Admiral_Bobski

January 28, 2007

Hi all - it's all fun here in my little corner of the globe, so I can't stop long, but I just want to quickly clarify something Devonian said.

Sorry, but you can't credibley deny that we are causing the rise in CO2 conc - don't bother . No, you'd be much better advised to take CB's line where there is at least uncertainty and scope for muddying the waters

Thanks for the acknowledgement there, Devonian - I honestly appreciate the fact that I'm not lumped in with rampant "NOTHING IS HAPPENING!"-type denialists (no offence intended to anyone!) I would like to say, though, that my intent is not to "muddy the waters" but rather to show the waters for how muddy they actually are. To put it another way, whilst keeping the metaphor, I am not actively throwing mud into the waters, I am merely pointing out the fact that these waters are not pristine natural springs (probably slightly closer to the English Channel! Well, that might be a slight overstatement, but you get the picture )

As for the "1% reduction in solar radiation" thing, it's an interesting assertion that, in Snowman's defence, I have read in various places before. I am not sure about the validity of the assertion, but it is something that I have been meaning to look into (since it suggests that as little as a 1% increase in solar radiation can cause significant effects on Earth...hmmm....). So much research, so little time! Ah, well - it's all good fun!

C-Bob

January 28, 2007

Anyone who denies that global warming is occurring should take a peek at the atmospheric CO2 v global temperature data for the last 100k years. One can only draw the conclusion that man is a significant factor in this correlation that really commences with mass-industrialisation.

Hi - I don't deny that there appears to be some degree of warming going on at present, but I am a skeptic with regards Man's contribution to this apparent warming. I have taken rather more than a peek at the Vostok Ice Core graphs which stretch back 400,000 years and - or so it seems to me (and others) - have concluded that, historically, CO2 increase has followed temperature change, not vice versa. In fact, we had a big debate about that very thing over on the "Global Warming" thread (which is a bloomin' huge thread!). Here's the link:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=30299

If you have some spare time (a good couple of hours at least!) then it's well worth a read.

C-Bob

January 27, 2007

Hi everyone! I've missed quite a bit, I see! For now, just a couple of quick ones...

P3, you asked this:

If you have no explanation why the GAST has risen, or no explanation why it is not going to continue to rise, then why not accept the (very heavily researched and analysed) answer which science (not politics or the media) gives us?

There are possibilities other than the AGW argument, including (but not limited to) solar activity and combinations of natural factors, that could (could, mind you) be responsible for the apparent warming trend. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but until we know about these processes more (and have them utterly discounted, or their effects fully taken into account) then I, and probably others, will not just accept the answer that science give us. Science is good at giving us answers that fully explain all of the observed facts, but that are later found to be wrong because not everything was taken into account (or known).

SF, just a quick question (that's slightly off-topic) - you said:

There will be a god few on here not old enough to know, or even be aware of, thalidomide. My mother still blesses the day she had the strength of conviction not to listen to her doctor when she was pregnant with me. There were several years of denial regarding that drug before the mountain of data and deformed births proved simply too damning.

Do you still believe thalidomide to be entirely harmful?

That's all for now - see you later, peeps!

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

To Jimmyay, you said, "i don't understand you point though .no one's saying kill half the world's population ; just that it's far too high and needs to be reduced. this could be done in any number of ways. "

Agreed that murdering two thirds of the population would be a tad controversial, so what's the alternative? Sterilisation was bandied about in that article. So who gets to decide who's not allowed to have kids? Well, nobody of course - we'll release a virus that randomly selects people. So it's like some kind of Sterilisation Lottery? Are the people who get the virus or the people who don't get the virus the winners? There's the moral argument. There's the infringement of the individuals' rights. There's the serious psychological damage done to those who become sterile. That's okay, is it? This argument is absurd!

C-Bob

PS - Nice work there Mondy! The only difference is that the GW thing has more oomph behind it which has somehow managed to keep it going for thirty-odd years. I'm not saying GW is all a hoax, or a conspiracy, or anything of the sort, but scientists have proclaimed various things in the past which were wrong, but based upon the best information they had at the time...

