Climate scepticism grows in UK

mike65

clicky and clicky



Regardless of your views on CC and our part in it, its kinda scary that the revelations of slack/dubious work by a handful of scientists/administrators can cause such a swing in mood (not helped by the cold spell admitedly) people are so easily swayed one way or the other.

probe

The Financial Times reports that British police are investigating the "climate change" department at the University of East Anglia.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/678be380-1283-11df-a611-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Turtwig

Yet again the dishonesty of pseudoscience preys on ignorance of the ordinary person. Depressing and a little bit scary. I'm more concerned though with Britian's dismal levels of vaccinations. Climate Change Policy, luckily, is left in government hands.

probe

Malty_T wrote: »

Yet again the dishonesty of pseudoscience preys on ignorance of the ordinary person. Depressing and a little bit scary. I'm more concerned though with Britian's dismal levels of vaccinations. Climate Change Policy, luckily, is left in government hands.

I was thinking along similar lines this afternoon. Money-driven pseudoscience. Dr Kiki (Dr Kirsten Sanford) and Dr Steven Novella of Yale Medical School did a netcast on the MMR/Autism research fraud in Britain yesterday:

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/twit.cachefly.net/dksh0033.mp3

Show notes: http://wiki.twit.tv/wiki/Dr._Kiki%27s_Science_Hour_33

Steven Novella does a weekly netcast on decrapifying tabloid myths:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org

Kiki's weekly netcasts on science are available at:
http://www.twit.tv/

She has also done some netcasts on green energy at:

http://www.pixelcorps.tv/potential_energy

Turtwig

probe wrote: »

I was thinking along similar lines this afternoon. Money-driven pseudoscience. Dr Kiki (Dr Kirsten Sanford) and Dr Steven Novella of Yale Medical School did a netcast on the MMR/Autism research fraud in Britain yesterday:

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/twit.cachefly.net/dksh0033.mp3

Show notes: http://wiki.twit.tv/wiki/Dr._Kiki%27s_Science_Hour_33

Steven Novella does a weekly netcast on decrapifying tabloid myths:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org

Kiki's weekly netcasts on science are available at:
http://www.twit.tv/

She has also done some netcasts on green energy at:

http://www.pixelcorps.tv/potential_energy

Ahh the skepticsguide, my escape to reality.:D Never heard of Kiki's podcast must give it a try.
Thanks.

Irishboy29

What caused the last ice age to come to an end. Global warming? What caused this? Hardly man made.


Milankovitch cycles seems like a more plausible reason.


Might be a better idea to develop technolgy to enable us to deal with changes in climate and predict which areas will be most affected.

Turtwig

Irishboy29 wrote: »

Might be a better idea to develop technolgy to enable us to deal with changes in climate and predict which areas will be most affected.

Isn't that what we're trying to do?

Duiske

Media reports like this are not helping the IPCC's cause.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

Cunsiderthis

It's not helped when

(i) Professor Jones, one of the central figures in the whole climate change industry, has to resign over the leaked emails which appear to show a lack of honesty over their dealings.

(ii) Micheal mann, whose hockey stick graph was hailed as the proof on which finally convinced waverers that global warming was happening, (and which has since been shown to be incorrect) says that this is not about truth, but about plausibly deniable accusations.

(iii) Dr Pachuari, chairman of the IPCC, has been found out to be claiming huge sums of cash for his private company not nly using claims which are lies, but abusing and bullying anyone who has evidence that he is incorrect, even when those saying so were qualified to say so ( ie they are glaciologists) while he, himself, has no expertise or qualifications in the area.

It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from both a student's dissertation and a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine, and many question the validity of the IPCC if this is the sort of evidence it uses on which to base its claims. (Many also think it extremely worrying that IPCC chairman, who appears to have used the same claims to obtain money for his own private business, should be hurling abuse at scientists who tried to point out his error. Why would he do this?)

