wysiwyg

Well to me you implied that sources of funding "other than governments" which by definition cannot be tax. Agreed on the other points though - again I think the previous poster was inferring that skeptics were not funded by the government. However, you have to weigh up the possibility that they are being funded by those organisations that have a vested interest in us continuing to use fossil fuels.

Don't get that - if you get money from the government it is taxes. I think the implication was that skeptics are funded through non-government sources hence their funders cannot by definition be taxpayers.

There's one in the states I think - isn't there? Well like they say when the states gets it 2 weeks later.......... I'll retrive my outdoor clothing and be off then.

I don't have a reference to hand and have no desire to look for one to prove this point. There is a link in the wiki page to the constituents of the combustion cycle. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. As stated in the previous post CO would be oxidised eventually and I would rather car engines produced a medically inert gas than CO. Even if the engine produced a 100% CO and this was converted into CO2 by the cat, I don't see how not using cats would be beneficial. Yes cars are responsible for CO2 pollution but to take a backwards step by returning them to "confirmed killer" status does not seem logical at all. Actually (I know you don't like wiki) but you can probably work out how much CO and CO2 is produced in an ICE by taking the emission standards as a worse case. The legislation has figures for cars pre- and post cat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

It has both types of combustion - mostly complete! What comes out of the exhaust is mainly water, carbon dioxide and unused air along with unburnt petrol and some of the noxious gases you mentioned (reduced if the car has a Cat) Might help if you are studying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

CO2 is a by-product of burning hydrocarbons (petrol + diesel included). Cat converters just turn dangerous trace amounts of noxious gases into apparently less dangerous oxides.

Very valid and sensible proposition imo. In Portugal they already have the facility in place to sell back excess electricity to the grid. I also live on an estate (new build) where one of the developers has built a close of houses with windmills and solar panels. Trouble is they cost about £20k more than equivalent houses without the power generation technology. Therein lies the problem - unless someone is prepared to take the altruistic view that in reality they will lose money on that house but so what, then the developers wont be building many more I'm afraid. The other problem of course is how much can be realistically generated by a couple of windmills and a few solar panels on the roof of a house. However, despite looking decidedly tokenistic, it is a very small step in the right direction. (journey of a thousand miles and all that)

calm down Doris, I was only trying to cheer you up :o

I think that "sustainability" is key here and that is maybe why some people find it frustrating that large quantities of resource are seemingly being channeled into CO2 reduction when there are many more factors in play here. Couple that with the fact that the UK Government will bail out an ailing bank at the drop of a hat with £50odd billion but will not act on sustainability issues unless the investment comes from private sources then you have a recipe for some very disgruntled people. I would not be so naive to think that we are merrily wandering along burning FF and not doing anything about the future though. Whilst some of the measures so far taken smack of tokenism, they are a small step in the right direction and I am confident that research is ongoing into sustainable energy sources. Particularly it is ironic that much of this will be funded by the energy industry as they have most to lose when FF becomes economically unviable. None of this will happen overnight. Governments have little choice but to slowly coerce change, balanced against their political survival. Frustrating I know! Edit: swear filters can be hilarious at times FF s = I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad

You bored cookie? I can ignore the water, but the dead flies and pubic hairs tsk

One could argue that El Nino was actually driving the recent anomolous warming. Personally I don't think there is enough correlation between ENSO and warming/cooling alone. Something else drives this phenomenon and I am currently thinking it is not atmospheric CO2 levels but more to do with a combination of ocean currents and solar activity. Edit: Was looking at this when I posted above http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/observing1.html

To be fair I think this is fine in here. Most of the threads drift around the general subject anyhow so if it was in a new thread it would be off-topic before you could say ermm... well.... off-topic