January 26, 2007

To P3 - thanks for your reply. You, at least, are one person who can always keep a level head in a debate (I'm not being ironic or sarcastic - I truly mean that). I have to dash out in a moment, so I shall be brief - I just want to clarify that I have never advocated a "do nothing" approach. I have suggested a more measured, perhaps insentive-based, approach, and I have argued against such "solutions" as Kyoto and Carbon Trading, but I have never suggested that we do nothing. Further, I have said on many occasions that we should investigate other fuel sources post haste, if for no other reason than because fossil fuels will eventually leave us high and dry. Using fossil fuels with gay abandon is only going to leave us up a certain creek with no rowing implement when we finally run out of them (whenever that may be).

Other than that, pretty much in agreement with you. This time!

C-Bob

PS - Looking forward to what they say in AR4. Will it sway me, or give me more ammunition?!

EDIT - quick reply to Jimmyay - I agree entirely with P3's response to the article, and can add nothing more to it. As he says, if the world isn't capable of supporting the population, the population will decrease of its own accord, without any need for imposed sterilisation. Just because it came from a legitimate source doesn't mean that it is morally correct, or that it has taken everything into acount.

January 26, 2007

AS it happens, I've often thought of comparing AGW to eugenics but always thought the link a little tenuous - but there is a parallel - using good science to produce social, political, and economic changes. Eugenics reared it's head in American universtities, but, unfortunately, was seized upon a decade or so later by some very unsavoury characters.
Still, its a tenuous link, and I'm not sure I subscribe to it . . .

By Indiscriminate Eugenics I was referring to the very specific suggestion of imposed sterilisation of the world population in the article, rather than making some abstract parallel with AGW. Eugenics was widely frowned upon by most people, long before Hitler took the idea and started using it, so any suggestion of implementing it now is horrific.

Of course, Eugenics, in its original form, was intended to get rid of all the morons in the world (well, basically - the riff-raff, by which they meant the unintelligent who were, by their definition, of criminal intent) by sterilising people who didn't meet acceptable criteria, thereby preventing them from giving birth to further morons. The idea in the article is to curb the population by enforced random sterilisation, possibly by viral means - so the difference is that Pure Eugenics was intended to purify the populaion, whereas this Indiscriminate Eugenics is just intended to reduce the population.

I'm not sure which version is worse.

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

I have put forward the opinion before that ,for some people, the scale of the events we are starting to witness are too disturbing for them (as personalities/individuals) to accept/internalize.

I, for one, do not find the concept (or even the prospect) of GW anything like as worrying as the over-the-top measures suggested (and possibly soon-to-be-employed) to counteract our supposed part in it.

To Jimmyay - that's an absolutely horrifying article. There's a discussion about a form of indiscriminate Eugenics in there, and then the inevitable moral discussion which concludes that, morally speaking, it is wrong to do nothing.

You said earlier "what's the point of african people having 8 kids each when there's no food to feed them, for example?" Well what's the point of a bird laying six eggs, when only four of these will ever get to hatch, and only two of the emerged chicks will survive to adulthood? It's called "Survival" - if you have 8 kids then there's a much better chance that one or two of your offspring will reach maturity. This may sound a fairly inhuman argument, but that's the way it is (and certainly no more inhuman than the suggestion of imposed sterilisation on vast swathes of the population).

Anyway, rant over!

C-Bob

EDIT - BTW, I do agree with some of what Mondy says. While it is true that some of the pro-GW crowd (not intending to be disrespectful ) do listen to counter-arguments, there are others with whom I have found myself going around in circles, reiterating the same points time and time again in the vain hope that what I'm saying will sink in. (Again, no disrespect intended to anyone on here, but the argument about whether fossil fuels are part of the Carbon Cycle or not is a case in point here - I was not even questioning whether or not we should curb our emissions, merely correcting what I perceived to be a flaw in the wider argument. I chased my own tail for a while there!)

January 26, 2007

However, and let's be VERY CLEAR on this point, MY VIEW is that man-made CO2 emissions ARE increasing temperatures on the planet.

Absolutely clear! We have opposed views on AGW, but we share some common ground.

BTW - I think VillagePlank wasn't suggesting that all the oil and coal could be catastrophically burned in the immediate future, but rather that something buried is not necessarily removed from the equation for all time. (EDIT - Sorry VillagePlank! Didn't mean to put words in your mouth - you replied before I did!)

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

The worrying thing in this present situation is that re-equilibration might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer, at which point we may never return to here we are now without significant external forcing. And, by the way, it's only "worrying" if you determine that the consequyences for life on earth would be catastrophic. The big lump of rock which is "this island Earth" will be here for a long time, come what may.

Thanks SF!