Even last week the IPCC wrongly claimed that more than half the Netherlands was below sea level, which is not true and again merely calls into question its veracity.

When we see the IPCC has been making claims based on no science at all, and they are forced to abandon the claims but only after Dr Pachuari has used the claims to feather his own nest by netting millions of Euros in research grants for his own company based on these claims, and when one considers stories from other scientists about how secretive Prof Jones and Minchel mann are with their results, and the lenghts they seem prepared to go to to not release their findings for scrutiny to other scientists, perhaps it's no wonder people are growing more and more suspicious of the claims of such people.

Cunsiderthis

In a new article in today's Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece , there are fresh claims about Dr Pachuari. He claimed that "...global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman..."

"This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035..."


"...Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming... said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said..."

No claims are being made that any companies in which Pachuari is involved have secured , or even applied for, funding backed up by his claims as chariman of the IPCC, but his credibility is now a joke in much of the scientific and lay community who is interested in the subject of climate change.

Thats not to say climate change is not real or not happening, but the intervention of guys like Pachuari, by bullying experienced scientists and by appearing to feather his own nest by his untruthful claims, does little to further the cause of climate change, and does a lot to cast doubt on it.

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In a new article in today's Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece .

Written by Johnathan Leake, he's lost all credibility on this matter.

Theowolfe

Malty_T wrote: »

Written by Johnathan Leake, he's lost all credibility on this matter.

The people losing their credibility are the alarmist who have been at best exaggerating and at worst lying.

The UK information commissioner has indicated that the UAE/CRU have broken the law. How is that for credibility?

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

Written by Johnathan Leake, he's lost all credibility on this matter.

The fact that you attack the messenger, and not what he says, or the substantive argument, is illuminating.

Interestingly, you don;t mention what you judge had happened to Pachuari's credibility or the credibility of the IPCC, based on the evidence.

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The fact that you attack the messenger, and not what he says, or the substantive argument, is illuminating.

Interestingly, you don;t mention what you judge had happened to Pachuari's credibility or the credibility of the IPCC, based on the evidence.

I'm not bothered to read the substantive "argument" any more than I bother to read Ken Ham's "arguments". When someone has stooped to the low level of journalisim Leake has showed I simply stop reading their opinions on similar matters.

As for IPCC, I think don't they have lost any credibility. Their public perception may have been damaged but that's what the anti science crowd do best.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

...Dr Pachuari has used the claims to feather his own nest by netting millions of Euros in research grants for his own company based on these claims....

It has been previously demonstrated on other threads that claims such as the above have little or no validity. Repeating the same claims on other threads, whilst apparently ignoring the counter-arguments already presented, is soap-boxing and is not welcome.

Getting back to the topic at hand.... Folks, we already have several threads on the subject of either climate change or the IPCC. Let’s try and steer this one in the direction of ‘public opinion’ rather than rehashing the same arguments that have been posted elsewhere.

bonkey

mike65 wrote: »

Regardless of your views on CC and our part in it, its kinda scary that the revelations of slack/dubious work by a handful of scientists/administrators can cause such a swing in mood (not helped by the cold spell admitedly) people are so easily swayed one way or the other.

I'd say the opposite. If it takes slack/dubious work to cause such a swing, then the standards have risen.

Seriously...if the media decide to sell copy on an issue, then that will form a significant proportion of public opinion. If and when the media decide to change horses, public opinion will follow.

The facts, generally speaking, have the most tenuous of connections with public opinion. Some individuals are well-informed, for any given topic.....and many just know what they've read in the broadsheets or tabloids and seen on the box.

Turtwig

Reminds me of Martha Gellhorn:

When I was young I believed in the perfectibility of man, and in progress, and thought of journalism as a guiding light. If people were told the truth, if dishonor and injustice were clearly shown to them, they would at once demand the saving action, punishment of wrong-doers, and care for the innocent. How people were to accomplish these reforms, I did not know. That was their job. A journalist's job was to bring the news, to be the eyes for their conscience. I think I must have imagined public opinion as a solid force, something like a tornado, always ready to blow on the side of the angels.

