Seeing the bigger picture 05 September 08

This is a very interesting article and it will also be interesting to hear how the sceptics try to explain away the evidence of the photographs. It is very difficult to argue with the hard evidence the deniers seek, of photographs. Afterall a picture speaks a thousand words! No doubt they will say yes it’s terrible but it does’nt prove mankind induced global warming is to blame or some such nonesense!

Why is the Northwest passage so called and when exactly was its name chosen?

Tony, I should imagine there are hundreds of web sites you can visit to find the answer to your question. Nice try mate.

You have a problem on your website displaying readers comments. It shows zero comments when in fact there are many comments made.

Carl, what an odd answer to an inquisitive reader such as myself. What are you implying in your comment? – That I should be more proactive and research the question myself? Or is it that you know that a little research will reveal that the Northwest passage is exactly that! A shipping lane which does exactly what it says on the tin namely provide a channel for ships to sail through. The bit you want to avoid talking about is how long this channel been recognised as such. Oh! well I’ll tell you anyway. Centuries. So where does this fit into your neat little theory on the melting glaciers, ice flows, arctic sea ice etc.etc. Shot I would say. Bit by bit the enviroloon argument in regards man-made global warming is crumbling. I have noticed a trend as of late concerning this matter. Over the past few months I have been typing “global warming” in Google news and have seen claims about imminent world destruction and how the effects of AWC will affect diverse things from stronger storms, weaker storms,coral reef erosion, sinking Tuvalu Oh God the list is endless and equally ludicrous. Wake up and smell the burning fossil fuel and put a stop to this mad religion and concentrate on real and mature environmental matters that concern us all right here right now- issues that really do affect peoples lives Worldwide.

Ok Tony you win! You might be right mate, maybe Mark Lynas is preaching his own “religion” and maybe this global warming that we are seeing at the moment is not the result of mankind induced rises in Co2. Maybe the polar ice caps melting is not going to be a long term problem, or the rapid planetary deforestation, or the storms or the food shortages and the expansion of the deserts, the drought in Australia, the bleaching of the coral reefs, the death of 28% of all species known to mankind since the 1970’s. I hope that you are right Tony I really do. But I fear that the weight of scientific consensus, not all of it I grant you, but most of it, would appear to say your position on this is wrong and that what is happening is irreversible. I am not a scientist or an activist, nor am i left-Wing or Liberal. What I am deeply concerned about is not just what I read or hear in the news, but what I can see happening and has happened. My eldest daughter is nearly 11 years old and I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have built her a snowman. I live in North Yorkshire. I am in my late thirties and built snowmen every winter, year in year out when I was a child. Why the change? Give me hope Tony PLEASE explain why Mark Lynas and the scientific consensus have got it all wrong.

It’s good for such photos to include written descriptions, clarifying the problem.

I got a church calendar some 15 years ago with a beautiful “natural” scene for each month. One was of Mono Lake in California - which supplies water for L.A. In its nearly drained out state, with jagged “tufa towers” - stalagmite type formations jutting up, which once were well under water, where they formed—the photo is stunningly beautiful.

In the calendar it is NOT used as a poster-child for environmental woes. The people who selected it probably didn’t even know about Mono Lake’s issues. It was just a beautiful natural scene to them, and they included a Bible verse re God’s wonderful creation and providence.

But I recognized it immediately, and kept in on my wall for years as a poster-child for people’s stunningly lack of environmental awareness.

It’s good for such photos to include written descriptions, clarifying the problem.

I got a church calendar some 15 years ago with a beautiful “natural” scene for each month. One was of Mono Lake in California – which supplies water for L.A. In its nearly drained out state, with jagged “tufa towers” – stalagmite type formations jutting up, which once were well under water, where they formed – the photo is stunningly beautiful.

In the calendar it is NOT used as a poster-child for environmental woes. The people who selected it probably didn’t even know about Mono Lake’s issues. It was just a beautiful natural scene to them, and they included a Bible verse re God’s wonderful creation and providence.

But I recognized it immediately, and kept in on my wall for years as a poster-child for people’s stunningly lack of environmental awareness.

Carl- try searching ‘little ice age’, or ‘medieval warm period’. Check out http://www.climateaudit.org/, or http://www.surfacestations.org/, or http://bishophill.squarespace.com/, or do a little research about solar forcing, or watch ‘A Convenient Fiction’, there’s loads of information out there. None of it is conclusive, but it rather suggests the debate is not over… I too have an 11-year-old daughter (and 3 grand-children). I’m far more worried about wasting resources (£80 billion of our money, I think the UK government is poposing) on wind farms, and endangering the food supply to the developing world by mandating the use of bio-fuels without stopping to think…

Robin thanks very much I’ll check out those sites. I agree with you certainly the debate is not over but I dont hear any consensus from the world of science that says there is not a problem here. In fact they all seem to be saying now, yes there is a problem. A few years ago the weight of scientific consensus seemed to be that global warming was not an issue. I agree with you about wasting money but lets face it we have a government that has proved itself to be completely hopeless at managing the economy. When Labour, sorry New Labour, came into power the country had money in the bank. Now look at the state of it! I think regarding bio-fuels we all know that there is no future in it large scale anyway. The repercussions are just too great for the planet. Nuclear would seem to be the lesser of a great many evils which brings us back to Co2 reduction i think.

You said it, Carl. You ‘don’t hear any consensus’, because, by and large, it isn’t being reported. Or the coverage is ‘selective’, to say the least. Like concentrating on reduced Arctic ice, but ignoring increased Antarctic ice. Or filming in summer. Ever heard of the Manhattan Declaration, published in March this year and signed by hundreds of professionals working in climate science and related areas? If not, why not? This is a huge industry, the grants available to scientists and researchers are simply not available to people who don’t propagate the received wisdom. It’s a bit heavy going, but if you dig, all sorts of strange tweaking and cover-ups come to light. The risk we run is of massive taxation and reduction in basic freedoms which will cost the human race dearly, and achieve nothing. Except, of course, the enrichment of those who jumped on the bandwagon.. On the bio-fuels topic, you’re right, but it’s too late for many in poorer regions: did you see reports of basic foodstuffs up by 75% thanks to interference from the EU? All in the name of saving the planet, of course. (thanks for the opportunity to discuss, Mark)

What happened to my comment that was here a moment ago? ‘Debate is encouraged’ it says below. I was certainly not offensive, nor did I engage in ‘ad hominem’ remarks. Please explain.

