Carbon neutral - codswallop!

[varsovian]

I was honestly shocked when I watched a Channel 4 (UKTV) programme on climate
change last week.
It had all the usual images you would expect - melting ice, hurricanes etc -
and then they started showing charts of changes in solar activity. And what
did they show, these charts ...?
Yup, when solar activity goes up, world temperatures go up. When it goes
down, temperatures go down. In the period 1940-1970 solar activity went down
and - despite a couple of centuries of industrialisation - world temperatures
went down. I remember a BBC TV programme in 1974 where they talked about the
new ice age. Now, we're all going to frazzle!
The problem is that all the research money is being directed towards proving
that global warming is being caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Well, rotting leaves cause a 100 times more CO2.
I'm massively against pollution, massively pro-environment etc, but I'm with
the left-wing hairy eco-freak and former TV personality,David Bellamy, on
this one. "Not proved."
It's just become one of those gravy trains, where everyone has to shout from
the same script. Future generations are going to think us awfully backward
and really rather stupid. Your grandkids are going to look at photos of you
and giggle - "He was well-meaning but a bit of a plodder"

This is a quote from the Guardian -

Bellamy is most disappointed by today's green groups. He rages against the
failings of the pressure groups that have become corporates. "I said I'd
never say anything that would harm the green movement, but we don't have a
green movement now. We don't have campaigners campaigning for anything
positive."

"What the hell have Greenpeace and WWF done? They are paid very good salaries
and they float around the world saying, 'We are helping the world,' but they
haven't. WWF was set up 29 years ago to save the bloody panda and we can now
breed pandas like the clappers, but there is no where to put them; all the
forest has gone."

Then let's think about the developing world - by restricting economic growth
are we going to condemn them to several more generations without electricity:
the one thing that by itself massively extends life expectancy? The
alternative, wood burning (or dung burning), creates carcinogenic smoke as
well as respiratory problems galore. The lack of refrigeration results in
endless deaths from bacterial diseases. But that's OK, isn't it? "They're
only niggers and we're saving the planet."

I tell you, you can spot an idiot because s/he says the expressions "carbon
neutral" and "carbon footprint". I'm all for alternative sources of energy
and I'm pro-environmentalism (I was in the late 70s before it was
fashionable) but I am nobody's fool. Unfortunately, most of you are!

[varsovian]

[the last 2 paragraphs were my creation, not Bellamy's!]

[ianek70]

I remember the mid-70s when there was talk of a new ice-age, although I was
only 5 in 1975 so the folk I heard it from may not have been overly reliable.
But I do remember the hottest heat wave ever (in '76) and the officially hugest
castle made of snow (possibly the same year).
So it's hard to say if the climate's changing even in the short term.

Emissions of certain gases may or may not have specific consequences, but I
personally believe that pumping dirt and shit into the air is bad.
The most worrying thing is that the word 'pollution' has almost been replaced
by 'greenhouses gases' and 'CO2 emissions', and it's become a political issue.
So if politicians can prove (and they can prove anything, because they can
afford good lawyers) that certain gases are or aren't causing global warming or
cooling, they can then say "so pollution isn't so bad after all."
That's the same as arguing that the smoke that poisoned our great-great-
grandparents wasn't so bad, because above the black clouds shrouding 19th
century industrial towns the sky was still apparently blue.

It is worrying that there is no real debate on this issue - I'm used to being
told what's happening, why and how do they know, and I'm used to hearing
contradictory arguments. There should be debate and explanations.
But the only dissenting voices seem to be from idiot rednecks like Bush, who
say that God gave the Earth to American motorists and factory owners, who must
be protected from market forces whatever the cost to our lungs.

But basically, clean air good, dirty air bad, and whoever pays scientists to
tell us differently is a knob-end.

[kylie1]

There was a recent study just released about Global Warming. That 90 percent of
the evidence points to the warming trend as man made. This helps dissolve the
rantings from the political arena which continues to supercede the hard facts
with little known gobblygook. Nay-sayers and procrastinators will have little
room left to spin their mis-information and wild goose chasing time killing
tactics. The study did little for people in the know, but it also said we have
more time to maneuver before the tipping point. That makes me mad because it
gives more fuel to the neglecting side to ignore the issue longer.