During the years of my energetic hope, I blamed the leaders when history regularly went wrong, when cruelty and violence were tolerated or abetted, and the innocent never got anything except the dirty end of the stick. [...]

It took nine years, and a Great Depression and two wars ending in defeat, and one surrender without war, to break my faith in the benign power of the press. Gradually, I came to realize that people will more readily swallow lies than truth, as if the taste of lies was homey, appetizing: a habit. (There were also liars in my trade, and leaders have always used facts as relative and malleable. The supply of lies was unlimited.) Good people, those who opposed evil whenever they saw it, never increased beyond a gallant minority. The manipulated millions could be aroused or soothed by any lies. The guiding light of journalism was no stronger than a glow worm.

I belong to a Federation of Cassandras, my colleagues the foreign correspondents, whom I met at every disaster. They had been reporting the rise of Fascism, its horrors and its sure menace, for years. The doom they had long prophesied arrived on time, bit by bit, as scheduled. In the end we became solitary stretcher-bearers, trying to pull individuals free from the wreckage. If a life could be saved from the first of the Gestapo in Prague, or another from behind the barbed wire on the sands at Arlegès, that was a comfort but it was hardly journalism. Drag, scheming, bullying and dollars occasionally preserved one human being at a time.

For all the good our articles did, they might have been written in invisible ink, printed on leaves and loosed to the wind.

It only takes a sentence to tell a lie; an essay to correct one. Pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists are always at an advantage when it comes to the media.

Cunsiderthis

bonkey wrote: »

Seriously...if the media decide to sell copy on an issue, then that will form a significant proportion of public opinion. If and when the media decide to change horses, public opinion will follow.

Of course that's true, and I think much of our media is lazy and incompetent. That's largely why I don't have a tv as I found tv news to be impossible to watch, as it had beceom more like a revolving sun newspaper, full of the doings of celebrities desperate to be in the headlines, guided by pr and spin agencies, and with little substance. Even the print media seems to do little more than repeat handouts from pr agencies, and the standards of journalism are poor.

Having said that, I'd rather live with our lazy and incompetent media here than the media in Zimbabwe or China etc.

Also, one has to extract from the media what facts we can, and one thing which seems apparent is that the IPCC is less that scrupulous in it's pronouncements. While the opinion polls have little direct bearing on the position, they are the one thing that will make politicians of all colours take note, and if the polls swing against the climate change industry, we can also expect our politicians to suddenly take a more sceptical view in the rush to suck up to the majority of the electorate.

Pembily

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If the polls swing against the climate change industry

We are all buggered if this happens!!! Regardless of the IPCC and their somewhat dodgy dealings CC is an issue, the extent of it and its future bearings are what have yet to be accurately proven!! But CC is defo a problem for all of us...

Turtwig

Pembily wrote: »

We are all buggered if this happens!!! Regardless of the IPCC and their somewhat dodgy dealings CC is an issue, the extent of it and its future bearings are what have yet to be accurately proven!! But CC is defo a problem for all of us...

Agreed, the problem is crap by pseudo climatologists distract scientists from actually dealing with the problems that they actually do have in their theory. One huge area that is getting a lot of work is the precipitation models. Temperature models are by and large generally generally sound, but predictions of precipitation in a region can vary by sign from one model to the next. It needs to resolved for future planning and adaptation measures.(Esp here in Ireland.)

Irishboy29

Malty_T wrote: »

Isn't that what we're trying to do?

People seem to think that climate change can be reversed. I don't believe that this is possible as it's a natural cycle. It would be better to deal with the outcome of climate change and develop the technology e.g. gm crops, flood defenses. Trying to reverse climate change is futile.

Like I said before , what caused the last ice age and what caused it to end. Not man.