Carl, I suggest you do yourself a favour and stop reading the piffle put out by those who have fallen for the mass hysteria and especially stop watching or listening to the BBC who are among the worst culprits in terms of hyping this issue up. Those who believe in the myth remind me of a hen caught up in a hedge flapping about madly not knowing what to do. There is also a certain amount of what some call climate porn surrounding the coverage with neurotic individuals waiting expectantly for the next batch of bad news in order to justify their beliefs and in the process make themselves feel somewhat superior to the ordinary masses as they smugly hold forth their views around the end of the World as we know it. They are the same sort of people who like to watch murder mysteries from the comfort of their armchairs in no way being touched from the realities of what it is like to be starving or terrified of the knock on the door from whichever threat is imminent in the countries they live in. They are living the nightmare but these eco-liberals are merely playing out some sort of safe intellectual exercise and the only part they really play in their fantasy is to pretend to take an active part by separating cardboard from bottles at the local “recycling centre”. Witness the BBCs latest offering presented by a known warmist Iain Stewart with a three part documentary Earth: climate wars. A supposed study of the history of consensus versus sceptism over the last thirty odd years is merely more of the same ramping up of the same old arguments put forward by the ecoloons. Don’t believe me? Watch it and put yourself in the mind of someone who is a sceptic (if you have the immagination) just for the duration of the next programme. Don’t merely sit there impassively like most of those who think that if the BBC do a documentary then it must be true. See it as another propaganda piece by the ministry of global warming hysteria and you may well suprise yourself. Jot down some of the “facts” covered in the programme and then research these facts on the internet and see what others who don’t hold these views say. After all if you saw the film The day after tomorrow you wouldn’t leave the cinema thinking that this is how the World will end because of climate change would you? I admit I fell for the hype at first. Why wouldn’t I? It’s perfectly natural that when someone warns of impending doom then one would react with some alarm. However having examined their discoveries over the past few years I only feel some pity for these poor deluded souls. Finally ask yourself this. Can you trust these people? This is essentially what they have done. They have used rather dodgy proxy scientific methods to determine what the temperature and the CO2 content of the atmosphere was thousands of years ago and put this information into a computer model which has told them what the temperature will be in say 100 years time. Do you really believe that they can determine the future using these methods? If you do then you need to insert your head into the Hadron collider and shake it up a bit. If you still do then I have a bridge to sell you.

Tony you are really are committed to the sceptic side of this debate. I on the other hand have managed to remain open minded. You havent really managed to give me any comfort in your response but have managed to insinuate that I have no imagination and that I am unable to form opinions for myself instead merely digesting that which the BBC serves up for my viewing delight! As you don’t know me I consider that foolish. Moreover your snide comments about people who watch murder mysteries on television and visit their local recycling centres at the weekend in an effort to belittle them I find worrying and distasteful. Grow up Tony! If you want people to consider your side of the debate you will have to find a way of expressing yourself in a less negative tone. Your argument seems to be one of the sceptics are right ‘cos I say they are?

Thanks Robin. I have never heard of the ‘Manhattan Project’ and I will try to look it up as it does concern me that I have’nt heard of it. With regard to ‘increase acrtic sea ice’ I have seen reports that in some parts of the Acrtic this is happening laregly due to increased snowfall but that it is only relatively small areas of the Acrtic circle and that it is not contributing nearly enough to compensate for other losses? Surely it cannot be that difficult to measure these things beyond doubt now. I agree also that the EU governments made a huge error of judgement in the rush towards bio-fuels, as did lots of climatologists initially. This undoubtedly contributed massively to the food shortages we are now seeing around the world and also the price rises in foodstuffs your refer to. However I would also say that in recent months governmental policy globally seems to be shifting away from bio-fuels, clearly a good thing. However it takes us back to the problem of how to end the world’s dependancy on fossil fuels/ oil. Whichever way way you a look at it, whether you agree the planets climate is changing for the worst or whether you could’nt care less either way, where is the fuel coming from when the oil runs out?

Carl are you honestly telling us all that you have never heard of the Manhattan declaration? This explains everything. This is why I have urged people to research what those who don’t believe the nonsense put out by our Masters and those who stand to benefit from the con. To not have heard of this means that you have not really looked at the other side of the argument. There is an abundance of websites out there dedicated to exposing the truth behind the myth. And certainly do not rely on the BBC for ANY information regarding this issue. They have an agenda (no they really do- see the link below) to carry on putting forward the line that we are all going to die and rot in the sun.

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109#comment-1518

One more thing. Ask yourself why big energy companies are investing so heavily in Wind turbine production. Of course we know about carbon credits and subsidies given by the EU and charging the grid more for the same amount of energy etc etc but here’s another reason. A very important reason. Wind energy needs backup when the wind too slow to turn the blades. Oil and coal fired power stations are unsuitable to back up these things as it requires the ability to turn power off and on very quickly. The only way to do it is to use gas fired stations as they can be regulated virtually instantly. So the gas companies are in a win win situation. They supply the turbines or at least invest in them and they in turn supply the energy to take over when they are not working. Clever huh? And where is this gas coming from? I’ll let you find that out but I’ll give you a hint. Mainly Russia. Nuclear is the best option in my mind alongside coal without the CO2 sequestration which requires 40% more coal to be burnt in order for the sequestration to work.

Yes Tony I was telling you the truth I had never heard of the Manhattan Project. Sorry but that’s a fact! So lets cut all the nonesense about the BBC, clearly you dont trust them and I have no problem with that, that’s your choice. For the record neither do I entirely! However something just does’nt sit right with me in relation to your position now. If your position as a climate change sceptic, to which you are clearly committed, is the right one, why do you give a fiddlers about the need to adopt nuclear energy? In fact if you genuinely believe that global warming is all nonesense and that there is no problem why do you need to get invloved in any debate on the subject? Have you got a vested interest somewhere Tony or do you like to fill your days with conspiracy theories?

