Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[noggin]

....oh and just to make it even more painful financially. get your house "greened-up" or your council tax will go up. Can't afford it? Don't worry......have a nice green, loan to put you in hock for the next 10/25 years.

Whilst there are worse things to have to deal with in life, such as serious illness for example, this faux-greenery is getting nightmarish. Quite seriously, it frightens me from a financial point of view. I am low paid and although I still have a job, what if I were to lose it? Who would take on a woman in her mid fifties with a dodgy right arm? It's alright for MPs and their ilk ....they'll just put it on their expenses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ouncil-tax.html

PS Laserguy.........thinking of you re your job. Let us know how it goes.

[Methuselah]

....oh and just to make it even more painful financially. get your house "greened-up" or your council tax will go up. Can't afford it? Don't worry......have a nice green, loan to put you in hock for the next 10/25 years.

Whilst there are worse things to have to deal with in life, such as serious illness for example, this faux-greenery is getting nightmarish. Quite seriously, it frightens me from a financial point of view. I am low paid and although I still have a job, what if I were to lose it? Who would take on a woman in her mid fifties with a dodgy right arm? It's alright for MPs and their ilk ....they'll just put it on their expenses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ouncil-tax.html

PS Laserguy.........thinking of you re your job. Let us know how it goes.

It must be true. It's in The Mail!

[noggin]

I'll go further, I hope sceptics are right because if they're not we ARE in trouble long term. Now, it's careless to shove mercury into landfill, but it's got to be more careless to damage the climate. I get you concerns about mercury, I really, really, wish you'd get 'warmista' concerns about our climate.

But what happens when people like me show concern? We're 'scaremongers', we're part of a 'swindle' or a 'scam' worse we get accused of various forms of dishonesty.

If only we could be respected for our concern like I/we respect those concerned about mercury poisoning.

Dev, please don't misunderstand me! Many, many times I have said that we must respect our planet and not abuse it's resources and bounty...so we are actually in agreement to a very large extent.

Taking the bigger picture....if we were to say that there are two "sides" to this whole AGW/GW/CC/green argument, then I bet there would be more in which both sides agreed than disagreed. I think most people want a cleaner and more sustainably used planet. I am certain that we have more in common than it might appear from a cursory glance.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Like you I'm concerned about unnecessary pollution - mercury is a dangerous poison. But, I think the problem here is not with the scheme, or the politicians but with private companies seeing sending out light bulb as a neat way of getting around obligations to save energy - blame them not politicians. Besides, the amounts of mercury involved are small.

But, I'm also concerned that adding vast quantities of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere might (if we continue on regardless) seriously change the world's climates - indeed I think it will unless an awful lot of science that a lot of very smart people l think right are not only wrong but ridiculously wrong.

I'll go further, I hope sceptics are right because if they're not we ARE in trouble long term. Now, it's careless to shove mercury into landfill, but it's got to be more careless to damage the climate. I get you concerns about mercury, I really, really, wish you'd get 'warmista' concerns about our climate.

But what happens when people like me show concern? We're 'scaremongers', we're part of a 'swindle' or a 'scam' worse we get accused of various forms of dishonesty.

If only we could be respected for our concern like I/we respect those concerned about mercury poisoning.

Unfortunately the two are not like for like Dev. I spoke the other day on the ice thread about taking an 'evironmental brush' to everything from land,river pollution to sustainability and on the climate change in terms of tackling ALL aspects on the basis that man is to blame for everything and man MUST tackle everything and 'act' on everything 'uniformly' regardless.

Dealing with a mercury contamination issue is a blatant and REAL danger - proof and evidence of it are 100% 'in the face'. AGW is a hypothesis - it is not proven, climate movement, patterns and changes thereof, are far more complex and there are many other factors extraneous to man that are in play. Therefore you cannot simply 'wish' that someone applies the same principle of one aspect of environmentality to another. You cannot 'convert' someone of the basis of a morality issue unless there is compelling proof and evidence to do so.

Turn a hypothesis fledgling theory into something more and then you might get more support. At present that is not forthcoming in any shape or form as far as I am concerned.

Edit: I am going to qualify my comments in the sense that whatever my current views about the influence of any AGW, it does not mean that I don't care about how we live our lives in terms of producing gun-ho emissions, producing waste etc. I am talking purely in terms of the debate regarding the science of climate change and the feedback complexities and uncertainties that make this a very different kettle of fish to land contamination issues.

Edited July 13, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm afraid I'm not the biggest fan of this "AGW is a hypothesis as it is not proven" argument. Things like AGW will never be proven, as proving it requires that we have a perfect understanding of the atmosphere- a practical impossibility. It has, however, been shown that it's highly probable that it exists- the question lies over its extent.

If we have to have certainty before we take action, we will never take action. At the same time the argument can be turned on its head- lack of AGW is as much a hypothesis as AGW itself is.

