In 1950, 30% of the land on Earth was covered in forest. What do you think the figure is now? Please don't look for the answer yet, just have a guess. Answer later.
Another thread has made me think of this, and I apologise if it seems slightly off-topic, but if you're interested in being able to spout facts to destroy the Greenies' arguments, you could do far worse than invest in a copy of "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
It's written by a Danish statistics professor, Bjorn Lomborg (ex-member of Greenpeace) who set his students a project to prove that the environment was indeed getting worse. He wanted to refute an article written by an American that said Green arguments were rubbish. Much to his surprise, his students found the "wrong" result, so he wrote the book.
Using the same statistics as the Greens, he proves that in all measureable aspects, the world is in a better state than ever, e.g. with larger known reserves of every mineral and element than there was 20 years ago. The poverty gap between rich nations and poor nations is smaller than ever, as well.
And the forest figure? It's now 31%. Not what you were expecting, I suppose.
|
|
The ABD website (www.abd.org.uk) has some interesting stuff on this too, in its 'Environment' section. Includes a link to a Sunday Times article which points out that global warming remains an unproven and very shaky theory, and indeed one which is seriously doubted by many eminent scientists.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but you fail to realise that when this 'government' says that cars are the biggest polluters (not buses or power stations), cars cause ALL accidents because we are all irresponsible maniacs and ANY speed greater than 30mph is guaranteed to 'kill a child' (much hand-wringing at this point), they are absolutely right. Don't argue, our Wonderful Messiah has spoken, so it must be true......
|
|
|
Heartily agree with your sentiments, Vin. Environmentalism is the new religon, based on myths, half-truths and downright lies. In my lifetime we have been heading for a new ice-age, then a warming of the planet which has been blamed for both the long dry periods of the eighties and the wet weather of recent years. You can't win with these nutters, any climate change will be blamed on technology.
Incidently, there are no rain forests in Wales, so how come it never stops raining?
|
Tom Shaw wrote:
>
> Incidently, there are no rain forests in Wales, so how come
> it never stops raining?
Being a closet fan of Anne Robinson I know I'm going to get crucified for this, but.......... as long as its only raining on the Welsh, who cares.
|
|
|
|
I must diasgree, There is no doubt that weather patterns are changing.
Yes they have done so in the past but these changes have taken place over thousands of years in many cases.
Recent weather changes are taking place over 25 years which is just a millisecond in the life of this planet, and must be attributed to mankind and almost certainly to the burning of fossil fuels.
Other parts of the world are seeing it more severely, for instance Cyprus 15/20 years ago had rivers running and resovoirs full of water.
Today they are empty and rivers don't run. De-salination plants are the main water source.
And yes you will always find eminent scientists who disagree with the majority and are quoted by the ones who wish them to be correct.
Remember when smoking was found to be a serious health hazard in the sixties. I recall many eminent scientists on TV chat shows scoffing at this new research discovery, and how many smokers used to quote these experts as proof that they shouldn't give up.
These eminent!! scientists appear to have disappeared now and its all accepted as fact. I expect the same will happen re: global warming.
Alvin
|
The temperature in the sixteenth centuary was actually higher than it is now, well before cars and factories were emitting any gases into the athmosphere. If you want some interesting insights into variations in the weather, read Phillip Eden on the back of the Telegraph every Saturday. He regularly debunks many of the "facts" spouted by the green lobby, and lapped up by the government who delight in a ready made excuse raise taxes on the pretext of doing it to protect us.
Re smoking and cancer, no medical link has ever been established, it is all statistical and ignores those figures which suggest it is not the main cause.
|
Tom, I do read the same article in the telegraph on saturday. But my point of quoting the expert who agrees with your own views is exactly what you are doing now.
The weight of scientific opinion heavily agrees with global warming and whilst the Government is certainly taking advantage of this regarding taxes it dosn't alter what is factual or not. Fifty years ago we used to have thick dense fog regularly in winter with bronchitas and asthma widespread. Enviromental cleanup has removed this hazard which was primarily caused by factory chimneys and other industry practises of the time.
In some Cities of the world we see smog caused by the internal combustion engine forcing residents to wear breathing filters. Much as we love our cars we should recognise that they do create problems to our planet.