No I’m not a conspiracy theorist Carl. As I explained in my earlier post which I suspect you merely skimmed over I advocate nuclear and coal as well. The reason having nothing whatsoever to do with “climate change” (previously known as global warming) is that the UK must get itself in a position to be less dependant on fuel supplies from other countries who at best are unstable at the moment and at worst will be in a position some time in the future to withhold supplies putting us in a very precarious position. I have no vested interest whatsoever unless you count my carers allowance which some would say is me being payed off by the state for looking after my Autistic son. The only vested interest I might have is one where I am sick to the teeth of politicians of all colours jumping on the bandwagon and using “green taxes” and other greenwash instruments to both control us and increase their coffers. I do genuinely disbelieve the theory of AGW. Ask yourself this question. How come a gas which makes up a tiny proportion of the Earths atmosphere have so much influence on the climate when the increase percentage wise is so small? In other words how can an extra 100 or so ppm increase of carbon dioxide (or even 200) make any impact on such a vast scale to an already tiny amount of trace gas in the atmoshere? It’s rubbish. The whole concept is flawed from the start. You couldn’t make it up but they have and the result is panic on a global scale. Now that sunspot activity has apparently slowed to a crawl there are those warning of a new ice age. Do I worry? No of course not as the sun has been doing this for billions of years but I’ll bet you a pound to a penny that it would be possible to construct a scenario in which huge investment would be called for to man a mission to solve the impending crisis. All sorts of mad schemes would then be employed in order to “Save the Planet”. Hilary Benn would be interviewed from outside mission control constantly refering to “Dangerous global cooling” instead of his usual mantra. Oh yes and of course some bright spark would find a reason for Mans involement and how Man made solar change was responsible. I need more tea.

tony and robin: why don’t you two just swap numbers and talk face to face?!

the north west passage was speculative and theoretical. not unlike the climate denial arguments put forward here!

on the manhatten project, i provide an extract and a link from the New Scientist.

Tony GET REAL MATE - climate change is here and its very serious.

Regards

Dave

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13855-climate-scientists-call-for-their-own-manhattan-project.html

“In the wake of a thousand-year drought in Australia and last weekend’s lethal cyclone in Burma, the world’s climate modellers are drawing up plans for a global supercomputing centre that would provide detailed local forecasts of future climate change.

Meeting at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, the scientists liken the billion-dollar project to CERN, the international particle accelerator near Geneva, and to the Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb.”

David Sorsby, I have no need to talk face to face with anyone. That would require the use of some sort of transport either car, train or even plane and that would do much damage to the Earth as these evil things create carbon dioxide leading to catastropic global warming. What on Earth are you talking about when you describe the Northwest passage as theoretical? I’d like some of what you’ve been smoking man. You say climate change is here and it’s serious- please provide some proof. I await with anticipation. I went to the link you posted. So these hot-shot scientists really believe that they are able to construct a mega computer which is capable of telling the future? Give me a break! What was wrong with the computers thirty years ago which were crucial in determining this faux religion which you and millions of others have fallen for hook, line and sinker? Are you suggesting that they were wrong? What is the point? Times must be desperate for the warmists when they have to devise even more devices in order to prove their mad theories. Here’s a thing. I bet if scientists said that they would build a computer able to determine the results of the National lottery you would believe that they were capable- this is in essence what these mad boffins are saying they are able to do. Mad, the lot of them. Or just desperate for more grant money parading under the illusion that their project will save the World. One other thing. Australia is a place which really shouldn’t be inhabited by humans. Put simply it’s in the wrong spot. Sorry about that but that’s the way it is. The over extraction of precious water resources in the country following a very rapid expansion of the population over the last hundred years leads to only one thing- severe drought and it’s easy for polititians to jump to global warming as a scapegoat. The truth would not go down too well with the Australian public if they told the real reason there was a shortage of water. Incidentally even the IPCC don’t dare blame hurricanes on global warming unless you know something the rest of us don’t.

Tony, at least we will agree on one point and that is that the UK, like lots of other nations, is too dependant on others for supplies of fuel. I too am sick to death of the increases in my gas and electricity bills despite the fact that we use less of both in the house. The fact that Russia, for example, seems to be able to hold much of Europe to ransom over supplies of natural gas concerns me greatly, particularly as their foreign policy seems to be increasingly confrontational. For the record I dont consider yours, or anyone elses for that matter, carers allowance a sign of “vested interest”. I am sure you do your best for your son and deserve every penny of support you get to help with his care. I take your point about decreased solar activity and a new ice age but I think Joe Public is too well educated to fall for that one! I really do not understand enough about the science to argue with you about the negative effects of increasing ppm in CO2 within the atmosphere. You may be right, BUT, you cannot argue with the fact that the planet is warming. Our climate, even here in the UK, is changing markedly and measurably. Why? More importantly what happens when the oil runs out? And it will. Britain needs nuclear NOW and it also needs ALL forms of renewable energy. Digging coal out again and chopping down trees is not the answer although I cant help fear that at some point the pits will be reopened in this country as the price of coal imported will rocket when it becomes in shorter supply. The future is’nt very bright and I dont see how mankind can continue to live sustainably unless things change dramatically. Now i need a stiff drink never mind tea!