I think the milankovitch cycle explains it.

I'd prefer if more resource was put into treating hunger and malaria than wasting time and money trying to reverse something that is a natural cycle.

Almost as natural as night follows day

Pembily

Irishboy29 wrote: »

People seem to think that climate change can be reversed. I don't believe that this is possible as it's a natural cycle. It would be better to deal with the outcome of climate change and develop the technology e.g. gm crops, flood defenses. Trying to reverse climate change is futile.

Like I said before , what caused the last ice age and what caused it to end. Not man.

I think the milankovitch cycle explains it.

I'd prefer if more resource was put into treating hunger and malaria than wasting time and money trying to reverse something that is a natural cycle.

Almost as natural as night follows day

They are not trying to reverse it, they are trying to slow and stop it, we are beyond the stage of reversal, at the min the aim is to get to double pre Industrial CO2 levels!!!

Man has rapidly increased the rate of this natural cycle!!!

Cunsiderthis

Pembily wrote: »

They are not trying to reverse it, they are trying to slow and stop it, we are beyond the stage of reversal, at the min the aim is to get to double pre Industrial CO2 levels!!!

Man has rapidly increased the rate of this natural cycle!!!

Of course you are quite correct, and man has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And as the population of the world keeps growing, so will the amount of greenhouse gases.

The elephant in the room is that the population keeps increasing, and each human life contributes to the greenhouse gas total.

The world population increased from 1.6 billion in 1900, to 2.4 billion in 1950, to over 6.5 billion now. If that rate of increase continues, we are probably looking at a world population of over 20 billion by 2070.

The aspiration of every one of those 6.5 billion, ( and the unborn 7 billion and 10 billion, and 20 billion and so on), is to have the american or western lifestyle with two cars, central heating and air con, fridges, freezers, 3 or 4 tv is the house, foreign holidays and all the trappings of a western lifetyle.

Even if they don't achieve it, the world population is growing at such a fast rate, that it seems impossible to see how greenhouse gases will not increase alongside the population rise.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that the population keeps increasing, and each human life contributes to the greenhouse gas total.

But we, in the developed world, are contributing the greatest per capita share. Even in rapidly developing China, per capita emissions (or energy consumption, if you want to look at it that way) are a fraction of what they are here in Ireland. Throwing our hands up in the air with exclamations of “Sure what’s the point in trying to be more sustainable – look at China!” is a complete cop-out and is, in my opinion, an attempt to absolve ourselves of taking responsibility.

We certainly are fighting an uphill battle, but the same could be said in relation to many other issues; human rights, for example. However, nobody seems to be arguing that we shouldn’t bother enforcing regulations protecting the rights of the individual until China raises their standards of human rights protection.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The aspiration of every one of those 6.5 billion, ( and the unborn 7 billion and 10 billion, and 20 billion and so on), is to have the american or western lifestyle with two cars, central heating and air con, fridges, freezers, 3 or 4 tv is the house, foreign holidays and all the trappings of a western lifetyle.

All the more reason for ‘The West’ to set a good example.

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

But we, in the developed world, are contributing the greatest per capita share. Even in rapidly developing China, per capita emissions (or energy consumption, if you want to look at it that way) are a fraction of what they are here in Ireland. .

Thats absolutely a fact, and its the same in India.

Unfortunately, they both seem determined to increase their green house gas emissions per person in the coming years, as both strive for industrial catch up with the west.

But, in any case, its simply no good ignoring the fact that, even if everyone on the planet halves their emissions, (a fact impossible with current technology), the increase in population will see see total emissions rising.

As we are not going to achieve halving our emissions, the rise in emissions seems impossible to halt.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

But, in any case, its simply no good ignoring the fact that, even if everyone on the planet halves their emissions, (a fact impossible with current technology), the increase in population will see see total emissions rising.