Alvin
|
|
|
The problem with tree argument is that we have chopped down hardwoods broadleaf trees and replaced them with softwoods with needle leaves these trees absorb very little c02 and absorb vast ammounts of water and they are in the wrong place .They are required where the Gulf stream hits the south american continent not in north europe.As long as you chop trees down in South America and do not replace them the weather patters will change.
EL NINO
|
|
But El Nno is nothing to do with the Global warming hypothesis. EL Nino does cause warming just as La Nina causes cooling but are nothing to do with the enhanced greenhouse effect (which doesn't exist)
|
|
|
|
Well said Tom,
As I have said before, having looked at this this Global Warming nonsense for two years, the earth is not heating up. The whole myth depends on the atmosphere warming due to excess heat being trapped by enhanced amounts of greenhouse gases.
Therefore, if the atmoshphere is not warming, the whole thory falls over.
See the actual temperatures of the atmosphere here.
www.john-daly.com/ Takes a while to load but bursting with info.
I also have an e-mail direct from one of the lead authors of the IPCC report which says that the scenarios which show the greatest amount of warming
were "forced into the report at a late stage by a few Governments"
Part reads.......
"Scenario A1F1 was included late in the IPCC processes. This requires CO2 emissions to go from 7 Gtn per year in 1990 to 24 Gtn in 2050 and 29 by 2080. Also, the alleged cooling effect of SO2 is to be reduced in the 21st century (thus the simple model is given a lot of "warming" forcing and less "cooling" forcing and to no one's surprise, the temperature skyrockets).
Note: U.S. per capita emissions of CO2 have been level for 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
"The weight of scientific opinion heavily agrees with global warming and whilst the Government is certainly taking advantage of this regarding taxes it dosn't alter what is factual or not."
Around 2,000 tax raising government "scientific" advisers agree with global warming, and the papers love their disaster scenarios.
Around 20,000 climate related scientists, led by the guy who set up the US weather satelite service, and developed the equipment used to measure the ozone layer, say that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
But that doesn't sell papers, or raise taxes for that matter (or pay the salaries of global warming researchers!).
There was an interesting study of a couple of articles that appeared in a scientific journal a while back.
One preliminary study by a junior researcher which hinted that it might support global warming soon appeared in papers around the world.
The other, by a leading scientist in his field, published after full peer review, appearing as the cover article, and praised by the editors, was only picked up by ONE newspaper in the whole world!
Mind you, it didn't support global warming.
|
|
|
|
I don't follow too many of the facts and figures but I know that in NZ you just can't sit in the sun for more than 15 minutes without being burnt, uPVC lasts about 5 yrs before disintegrating..put down largely to that darned lack of ozone caused by what..us and what we do and want...so enjoy your sun batheing in this part of the world while you can because it's coming to a country near you soon.
|
Ozone hole coming to us? No chance.
Check what the British Antarctic Survey say on this?
|
|
|
|
One important point that most people in the "global warming" lobby tend to keep quiet about is that CO2 isn't the worst "greenhouse gas". It turns out that water vapour is the worst culprit.
So what are we going to do? Dry up all the oceans?
One final thought. Research funding is hard to come by today. What's the best way to guarantee funding? Jump on the global warming bandwagon!
Andy
|
All the above yet again goes to show that NOBODY REALLY KNOWS.
The real nasty is not the alleged eco stuff nobody can agree on but the kneejerk, hidden-agenda legislation against personal freedoms that are slipped in there by the guilt police in the name of Nanny's half-proven, half-baked, half-cocked theories. Now that's eco-terrorism of the most insidious kind.
And we let 'em do it. More fool us.
|
|
|
|
Exactly. There have already been cases of scientists having their funding stopped for saying " Whats the problem?"
|
|
|
|
Water vapour? What do you get if you warm the planet up? More water vapour. Predicting what will happen when you mess with a system as complicated as the earth's ecology is almost impossible. Just look at how many frustrating faults you can find (and cause) on a relatively simple system like a car. The only sure thing is that if you make a change, there will be consequences, and if you make a big change the consequences will be big. We've used over half the oil ever discovered in the last thirty years, and released all the carbon into the atmosphere. So how big a change is that?