” I take your point about decreased solar activity and a new ice age but I think Joe Public is too well educated to fall for that ”.........Well let me tell you that the sun is going through a phase of decreased sunspot activity and indeed it will have dramatic implications for the Worlds climate. Only the other day NASA held a press conference telling the World of this. Do some research on the Maunder minimum and compare and contrast the data with temperature measurements taken over the past few hundred years. It really is a fascinating subject actually and highlights the one true cause of the warming of the planet. Yes it’s the Sun wot dun it. You also say ”..... You may be right, BUT, you cannot argue with the fact that the planet is warming”. Yes to a certain extent you are right (mind you temperatures have stalled over the past ten years but you won’t hear that from most mainstream news outlets such as the Guardian or Independent) but that is what Planets do! Planets get warmer and colder. I promise you. I’ll repeat- Planets get warmer and colder. The heat up and they cool down or at least their surface temperatures do over many hundreds of years. But somehow the high Priests of the Church of climate change hysteria have managed to convince you and millions of other people that this is not normal and you have all fallen for it. I’ll bet that if you can remember any history that you learned at school regarding Medieval history you will have learned about how superstitious the masses were and how the Church exploited this in order to control the People of this country. You might have considered the possibility that this sort of thing was silly and old fashioned and now that we live in the modern age there is no way that religion would control me like that. But hey, history is repeating itself but in another guise. The masses are being led to believe that the four horsemen are heading across the dark plains bearing down on Mankind and is intent on destroying the World. Come on just examine what the “deniers” are saying just for one day with an open mind. It really is a liberating experience I can promise you. Incidentally renewable energy is not the answer I can promise you that. Find out how inefficient wind power is. Find out how much it costs to build them and how much power they really give to the grid. Find out the hidden subsidies you and everyone else will have to pay to install these monsters. You will be shocked and suprised. Darjelling time.

Tony, I know planets get warmer and colder but is it not the extent to which they get warmer and colder that matters? Yes I remember very well the history lessons on the Church and Medieval times, as I do the ones on the ultimate propaganda machine Nazi Germany. But in both cases there were signifcant gains to be had by controlling the masses. Who benefits I ask from peddling lies about AGW? Do the scientists? Are they all on the pay roll of the energy companies? I dont think so but I am also not stupid enough to believe that people wont be looking to make a fast buck off the back of the of AGW! I dont doubt that wind power and indeed all of the other forms of renewable energy are relatively inefficient in terms of cost versus power produced. I know we will all pay through the nose either directly or indirectly for renewables. That is precisely why we need nuclear power as well and before you say it I know that it will also be massively expensive, risky and will take time to commission. but that doesnt mean we should’nt do it! I ask again, what are we going to do when the oil runs out? How much oil is left in the GWAR oil field?

Carl, this masterpiece has been predictably slated by the Guardianistas but I suggest you take out an hour to read it. It will put you mind at rest I hope. I’m part of the way through. Forget your worries and just take in some of what these guys have written.

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf?.pdf

Quick message to Tony and Carl: you may well be engaged in a useful debate- and due debate is indeed the examination of both sides of the question – but time is not on your side. I also suggest, Tony, that you drop the emotion-charged words ‘lies’, ‘myths’ etc. It really doesn’t matter what you find now on other websites to prove your point – the time for proving that you are right is over, gone. Stable’s door wide open, no horse in sight.

The chief message of Mark Lynas, the IPCC, even the dreaded Greenpeace, is that time is a precious commodity, and too much of this resource has been wasted in useless debate. I was there at the UN meetings in Geneva and in Kyoto in 1997; I saw the debate, and the way that all real business was carried out by shuttle diplomacy behind closed doors. I met the sinister Don Pearlman, hired by OPEC to “advise” the US delegation. I also met individual scientists inside Exxon who were desperately trying in vain to persuade their immediate bosses to follow the greener paths of the European oil multinationals. In 1992 – 1997 the world fiddled while Alaska baked and Tuvalu had begun its slow death by drowning. Post 1997, more strings began to play in tune while the US always insisted on broken banjos and did its level best to stymie the ratification process, as Mark described so well. Those all night sessions without results? That is real, no exaggeration – it happened, due to US and OPEC-backed factions for ten long years.

Luckily European industry had already woken up to the problem and had been applying the Precautionary Principle, which is to take remedial action even before the political debate is resolved. So industry set to to cut waste, recycle more, build in emissions capture, and lobby governments to pass useful legislation. Consumer opinion and action on the Continent followed (Brits still behind, though UK industry were in forefront of efficiency measures 15 years ago.) For the media, all this was non-news. Pity.

Finally, this Millennium, and not before time, two enlightened US mayors decided to “Sod Bush”, create their own lead and pull 400-600 mayors with them to push through useful state legislation like improved vehicle emission standards. Naturally Bush/Cheyney tried to declare these illegal, but consumers won that battle by refusing to buy gas-guzzling trucks and cars. Now suddenly climate change was news. Fancy that.

The big problem is that the climate debate is hopelessly skewed in favour of the dwindling band of sceptics, who are beginning to look isolated, but the wretched media still give them too much air time to foster “balance”. In what other international forum could 50-50 become 98 – 2, but viewpoints from the 2 side given the same weight as those from the 98?

For me the debate is over, Hurricanes Katrina, Gustav, Hanna, Isidor have happened, favourite places of mine in the UK have endured repeated calamitous flooding, – we are already in the sandbag phase.

