if implemented, or at least many species upon it, is not a risk worth taking.
Your argument is eloquently put, Jim, but does not overcome my fundamental views. What I am being asked to believe is that the planet’s climate is on a knife edge. So much so that a small increase in a very small proportion of emissions is critical and causes manmade climate change which cannot be accommodated. Meanwhile variations in “natural” emissions, which must be far larger in absolute terms cause “natural” climate change which can be somehow managed.
I am not suggesting that mankind does not add to global emissions. It would be foolish to think otherwise. My objections centre around the ridiculous ways governments are proposing to tackle a problem that they really have no control over. Some of them (in particular denuding millions of acres of mature Canadian forests) positively contribute to the very problem they are trying to solve (wilful destruction of the “carbon sinks” that you mention). Others (particularly the “carbon credit” scam) are simply tax raising ruses that are simply laughable were they not so intrusive and expensive.
My last concern is the way children are being frightened and misled in all of this. I’ve just, coincidentally, watched the local news. There was an item to do with schools and the teaching of environmental matters. One young child (aged about seven) was asked what she thought of such teaching. She replied that we must take care of our planet “or we will all suffocate”. She didn’t get that idea from the “Beano” and I know you dislike the term “brainwashing”. But we must ask ourselves if it is wise to teach children that we will all suffocate unless we use eco-friendly light bulbs, downgrade our vacuum cleaners and build billions of wind-farms (as if any of that will make any difference).
I am indeed hoping that the eco-maniacs have peaked and that a more common sense and measured approach will prevail. But I’m not holding my breath.
I am not suggesting that mankind does not add to global emissions. It would be foolish to think otherwise. My objections centre around the ridiculous ways governments are proposing to tackle a problem that they really have no control over. Some of them (in particular denuding millions of acres of mature Canadian forests) positively contribute to the very problem they are trying to solve (wilful destruction of the “carbon sinks” that you mention). Others (particularly the “carbon credit” scam) are simply tax raising ruses that are simply laughable were they not so intrusive and expensive.
My last concern is the way children are being frightened and misled in all of this. I’ve just, coincidentally, watched the local news. There was an item to do with schools and the teaching of environmental matters. One young child (aged about seven) was asked what she thought of such teaching. She replied that we must take care of our planet “or we will all suffocate”. She didn’t get that idea from the “Beano” and I know you dislike the term “brainwashing”. But we must ask ourselves if it is wise to teach children that we will all suffocate unless we use eco-friendly light bulbs, downgrade our vacuum cleaners and build billions of wind-farms (as if any of that will make any difference).
I am indeed hoping that the eco-maniacs have peaked and that a more common sense and measured approach will prevail. But I’m not holding my breath.
It may be a forlorn hope, NJ, given that within the last week there's been a story about how the next two years are going to be "the hottest on record". A pretty bold prediction, it has to be said. I would have preferred that they waited until afterwards, but unfortunately (or perhaps luckily, as I'd be hopeless really) I do not speak for the climate lobby. I wish they'd stop their dire warnings, because there's basically no point in them -- especially when the more excessive predictions have an annoying habit of ending up basically wrong. It's only the past we have data about, and some models of reasonable but hardly perfect accuracy for the future. The message, it seems to me, should be about the evidently unsustainable nature of human activity, and its dire effect on the environment now. Both of these are clear, and unarguable, but then you've basically accepted that already so I won't spend too much more time ranting.
Climate change does form a part of science lessons these days, possibly based on slightly out-of-date information though. That's perhaps the biggest problem climate science faces, in that more than any other field of the subject its twists and turns are played out in front of our eyes. God only knows how lucky most other fields are that the gaffes, when they come, are less noticeable because they aren't so bedded into politics. But anyway.
TTT, all I can say is that NJ's dissection, such as it is, is not of the science, nor of the analysis that human activity is largely responsible for recent climate trends, but of the policies to meet it. The small tap has "more effect" for the very simple reason that it wasn't there before, and thus disrupted the (rough) balance that was there before. One would do very well to pay attention to Mr. Micawber's famous advice.