With regards the mercury the problem arises when it's considered that the issue should be ignored on the basis that it is "less important" than AGW, the kind of approach that is all too common these days. Less important things should be given less weight, not ignored completely. Or the markets ignore it because it is irrelevant to their short-term profits. But I see the landfill waste as an even bigger problem than the mercury anyway- it is not particularly "green" to have mass waste of products!

Whilst there are worse things to have to deal with in life, such as serious illness for example, this faux-greenery is getting nightmarish.

I sympathise with the view. "There are worse things to be worrying about" has always been one of my least favourite arguments- it's used to trivialise people's issues and justify not doing anything about anything (anything can be trivialised relative to world poverty for example).

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I'm afraid I'm not the biggest fan of this "AGW is a hypothesis as it is not proven" argument. Things like AGW will never be proven, as proving it requires that we have a perfect understanding of the atmosphere- a practical impossibility. It has, however, been shown that it's highly probable that it exists- the question lies over its extent.

If we have to have certainty before we take action, we will never take action. At the same time the argument can be turned on its head- lack of AGW is as much a hypothesis as AGW itself is.

With regards the mercury the problem arises when it's considered that the issue should be ignored on the basis that it is "less important" than AGW, the kind of approach that is all too common these days. Less important things should be given less weight, not ignored completely. Or the markets ignore it because it is irrelevant to their short-term profits. But I see the landfill waste as an even bigger problem than the mercury anyway- it is not particularly "green" to have mass waste of products!

I sympathise with the view. "There are worse things to be worrying about" has always been one of my least favourite arguments- it's used to trivialise people's issues and justify not doing anything about anything (anything can be trivialised relative to world poverty for example).

Let me put it this way - I do happen to see landfill, chemical hazards and contamination health hazards etc as a bigger more pressing problem than whether man is behind any long term climate variability. That doesn't mean, again, that I propose abuse of the atmosphere in any way either.

But I'm afraid there are other major and real 'conflict with man' issues in the world that worry me a lot more too in terms of priority of concern.I think, imo anyway, my priorities are obvious - even if one does not agree with them and might place long term climate movements on an equal or greater 'must do' basis.

My priority within the actual remit of climate change would be, unsurprsinglly understanding feedback uncertainties better - then the calls for action might be better carried out. Researching the science in that way is not 'doing nothing' - it is increasing the chances that any 'action' taken is better spent and is not being wasted potentially in the wrong directions. More research into solar, for eg, for a start rather than making assumptions within a narrow focus on assumed positive man made feedbacks all the time, and basing calls for 'action' too much around these.

[laserguy]

PS Laserguy.........thinking of you re your job. Let us know how it goes.

Thanks. If I return and my username is 'justanotherdrainonsocietybutit'salrightcoswe'refixingtheclimate' instead of 'laserguy',you'll know things haven't gone too well . Right,off to see what's what...

[Methuselah]

Let me put it this way - I do happen to see landfill, chemical hazards and contamination health hazards etc as a bigger more pressing problem than whether man is behind any long term climate variability. That doesn't mean, again, that I propose abuse of the atmosphere in any way either.

But I'm afraid there are other major and real 'conflict with man' issues in the world that worry me a lot more too in terms of priority of concern.I think, imo anyway, my priorities are obvious - even if one does not agree with them and might place long term climate movements on an equal or greater 'must do' basis.

My priority within the actual remit of climate change would be, unsurprsinglly understanding feedback uncertainties better - then the calls for action might be better carried out. Researching the science in that way is not 'doing nothing' - it is increasing the chances that any 'action' taken is better spent and is not being wasted potentially in the wrong directions. More research into solar, for eg, for a start rather than making assumptions within a narrow focus on assumed positive man made feedbacks all the time, and basing calls for 'action' too much around these.

I would agree with the 'let's wait until we have 100% absolute, undeniable truth' principle if the ramifications of Climate Changed were purely philosophical. But, they are not. They could have profound impacts on our grandchildren's inheritance...

That said, knee-jerk publicity stunts like throwing old light bulbs at people will only cause alienation!

[Devonian]

Thanks. If I return and my username is 'justanotherdrainonsocietybutit'salrightcoswe'refixingtheclimate' instead of 'laserguy',you'll know things haven't gone too well . Right,off to see what's what...

I sympathise because my work is at a very low ebb atm.

However, I do suspect that people employed cutting down trees on Easter island complained bitterly when the 'greenies' of their time said 'If you don't stop chopping down the trees one day in the future there may well be none left.', 'Bleeding scaremongers, where's your proof!?' they might have muttered....

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I would agree with the 'let's wait until we have 100% absolute, undeniable truth' principle if the ramifications of Climate Changed were purely philosophical. But, they are not. They could have profound impacts on our grandchildren's inheritance...