Caroline. Calm down dear it’s only a commercial. In that regard that is exactly what it is- A commercial venture on a global scale and you represent the useful idiots (please don’t take that personally it’s merely a turn of phrase) who have fallen for the new religion. Every single point you make in order to convince my side of the argument can not only be rebuffed but really, quite frankly, are laughable. For example, you say “In 1992 – 1997 the world fiddled while Alaska baked and Tuvalu had begun its slow death by drowning…...” . Well read what you have just written and observe the ridiculousness of it all. When did Alaska bake? That is impossible even if there was an increase in global temperatures of say twenty degrees which even the IPCC isn’t suggesting. Also if you care to do some research you will discover that the slow death, as you put it as regards the Islands of Tuvalu, has nothing whatsoever to do with sea levels rising but everything to do with the fact that it sits on a highly active volcanic region of the planet and is subject to the events therin, namely they go up and down and up and down. Not only that but during World War 2 it was used as an airstrip by the United States and this had a severe impact on the island. The islanders are somewhat to blame as well with their practice of making holes in the ground in order to grow vegetables. Added to the chopping down of vast amounts of coconut trees this has affected the local hydrology of the island. Basically, another myth dispelled. As for the precautionary principle? Well how much is this going to cost us? You, me, everyone? Trillions of taxpayers money in order to stop a theoretical menace to Mankind which you will see time will show to be merely that- a grand theory. Ask yourself this. Who really makes out of all this? Well follow the money and you will discover the answer. Very conveniently multi-lateral corporations have discovered their ecological side over the past few years. Are you naive enough to believe that these companies are really concerned enough to save the Planet rather than have their eyes firmly pinned on the bottom line? I guess you must be. I for one am not. You also conclude that “Naturally Bush/Cheyney tried to declare these illegal, but consumers won that battle by refusing to buy gas-guzzling trucks and cars…......”. Hmmmn, this had nothing to do with the price of gasoline in the States? Americans love to drive, it’s hard wired to their mindset. I personally hate it but I understand the attraction and it’s their freedom to take part in their favoured pursuit. But it has only been of late that Americans have decided to consider more fuel efficient cars in favour of the evil SUVs because of the steep rise in the price of oil. Couple that with dark forbodings in terms of the global economic contraction and you have the real reason. Nothing whatsoever to do with “saving the planet”. As Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.” You talk about skewed media attention in favour of the skeptics. That is laughable. The BBC represents the high Church of global warming hysteria and will have no truck at all with anyone who does not conform to the supposed consensus. That is fact. You will find NO alternate opinion other than a portrayal of those who havent fallen for this nonsense on the BBC. Leading up to World War 2 the consensus amongst most respected scientist was that eugenics seemed to be a great idea and might possibly solve many of the Worlds problems. However after Hitler put these grand ideas into practice they tended to reconsider their opinions. And finally you say that the debate is over. “Hurricanes Katrina, Gustav, Hanna, Isidor have happened….......”. Blimey you do leave yourself wide open don’t you? Are you seriously suggesting that a perfectly natural weather event which has been happening since the Earth began can now be put forward as proof of Man-made global warming? Get real. Oh one more thing. Ask yourself this. How is it possible for carbon dioxide which makes up a mere 0.03% of atmospheric gases (and a tiny fraction of that figure can be attributed to Man) have such a devasting effect on our climate? They try to tell you that it causes the greenhouse effect. So they are saying that a trace element which comprises roughly 400 parts per million can cause the destruction of the World as We know it. If you believe that then there really is no hope. Caroline think it through and relax. The Earth is fine. It’s got its problems, sure, but Man-made climate change is not one of them.

Caroline, I do hope I didn’t come over as too harsh but I do tend to get carried away with the issue. It’s just my way. Tony.

Tony I want to know about the pre-war consensus on eugenics and just who the respected scientists are that you refer to? You are right about hurricanes but I think only in isolation. The trend would seem to be more of a general one there rather than attributing the power of any one storm or indeed season to AGW. It remains a fact that the general term indicates a hotter planet leads to more frequent and more violent hurricanes. Lets wait and see what happens in an El Nino year as well, not merely in a La Nina year. By the way, I checked out iea.org.uk as you suggested. It’s a crap website, not that anyone wants my opinion on it I’m sure but there you go! It was so bad I could’nt find anything there, perhaps because it is not there, that would help ease my concerns about energy supply in the future. I ask again if Peak Oil has been passed, or is even close (relatively speaking) what happens when it runs out?

Though I wouldn’t normally use links to Wikipedia they have done a hell of a job on the subject of eugenics…. “In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding, but it was supported by many prominent figures of different political persuasions before World War I, including Conservative Arthur Balfour, the future Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Fabian socialists such as Irish author George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells”. Just to give you an idea how popular the idea became.

Check out country by country the list of leading figures who were in favour of the theory. A good read Carl.

Link here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Carl you say “It remains a fact that the general term indicates a hotter planet leads to more frequent and more violent hurricanes”. There is no evidence for this. In actual fact the temperature of the globe has flatlined for the last ten years according to official figures.

That link I sent you was rather interesting in my opinion but that’s just my opinion and of course it is biased towards my view so it’s understandable that you didn’t enjoy the read.

Oh hang on a minute I have just realised that you have to put the full address in the url bar. Here’s it again try again but include everything. (highlight the whole address by left clicking the mouse button and running your mouse over the full address making it blue and right click and click copy. Then paste the result into your address bar).

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf?.pdf

In answer to your question about peak oil, the answer is obvious. Nuclear and coal (minus the carbon sequestration nonsense it’s just a waste of time). Simple really.

Carl as I keep asking but nobody bothers to answer me, why worry about a trace gas which makes up a mere 0.03% of the atmosphere? Most of that is not man-made either, originating from natural sources. Put another way, why worry about a trace element which comprises of a mere 400 parts per million in the atmosphere?

Think about that just for a minute. That’s not much. In fact it’s virtually insignificant but this is what the idiots in charge and those who suffer under the mass delusion want you to believe.

Think about it just for five minutes and try to put it in perspective. Now make a cup of tea or pour your favourite tipple and you will feel a great weight fall from your shoulders. I promise you that if you carry out my instructions properly. No don’t thank me. I thank you for listening. Now spread the word and help others in this World. Go forth and spread the gospel and enlighten your fellow men so that they shall cease to follow this pagan religion. The Planet is fine, just fine.

Tony, you cant put coal or nuclear power into your car can you? It won’t run trains or coaches or delivery trucks will it! Domestic heat and light maybe. What we will witness is the struggle for power. The new wars are already about power. Terrorism is about attacking power, blowing up pipelines etc. Why? Economic disruption. And then we will see the same results from AGW. Polar ice caps disappear, rush for oil and mineral deposits, border disputes, water disputes = WAR. “Today, as you read this, another 400,000 children are born into this world. They break like waves of hunger and desire upon these eroded shores carrying the curse of history and of a history yet unwritten. The oil burns in thick black columns and the buzz saws echo through the forest floor. They shout give us our fair share, give us justice. Here comes the war!” New Model Army 1993.