This is a good example of how polarised an argument can become when interested parties begin to cherry pick ideas to fit agendas. In defence of scientists I think it's fair to say that none of this whole issue will ever be considered a myth. The theories, assumptions and predictions on both sides of the argument are soundly supported by robust and sensible science imo. As things stand this leads to uncertainty surrounding the whole issue of GW and this is what drives the science to continue seeking answers. This is not black and white, of course there is evidence of a warming trend, of course there is evidence that CO2 may contribute, of course polar ice melt is a threat, of course the sun has a role to play. Governments will continue as always to look for opportunities to control and manipulate on the one hand, and maintain a majority of contented voters on the other. Put another way how much can they raise taxes and popularity without pushing too far and loosing votes and credibility. Environmental groups will take whatever suits and fit it to their agenda - nothing wrong with that! Large multinationals will take whatever suits and fit it to the cause of protecting profits, shareholders and their own existence. I agree with Dev here - the emotiveness of such a statement doesn't really help the argument. None of it is hogwash (and this from a sceptic!) and even if other cycles etc are found to be effective the current science is still valid and can't just be dismissed on the grounds that other, more likely and contributory, effects are discovered and verified. What I think is valid in your statement is the "what if" style of questioning. When I look at a piece of well researched evidence on either side of the argument I will ask the questions: "What if it is true/false? How does it fit in with what is already known/likely". It's sometimes a bit too easy to look at a piece of biased media reporting connected to a piece of science and think "That's rubbish/a myth/hogwash etc" or "Well that settles it they must be right because they agree with what I think" I think that answers your question as to where my trust is - i.e. with my own eyes, ears and thought process. In answer as to how I would react in either yours and Dev's hypotheses I would accept whatever was the outcome in terms of the science but never give up questioning and looking for answers.

More likely to be a pear-shaped one

Simple really - the chemicals you quote have a strong 'chemical reaction' with other much more abundant compounds present in the body. CO2 is a colourless odourless inert gas that has minimal (weak acidic dissolution in water) interaction with anything else in the atmosphere.

A 'third more' of ~200parts per million (0.02%) of the atmosphere. 'How much' is spot on imho

Very nice pics Kelly. Seen some similar formations over the last few days here - breathtaking! Is it just me or is there a bit of 'fish-eye' on some of those shots (banana horizons ) I would have thought that there would be a way of correcting that in photoshop (maybe not but just a thought) Here's hoping you get a shot of a lifetime 50ft wave tomorrow stay safe though!

It will only happen once so "is possible" is correct. "are possible" implies that any one of the centimetres could occur The beauty of the english language is that both are correct B)

a bit of everything here. Early Jan squall with hail and thunder was best 'event' so far.

Don't get much variety in my semi-urban shared garden - pied wagtails (very common here), sparrows, chaffinches, magpies, crows, seagulls, swallows and house martins in summer and starlings. There are some owls over the road nesting in a small copse (can hear them but have never seen one) oh we get a lot of bats too (not birds I know B) ). In my parents' garden (semi-rural) there is a much larger selection. All the usual common suspects plus a large and noisy group of owls, stock doves, greenfinches (quite rare around here), woodpeckers, lapwings, a pair of kestrels that attack the doves in mid air, ducks, wild geese and even a semi-tame pheasent . Other wildlife includes foxes, grey squirrels (lots), rabbits, an escaped ferret, rats, fieldmice and moles.

Maybe Paul 'Schumaker' Sherman - kinda has a ring to it

this is what mine looks like - honestly though it's no big deal - more cosmetic than a bug :lol: Apparently also Alt+G will toggle it on and off.

It's on the tool bar to the right of the tabs. There is a home button then a small hand icon toggle button to the right of it on my toolbar which I think is default.

Good Stuff folks! I noticed one tiny cosmetic thing that is different between v3 and v4 that should be fairly easy to fix if desired: If you are using IE7 there is a feature (of IE7) that allows you to enable the mouse cursor as a 'drag hand' allowing you to scroll up and down by holding LMB and dragging up and down. I find this useful when using the laptop with widescreen and touchpad. This feature works in v3 but not in v4 atm. TIA Wysi :lol:

I think this thread should have all the posts that don't relate directly to Kelly's photos moved into another thread in fairness to Kelly