I would be very surprised if that were true, given that the greatest population increases are occurring in those areas with the lowest per capita emissions. In fact, I’d wager that there is a pretty close inverse relationship between birth rates and per capita emissions around the world.

Cunsiderthis

djpbarry wrote: »

I would be very surprised if that were true, given that the greatest population increases are occurring in those areas with the lowest per capita emissions. In fact, I’d wager that there is a pretty close inverse relationship between birth rates and per capita emissions around the world.

That seems to be largely true also, although a 5% or 10% increase in the per capita emissions of India (1.2 billion or 18% of the total world population), or China (1.3 billion, or 20% of the total world population), would seem, if the world populations don't increase, to counteract all our good intentions as we all drive to the bottle banks in our SUV's and 4x4's.

If you then factor in the expected increase in population, estimated to be almost 10 billion by 2050 (an increase of 50% in the next 40 years), and then we can all see the extent of the problem. If we add together, for example, the projected population increase in India in the next 40 years, and then add to that the expected rise in the standards of living in India as india pursues its policy od industrialisation, and consequently the increase in expected emissions per head of population, it seems to be one step forward (in europe) and 3 steps backwards in India and China. (The population of Europe is +-500 million versus +-2500 million in India and China).

Pembily

Population needs to be controlled simple as - I have said this before!!! I am not passing the book, we are aware of the problem and thus should stop further damage - most (can't get my hand on the number right now) of all the future electricity plants powered by black coal (the worst for CO2) are being built and planned for China and India!!! When I find the book I will edit and give reference...

On the emissions - from 1990 to 2007 Europe’s fossil fuel usage (thus GHG) reduced by 12.76% of the total, at the same rate Asia Pacific increase by 12.28%!!! These are figures from a BP Statistical Review of World Energy that I am analysing for my Thesis!!!

Cunsiderthis

Pembily wrote: »

Population needs to be controlled simple as - I have said this before!!!

China has tried this with it's one child policy, and it's politicially unacceptable in the west, and politically un-achievable in India or Africa or in much of the free world.

Re teh coal fires power stations, there was a statiscic knocking round that China was commission a new coal fired power station every week, and the coal to fire the stastions being shipped from South Africa or poland, so the carbon footprint is appalling.

It really is the elephant in the room to draw attention to the fact that its the increasing world population which is the issue, and its curious how many still resent this suggestion and refuse to believe it, despite the obvious nature of the argument.

Pembily

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

China has tried this with it's one child policy, and it's politicially unacceptable in the west, and politically un-achievable in India or Africa or in much of the free world.

It really is the elephant in the room to draw attention to the fact that its the increasing world population which is the issue, and its curious how many still resent this suggestion and refuse to believe it, despite the obvious nature of the argument.

I have just done a graph to prove the link between increased population leads to increased energy demands (the ref for that data is again the BP document, and Dr Clive Beggs). As economies grow so too does their energy requirement - which at the minute is nearly 90% fossil fuels!!!

Nothing is acceptable anymore... We want a clean green world but still want our 2.4 children, sun holidays and 4x4s!!!

Turtwig

Pembily if you don't mind me asking is this relationship between economy and energy exponential?

Pembily

Malty_T wrote: »

Pembily if you don't mind me asking is this relationship between economy and energy exponential?

Feck, I can't figure out how to put it up!!

Its exponential!!! Fossil fuel increased more than population but def notice the increase and link...

Turtwig

Pembily wrote: »

Feck, I can't figure out how to put it up!!

Its exponential!!! Fossil fuel increased more than population but def notice the increase and link...

Cool, the reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure there is some theory or something somewhere that states that as the size of the economy increases the rate of its innovations would have to increase exponentially to sustain it. I also think though that the side effect is that the populations growth rate of that economy would eventually flatten out. Might be worth a google.