There is no evidence that Hydrocarbons have any effect on the climate. If somebody can explain why a gas which forms less than 1% of the atmosphere can have such an effect on Earth temp. many people would be more convinced than they are now. It is of interest to note information from the ice cores extracted over a long period of time have always had the CO2 concentrations increasing after the temp. has warmed. If anybody has any doubt about what is causing the aledged warming I suggest they read the Oregon Petition, available on the Web, or articles by John Coleman who considers the whole warming debate as a complete scam with a political agenda. I notice on the Weather report tonight that we have had the coldest September since 1924. Remember the Green’s were in 1970, forecasting a new ice age in 30 years, now they are telling us we are all about to fry. But more Nuclear power stations would be absolutely great as it would get rid of the most usless item currently being championed – the wind turbines. John

Why are my comments being removed from the page ?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. In the time that I’ve been waiting for a reply from those concerned about the end of the World on this forum, nobody has had the decency to answer my question about the fundamental component of our atmosphere which if it didn’t exist would make this and thousands of other blogs totally redundant. The question is simple. Please tell me how a trace gas which comprises roughly 0.03% of our atmosphere or approximately 400 parts per million can possibly affect the climate. Keep the answer simple please so that others are able to follow. In other words there is no point in going into convoluted scientific explanations with endless algebraic calculation. That is the easy way out and merely uses jargon to blind us. I’ll wager that there is nobody capable of doing this. Come on Mark do us all a favour and put us out of our misery. I know you say that you don’t have a scientific background but you hold strong opinions on the subject which is exactly what I am looking for. If you like I need a schoolboy explanation of the subject in simple and succinct terms.

Carl, Yes, you could put coal and nuclear power in your car, though indirectly. You can obviously run trains with nuclear power, as the French do it. Cars can and will be pretty soon electric to a large extend. Trains are in Europe mostly already. Coal can be converted to liquid hydrocarbon fuels where the carbon is bound to hydrogen. That process is known for at least 60 Years. The energy for that process can come from nuclear power. When coal is used as feedstock to produce hydrocarbon fuels, then part of the thus stored energy comes from the hydrogen. That part is essentially stored nuclear power if the synthesis plants are powered that way. By synthesizing Methanol as primary liquid fuel, which would only require minor changes to the existing liquid fuel infrastructure, incl. engines, you have a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 4:1, instead of 2.2:1 as in gasoline or 1.8 – 2:1 as in diesel. You can even use nuclear power to produce hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 captured from air and water, closing the carbon cycle for energy. Los Alamos Lab in the US has a process patented for that. With Gen IV reactors this process would even be cost competitive to fossil fuels. See here: http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf In the Los Alamos process the (energy consuming) air movement to capture CO2 is piggybacked on the air stream of the cooling towers of a nuclear plant. So that cooling energy expense is doubly used.

Tony The reason that have waited along time for your answer is the fact that there isn’t one I have written similar worded questions to other web sites and periodicals, an answer has not been forthcoming. The reason being of course as you and many others know CO2 has stuff all to do with it. We have now had the coldest September since 1924 – perhaps we are heading for a new ice age instead as forecast by a variety of “experts” in the 70’s

Thanks for that Klaus. Perhaps I made my point poorly. You have illustrated that perhaps it is scientifically possible to power transportation by nuclear and indeed coal, although of course indirectly. However, grateful though I am for the science lesson, I would be scepitical about the acutal practicality of these measures and indeed the safety of them. Unless you can power a car, for example, for the same or indeed lower cost per mile, make access to the fuel source both convenient and safe for millions of motorists and within the timescales that may confront the world as supplies of traditional fuel sources dwindle, then your science might as well be akin to an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs as the iceberg approaches the Titanic! But thanks anyway Klaus.

Ho hum. Well it appears that there is nobody on this particular blog who can explain exactly how carbon dioxide is able to end the World as We know it. I must admit I feel somewhat vindicated and slightly smug. Isn’t it strange that the loudest voices on this blog who feel strongly about the end of the World as We know it are unable to put forward the reason for their angst. Perhaps they are like most of those who follow the various religions worldwide merely rely on those in position of power and knowledge to programme their thoughts unthinkingly. It’s a sad state of affairs really and restores my lack of faith in human nature. It’s the easiest thing in the World to tell us all that the end of the World is nigh. It’s a cop out and displays the conformity that unfortunately many People carry as they would conventional clothes which upset nobody and gain anonimity which is understandable in a World where many things appear as a threat. Well don’t bother replying to my question. It’s pointless really I suppose. I’m now feeling like the horrible bloke who has managed to turn a committed Christian away from his chosen religion and am feeling guilty for it. No I am wrong. Man-made global warming is a reality and we are all doomed. Polar bears will die, the arctic will melt, glaciers will disappear, millions will die through rising sea levels of fifty metres. You are right and I am wrong. I am sorry to even think that there was any question on the matter. Please forgive me.

Sorry if this post is in the wrong place as I am new to the site and you are welcome to move it to the right section. I am not a scientist although it doesn’t take a scientist to see that the climate is changing. I completely understand about why the sea levels are rising, the effects on the weather systems, and all the ice melting at the poles the global warming is causing. One thing I have noticed is that no one has discussed what happens to the weight distribution on the Earth and its axis when the ice melts. Right now the Earth’s axis has been where it is now for a very long time because of the ice weight concentrated at the poles and the rotation of the Earth. However, once the ice melts and the water returns to the seas. The weight associated with that ice will quickly be distributed equally throughout the Earth by the sea currents and not concentrations at the poles. What will happen to the Earth’s axis when the weight distribution changes? Will it change? If it changes, how much will it change or move? Will the shift be suddenly or gradually? What will be the effects on the planet and life as we know it? Wayne