In Canada our fearless leader, Stephen Harper, has said that the feds will
embark on a new "Clean Air Act",(something we have always had before when the
Liberal Party was in power). They had introduced this smoke and mirror approach
to no effect before, once he had come to power and dumped the Kyoto protocol.
What can one expect from a guy, who like the President of the USA, has his
hands, feet, face, and body covered in oil. Thank God, we are still way ahead on
this matter than the yanks.

As for the scientists, they are not spending all that money just to put it on a
piece of paper. They are willing to put in the years of hard work so we aren’t
stuck having to rely on some dumb-ass governments that keep dismissing the obvious.

I am all for conservation and from my own observations there have been MAJOR
changes in the atmosphere in the last 30 years (all the way from Vancouver,
through the plains and onto the other coast of Canada).

[varsovian]

CO2 emissions and pollution are separate issues.
I'm very environmentally-conscious and my gut instincts are 100% against Bush
BUT ... CO2 emissions are not causing global warming and anybody who thinks
that is a dupe. The vasy majority of (right-minded) people have been
successfully hoodwinked.
95% of greenhouse gases consist of water vapour.
0.3% is CO2
Possibly 1% of that 0.3% is down to human activity - rotting leaves and
breathing dwarfs industrial emissions. Volcano emissions do too.
Don't mix up pollution, PCBs, estrogen in the water (from pill-abusing women)
etc with CO2 emissions.
My dad experienced pea-soup smogs in London in the 50s - the Clean Air Act (was
it of 1956?) helped massively. I lived in blackened industrial towns in
northern England (now cleaned up and post-industrial). I am anti-pollution. I
am also anti-moronism. Future generations are going to scream with laughter at
our dumb CO2 ideas, and rightly so.

[kylie1]

>95% of greenhouse gases consist of water vapour.
>0.3% is CO2

That's one impressive scientific database, varsovian. Probably the same one Bush
must be so well familiar with.

>BUT ... CO2 emissions are not causing global warming.

Oh, really? That IS NEWS to me. OK.......

>CO2 emissions and pollution are separate issues.

CO2 emissions and pollution are NOT separate issues even though I don't know
what kind of reports you have been reading. Carbon dioxide collects in the
atmosphere with OTHER POLLUTANTS like a thickening blanket. If you think too
much C02 is a good thing (using your gutsy pea soup theory), ten you ARE with
Bush and his moronic government that believes the same while the rest of the
world thinks differently. You have the right to your own opinion but don't
assume that the rest of us are a bunch of idiots led astray by some hokey
scientific numbers. Since the Industrial Revolution the concentration of C02 has
increased by 30%. Sure it's been around for thousands of years but, like it or
not, in its present concentration it accounts for 30% of the "'enhanced"
greenhouse effect. Too much C02 will keep on trapping the sun's heat and cause
the planet to warm up.

>Future generations are going to scream with laughter at
> our dumb CO2 ideas, and rightly so.

The ozone layer has been destroyed over the years resulting in an alarming rate
of skin related problems, like cancer. And yes, the very C02 you don't like to
hear about, has a lot to do with it. At least in its present concentration. Even
the smallest of changes to the planet's delicate balance will eventually have a
major impact and should be taken seriously. You can have your kids laugh all
they want but mine are NOT laughing.

On a brighter note, our BC government has just approved a plan for the
so-called hydrogen highway that will go from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver, to
Whistler to the Vancouver Island. The funding has been already approved by the
feds. Proud to hear that.

[usenetposts]

varsovian wrote

> Future generations are going to scream with laughter at
> our dumb CO2 ideas, and rightly so.


In your case,I've started already!

"It's not the factories that pollute, it's women performing birth control!"

Are you trying to become Roman Giertych's research assistant, by any chance?