Basically google scaling and power laws because I'm pretty sure the relationships stem from econophysics. Sorry, if this is being vague, memory is a fickle thing.:(

Pembily

Malty_T wrote: »

Cool, the reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure there is some theory or something somewhere that states that as the size of the economy increases the rate of its innovations would have to increase exponentially to sustain it. I also think though that the side effect is that the populations growth rate of that economy would eventually flatten out. Might be worth a google.

Basically google scaling and power laws because I'm pretty sure the relationships stem from econophysics. Sorry, if this is being vague, memory is a fickle thing.:(

You are right and it was Dr Clive Beggs and Dr Tim Flannery who said it, can also be seen from the figures the more people you have the more you try and educate them (Knowledge Economy) and better the country - increased capital spending - increased energy use!!! The more you give someone the more they want!!

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

China has tried this with it's one child policy, and it's politicially unacceptable in the west...

It’s not politically unacceptable, it’s just unnecessary. What would Ireland (for example) need with a ‘one child policy’?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It really is the elephant in the room to draw attention to the fact that its the increasing world population which is the issue...

No it isn’t – unsustainable living, combined with a fear that the third world may also someday attain our unsustainable lifestyle, is the issue. The solution? Make our lifestyles in the developed world more sustainable.

The problem is, the general public don’t want to accept that there’s anything wrong with how we currently do things. Go tell the public that they need to eat more chocolate to combat climate change and you can be quite sure that the figures presented in the OP will look very different.

Pembily wrote: »

Nothing is acceptable anymore... We want a clean green world but still want our 2.4 children, sun holidays and 4x4s!!!

I would be very surprised if, at present, the average Irish woman (for example) is having 2.4 children.

Cunsiderthis

Pembily wrote: »

Feck, I can't figure out how to put it up!!

Its exponential!!! Fossil fuel increased more than population but def notice the increase and link...

Wow, that's very interesting and I have never considered this before. It seems to hint that,as the population increases in India and China the emissions will be even worse than we thought.

is it too corny to say "food for thought"

Cunsiderthis

Pembily wrote: »

I have just done a graph to prove the link between increased population leads to increased energy demands (the ref for that data is again the BP document, and Dr Clive Beggs). As economies grow so too does their energy requirement - which at the minute is nearly 90% fossil fuels!!!

Nothing is acceptable anymore... We want a clean green world but still want our 2.4 children, sun holidays and 4x4s!!!

If we compare our lived to those of our grandparents, our carbon footprints are vastly more than theirs. The only way we can return to a carbon footprint of anything like theirs is if we turn back the clock and turn off our central heating, cancel our foreign holidays, give back the cars and go back to dancing at the crossroads on saturday evenings.

The only way we will realistically get back to their level of carbon footprint is through technological advances, assuming the come about.

It will be the same for the grandchildren in Chain and India as their lives become more and mroe carbon dependant than their forebears, and as their populations continue to explode.

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Wow, that's very interesting and I have never considered this before. It seems to hint that,as the population increases in India and China the emissions will be even worse than we thought.

Not necessarily. My memory of this is really hazy and my googling skills are failing me drastically (I've found a book by Mr Biggs, but not really found this theory bit yet). If it's the thing I'm thinking of then you've a system whereby each generations number of innovations is exponentially increasing meaning new science and technologies. The relationship Pembily is referring to is purely of Energy, it doesn't necessarily have to be fossil fuels and if the underlying principle that I recall is correct the number of innovations in the Energy Sector should also increase exponentially per generation. Meaning, China might not even have fossil fuels as their primary economy. Also, I do believe that many Chinese car manufacturers are setting themselves up for the alternate fuels car industry.

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

Not necessarily. My memory of this is really hazy and my googling skills are failing me drastically (I've found a book by Mr Biggs, but not really found this theory bit yet). If it's the thing I'm thinking of then you've a system whereby each generations number of innovations is exponentially increasing meaning new science and technologies. The relationship Pembily is referring to is purely of Energy, it doesn't necessarily have to be fossil fuels and if the underlying principle that I recall is correct the number of innovations in the Energy Sector should also increase exponentially per generation. Meaning, China might not even have fossil fuels as their primary economy. Also, I do believe that many Chinese car manufacturers are setting themselves up for the alternate fuels car industry.