Carl,

The Fischer-Tropsch process to produce gasoline, diesel or methanol from coal and hydrogen was used by the Germans in WW2. That’s how old that technology is. Of course, when oil can be cheaply pumped out of the ground, it is unneccessary. But we are seeing the end of cheap oil. Capturing CO2 from the air is also a well known and simple process. It happens every time for example a house is built. The lime on the plaster and mortar hardens over time through chemical change, incorporating CO2 from the atmosphere. Almost any weak base will do it. As I am not a religious person, I am skeptical of any “the end of the world is neigh” claims. But IF atmospheric CO2 is a problem, then there are already known technologies to avoid and reverse that issue. Central to all those technologies is the requirement for large amounts of energy. Only nuclear energy can safely produce these amounts. You can’t claim that AGW is a world-destroying problem, and at the same time fight any technology that will avoid it. Those that do use AGW as a political tool for another agenda, not as a problem to be solved. Especially nuclear power has proven over its 50 year history to be safer, cleaner and less destructive to the environment than any other energy alternative. Also, even at todays prices, cheaper per energy unit produced than anything else. Unfortunately a large part of the “green” movement is so scientifically illiterate that myths have become dogma, inammendable to reason. Take as example the practice of burning garbage to produce energy, a practice endorsed as ‘green’: The part of the garbage that burns is carbon to a large extent. Mostly plastics, wood, paper and so on. So the burning of those materials produces CO2, released in the atmosphere. If instead this garbage is recycled into more plastic for example, no CO2 is released. At the end-of-life, this ‘garbage’, in solid form, can be stored indefinitely in another form as soil amendments. A perfect way to “sequester” carbon. Of course this chemical transformation requires energy. All we have to do is to make sure the production of that energy does not add carbon to the atmosphere. Another myth is the ‘population bomb’. All highly developed nations have today birth rates below replacement rates. This is actually a real problem in the western world. Population growth in the third world is also diminishing with development. Everywhere in the world the population growth is inversely proportional to the development. If we want to stop the population explosion we have to make sure these nations are developed cleanly and sustainably. Again, nuclear power of the modern kind can supply that safely.

Well said Klaus.

Klaus, I agree with you entirely that the world must adopt nuclear energy as quickly as possibly. I agree with you about its relative safety and I agree that the era of cheap oil has passed. My fear, which is not governed by any political agenda, is that not only is the era of cheap oil past, oil is running out altogether quickly. “Necessity will not be the mother of invention” in time to provide adequate alternatives to oil and coal, particularly in the quantities and accessibility we have grown accustomed to. That does not mean of course that the science does not exist. I am by no means saying the end of the world is nigh, but I do question how many people the planet will be able to support 30 years from now for example and what will the world looklike then? the population bomb may be a myth in respect to say 150 years from now, but make no mistake billions more will be on this planet 30 years from now than there are today. The world is already struggling to feed itself and that is a fact. There will be no solcialist feudal systems in place to spread the wealth and food and energy. Only the strong and the lucky will survive which will probably mean the West will prosper (if you can call it that) and the rest of the planet will suffer. Future wars will be about food and water and energy, not about race, religion or political belief. But the world will go on, life will go on for some, and the planet will be here long after mankind has vanished!

Carl, Then we are in agreement. Precisely to avoid these future wars require the fast adoption of abundant clean energy technologies. And NOT unusable, inadeqate “feel-good” band-aids like wind and solar power. Otherwise these wars will be squarely the responsibility of the anti-nuke zealots. The energy density of nuclear fuels is such that about any piece of continental crust has a positive EROEI. Potable water can be produced by nuclear powered desalination. Wasting food production to produce “bio-fuels” is a crime against humanity. I think you agree there too. Without diverting food sources to that, and with abundant energy supplies, even the currently still growing population can be fed, as well as developed to a point where population growth is negative. All this can come quickly to pass if the “green” foolishness about energy supplies is ended. I want to also direct your attention to another new development in that area: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ This is a small (25MWe, 70 MWth) self-contained nuclear reactor. It is “walk-away-safe”, meaning it is maintenance free and does not need active control, costs only about $25 Million, and is especially designed for 3rd world applications where a grid does not exist. Many such projects are currently in the final stages of development. But you hear little about them for fear that the zealots will try to shut them down or hinder significantly their deployment.

Oh come on please. Carl I’m getting tired of all this hand wringing. Look, the world isn’t going to end. Sure there will be wars and famines and heat and cold and glaciers shrinking and glaciers increasing. This is the way of the World. Always has and always will be forever and ever Amen. Just because We have Ipods and 24 hour television and shops that stay open all day and night nothing has changed fundamentally. There is no such thing as the modern World. The World We live in is the World We live in. So instead of worrying about what might happen in the future and We’re all gonna DIE and God life is tough and the oil is going to run out what are We gonna do run for your lives the monster is coming just chill out a minute. PLEASE! Look, mate, you’re getting you knickers in a twist about something that in years to come, in your old age, you will be laughing at thinking to yourself “What was I on eh?”. Don’t worry about it. Listen, if this particular blog is anything to go by, there really is nothing to worry about. Nobody is capable of answering the fundamental question I keep asking. Why should We worry about a trace gas which consists of 0.03 percent of our atmosphere. The fact that nobody is able to reply to my question speaks volumes. Carl, I suspect that if global warming wasn’t there to worry about and the supposed peak oil question there to worry you, then you would find something else to worry yourself. Well, mate, don’t. Really it’s just wasting your time. There really is plenty of energy left on the planet. Plenty! But you have allowed high priest mystics like Al Gore and others with vested interests to infest your mind with portents of doom and despondancy leaving you like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Just relax. There is no energy crisis. Only one made by, for example, the EU which is so concerned about the future of the Planet that they have deemed it heresy to build any further coal powered power stations that don’t capture that evil Carbon dioxide and insist on everyone generating energy from snake oil sources such as wind and tidal energy. What a bunch of self-serving idiots! Don’t tell me you have fallen for their folly? Next your’ll be telling me that you think the Lisbon treaty is an excellent idea and will bring people together living in perfect harmony, ebony and ivory blah blah blah. Listen to me. Wind power doesn’t work. Tidal power does work but only for six hours per day but will cost at present estimates 15 Billion Pounds. Solar energy certainly will not work in the UK considering the amount of sunshine We have. That leaves coal (sans carbon capture) and nuclear.

Please someone tell Me what I need to know.

How can a trace gas comprising 0.03 percent of our atmosphere lead to dangerous global warming?

Please.

Please.