Do you keep on doing something that will have consequences just because you don't know exactly what those consequences will be? Darwin award over here, please.
Chris
|
And more water vapour equals more rain so where are the droughts coming from?
The only known effect of extra CO2 in the skies is enhanced plant growth.
Please look at the facts and actual temperature readings and don't take notice of silly computer models which are not even able to predict the present climate when fed historical information.
Did you know that the last IPCC report produced 245 different possible outcomes starting from "no change" to the one all the newspapers report.
|
|
|
|
Spend £14.36 on the book at Amazon, then spout off at will. I should point out that I came to the book feeling as much eco-guilt as the next man.
Lest you think he's some kind of propagandist, look at my original posting as to what he set out to prove. Also, if you'd all read the book, you'd know that there are well over 2000 fottnotes stating where you can get the information on which he's based the book. Check his facts. Read his arguments. Disagree if you wish; I did on some points. Those of you who have knee-jerk disagreed with his conclusions should perhaps read the book first. Or just read the summary on Amazon. Or read the Guardian's (negative) review of it. At least make a pretence of knowing something about what he writes before attacking it.
As to global warming, he agrees that something is happening. However, he points out that if a report comes out stating that the Earth's temp may rise by 0.25deg to 10deg over the next hundred years, the only figure that ever gets mentioned is the limit 10deg rise. He also makes the point that economic forces will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions, as we're becoming massively more efficient in our use of energy through capitalism at work. Additionally, renewable energy (wind, solar, etc) will become our prime source of energy this century. Not because of the Green lobby, but because it's essentially free.
Finally, the Amazon rianforest soaks up NO CO2. Once a forest is in equilibrium, it is CO2 neutral. As fast as trees are growing and absorbing carbon, trees are dying, rotting, and releasing it. So, provided the old forests are being used for "storage" of CO2, such as furniture, building, etc (rather than rotting), the net effect is to REDUCE the CO2 in the atmosphere. A new pine forest soaks up CO2 more than old, established forest. Please note that I'm NOT saying that destroying rainforests is a good thing, just that when you're told they are the lungs of the world, it ain't so.
You really should read the book - and no, I'm not paid by the publisher.
Vin
|
Vin,
In case you missed it above, please look at www.john-daly.com/
All the facts you will ever need are there, including a mention of Lombargs book AND the lack of temperature rise is shown graphically from satellite readings over the last 22 years.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
I can't help feeling that, in focusing purely on exhaust emissions, some environmentalists are missing the point. The real problem is the modern tendency to buy huge quantities of manufactured stuff, mistreat it, then throw it away after a short time and buy even more stuff to replace it. Rampant consumerism has created an atmosphere in which we feel we 'must have' the latest new products, and increased general prosperity means we can afford them. The biggest environmental problems associated with the motor car, as I understand it, relate to its manufacture and disposal, rather than its lifetime use. But how many people would buy a new car, look after it properly and keep it for 20 years? All your neighbours would think you were weird, and the constant bombardment of cunning advertising from the manufacturers (and their allies in the motoring press) would make you think you were missing out on all the latest 'enhancements'. Plus the Green lobby try to make you feel guilty for continuing to drive a car that doesn't meet the latest exhaust emission standards, and the safety Nazis threaten to have your children taken into care because you aren't surrounding them with enough airbags.
So you buy a brand new car every 2-3 years: your old car falls into the hands of someone who can't or won't maintain it properly, and within 10 years (half its potential useful life) it is in the scrapyard. The car manufacturers are happy, the Government is happy (VAT at 17.5% on every new car sold), the Greens are happy (because they couldn't recognise an environmental disaster if it jumped up and bit them, plus they enjoy driving their children 500 yards to school in a giant people carrier as much as anyone, and by focusing purely on exhaust emissions they can argue that their brand new monster MPV is a friend of the earth).
I don't see an easy solution to this one.
|
I wonder when the enviro-freaks are going to admit that the fumes which come out of their heating boilers are the same as the fumes that come from car tail pipes.
Indoor pollution is 10 times greater than outdoors according to the Buildings Research Establishment.