I agree entirely with what you say - even with the "might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer" part. Yes, establishing a new equilibrium might mean increased temperatures. It all depends of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, how effective the global CO2 sinks are, and (as far as our predictive models are concerned) how many, and exactly what forms of different sinks are there. Finally somebody gets what I've been saying! Thank you!

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

Sorry to continue off topic, but if the age limit was over-40's only, the A in AGW could be sorted in fifty years. That would make a lot of people happy. Or not.

It is a little off-topic, I suppose, but it's an interesting part of the whole debate - perhaps we should wait until jimmyay clarifies the point he made, but if people are so anxious about AGW that they're willing to seriously consider the concept of population control (or, worse, yet, population purging) then it is a worrying knee-jerk side-effect of the hysteria surrounding the subject.

C-Bob

EDIT - To P3 (just seen your post!)

Without human intervention, it would never be released, therefore the system operates without consideration of it. This is why your analogy, with water, does not work. Oil and coal are not in a dam waiting to be released; they are inert unless brought to the surface and burned.

Never say never! There's nothing to say that geological processes can't regurgitate the coal and oil, and that it can't then spontaneously combust (by a natural process). Certainly this may not happen within millions of years, but that's not to say that it can't happen, and therefore they remain a part of the Carbon Cycle. I have not misunderstood the carbon cycle at all - I am taking the entire cycle into account, not just the portion of it (human time-scales) that people seem to think somehow relevant. (You even say yourself "except in the longest, most-inclusive sense" which, scientifically speaking, is the most correct sense.)

You are right, of course, that eventually, we will have used all the fossil fuels in the world; in about 41 years for oil and about 150 years for coal. But that does not mean that GW stops at these times; the CO2 from their burning and its warming effect continues for hundreds or years. An important question is how rapidly we add it to the system, and how rapdly thereby we stimulate changes in the systems which, under natural conditions, would take thousands of years, but with our intervention, may only take decades, or a couple of centuries.

Again, people are reading things in to what I have said - I never suggested that any supposed GW from fossil fuels would somehow magically stop once all the fossil fuels are burned. What I said was that the Earth would adjust to the change by attempting to establish a new equilibrium. One last time I shall say this - I was merely clarifying a point of order, namely that fossil fuels are part of the carbon cycle. Excluding them biases the information being given (much like VillagePlank's Dihydrogen Monoxide thread - by excluding vital parts of the picture, such as the fact that it is vital to life on this planet, he made water sound dangerous).

The argument that this is turning into is about how much CO2 affects global temperatures - we've been there before, and to my mind the jury is still out...

:blink:

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

introduce an age limit lol :blink:

Anybody here seen the film Soylent Green? Worrying...

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

Jimmyay, just a quickie... You said:

2) I'd like to see you try to feed everyone in the world using 1sqm of land per person (and provide all their other material requirements). The planet is totally overpopulated to the tune of about 4bn, but no one will talk about it. We could and should reduce the world population by 4/5ths within 50 years - quite achievable if world governments put their minds to it .

What, exactly are you suggesting here...?

:blink:

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

Arrgghhh!
CB, surely you must see that the fossil fuels are being released at a speed that simply couldn't happen without us? I simply can't believe you don't get that? So, please, lets agree on that else I'll think you're mischief making or deeply misunderstanding things. OK?
Whether or not the fossil fuels would eventually be 'released' isn't pertinent - unless you think those of use alive now will live for millions of years? No, what matters, and what you're refusing (for some reason...) to accept is the problem of the speed of the release of 'locked' up CO2. It is like GW's lake - you can't compare a drip over time to a flood, even if both are indeed the same ammont of water, yet you persist in avioding this reality. Why?
So, again, please set my mind at rest and confirm you accpet that the speed of release of 'locked' up CO2 as we burn fossil fuel is (IS) unnaturally fast.

For crying out loud, how much clearer can I make this?! I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that fossil fuels would have burned naturally as quickly as they are being burned by us, but that wasn't the point I was making at all!

You originally said:

Crikey, you've a lot to learn about the carbon cycle ...
Look, fossil fuels have been locked away out of the carbon cycle for millions of years - burning them is, in the time scales that concern humanity, to make a major addition to the carbon cycle. Trees on the other hand absorbed from the atmosphere the carbon that they release when they are burnt. So the CO2 the realise when they are burnt came from the atmosphere (from the carbon cycle, not from outside it). Net effect on atmospheric CO2 over the plants lifetime? Zero. That much ought to be fairly obvious?