Please, just tell me!!!!!!!!!!1

Ok Tony I will tell you why you should worry about the levels of Co2 in the earth’s atmosphere, even though as you rightly point out it is only a ‘trace gas’ making up a small, neigh tiny, proportion of the atmosphere. It’s all to do with balance. Life on earth developed as plants and other organisms evolved photosynthesis which locked away CO2 as carbonate minerals, oil shale and coal etc into the earth’s crust. A natural carbon dioxide cycle developed where photosynthesis in plants, dissolution in water and oceanic absorbtion balanced out Co2 emissions created by plant decay, volcanic activity and animal respiration. Over millions of years life on earth flourished and eventually along came man. Unfortunately as a species we have evolved at the expense of this balance. The industrial revolution did for that! CO2 has been released on a relatively massive scale and the natural order of things, namely the abosorbtion of Co2, is becoming more and more difficult as we reduce the planets ‘carbon sinks’ and then burn the fuel. Hence mankind induced global warming. I am well aware that the world won’t end Tony. I do not need a lesson in sociology or indeed psychology. I don’t, you may be suprised to hear, spend my days wringing my hands in fear of the apocalypse or much else for that matter. If you find the comments on this blog/ website so tedious and clearly you are becoming increasingly frustrated, then why not free yourself of the torment and not bother anymore. Or are you on a crusade to save us all from forming our own opinions. If so, please don’t worry. I am over 21, I am well educated and able to weigh up the various issues, and also entitled to make my own judgements, right or wrong and live with the consequences of that whatever they may be! Do us all a favour Tony…...

Klaus, I am with you totally on the nuclear issue and also on the bio-fuels debacle. That has been a total fiasco! I am interested to learn more about nuclear power and particularly the work you refer to in relation to the third world. Sounds good to me! The problem with the “zealots” in the green movement I believe Mark has addressed and indeed highlighted in his article “why greens must learn to love nuclear power”. What I cant quite understand is the amount of criticism he is getting there from BOTH sides of the debate. As a child of the 70’s & 80’s, thankfully, I am not old enough to have my opinions on the nuclear issue clouded by the CND movement of the 1960’s, the hippie culture, the myth of love & peace or the use of the hallucinagenic drugs clouding my judgement now. Liberalism and the overbearing tolerance of almost everything in the 1960’s seems to me to have been responsible indirectly for a lot of the problems the world has now. Someone needs to tell the over 50’s that nuclear energy is relatively safe does not need to lead to the rampant proliferation of nuclear weapons that their generation rightly feared. Nuclear for Power not for War would seem to be the message that is perhaps being misunderstood by the green old school. Zealot is perhaps a bit harsh Klaus, but then fortunately I dont know any of them!

Carl,

As I am a child of the 50’s, I lived through the 60’s and the history of the green anti-nuke movement. Though I never understood it. For an engineer with a lifelong passion for science, it is utterly foreign and can only be understood in the context of its goals as expressed by green leaders statements, as quoted here: http://green-agenda.com/ And in that context I understand it as deeply anti-human. “Zealot” puts it mildly. Anyway, if you want to understand more of nuclear power and its history, here’s a good web-site to start: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ If you look around, you’ll find much about the history of nuclear power. You also find much about the history and technology of liquid salt thorium breeder reactors (liquid fluoride thorium rector, LFTR) . This is a technology prototyped in the 1960s in the US. Then it was not persued because, different than uranium based fast breeders, it does NOT produce weaponsizable material (the cold war was on at that time). This web-site contains a discussion forum where many participants are nuclear engineers and scientists that want to increase and resurrect the knowledge about the LFTR as Gen IV reactor. A brief synopsis about this reactor type: The “fuel” is a salt mixture of fluoride salts, where the majority of the salt consists of lithium/beryllium fluoride, with some uranium fluoride mixed in. In operation, this salt mixture is liquid due to the heat of nuclear reactions. Because the fuel is already liquid, it cannot “melt-down”, like a solid fueled reactor. Fluoride salts are chemically stable and do not break down unter intense neutron bombardment. They are also not water-soluble. The fuel is also the coolant. This coolant is pumped from the moderated core (where the nuclear reactions take place) to a heat exchanger. The expansion of the fuel when getting hotter means less is in the core, and therefore the nuclear reaction slows. This means the reactor cannot overheat even without active control. The core salt is surrounded by a liquid “blanket” of a thorium salt mixture. When bombarded with neutrons in the core, the thorium (3-4 times more abundant than uranium on the earth), changes to proactinium 231, which decays rather quickly (29 days half life) into uranium 233. The uranium 233 is then fluoridized and put back into the core as fuel. Because no U238 is in the core, no plutonium or higher weight actinides are formed, which are radioactive for long times. Instead all the “waste” consists of fission products, which can be continuously be extracted from the liquid salt through vacuum destillation and chemical methods on site. These fission products though have half lives of only minutes typically. The longest lived ones of about 30 years. This means after about 300 years they will be harmless, and only about 800-1000kg are produced per GWyear. There’s no water cooling in the reactor and the fuel is only under atmospheric pressure. Therefore no expensive and long time to build pressure containment dome is neccessary. The high operating temperature (500-800 degC) means Brayton cycle gas turbines with 50% efficiency can be used to produce power instead of steam turbines with 30-33% efficiency as in current pressurized water reactors. Another form of this reactor, the liquid chloride thorium reactor, can even be used to convert the existing waste of current generation pressurized water reactors into energy, with the same result of short lived small volume waste. During the 30 year hiatus of nuclear reactor building in most of the western world, forced by the anti-nuke movement, the companies that worked in that field survived by making fuel rods. This is now their profit center. Of course because of this, they have no interrest whatsoever to research and build a reactor type that eliminates their profitable business. If this new/old technology is to be resurrected and applied, it has to come from government research. But in much of the western world, politicians are still loath to utter the N-word.

“Over millions of years life on earth flourished and eventually along came man. Unfortunately as a species we have evolved at the expense of this balance.”

Ahh now I understand. Thank you for that.

Klaus, Thank you for taking the time explain how nuclear can and indeed does work. If only someone were able to communicate to the wider public here in the UK the benefits of nuclear power I am certain the issue would quickly become high profile enough to force our politicians to consider and debate it ahead of the next election, which we pray is not far away in the UK. You never know your luck, perhaps even our electricity bills might see a reduction at some point as well as it helping the environment! As Clinton famously said “It’s the economy stupid!”