Climate change does form a part of science lessons these days, possibly based on slightly out-of-date information though. That's perhaps the biggest problem climate science faces, in that more than any other field of the subject its twists and turns are played out in front of our eyes. God only knows how lucky most other fields are that the gaffes, when they come, are less noticeable because they aren't so bedded into politics. But anyway.
TTT, all I can say is that NJ's dissection, such as it is, is not of the science, nor of the analysis that human activity is largely responsible for recent climate trends, but of the policies to meet it. The small tap has "more effect" for the very simple reason that it wasn't there before, and thus disrupted the (rough) balance that was there before. One would do very well to pay attention to Mr. Micawber's famous advice.
No -- since you asked, Micawber was the one who explained that: "Annual income 20 pounds, expenditure 19 pounds 11 and six -- result? Happiness! Annual income 20 pounds, expenditure 20 pounds nought and six -- result? Misery!" The difference there being one shilling in 240, so rather a lot less than 2%. People who point out how small the human tap is compared to the natural one tend to overlook this point, I think. It doesn't take much to change the system from one where CO2 is removed (or essentially roughly constant) to one where it's consistently added. And that is the effect that the small tap has had, because it was excess on top of what was already present that has the effect of tipping the balance.
Not to say that, on occasion, nature can't do this as well. And in general when nature gets angry the effects are that much more extreme compared with what humans can produce. The larger fear, and I don't know how justified this is, would be that human activity drives climate change effects just enough to encourage natural sources to join in, such as the huge locked-away stores of Carbon in currently-frozen ice; or increased chance of forest fires; or a change in the balance of oceanic life that provides a useful long-term carbon sink. Whether or not all this will occur is an open question, but certainly everyone and even NJ will agree that present human activity is completely unsustainable in the long-term, so regardless of how destructive or not it's going to turn out we should address it. It seems to me that NJ's point is not that we shouldn't be concerned about it but that the way the UK is currently addressing it is worse than useless. That's probably true, to be fair.
Not to say that, on occasion, nature can't do this as well. And in general when nature gets angry the effects are that much more extreme compared with what humans can produce. The larger fear, and I don't know how justified this is, would be that human activity drives climate change effects just enough to encourage natural sources to join in, such as the huge locked-away stores of Carbon in currently-frozen ice; or increased chance of forest fires; or a change in the balance of oceanic life that provides a useful long-term carbon sink. Whether or not all this will occur is an open question, but certainly everyone and even NJ will agree that present human activity is completely unsustainable in the long-term, so regardless of how destructive or not it's going to turn out we should address it. It seems to me that NJ's point is not that we shouldn't be concerned about it but that the way the UK is currently addressing it is worse than useless. That's probably true, to be fair.
"To deny measures that may save a world if implemented,..."
And which measures might these be, OG? "Carbon credits"? Conversion to "eco" light bulbs? Wholesale deforestation in Canada to burn wood pellets in Yorkshire? Downgrading of vacuum cleaners (average usage 10 minutes per week)? Or simply scandalous levels of supplements added to fuel bills to fund wind farms (average contribution to electricity requirements less than 2%)?
The most laughable aspect of all of this is that governments have set themselves "temperature targets" as if they believe they can control global temperature variations. They have considerably more confidence in their abilities than I have and the story of King Knud (who knew he could not control the tide, not that he thought he could as some people believe) springs readily to mind.
And which measures might these be, OG? "Carbon credits"? Conversion to "eco" light bulbs? Wholesale deforestation in Canada to burn wood pellets in Yorkshire? Downgrading of vacuum cleaners (average usage 10 minutes per week)? Or simply scandalous levels of supplements added to fuel bills to fund wind farms (average contribution to electricity requirements less than 2%)?
The most laughable aspect of all of this is that governments have set themselves "temperature targets" as if they believe they can control global temperature variations. They have considerably more confidence in their abilities than I have and the story of King Knud (who knew he could not control the tide, not that he thought he could as some people believe) springs readily to mind.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News5 mins ago
Is Biden To Blame For Harris's Defeat?
News5 mins ago
Foreign Office Asks Public Schools For...
News13 mins ago
69M Uninformed Horrible People....and...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