...to which I replied:

The fact is that fossil fuels contain carbon that was taken out of the equation long ago. By releasing that carbon back into the air we are simply balancing the equation. I'm not saying that we should be burning fossil fuels per se, but the argument that fossil fuels aren't part of the Carbon Cycle is nonsense.

Your argument that fossil fuels are not a part of the carbon cycle is clearly wrong - they may not be a part of the bit of the carbon cycle you are interested in but that's beside the point. Even after a dam bursts the water eventually subsides - we can't burn more fossil fuels than actually exist in the world, so the amount of released CO2 will eventually subside. The question, though, is whether the CO2 we release through fossil fuels is akin to a dam flooding solid, impermeable rock, or is it more like a dam flooding an extraordinarily absorbant sponge?

Does this make any kind of sense to you? If not then I fail to see the point of spending any more time explaining it.

Yes. I agree. Fossil fuels are being burned quicker now, by us, than if they had been left alone.

Does this mean they are not part of the Carbon Cycle? No. The water behind the dam is still a part of the water cycle!

You seem to think I am arguing something entirely different.

C-Bob

January 26, 2007

The point of a cycle in equilibrium is that input and output balance. The carbon cycle, even if these fossil fuels were to be released naturally (they wouldn't be), would probably correct, such that reabsorption rates would increase. In slow change most natural systems retain equilibrium. The point at present is that "locked" carbon (i.e that which nature cannot quickly get at) is suddenly being released much faster than the system can correct and reseal it.

Hi SF!

Just to clarify my point, I'll quote what I said before with the key part highlighted:

Time and context are not relevant to the nature of the Carbon Cycle. Given sufficient time, the Earth would eventually establish a new equilibrium - even if all the fossil fuels were burnt simultaneously.

I believe that the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is being somewhat overhyped, and that our effect upon the atmosphere is not as significant as is being made out, but quite aside from that I am arguing the suggestion that fossil fuels are somehow not a part of the Carbon Cycle. The fact that fossil fuels were "taken out of the equation" millions of years ago means that the "equation" became unbalanced (some would argue it bacame unbalanced in our favour). Now that fossil fuels are being burned their Carbon is simply being put back into the equation, thereby balancing it (in the grand scheme of things).

I have attached the Carbon Cycle diagram from wikipedia (I hope that's not breaching any copyright!), with my own red highlight.

Even the diagram-makers acknowledge the place of fossil fuels in the Carbon Cycle!

:blink:

C-Bob

January 25, 2007

A joke? It must be? We could burn the whole lot of fossil fuels, send atmospheric CO2 way above 1000 ppm and it's not relevant? Of course it is, and of of course time and context are relevant.
No need, all part of debate I rekon, I'm not perfect etc etc

Time and context are not relevant to the nature of the Carbon Cycle. Given sufficient time, the Earth would eventually establish a new equilibrium - even if all the fossil fuels were burnt simultaneously. The fact that this may have a detrimental effect on living creatures is beside the point, in the context of this argument - namely that fossil fuels do not constitute a part of the Carbon Cycle. I am arguing that they most certainly are.

Just to emphasise what I said originally, I shall highlight a bit that may have been missed:

..the speed with which the oil/coal/gas is being burned is not really relevant to [its] place in the carbon cycle...

While the speed with which we are burning fossil fuels may be relevant to our immediate future, it is not relevant to their place in the Carbon Cycle. Do you see my point? I am highlighting a flaw in the "Not Part Of The Carbon Cycle" argument.

Anyway, it's nice to know that we're all friends again!

C-Bob

January 24, 2007

Strange? What's strange is the unearthing and buring of oil/coal/gas at the rate we see atm, it IS unquestionably unnaturally fast. Humans are clearly natural, what we are doing in burning all these fossil fuels, releasing the 'locked up' (buried) CO2 to the atmosphere, is happening unnaturally fast. I say that's obvious. Surely you must see that? You don't? Then check out the current carbon cycle.
I can live with a few unfounded character attacks , you, of course, are of unassailably good character .This is a debate, I've seen far worse from both sides.