I wonder what they want from their 50 plus new coal fired electricity plants per year?

Pembily

djpbarry wrote: »

I would be very surprised if, at present, the average Irish woman (for example) is having 2.4 children.

I don't know what the numbers are - but alot of people want children in a world saturated with people!!! The average Irish woman may be having less but in other parts of the world they are having more!! My main point was similar to yours that we want to keep everything the way we have it yet keep our world alive for our grandchildren!!! It's not possible - we must change - ALL OF US!!

Malty_T wrote: »

Not necessarily. My memory of this is really hazy and my googling skills are failing me drastically (I've found a book by Mr Biggs, but not really found this theory bit yet). If it's the thing I'm thinking of then you've a system whereby each generations number of innovations is exponentially increasing meaning new science and technologies. The relationship Pembily is referring to is purely of Energy, it doesn't necessarily have to be fossil fuels and if the underlying principle that I recall is correct the number of innovations in the Energy Sector should also increase exponentially per generation. Meaning, China might not even have fossil fuels as their primary economy. Also, I do believe that many Chinese car manufacturers are setting themselves up for the alternate fuels car industry.

Sorry to clarify - its acutually energy - 90% of this energy is fossil fuels... Chinas primary source of power is from Fossil Fuels!! Japan is the same - imports over 90% of their energy (fossil fuels) just like Ireland!!

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I wonder what they want from their 50 plus new coal fired electricity plants per year?

To power the amazing electric cars just like the ESB have!!!

bonkey

[QUOTE=Pembily;64380447The average Irish woman may be having less but in other parts of the world they are having more!!
[/quote]

My main point was similar to yours that we want to keep everything the way we have it yet keep our world alive for our grandchildren!!! It's not possible - we must change - ALL OF US!![/QUOTE]
As already pointed out, there is a fairly consistent inverse relationship between family size and carbon footprint.

Take the average developed-world family. They tend to have a larger carbon footprint and fewer children then the average developing world family, who in turn have the same relationship with the third world.

Within developed nations, we also see the same pattern, broadly speaking. The wealthier tend to have more affluent lifestyles and fewer children then the less wealthy.

bonkey

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Having said that, I'd rather live with our lazy and incompetent media here than the media in Zimbabwe or China etc.

Oh, don't get me wrong...my comments weren't necessarily a critique of our media...more of those who blindly accept what they are fed.

Its ironic that, as you point out, we have a vastly freer press, but so many people are slaves to whatever message they are sold.....but this isn't really a Green Issue

Cunsiderthis

bonkey wrote: »

Oh, don't get me wrong...my comments weren't necessarily a critique of our media...more of those who blindly accept what they are fed.

Its ironic that, as you point out, we have a vastly freer press, but so many people are slaves to whatever message they are sold.....but this isn't really a Green Issue

It's an interesting topic alright, althought the flaw is that, while we might not think we are influenced by what the media tells us, I imagine we are more influenced than we might like to realise. Come to think of it, that might be an interesting topic for a new thread.

I also wonder if, on the subject of this thread, if it matters where the opinion polls find the beliefs of us all at a particular time, regarding climate change and mans influence on it? Presumably, the politicians will just follow the herd as they do on most subjects, so that means if the majority of us don't believe that either its happening, or that man can do anything about it, then the politicians will be less inclined to do anything a bout it ( ie tax us all into oblivion).

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If we compare our lived to those of our grandparents, our carbon footprints are vastly more than theirs.

As a nation, probably. But, is our quality of life vastly greater than theirs? Is there a direct relationship between quality of life and energy consumed? For example, energy consumption per capita in the US is about twice what it is in the UK – does the average British person only enjoy half the quality of life enjoyed by the average American?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I wonder what they want from their 50 plus new coal fired electricity plants per year?