Carbon dioxide is GOOD. Bigger cabbages.
|
|
|
|
In the past the Greens have told us:
Oil reserves will run out by 1995. Current known reserves 60 odd years. Shale oil reserves 5000 years. Also see previous comment on Solar energy.
We'd run out of copper by 2003. Bigger known reserves than ever
The earth was in for a new Ice age. No we weren't. Same figures used as to prove global warming.
Overpopulation would starve the world. Calorie consumption in the developing world up 34% in past couple of decades..
We would be the only species left on the planet by 2010 (really!)
Brent Spa had several hundreds of tons of deadly waste inside (remember the boycott of Shell stations?) Turns out it was under 100lb of minor contaminants (according to Greenpeace themselves).
These are just the ones I can remember without any effort. Why do we go on believing them? More to the point, why do they go on saying it? Perhaps because their organisations' survival depends upon continuing to find scares with which to terrify the population and keep their coffers full.
Vin
|
Vin
I did a quick search on Google and came up with this from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. It's part of a report which identifies very high levels of Platinum and Palladium (both Cat metals) in Boston Harbour. Note the bit where it says "some portion of these metals may be chamically mobile" and "potential for accumulation within marine [and therefore presumably land-based] organisms".(www.whoi.edu/media/acs.tuit.html):
Unlike other metals influenced by human activity, such as lead and mercury, the chemical behavior and possible toxicity of platinum and palladium in the marine environment is largely unknown. The bulk concentration data presented in this study indicate that some portion of these metals may be chemically mobile. Simple platinum compounds, among them the cancer drug cisplatin, are capable of diffusing into the cell membrane, binding to cell DNA and preventing cell replication. They produce serious side effects and their palladium analogues are generally too toxic to use.
?To our knowledge, no one knows the chemical form of Pt and Pd in the environment,? Tuit says. ?Toxicity studies on these metals were conducted at levels much higher than those seen in these sediments, but given the widespread dispersal of Pt and Pd to the environment and the potential for accumulation within marine organisms, known as bioaccumulation, there may be long term toxicological and ecological effects. At this point, we simply do not have the data to determine whether these levels are dangerous.?
As I said in the other thread, cats are a quick fix. It's not good enough to think we've solved the problem.
Chris
|
It's all swings and roundabouts.
You make catalysts to clean up car exhausts, but no mention is made of the process required to dig the stuff out of the ground, refine it, then make it into a catalyst.
Electric cars are fine, but nobody ever points out that you need a coal-fired power station to generate the electricity in the first place.
By now, everyone should have realised that whatever some "expert" says, it will always be skewed by their own agenda.
Why bother?
Andy
|
Andy P wrote:
> Electric cars are fine, but nobody ever points out that you
> need a coal-fired power station to generate the electricity
> in the first place.
Yup, but the advantage is that it's easier to clean up a powerstation than it is to clean up millions of private cars, many of which are months if not years from a service, don't work as intended, and are replaced too frequently. Problem is, it's also very expensive for government, and government expenditure is all too visible to taxpayers who don't want to contribute. This environmental thing is all about a wholesale reorganisation of the way we do things - finding a better balance between cars and public transport, making shopping centres more accessible to railways, rather than just cars etc. When was the last time you saw an industrial estate built with its own (freight) rail line? Why do we continue to build new housing estates that are only accessible by car - why not give people the choice, at least?
> By now, everyone should have realised that whatever some
> "expert" says, it will always be skewed by their own agenda.
Actually I thought my Woods Hole example was quite balanced. They admit they don't know, and they admit that toxicity trials have been at higher levels. Sounds pretty honest to me.
Chris
|
|
|
We need to bother because we are being lied to and sacrificed on a mad green altar.
We are told windfarms will save the planet but the amount of energy they produce is too little to make any difference. Fill the countryside with turbines and not one power station will shut down.
In 1998, with 870 turbines in UK, they produced 0.07% of our requirements
(DTI Energy in Brief)
The climate levy is already costing industry £200 million in taxes. This is passed on to us and empties our wallets for no environmental gain whatsoever
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
"the chemical behavior and possible toxicity of platinum and palladium in the marine environment is largely unknown"
The effect of unburnt hydrocarbons *is* known.