That said, knee-jerk publicity stunts like throwing old light bulbs at people will only cause alienation!

The trouble is, as I keep on repeating, there are ramifications for EVERYTHING We could adopt the 'it might be AGW, lets panic' approach to virtually every conceivable danger that lurks around every corner. It might be natural climate variability - does that make it better somehow?

I keep on saying - just because one is very sceptical about the suggested degree of man made influence on the climate, does not mean any form of complacency in terms of how we treat mother nature. My worry is that too much navel AGW focussed research around assumptions of associated hypothetical feedbacks could actually be missing another penny for your thoughts that might eventually be hitting generations of future grandchildren. Why does because it might be AGW somehow make it worse and more pressing than if it might not?

Edited July 13, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

The trouble is, as I keep on repeating, there are ramifications for EVERYTHING We could adopt the 'it might be AGW, lets panic' approach to virtually every conceivable danger that lurks around every corner. It might be natural climate variability - does that make it better somehow?

I keep on saying - just because one is very sceptical about the suggested degree of man made influence on the climate, does not mean any form of complacency in terms of how we treat mother nature. My worry is that too much navel AGW focussed research around assumptions of associated hypothetical feedbacks could actually be missing another penny for your thoughts that might eventually be hitting generations of future grandchildren. Why does because it might be AGW somehow make it worse and more pressing than if it might not?

Because it's more than 'might be'. Because there are decades (well, more than a century) of tested evidence and science to back up the science that says if you up atmospheric CO2 concs (and add other ghgs, damage the biosphere ) to above what they've been for hundreds of thousands of years you do run a very real risk of seriously disruption the worlds climate - not hypothetical, not theoretic but very real risk. That's why.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Because it's more than 'might be'. Because there are decades (well, more than a century) of tested evidence and science to back up the science that says if you up atmospheric CO2 concs (and add other ghgs, damage the biosphere ) to above what they've been for hundreds of thousands of years you do run a very real risk of seriously disruption the worlds climate - not hypothetical, not theoretic but very real risk. That's why.

In your opinion - then yes Dev.

Have a good day all

Edited July 13, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[noggin]

throwing old light bulbs at people

I hope they don't start throwing lightbulbs at old people.......in some quarters old people are seen as a drain on society. My old Uncle Albert used to say that when people reached 60 they should be put down. This was in the 1960s......he was ahead of his time. When he, himself, reached 60, he died (a heart attack, I think). This is totally, 100% and absolutely the truth. We all said he'd got his comeuppance.

This has actually brought back to my mind Jonathan Porritt's ideas of population control as a means of protecting the planet..........

[Methuselah]

The trouble is, as I keep on repeating, there are ramifications for EVERYTHING We could adopt the 'it might be AGW, lets panic' approach to virtually every conceivable danger that lurks around every corner. It might be natural climate variability - does that make it better somehow?

I keep on saying - just because one is very sceptical about the suggested degree of man made influence on the climate, does not mean any form of complacency in terms of how we treat mother nature. My worry is that too much navel AGW focussed research around assumptions of associated hypothetical feedbacks could actually be missing another penny for your thoughts that might eventually be hitting generations of future grandchildren. Why does because it might be AGW somehow make it worse and more pressing than if it might not?

You'll be surpised to know, that I do not disagree with a word of that. That is why I usually refer to Climate Change and not to AGW.

But, whether or not the primary drivers are natural or anthropogenic may not actually matter? Whatever the cause, wherever the 'blame' lies may become academic: we (humanity) will have to change our ways and adapt to a new world; just as we did after the last major ice-retreat?

My question is: do we wait until it's too late, or start making our preparations now?

I hope they don't start throwing lightbulbs at old people.......in some quarters old people are seen as a drain on society. My old Uncle Albert used to say that when people reached 60 they should be put down. This was in the 1960s......he was ahead of his time. When he, himself, reached 60, he died (a heart attack, I think). This is totally, 100% and absolutely the truth. We all said he'd got his comeuppance.

This has actually brought back to my mind Jonathan Porritt's ideas of population control as a means of protecting the planet..........

Are you sure he wasn't bumped-off by Prince Philip?

Because it's more than 'might be'. Because there are decades (well, more than a century) of tested evidence and science to back up the science that says if you up atmospheric CO2 concs (and add other ghgs, damage the biosphere ) to above what they've been for hundreds of thousands of years you do run a very real risk of seriously disruption the worlds climate - not hypothetical, not theoretic but very real risk. That's why.

That's true...Any CO2, methane et al are GHGs. Their respective sources are irrelevant!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Modelling is always subject to a tradeoff as far as assumptions are concerned. Make very few assumptions, and the model will provide weak conclusions, but conclusions that are unlikely to be wrong. On the other hand, make lots of strong assumptions, and the model will provide strong conclusions, but if the assumptions are flawed then there's a good chance that the conclusions will be wrong.