[varsovian]

Estrogen in water is no laughing matter.
Neither is encouraging Africa not to develop economically due to half-baked
science.
Just to remind you, in the early 70s the "scientific consensus" (i.e. those who
shout loudest) was that we were headed for a new ice age. Now the "consensus"
is we're going to fry because of CO2. This hysteria will cool off in 10 years'
time after billions will have been wasted in vain. Billions that could have
been spent on improving people's lives.
I think Bush is a moron - Iraq proved it. But just because he's started to
accept CO2-driven global warming isn't going to convince me that he's any less
of a moron.
The climatologist (Dr Landsheidt) who correctly forecast el Nino events appears
more trustworthy than the shrill voices of doom who are heavily subsidised by
governmental gravy trains. He forecast in 2003 that global cooling is likely by
2015, reaching a low point by 2030.
Higher CO2 is caused by higher temperatures, by the way, there's nothing
unusual about that.
Oh, and while I'm at it, the polar bear population has shot up in recent years,
thus proving that they can adapt to recent climate change just as well as they
adapted to previous climate change (let's face it, they didn't die out in the
past, did they?)
Scientists can argue till they're blue in the face, but the current round of
global warming which appears to be happening elsewhere in our solar system
can't be caused by human activity, can it?

[russh]

I get everso confused by all of this. Can anyone of us laymen really know the
truth, when the expert community cannot agree? Follow the link below for another
viewpoint.

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=83D2B666-E7F2-99DF-32FD8CC329BC0535

[kylie1]

>Neither is encouraging Africa not to develop economically due to half-baked
>science.

Before Africa even gets a chance to develop economically, half of the population
will disappear from the face of the earth from AIDS, malaria, cholera and God
knows what else. It's not the scientists one should blame. It's the whole
corporate world with its gready mitts out for more and more money; people of
influence that should step up the pressure on all those lukewarm and indifferent
governments so maybe they will get off their fat asses and finally do something
about it. Let's leave the scientists out of the picture.

>Just to remind you, in the early 70s the "scientific consensus" (i.e. those who
>shout loudest) was that we were headed for a new ice age. Now the "consensus"
is we're going to fry because of CO2. This hysteria will cool off in 10 years'

Corporate hores are NOT scientists but they will hire a bunch of dickheads that
will always deny any human involvement in destroying a natural cycle. In fact,
they have an army of their own pseudo-scientist ready to debunk anything that
can possibly cut into their own fat pockets. Just because some channel 4 (?)
has decided to pluck things out of thin air, it does not mean the rest of the
world will instantly bow in approval. And what is this about the 70's again?
That's like over 30 years ago. We are in 2007, varsovian. Has the time stopped
for you?

Now, about the poor bears. The reason for the increased Arctic polar bear
sightings (see the travel corporations rubbing their hands already?...) is
happening only because of the retreating sea ice triggered by nothing else than
climate warming. Not to be confused with increase in bear population, as some
may believe. The melting ice makes the bears migrate and unfortunately seeing
the bears migrate towards industrial zones is NOT a good thing.


> Scientists can argue till they're blue in the face, but the current round of
> global warming which appears to be happening elsewhere in our solar system
> can't be caused by human activity, can it?

This is just one of many hypothesis, one that conveniently plays into the hands
of some dumb-ass corporate brass. Scientists also argue that even though there
has been an increase in the solar brightness over the past two decades, this
alone has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes. HOWEVER, the
impact of unfiltered UV radiation on the ozone layer can easily be affecting the
climate more than the sunlight itself.

I think we could sit here and debate what you or I believe, but I am not going
to get sucked into believing that sucking on an exhaust pipe is actually good
for your health.

[ja_karola]

Varsovian, what have you been smoking? Or is the exposure to lead during
childhood to blame for your reasoning or rather lack thereof?

First of all, if you scan through ALL academic journals dealing with the issues
of global warming in the past 20 years or so you’re likely to find none that
claim that the increase in temperatures is not due to human activity. Sure,
there are climactic changes that take place over the long-term that are due to
other factors, but we won’t be here for long enough to assess whether what’s
happening right now is NOT due to industrialization, mass consuming middle
classes of the developed world, and squandering of energy that comes easily to
the privileged ones living in these.

But is it too much to ask to replace what we know as the not everlasting sources
of energy but the ever so polluting ones for renewable sources when we have the
capacity to do so? Especially when we know it pays to do so? Have you heard of
the Stern report? The costs associated with ignoring the problems far exceed
the costs associated with investing into renewable sources of energy.

Bellamy may just as well be challenged by James Lovelock. He’s been right
before and wasn’t afraid to voice his opinions in his latest book where, in an
admittedly apocalyptic fashion, he predicts that the effects of global warming
are moving forward at such an exponential rate that politicians might as well
spend most of their time preparing emergency plans for natural disasters along
the lines of evacuating and displacing millions of refugees due to floods,
storms, etc. Some (inhabited) islands have already started to disappear, but I
guess you’re too busy reading Bellamys and the likes to notice.

Why don’t you leave the thinking to people actually qualified to do so and spend
your time not wasting food (little less than 1/3 of food purchased in the UK is
wasted and thrown away), not buying the latest gadgets as soon as they appear on
the market, recycling and actually pondering on the effects of your own
existence whenever you make a purchasing choice? Have you ever actually thought
of the planet from a perspective longer than the 75+ years that you’ll spend
inhabiting it? That’s one of the major problems of policy making. Most
politicians only see the 5-year plans that will get their asses elected back in
the office as opposed to having any long-lasting effect on future generations.

As to the billions of money that is being wasted as you say, money isn’t just
thrown away as soon as it is spent on something; it circulates. Instead of
spending it on oil, putting the petrodollars into the pockets of sheiks who
build ski resorts in the desert and “world shaped” artificial islands in the
Persian Gulf to lure the rich and wealthy, it might be wise to invest money in
green energy sources all the while employing thousands of bright scientists who,
regardless of your views, will do something good.

By virtue of the precautionary principle, even if you’re right, which I don’t
believe you are, there is no harm in doing it the right albeit slower way, if it
means we can avoid a catastrophe. I’d rather my grandchildren say “yeah, you
were wrong, but at least you stopped polluting” (and yes emitting CO2 gases is
polluting) than to have them say “so what did you do to stop our planet from
breathing?”. So what’s wrong with encouraging China and India to develop while
employing renewable sources of energy is such are, at this point, already
available to them?

1979 . Winter .

[tjbazuka]

Please watch this nice flick about heroic people of Warsaw figthing against bad
winter. Sorry there is nothing about global warming but plenty of funny sound
effects.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoUZiCOtMkg

[varsovian]

Well, I love all the diatribe about corporate whores when all research is being
funded by governments.
Has anyone noticed that the nuclear disarmament has now largely disappeared - I
wonder where all those idiots went?
Don't mix up anti-pollutionism with the lunatic CO2 brigade. Polluting the
planet is wrong, profligate use of essentially irreplaceable natural resources
is wrong, but CO2 bull propaganda is also wrong, even if the almighty George
Bush is starting to come round to accepting it.
And, by the way, Antarctic ice is getting thicker and the southern Sahara is
greening and receding, but that doesn't get media coverage. I wonder why? Is
it perhaps because the environmental correspondents don't want to talk
themselves out of a job? Turkeys don't often vote for Christmas.

[kylie1]

Wow, somebody's getting huffy here.
Varsovian, I don't care what you want to believe. We seem to be going around in
circles and it's getting stale.

[ja_karola]

varsovian napisał:
> Well, I love all the diatribe about corporate whores when all research is
being funded by governments.
> Has anyone noticed that the nuclear disarmament has now largely disappeared -
I wonder where all those idiots went?

I don't think I follow your track of thought here Varsovian. Please elaborate.

> And, by the way, Antarctic ice is getting thicker ...

Where did you hear that?

And on a related note, new technologies in fuel efficiency are being developed.
edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.100mpg.popsci/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Looks promising. Now a small digression on public vs. corporate funding. The
beauty and the crucial need for the public sector lies, paradoxically, in its
inefficiency (which I happen to witness all the time). In times of recession,
when jobs are scarce, the government usually doesn't go on a firing spree
because it can "afford" to go into deficit. As such economies don't collapse
even further.
By the same token, when you invest $ 1000 into a private company which goes
bankrupt, your pocket notices it immediately. However, when a $ 1 of your tax
money goes to waste on a failed government project, you don't tend to notice so
much. As such governments have the luxury to invest in projects which may
benefit mankind in the long-term, something they don't dare to do all that much
for fear of being voted out of office in the next elections.

All three sectors, be it the private, public and non-profit play a crucial role
in making the whole system work. The public one however should be more bold in
squandering money when it comes to testing out new technologies that could in
the end save a whole lot in the long-run.

So back to the hybrids, would any of you consider buying a fuel efficient car
given the savings in gas?

[kylie1]

karola, I think it's time to call it a day, sister...
if you don't, you will be opening yourself up to criticism and general review of
your writing. That's a given. Not that it matters, but you have to wonder if
varsovian is more than just a scientist. As far as I am concerned, I never
really liked the British cynicism when it's delivered with an annoying and
patronizing tone. Not my bag but good for a laugh.

[usenetposts]

varsovian napisał:

> Well, I love all the diatribe about corporate whores when all research is
being
>
> funded by governments.
> Has anyone noticed that the nuclear disarmament has now largely disappeared -
I
>
> wonder where all those idiots went?
> Don't mix up anti-pollutionism with the lunatic CO2 brigade. Polluting the
> planet is wrong, profligate use of essentially irreplaceable natural
resources
> is wrong, but CO2 bull propaganda is also wrong, even if the almighty George
> Bush is starting to come round to accepting it.
> And, by the way, Antarctic ice is getting thicker and the southern Sahara is
> greening and receding, but that doesn't get media coverage. I wonder why? Is
> it perhaps because the environmental correspondents don't want to talk
> themselves out of a job? Turkeys don't often vote for Christmas.

You should have said "thanksgiving" apparently.

Nevertheless, if you're gonna use that logic, then who is more likely to be
bribing parts of the scientific community, the oil business with tonnes of
money and everything to lose or ... Greenpeace? (and I hasten to add that
Bellamy is not really part of the scientific community - he is a "popular
scientist", now. A bearded botanical Carol Vorderman with a speech impediment,
regardless of what he may have been. His opinion only "counts" because of his
rather passe twentieth century style of "celebrity", and that pretty much only
in one country. I don't think that someone with the cachet of Sir David
Attenborough would agree and I don't see anyone who has published peer reviewed
research in the field agreeing with him.

We are burning fossil fuels that gradually captured atmospheric carbon over
spaces of time that are huge and had climates very different to those today, if
you believe evolution and look at the fossil record. how can anyone in their
right mind seriously believe that you can put all that carbon back into the
atmosphere in the space of a couple of hundred years and nothing catastrophic
will happen.

I think a person must be innocent of how the world works or the nature of the
world they are living in to listen to the oil-business-funded bigmouth cynics
and their infantile notions about energy.

[varsovian]

The reason why you don't get enormous public debate over nuclear disarmament
nowadays (when it is arguably far more achievable to achieve huge reductions
than during the Cold War) is that the Old Guard of the NoNukes brigade hitched
a ride on the green bandwagon.
It is the same old story with the same mixture of old and young faces - the
anti-capitalist bunch plus impassioned youth who are either students or would
still like to be.
I was very much taken with the then Ecology Party in the late 70's - before it
was trendy to be green. Rather strange seeing as I was so young at the time.
And in time I joined Amnesty and, as a university student, went on Anti-
Apartheid demos in London. I'm hardly your average pro big business freak! I've
got a cousin still in the hippy lifestyle (veggie CND then vegan Greenpeace
tree surgeon - not joking), instead of settling down and having kids.

It's just I can see how this whole CO2 freak show has got completely out of
hand and no-one is able to stop the juggernaut.

I saw how the bandwagon effect crippled public education in Britain. Everyone
has to outdo each other with yet more outlandish ideas. As a result, British
teachers now teach kids French without giving them the slightest idea of how to
put a verb together. Computers are so important now that kids don't have to do
joined-up handwriting. The fact that primary schools take so much time and
effort teaching it is disregarded (as is the fact the kids can't type).
Teachers in the UK public system are so removed from reality that they sound
absloutely nutty to outsiders.

It's a similar thing with government schemes. There's no corruption in terms
of money passing hands. Simply, it's a bandwagon that's rolling. As a
bureaucrat handing out lolly you know that public money can be spent on
studying the habits of squirrels in East Sussex as long as it is done "in light
of global warming". No questions will be asked and you will have an easy time.
Give public money to anything remotely critical of the accepted CO2 paradigm
and the eco-fascists will be onto you quick as a flash. Or your colleagues will
use it as a weapon against you in the ongoing office war-politics. You can see
how this one pans out.

To sum up, I'm less than impressed with environmental reporting and the
extravagant claims of climate protagonists whose whole livelihood depends on
talking up the CO2 threat.
If racist news reporters only wrote crime reports when blacks were involved,
then we'd believe that blacks were responsible for all crime and our racism
would be justified in that respect. Ditto, Muslims and bombs etc. Of course,
most of us reject that sort of world-view. So why do we accept that CO2 is
entirely or even overwhelmingly responsible for global warming? Or that
everything to do with climate change (including the shrinking of the Sahara)
has automatically to be bad? Or that we'll be getting malaria in Europe
(forgetting that we have had outbreaks of it from time to time anyway,
irrespective of climatic factors)?
CO2 driven climate change is a far from proved theory, and I simply don't
believe it any more than I believe in scientific socialism.

[kylie1]

wow, can I die now?!

[usenetposts]

So I've just read an article comparing CO2 in the atmosphere to yardies and
Islamic terrorists. I think I've read everything, now.

FYI

[varsovian]

www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

[kieth]

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:huau5r7UtBQJ:www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/n/summaries/northamericacanada.jsp+Canadian+CO2+scientific+studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
you're one boring phony ass wannabee scietist. Let it rest.

[varsovian]

CO2-driven climate change really is a far from proved theory and Poland has
suffered enough from half-baked theorists over the last 60 years - both racial
and economic theorists. All of them thought themselves ever so clever too.
This time the anti-capitalists want to cut wealth creation by other means.

Just to show it actually matters to Poland:

Poland Calls For 2008-12 CO2 Quota Of At Least 240.8 Million Tons/Year

The Polish environment ministry has asked the European Union for a 2008-2012
annual quota of carbon dioxide emissions of at least 240.8 million metric tons.

Polish officials said that any annual quota lower than 240.8 million tons will
curb Poland's economic growth.

Last week, the ministry said that it expected the E.U. will cut the CO2
emissions quota from a requested 284 million tons a year to 210 million tons.

Poland called for the European Commission to consider the fact that between
1988 and 2004 the country reduced its CO2 emissions by 32% to 386.4 million
tons, chiefly due to slower growth and was well ahead of the Kyoto Protocol
requirement that called for 5% emission cuts by 2012.

The ministry said that by 2004, the 15 countries of the "old E.U." reduced
emissions by a mere 0.9%.

The ministry officials argued that lower than requested emission quotas would
result in higher energy prices, which in turn would increase the costs for the
whole economy and slow economic growth and investments.

In the last stage of ongoing negotiations on CO2 emission quotas, Poland is
arguing that its average economic growth between 2008-2012 will be at 6.2%.
Polish officials said that the CO2 quota of 210 million tons in the period
would imply the European Commission expects Poland's economic growth at 4.7%.

The E.U. is expected to rule on Polish 2008-2012 CO2 emission quotas by the end
of March or early in April.

In 2005, Poland emitted some 203 million tons of CO2, or 15% below the annual
cap allotted by the E.U. for the period.

The ministry said that partial data for 2006, show CO2 emissions rising as
economic growth picked up last year to 5.8% from 3.5% in 2005.

Preliminary estimates show that CO2 emissions in the oil refining sector and
booming cement sector rose 20% on year.

Partial estimates from the power generation sector, which consumes the bulk of
the national CO2 quota, show emissions rising by 3% compared to 2005.