In what way does this refute my argument? (which was on another thread, by the way).
|
vin wrote:
> The effect of unburnt hydrocarbons *is* known.
>
> In what way does this refute my argument? (which was on
> another thread, by the way).
It doesn't Vin, and wasn't intended to. But you sounded to me like you were extolling the virtues of CATs to the exclusion of their many failings. It's no good replacing (if that's what they do) a known risk with an unknown but suspected one. Far better I think to try to eliminate the original risk at source. CATs have helped delay the development of lean-burn technology and alternative fuels by convincing governments and the public that CAT-equipped cars are clean. But putting the lid on the bin doesn't stop the contents stinking, unfortunately.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Alwyn,
I understand what you're saying, but renewable sources WILL end up producing most of our energy. Not because of the Greens, but because once built (and it takes about 6mths working to pay back the energy used to create them) they are basically free to run. And there is already a project in progress to put wind farms out in the Irish Sea, so the amount of space available is limitless.
More realistically we have solar power. At today's efficiency, 600 miles square would supply the world's energy needs. They are getting more and more efficient and cheaper and cheaper - capitalism at work - so they will eventually do the whole job. These truly will revolutionise the supply of power - Japan is looking at making it mandatory to use them as roof tiles. Couple them with water splitting and fuel cells for energy storage purposes and hey presto, energy problems solved.
So, rejoice, the future IS bright; ignore the doomsayers and live in belief in the future of the planet.
Sorry if I slipped in proselytising there.
Vin
PS, Chris, with your worries, you really should read the book and judge the effects of "rampant consumerism", which has been to improve the quality of life for everyone on the planet in every measurable way.
|
Vin
Sorry, but wind farms etc are not free to run. The 'fuel' is free, but that's not the whole story.
The economics are that you've laid out the capital cost of the plant up front. Then, over the working lifetime the plant owner has recover that, pay maintenance and operating costs (labour, insurance, repairs etc) and make a profit. Maintenace can be expensive as major replacements eg blades are often required after maybe 10 years. Because the capital costs of the plant are much higher than conventional plant (in terms of £/kW) then the cost of electricity from such schemes is barely competitive with conventional sources, and a much riskier investment.
Similar arguments apply to solar and wave power, both of which have extremely high capital costs, and currently are simply not cost competitive.
I'm not saying that enewables won't make a contribution, but please don't indicate they are cheap, easy, or currently realistic substitutes for the conventional power stations.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
John,
I'm not saying they are substitutes at the moment, witness my experiences ref solar power panels for my roof - over 100 years to pay back the capital cost, i.e. not even covering the interest.
What I am saying is that as time passes, they will become substitutes. Solar cells are becoming more and more efficient while becoming cheaper and cheaper, so the up front cost declines accordingly relative to the return. Market forces will eventually win the battle.
I accept there is a running cost but there is for any form of power I can think of. The raw material is free, though, and needs no processing.
HOWEVER. As soon as it does become significantly more cost effective, you'd better accept that it will be taxed as heavily as it can be without quite destroying its advantage over other sources of energy. We never get a free ride.
Vin
|
|
All this pollution we are breathing in; makes you wonder how we have become the healthiest, longest living race in the history of the planet. I think the problem is that we have so little to worry about, we have to invent it.
|
|
|
Vin
I'm right with you on the solar roof point. I'm currently investigating having photovoltaic roof tiles fitted on my house. The new roof will come to 10K, including all the gubbins to "sell" power to the grid. That's a lot (and I can't quite afford it, despite the possibility of a lower-rate "green mortgage"), but it's not a great lot when you consider that over the course of a year I would be a net exporter of energy to the grid (average-sized house in the north). One problem is that the denationalised power industry will pay me the same for my "green" energy as it pays coal power stations. On the continent (Germany, for example) governments make sure those with solar roofs are paid more for the energy they sell than they pay for the energy they buy, which makes the whole business more attractive.
As for my worries, well, I just think it's a bad idea to cover up problems rather than solving them. And I don't happen to think capitalism has to work that way, it's just that it does at the moment.