But still, the speed with which the oil/coal/gas is being burned is not really relevant to that oil/coal/gas's place in the carbon cycle. Surely you must see that? The carbon wasn't put there by aliens. In fact, the diagram of the carbon cycle in the wikipedia article you like to actually includes "fossil fuels and cement production" within the cycle. Also note the following passage (relevant portion highlighted by me):

Models of the carbon cycle can be incorporated into global climate models, so that the interactive response of the oceans and biosphere on future CO2 levels can be modelled. There are considerable uncertainties in this, both in the physical and biogeochemical submodels (especially the latter). Such models typically show that there is a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. For example, Zeng et al. (GRL, 2004 [2]) find that in their model, including a coupled carbon cycle increases atmospheric CO2 by about 90 ppmv at 2100 (over that predicted in models with non-interactive carbon cycles), leading to an extra 0.6°C of warming (which, in turn, may lead to even greater atmospheric CO2).

I'll leave it at that for now.

C-Bob

PS - I shall rescind the Aggression comments - I don't mind the odd character-assassination attempt, but there's really no need for it in a rational debate on climate!

January 24, 2007

CB, humm, I know of no natural way that the amount of carbon buried and then used by us as oil/coal/gas in a century or two could also liberated in a century or two? What mechanism have you in mind? Surely the whole point about ACC (and it's not just to do with CO2) is the speed of it and the speed (rate) of CO2 release (and other changes)? Of course, given weathering and erosion, some of the oil and gas we've burnts would get exposed to the atmosphere and the thence CO2 incorporated into the carbon cycle, but that would take (at a guess) millions upon millions of years. The planet could cope with that rate of change - it would be normal and the Carbon would get laid down again as carbonacious rocks.

Ah, so fossil fuels are only not part of the carbon cycle if we burn them? I see! Now I understand where I have gone wrong - you are implying, therefore, that humans aren't part of the natural order of things...? Or are you just using our little part of the Carbon Cycle as support for AGW (or ACC)? The fact is that, regardless of how quickly the carbon is released, it is still released - it's all part of the same cycle. It's interesting to me that the only cycles considered noteworthy are ones that occur within a comprehensible timeframe - the moment a span of millions (or even just tens of thousands) of years is mentioned, suddenly it's somehow not relevant. Strange.

Re aggression. It's news to me that you and Mondy are the two people in the world "who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with" and that "people like you fellas" means you two only, rather than you two being examples of the millions who, it seems, wont lift a finger to reduce emissions but resist said like mad - but you learn something every day . But, do I think you play your small parts as two of those millions? Of course. Millionths of it.

Your comments were directed at "people like us". Whether your aggression is directed at two people or two million, it's still aggression. I was not offended by the original comment, just intrigued by the degree of your vitriol.

C-Bob

January 24, 2007

That's an important point you've raised there Penguin. It is true that nature is very rarely in a perfectly balanced state, but when talking about balance in nature we are talking about the natural tendency for natural systems to try to establish an equilibrium. Natural processes are often referred to as being in a state of Dynamic Equilibrium, meaning that they are more or less balanced, but constantly tipping one way or the other as different elements enter and leave the system the system. If, for example, excess CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere then the natural tendency towards equilibrium will compel the environment to find a new equilibrium. Left to its own ends, this is precisely what the environment would do - the temperature may increase to establish the new equilibrium, or it may stay the same and other elements of the system (such as CO2 sinks) will alter, or there may be a combination of the two.

My argument all along has been that while CO2 may, in and of itself, create a warming effect, this is not the only way an equilibrium with that increased CO2 can be established, and I believe that other factors have not been taken sufficiently into account.

We see an apparent warming trend and we know that CO2 is increasing and can cause warming, so we immediately point the finger at CO2 as the culprit without, I believe, sufficiently investigating other potential factors.

To Devonian, if I may quote you:

What a strange argument. On the same basis we could 'liberate' all the CO2 in carbonacious rocks to restore the 'balance' to the cycle - would that be good? Or we could destory life and send the oxygen back into the rocks like it was pre life in the distant pre Cambrian. That would be to restore the initial 'balance' of this planet - no?

I never said that releasing the CO2 would be beneficial (nor did I specifically say that it would be detrimental), merely that your definition of the Carbon Cycle is somewhat limited in scope. There is a bigger picture.

No, sceptics really need to realise this is now, not try to fudge the issue by going back to the distant past way before their beloved Stone Age. It's about what we are doing now. It's about how the carbon cycle was before we interferred. It's about us not experimenting with the atmosphere.

I'm not trying to "fudge" anything - I'm trying to get to the bottom of the GW issue. How can we expect to help if we aren't certain what the problem is? There's no reason to presume that the fossil fuels we currently use would remain "safely" buried away, undisturbed for all eternity - they are a part of the Carbon Cycle too...

