Yours truly to be the voice of the Climate Change Skeptic

Soddball · 20-12-2006, 03:15 PM

Got a call today from Sarah Mukherjee at the Beeb, they'd like to talk to me about climate change skepticism on one of next week's Radio 4 Today programmes (they have guest editors for Christmas week and the Archbishop of Canterbury's one is on climate change). I'm looking for some useful information on:

Global pollution levels and how much our nation contributes to it;

The different 'greenhouse gases' and their relative effects;

UK pollution creators - broken down by business sector or group. Specifically, anything you can find on public sector greenhouse gas contribution would be valuable.

Efficacy or otherwise of sustainable resources, specifically advantages or otherwise of wind power, solar power, wave power.

If you chaps can point me to some good websites, that would be much appreciated. They're coming to see me on Wednesday.

If possible, no "OMFG TEH CILMATT CHAGNE PEOPLE ARE TEH DEVIL IT IS ALL A CON!!!!1111!!" websites please. I need balanced information that I can cross-reference, not conspiracy sites whose primary premise is 'God told me so.'

Don't get too excited. I reckon I'll get about 15 seconds. If I can get a few points in about how evil the government is, believe me I will.

mkpdavies · 20-12-2006, 03:37 PM

Use these sites

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JS...s_iv_ctrl=1221
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org

mkpdavies · 20-12-2006, 03:44 PM

If you can't be arsed to read, then watch this video

http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/FOS_INTRO.wmv
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_2.wmv
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_3.wmv
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_4.wmv
http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_5b.wmv

C_steam · 20-12-2006, 04:24 PM

or at least quote david bellamy:-

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Soddball · 20-12-2006, 06:35 PM

The problem that I've got is that there's no way I can possibly cover the world's information about actual climate change. And there's so many differing interpretations about it that I'd be wasting my time. Reams and reams of websites simply reiterating complex details about climate change are no use.

What I hope to do is point out the futility of the current approach to dealing with climate change. There are serious issues surrounding the way that we treat the world in which we live, and I think that climate change is obfuscating them.

I want to specifically address the pollution generated by some sections of the economy that are ignored, to indicate that the government's motivation is not environmental but tax-raising. I also want to look at the reliability and efficacy of microgeneration and ask why the government is failing to drive these. I also plan to lead into overpopulation.

That's why I want to know if anyone has links to good sites on the specific issues in my first post. Thanks if you've got anything.

Besoeker · 20-12-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Use these sites

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JS...s_iv_ctrl=1221
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org

If you want to promote one side of the debate.
I particularly liked this:

Quote:

The actual report does not provide a valid scientific basis for global warming, nor does it show a scientific consensus on the issue," said Robert Tracinski, also a columnist for Creators Syndicate. "This alleged consensus on global warming is a rerun of a government fraud manufactured every few years. Here's how it works:

A government panel asks many scientists to submit their views on global warming--including global-warming dissenters.

The scientists' views are spelled out in a massive report--a report whose size and scientific minutiae assure that no one will ever read it.

Besoeker · 20-12-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soddball

The problem that I've got is that there's no way I can possibly cover the world's information about actual climate change. And there's so many differing interpretations about it that I'd be wasting my time. Reams and reams of websites simply reiterating complex details about climate change are no use.

What I hope to do is point out the futility of the current approach to dealing with climate change. There are serious issues surrounding the way that we treat the world in which we live, and I think that climate change is obfuscating them.

I want to specifically address the pollution generated by some sections of the economy that are ignored, to indicate that the government's motivation is not environmental but tax-raising. I also want to look at the reliability and efficacy of microgeneration and ask why the government is failing to drive these. I also plan to lead into overpopulation.

That's why I want to know if anyone has links to good sites on the specific issues in my first post. Thanks if you've got anything.

The problem, as you rightly point out, is that specific sites are generally not too good at giving an overview and it needs a lot of detailed work to get to factual conclusions.