And Alwyn, you'll find "enviro-freaks" are just as bothered about heating, industry and other kinds of pollution as they are about cars. The green lobby is one reason why house builders make more efficient houses these days, and why you can get grants for updating your C/H boiler. That's not a million miles from getting a tax break for using a smaller car, is it?
Chris
|
Chris
Strange that the 'greens' concerns about global warming have blind spot about nuclear power isn't it? Virtually zero gaseous emissions, with mining for the uranium ore as the major downside.
As for builders, except in a few highprofile cases, Building Regulations are what drive interest in energy efficiency.
regards
john
|
John Slaughter wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> Strange that the 'greens' concerns about global warming have
> blind spot about nuclear power isn't it? Virtually zero
> gaseous emissions, with mining for the uranium ore as the
> major downside.
>
> As for builders, except in a few highprofile cases, Building
> Regulations are what drive interest in energy efficiency.
I quite agree about nuclear power, but some of the stories I hear from a friend of mine in the HSE make me wonder about the way nuclear power stations are run just now. As for building regs, they change because people put pressure on councils and governments. But it doesn't always work. Just up the road from here is a new development built in the gardens of some big old houses. We argued it would be impossible for a fire engine to get in, and the builder said access would be improved. Was it? No. Can a fire engine get in? Not if the removals vans are anything to go by. I think you'd struggle squeezing a Fiat Multipla in there actually - the council will probably claim the access "road" as a cycle path.
Chris
> regards
>
> john
|
|
|
|
Vin
Renewables may become competitive, but they must not be seen a cheap just because the fuel is 'free'. Your solar panels are the classic example, but a couple of your posts have used the 'free fuel' as an argument. After all coal and oil are free - it's extracting them that costs money.
It's generally believed that renewables will take over when coal, oil and gas become too expensive. However, that's thought to be when reserves get low. Problem is that reserves will depend for some considerable time on how much you're prepared to pay to extract them. Inflation itself increases 'reserves'. Also, my theory is if I ran an oil company that had known reserves of 30 years (a huge time horizon for a business), there would be no business case for spending money extending that to 40 or 50 years.
Fuel prices are fixed by both the market and taxation. That's why fossil fuel prices didn't go through the roof in the various 'crises' we've seen, despite the dire predictions. OPEC are running a business and are not daft. To extract maximum value from the commodity, fossil fuels prices need to be kept just below the cost of alternatives.
Had they gone up as dramatically as was forecast, then there would have been an incentive to move toward other energy sources. Oil sales would have slumped, and that would have been no use to oil producing countries.
The other tack that hasn't been mentioned is energy efficiency. The government pays lip service, but has only very recently improved the insulation standards required in new buildings, and not by much. This avenue should be explored more thoroughly, as it is easy to achieve, costs relatively little, and brings benefits for the life of the house. Given that domestic heating uses as much energy as transport, one wonders why there is the emphasis on trnasport, and a total unwillingness to even apply the full rate of VAT on domestic fuel. This would surely be an incentive for householders to improve the energy efficiency of their houses.
No, it's easier to target motorists and to foist catalytic convertors on them and ignore emission reductions by other methods - principally efficiency improvements. But since when did Government really have an energy policy, or indulge in joined up thinking?
Am I sounding cynical?
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
Nuclear power. Now there's an odd one. There is more radioactivity in the output from a large coal-fired power station than from Sizewell B. Why? Because the coal contains small quantities of radioactive materials that fly straight out of the chimney after the coal is burnt. No effort is made to stop them, unlike nuclear power stations.
Read the book, by all means with a critical eye, then see what your views are. It would tell you, for instance that we have over 60 years of known oil reserves.
And, on a tangent, what a great argument the old "x years of reserves of" is.... Look in my fridge, and you'll find that my reserves of food are around a week or so. The greens would tell me that means I'm going to begin to starve in eight days. I would say "no, I'm off to Tesco for some more food".
Look in my fridge and there'll always be around a week of food in there on average. There'll always be fifty or so years of oil reserves for the same reason, and as John Slughter rightly points out, if not, the price will change until it's worth looking for new reserves.
Anyway, I've now had enough of this.
Vin
|
|
|