Also, I see you try to work in the old 'back to the Stone Age' argument - you must like the past . There are people who think doing nothing about Aclimate change also risks economic cost in our future, the bit we have still to live through....

I was? When did I try to do that?

Edit: 'aggressive'? No, far from it. But, 'deeply concerned'? Too right I am.

I'd call accusations that I am destroying your perfect world aggressive, yes... As implied in this paragraph:

But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

C-Bob

January 24, 2007

Thank god the BBC don't do cynicism, they'd go to any expense for the services of you two ...
She wants to live in a caravan and not fly? Then it's her choice. Shes's not dictating how others live. But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

cynics.

Getting a wee bit aggressive there, Devonian...? I never claimed that she was dictating how others should live - I was not attacking her thoughts, beliefs or actions: I was commenting on the BBC's decision to make her an example of Wonderfulness. Anyone remember Sting? Probably the most environmentally conscious popular figure I can think of off the top of my head - Save the Whales, Save the Rainforests, Save the Planet - and yet he gets crucified in the national media for being on the final flight on the Concorde. "How can a man who claims to care about the planet have the audacity to fly?! In the world's most polluting aircraft, no less!!" Yes, thoroughly appalling.

Even more amusing than their hero-worship of this woman is the fact that they show, quite effectively, the economic implications of "going green" (as I alluded to in my previous post). They always seem to talk about the economic viability of Kyoto and future "Green" proposals, and yet show how vastly much more it costs to avoid "polluting" forms of fuel. I think the media's bias on this issue is absolutely laughable.

The Carbon Cycle...hmmm...The Carbon Cycles-Within-Cycles would be a more appropriate name. The fact is that fossil fuels contain carbon that was taken out of the equation long ago. By releasing that carbon back into the air we are simply balancing the equation. I'm not saying that we should be burning fossil fuels per se, but the argument that fossil fuels aren't part of the Carbon Cycle is nonsense. I still think that the Earth's ability to adapt to change is severely underestimated. But time will tell.

G'night

C-Bob

EDIT!! - Here's a link worth having a quick look at...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

January 23, 2007

C-Bob..have you seen the latest. You couldn't make this up...now we're all supposed to give up working and live in a caravan. It gets better - wait until you see how she heats it!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287107.stm

eh???????????

A wood-burning stove, for chrissakes ! And what does she think you get when you burn wood?

If ever i saw a case of self-righteous finger pointing [gone wrong] , then it's this.

The really interesting thing about the article is the figures quoted - reducing her CO2 emissions by a half cost her over four times as much money! That sounds economically viable, doesn't it?! The fact is that I'd love to give up working and live in a caravan, but I can't afford to do it...and the more taxes and restrictions that are imposed on us in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions, the worse off I'm likely to be, making it yet harder to give up work and live in a caravan...!

What would have made this report noteworthy is if, rather than just not taking the plane, she had managed to get the flight cancelled. The CO2 was still churned into the atmosphere by that flight, despite her not being on it - a fact that is echoed in the grander scale of things by the fact that our CO2 reductions aren't worth much if every other country refuses to co-operate. Still, you've got to love the BBC, eh?

C-Bob

January 23, 2007

Thanks for that P3 - you're absolutely right I was trying to be as respectful as possible to GW because I believe that his concerns are not entirely unfounded, just as I feel are mine(a fact that you have graciously accepted on many occasions!). It is wrong for people on either side of the debate to "push aside" the views of others. I do try not to do this (although I may have been guilty of it in the past ) but rather to counter the argument with something substantiated or accept defeat on that point and move on to another.

If everyone intends to keep this one big happy forum then we should treat each other respectfully, and, if there is no evidence to the contrary, respect each others' opinions.

Long may the debate live!!

C-Bob

January 22, 2007

With all due respect to Gray-Wolf, because you're obviously an intelligent person who does his research, I would have to agree with The Penguin. The scientists you contacted seem to be reasonably sure that there's no fear of anything catastrophic happening in the near future, yet you stand by your assertion. However, when we who play Devil's Advocate in the GW debate assert something that goes counter to the received wisdom, we are pushed aside for much the same reason. As I said before, it is not unreasonable to expect a person opposed to GW to look for the articles that are "what they need to hear", or rather are supportive of their viewpoint.