A lot of climate modelling does appear to work from the premise that AGW is a big thing, in conjunction with GHG forcings etc. This makes me wonder about the extent to which circular reasoning is involved (input -> assume AGW is a big thing, output -> AGW is a big thing). It will depend on the models that are being used.

We certainly do need more research to be going into how natural forcings affect the climate. After all, AGW is only one forcing, and other forcings are capable of producing large variations- if we are to understand how climate might change over the next 100 years we surely need to start embedding projections of natural forcings in, wherever we can. Some, such as volcanic eruptions, probably can't be forecast though.

But indeed, the one thing that nearly all of us are agreed on is that we need to clean up our act and use resources more sustainably. That's why I don't get the defensiveness over "AGW is a myth- or if it isn't, it can't be helped, so either way don't worry" from some quarters, or at the other end, the obsession with "carbon emissions". The former suggests a "what will be will be" laissez-faire approach, and the latter will result in only one aspect of a wide-ranging problem being addressed directly.

[jethro]

Can anyone on here tell me what to do with these retched energy saving light bulbs when they die? Every light in our house is an energy saver, has been for at least four years now, despite the claims that they last for years, they don't - the longest so far has been fourteen months. What do I do with them then? Can't put them in the rubbish bin, re-cycling folk pick them out and leave them behind, local tip won't take them and no supermarkets around here offer disposal either. I've a nice, neat little pile accruing and not a clue how to get rid of them.

[laserguy]

Can anyone on here tell me what to do with these retched energy saving light bulbs when they die? Every light in our house is an energy saver, has been for at least four years now, despite the claims that they last for years, they don't - the longest so far has been fourteen months. What do I do with them then? Can't put them in the rubbish bin, re-cycling folk pick them out and leave them behind, local tip won't take them and no supermarkets around here offer disposal either. I've a nice, neat little pile accruing and not a clue how to get rid of them.

Stick them all over the coats of you and your mates and form a Pink Floyd tribute band doing 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' tracks specially adapted for the AGW era.

[Methuselah]

Can anyone on here tell me what to do with these retched energy saving light bulbs when they die? Every light in our house is an energy saver, has been for at least four years now, despite the claims that they last for years, they don't - the longest so far has been fourteen months. What do I do with them then? Can't put them in the rubbish bin, re-cycling folk pick them out and leave them behind, local tip won't take them and no supermarkets around here offer disposal either. I've a nice, neat little pile accruing and not a clue how to get rid of them.

God knows!! You could do what I do - put them in the rubbish bin?? What-else does one do with them, apart from give them away to thermometer manufacturers?

But, apart from the occasional head-butting incident (they are rather cumbersome and oddly-shaped), I've always found that they do last longer than conventional bulbs. Although 15 minutes for a Morrisons 'economy model' may be a tad unfair!

[jethro]

Stick them all over the coats of you and your mates and form a Pink Floyd tribute band doing 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' tracks specially adapted for the AGW era.

Lol, I like that idea.

Sorry Pete, Laser wins....but then I am a Huuuuuuuuge Floyd fan.

[Methuselah]

Lol, I like that idea.

Sorry Pete, Laser wins....but then I am a Huuuuuuuuge Floyd fan.

Me too. As soon as I saw LG's response I knew I'd missed something...

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Things like AGW will never be proven, as proving it requires that we have a perfect understanding of the atmosphere- a practical impossibility.

So you have a fundamental disagreement with Al Gore. A sentence like this suggests you believe the discussion is not over, which would be a very sensible view.

Edited July 13, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[laserguy]

I sympathise because my work is at a very low ebb atm.

However, I do suspect that people employed cutting down trees on Easter island complained bitterly when the 'greenies' of their time said 'If you don't stop chopping down the trees one day in the future there may well be none left.', 'Bleeding scaremongers, where's your proof!?' they might have muttered....

OT again but I sincerely hope things pick up for you too,Dev. Whatever the involvement or not of AGW/CO2 etc etc it seems that many of us who have to work for our keep are walking a very fine line,these days. As for now I'm still 'laserguy' but on reduced hours and pay (more time to squabble with the warmers,ha ha!). I think the outcome of your example above was blindingly obvious,unlike CO2 emissions,but that's by the way. Ah well,another shift doth beckon. 'Night all!

[laserguy]

http://www.heartland.org/_images/Advertising/method.pdf

[weather eater]

http://www.heartland.org/_images/Advertising/method.pdf

B)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute

????

[Methuselah]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute

????

God WE. I found one thing, hidden away with all the pro-market codswallop, that I agree with: GM foods would go a long way towards alleviating the plight of the world's starving! B)

I gather by 'junk science' they mean anything that stands in the way of the markets' total world domination? B)