Electricity, presumably?

Cunsiderthis

bonkey wrote: »

Within developed nations, we also see the same pattern, broadly speaking. The wealthier tend to have more affluent lifestyles and fewer children then the less wealthy.

I suppose the concern might be that, as the poorer nations like India keep having many more children, as as their populations strive to adopt the western lifestyle, the increase both in population and in the carbon footprint per head of (rapidly increading) population is going to add together to suggest that the total world emissions are unlikely to decrease and ar more likely to increase. Especially when one considers that India & China together ( just two developing countries) currently comprise of almost 20% of the worlds population.

In the meantime, we still keep driving to the bottle banks in our SUV's and 4X4's, while leaving the lights and central heating on at home, suggesting that we are less esrious about reducing our own emissions that we might like to pretend.

Mahatma coat

but its generally only a population spike in most developed countrys, theres an initial drop in infant mortalatity due to improved healthcare, but then contraception and economic circumstance provide the opportunity for 2.4 kids alobeit from a larger base than the originl but a spike nine the less

Cunsiderthis

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but its generally only a population spike in most developed countrys, theres an initial drop in infant mortalatity due to improved healthcare, but then contraception and economic circumstance provide the opportunity for 2.4 kids alobeit from a larger base than the originl but a spike nine the less

Whatever about developed/less developed countries, the population is set to increase to +-20 billion by 2070, which is an increase of over 13 billion from where it is now, or an increase of +-200%, much of which will be in the developing nations.

Even if the developing nations don;t increase their carbon footrpint per head of population, that's a huge increase in the carbon footprint of the world.

If the developing nations do increase their footprint per head of population ( which seems to be their goal as they strive to attain the western style lifestyle), then that appears to be an extra 13 billion ( twice the current population of the world) all adding more and more greenhouse gases to the mixture.

Sandvich

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The fact that you attack the messenger, and not what he says, or the substantive argument, is illuminating.

Interestingly, you don;t mention what you judge had happened to Pachuari's credibility or the credibility of the IPCC, based on the evidence.

What, like every climate "skeptic" ever? Please.

Sandvich

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Of course that's true, and I think much of our media is lazy and incompetent. That's largely why I don't have a tv as I found tv news to be impossible to watch, as it had beceom more like a revolving sun newspaper, full of the doings of celebrities desperate to be in the headlines, guided by pr and spin agencies, and with little substance. Even the print media seems to do little more than repeat handouts from pr agencies, and the standards of journalism are poor.

Having said that, I'd rather live with our lazy and incompetent media here than the media in Zimbabwe or China etc.

Also, one has to extract from the media what facts we can, and one thing which seems apparent is that the IPCC is less that scrupulous in it's pronouncements. While the opinion polls have little direct bearing on the position, they are the one thing that will make politicians of all colours take note, and if the polls swing against the climate change industry, we can also expect our politicians to suddenly take a more sceptical view in the rush to suck up to the majority of the electorate.

You do realise that the IPCC and the CRU are not the only two groups collecting information on this?

There is a greater than 95% consensus among climatologists actively researching the subject.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Here's a nice list:

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Coral Reef Society
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Federation of American Scientists
• Geological Society of America
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• The Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organisations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

• African Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• Madagascar's National Academy of Arts
• Letters and Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
• Zambia Academy of Sciences
• Sudan Academy of Sciences

But hey don't get actual stats get in the way of your ****.

djpbarry

Sandvich wrote: »

You do realise that the IPCC and the CRU are not the only two groups collecting information on this?

Not on this thread please - we have other threads on the science of climate change if you wish to contribute to them.

Sandvich wrote: »

But hey don't get actual stats get in the way of your ****.

And less of that please.

Mahatma coat

So, To clarify, we can discuss the Scientists Becoming more Sceptical, but we cant discuss the things which have led to the scientists becoming more sceptical