Anyway, the only point I am somewhat qualified to comment on is the efficacy of sustainable sources.
So far, it is p1ssing in the wind. No pun intended.
Recently the green light has been given for the largest wind farm in the world. It will be mostly in the Thames Estuary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6188133.stm
I posted elsewhere:

Quote:

It's an ambitious plan and green so thumbs up to that. But again, scale comes into this.
To put it in context, the total output from all 441 units is about 75% of just one of the alternators at Drax. It's said to be on target to be the largest wind farm in the world. Yet it will be capable of supplying about 1% of UK requirements - on average. And that assumes actual output is a bit closer to predictions than that one at Reading that you can see from the M4.

Coincidentally, Westinghouse has recently announced the award of a contract to supply four nuclear reactors to China. Each will produce twice the output of the wind farm projects in Kent/Essex. Construction costs for Westinghouse are estimated at $1200/kW. For the Kent/Essex wind farms it is $7600/kW.

So, 1% of UK requirements from the the largest in the WORLD.
Incidentally, the 1% figure I calculated is the same as Greenpeace put on their website.

mkpdavies · 20-12-2006, 09:08 PM

Sodball,

Can't you just read this out really fast.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

They even give you a neat summary.

Quote:

What are the take-home messages:
The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

That last be is key for me. All this time, effort, freedom and money (ours) being wasted on voodoo, while we have people dying of starvation and a bazillion other real problems facing us.

Besoeker · 21-12-2006, 08:51 PM

[quote="mkpdavies"]
They even give you a neat summary.

Quote:

What are the take-home messages:
The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The difference being?

kernow · 21-12-2006, 11:06 PM

After reading some of the postings here on this subject :shock: , I'm just glad I'm not clever!

20-12-2006, 03:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
Soddball Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 272	Yours truly to be the voice of the Climate Change Skeptic Got a call today from Sarah Mukherjee at the Beeb, they'd like to talk to me about climate change skepticism on one of next week's Radio 4 Today programmes (they have guest editors for Christmas week and the Archbishop of Canterbury's one is on climate change). I'm looking for some useful information on: Global pollution levels and how much our nation contributes to it; The different 'greenhouse gases' and their relative effects; UK pollution creators - broken down by business sector or group. Specifically, anything you can find on public sector greenhouse gas contribution would be valuable. Efficacy or otherwise of sustainable resources, specifically advantages or otherwise of wind power, solar power, wave power. If you chaps can point me to some good websites, that would be much appreciated. They're coming to see me on Wednesday. If possible, no "OMFG TEH CILMATT CHAGNE PEOPLE ARE TEH DEVIL IT IS ALL A CON!!!!1111!!" websites please. I need balanced information that I can cross-reference, not conspiracy sites whose primary premise is 'God told me so.' Don't get too excited. I reckon I'll get about 15 seconds. If I can get a few points in about how evil the government is, believe me I will.

20-12-2006, 03:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	Use these sites http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ http://www.co2science.org http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JS...s_iv_ctrl=1221 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html http://www.friendsofscience.org __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

20-12-2006, 03:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	If you can't be arsed to read, then watch this video http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/FOS_INTRO.wmv http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_2.wmv http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_3.wmv http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_4.wmv http://www.friendsofscience.org/FOS/climate_5b.wmv __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

20-12-2006, 04:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Anwhere far away from the cabalistas Posts: 7,191	or at least quote david bellamy:- "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not. "Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

20-12-2006, 06:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
Soddball Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 272	The problem that I've got is that there's no way I can possibly cover the world's information about actual climate change. And there's so many differing interpretations about it that I'd be wasting my time. Reams and reams of websites simply reiterating complex details about climate change are no use. What I hope to do is point out the futility of the current approach to dealing with climate change. There are serious issues surrounding the way that we treat the world in which we live, and I think that climate change is obfuscating them. I want to specifically address the pollution generated by some sections of the economy that are ignored, to indicate that the government's motivation is not environmental but tax-raising. I also want to look at the reliability and efficacy of microgeneration and ask why the government is failing to drive these. I also plan to lead into overpopulation. That's why I want to know if anyone has links to good sites on the specific issues in my first post. Thanks if you've got anything.

21-12-2006, 11:06 PM	#10 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,612	After reading some of the postings here on this subject :shock: , I'm just glad I'm not clever!