C-Bob

January 21, 2007

Just a quick point that the link posted by Mondy is to a news website, not to a scientific website - news articles rarely quote facts or figures with articles such as this. Secondly, I would hardly say that one article by a dissenting scientist constitutes "focussing on one unfounded hypothesis" - it's just a news story: there are dozens of other articles on the site with differing opinions. Of course, if "they" refers to Mondy then of course a person who doubts the theory of GW is going to choose a single article against the argument rather than one of the articles that supports the assertion. That's the point - finding the other side of the argument...

I wouldn't take a news report at face value, and I intend to look at this scientist's credentials when I have time (heck, he's probably on Sourcewatch...most nay-sayers are...).

Still, I think that it is an important reminder that there's more to the debate than meets the eye...

C-Bob

January 20, 2007

It may be that the "point" made causes problems due to its much earlier inclusion on, dare I mention it, iceagenow. Despite the lack of proof that the site author is in the pay of anyone connected with the oil industry, explicit or implicit reference to that site causes immediate questioning of the posters creditability (At least by some contributors on this site.)
Brave words at the end there Capt! I do not wish to associate myself with them, though, due to my respect for SF. (Very funny though!)

Ah, well, I always like to check out Iceagenow, just for a laugh! I'm not an advocate of that site, and it bugs we somewhat that sites such as that bring down the good name of skeptics everywhere, but sometimes I read something on there which compels me to look up other, related issues (so it's not all bad!).

I've always had some good measure of respect for SF, too, up until now... I find it sad that a couple of people on a forum can't have a good-natured chuckle over something without it irking a third party. Some might argue that the post by Mondy was not good-natured, but I would disagree - it is important to keep a sense of humour about everything. But what annoyed me the most by SF's post was the fairly aggressive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about, and a fairly grave mischaracterisation of me.

Sorry to go on about it, but not all skeptics are Iceagenow-ers...!

C-Bob

Ps - Mondy...thanks for the link...I've been looking at solar cycles for the last week or so and it's interesting stuff, but complicated. This article is a good reminder that the 11-year sunspot cycle isn't the only solar cycle with any bearing on Earth.

PPS - By the way, the comment "Our point of view is difficult to argue in this crowd" was supposed to be complimentary, as it was supposed to suggest a high quality of counter-arguments on the forum. Perhaps I should be more explicit next time...

January 20, 2007

Two interesting points there: one explicit, one implicit.
The explicit first: it's not hard to argue - this a free to ente thread. I think what you mean is that it's hard to convince anyone fo your viewpoint, and perhaps there's a reason for that lying I the implicit point you (inadvertently) make. That inadvertent point, is that in "arguing your point" you are talking at, rather than listening to. Most of the pro G-W "community" can argue thir position with facts, data and science, AND - and this IS the crux of advocacy - can disassemble most of the rational arguments of the "antis". The antis tend to rely on "I don't believe it", or "how can it" type homilies. You'll start convincing THIS commenttor / observer as and when the quality of the argument improves: i.e. tell the pro G-Wers why there case is wrong.

The ancient Greeks used to teach logic, reason and advocacy / debating skills. It's a great shame that we don't still. Knowing orbelieveing something may be necessary for good argument, but it is certainly far from sufficient.

...two classic cases in point. In what way is a vaguely amusing picture of pants on a line "a good point well made"? It's a position, not an argument.

For everything there is an answer - my use of the word "argue" implies a two-way discussion, a tete-a-tete, in which one viewpoint is firmly established over the other. It is, therefore, difficult to argue my case as I have been, as yet, unable to establish my viewpoint (i.e. convince anyone else of its legitimacy). It is a common misunderstanding that "to argue" means "to shout down" in some way. The verb "argue" is, in its most basic form, a synonym for the verb "debate". Frankly, I resent the insinuation that I do not listen to other viewpoints. I, for one, do not "rely on 'I don't believe it' or 'how can it' type homilies". If you have read any of my posts before then you should know this - I argue by counterpoint, not by dismissal (mostly ) A large part of my argument has always been that CO2 is neither as Big nor as Bad a Wolf as seems to be made out, and I have always attempted to offer suggestions as to why I belive this to be the case.

As for your second perceptive observation...The "point" is that Mondy believes that GW is "a load of old pants", and it is well made by virtue of the fact that it is both bold and amusing. I will quite happily send you a cheque for 5p with which to buy yourself a sense of humour.

All the best,

C-Bob

Sign In

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Learn About Weather and Meteorology

Community guides

Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski