You are missing the point. Nobody has said that we should not reduce/reuse/recycle or moderate energy consumption etc.
Somebody on RTE Radio this morning said that all air travel (including passenger and freight flights) contributed 2% to total global CO2 emissions. No idea if they were spoofing though.The Coservative Party over here in UK are proposing another tax on flights, particularly for frequent fliers. (Leave aside how it could be workable.) Because, " air travel will contribute 25% of emissions by 2050" !
I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their CO2 footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad thing. However I am skeptical about the link between man made CO2 emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues.So Clubman, What level of proof would you need to see before you would agree to actions to limit co2 emissions?
Not sure why you want to personalise this but ... I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their CO2 footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad and probably a prudent thing to do and, as it happens, I try to do my own small bit to this end. However I am skeptical about the claimed links between man made CO2 emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues (e.g. incineration and nuclear power are "bad", biofuels are "good", organic is "better" than mass produced etc.).So Clubman, What level of proof would you need to see before you would agree to actions to limit co2 emissions?
Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem..
2. Great disasters proclaimed in advance often don't live up to the hype
(Ice-age in the 70's, Population bomb in the 80's, Y2K in the 90's)
Further comment about the programme here:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html
I'm pretty sure that there was an element of hype about this. I worked with several systems with no Y2K patches and they never failed. Admittedly the issue was real in certain circumstances but not to the extent portrayed by the popular media.Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem.
[From a former IT head]
I was reading these articles mentioning "deniers" and all I could think of was ladies' tights!I love the way the author of that article uses the term 'climate-change deniers', like they're on par with holocaust deniers
Why are you using that term if you seemingly object to it?I'd be as wary of the agenda of the climate-change deniers
Hardly a sound basis for taking a personal stand on a topical issue? The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that...Halliburton, for example, are rather dubious about climate change....enough to make me believe in it, 100%!
I was reading these articles mentioning "deniers" and all I could think of was ladies' tights!
Why are you using that term if you seemingly object to it?
Hardly a sound basis for taking a personal stand on a topical issue?
I recall that notable examples such as Italy and China didn't spend a penny on the Y2K issue and naught happened.Those who tell you that the Y2k issue was all hype because the sky didn't fall in on 31/12/99 are misled. The sky didn't fall in because the issue was managed brilliantly by all those dedicated IT heads out there. There was a very, very real problem.
[From a former IT head]
The guardian - that well known unbiased, even handed publication. Their position on this is well known. I could have summarised their position piece on this without reading it.Further comment about the programme here:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2026125,00.html
If co2 emissions do not contribute significantly to Global Warming then there is no need to limit their emissions as they are not pollutants in the ordinary sense.Not sure why you want to personalise this but ... I never said that people should not moderate their use of expendible materials or reduce their CO2 footprints. In fact I believe that this is not necessarily a bad and probably a prudent thing to do and, as it happens, I try to do my own small bit to this end. However I am skeptical about the claimed links between man made CO2 emissions and global warming as well as other commonly propagated "truths" about enviromental issues (e.g. incineration and nuclear power are "bad", biofuels are "good", organic is "better" than mass produced etc.).
I recall that notable examples such as Italy and China didn't spend a penny on the Y2K issue and naught happened.
Fair enough. I should have said 'spent comparatively little' rather than 'didn't spend a penny'; I'm sure that lots of hours were bookedGross exaggeration. Do you reckon that this work was funded without spending a penny? And do you consider [broken link removed]?
In order to show an association between two variables is causitive you would document the close association between the two, remove one of the variables and show a fall in the second one and finally reintroduce the second variable and show a rise in the second one.
Now clearly that level of proof is not possible in the co2 /Global warming debate. So the question remains. What level of proof would satisfy your (rightly held) skeptism?
Agreed. Is there an 800 year CO2 lag or not? Al Gore's answer seems to be 'The debate is over'.Al Gore states that the temperate increases were caused by rising CO2 levels. He showed charts one under the other of both CO2 levels and temperature levels, both charts were in synch more or less. It was compelling evidence.
The scientists who refuted this on the C4 program showed the same historic temperature charts but . . clearly showed CO2 levels rising consistently 800 years after the rise in temperature levels demonstrating that it is rising temperature that is causing CO2 levels to rise and not the other way around.
Either the evidence supports Al Gore's version or it supports the opposite view or it is inconclusive. For me this is the core of the whole debate. Those charts are the nub of the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?