Climate change - how arsed are you?

[Thants]

I'm no expert by means, but a lot of the scientific blurb I've seen seems to say solar activity is the main cause. Also, the 'polar axis' is turning which it does every 100,000 years or so, which causes climate shift, if not change.

 

Also, I've read on a few occasions that the human race is responsible for only about 3% of the planets carbon emmissions.

True, there is a climate cycle but its getting sped up/ altered by us. There was a pleistocene only 10-20,000 years ago after all.

[Stu Monty]

This may be the opposite of what people expect but I'm really not that bothered at all. It's not an issue that I personally can change; not when the US, China, Russia and India couldn't give a flying fuck.

 

I care more about bringing people's quality of life up now than preserving the planet so that they can pass AIDS on for a thousand more generations.

[Wool Woolsson]

Humanity is responsible for 3.4% of the world's CO2 output, the UK is responsible for approximately 2% of that (.0068% of total). We could totally cease all CO2 production tomorrow and it would make fuck all difference. Furthermore there is not one jot of credible evidence that CO2 is a major climate forcing, the Mann 'hockeystick' graph is a statistical artifact, and the algorithm responsible produces hockeysticks 90 odd percent of the time when fed random data. In brief it's all bollox (if you want references to relevant papers they can be provided.)

[Stouffer]

I would love to take public transport to work but as I work 25 miles away from home in a very remote area there is no chance whatsoever. I do car share with three other lads so at least that's something.

 

We use energy saver bulbs and am just about to have cavity insulation in my house. Also our local council are starting to push recycling schemes where wheelie bin collections will be fortnightly instead of the current weekly refuse collection. Garden, cardboard, paper, plastic and glass will be collected in provided bins fortnightly also.

 

It's a good thing to do and takes little time.

[Stouffer]

Humanity is responsible for 3.4% of the world's CO2 output, the UK is responsible for approximately 2% of that (.0068% of total). We could totally cease all CO2 production tomorrow and it would make fuck all difference. Furthermore there is not one jot of credible evidence that CO2 is a major climate forcing, the Mann 'hockeystick' graph is a statistical artifact, and the algorithm responsible produces hockeysticks 90 odd percent of the time when fed random data. In brief it's all bollox (if you want references to relevant papers they can be provided.)

 

Is that a no then?

[Thants]

I blame Chelsea.

[Karl_b]

Do you avoid use of concrete and stuff like that?

 

Question for you, Karl: why, when all these home building shows reveal the wealth of greener, cheaper and more effective new building technologies available, do we still have new construction dominated by the tried, trusted and more expensive (both in financial and green terms)?

 

In general it's more expensive to build eco-friendly and people aren't willing to pay these initial costs. However over the life of a building many of these costs are made up in energy savings etc and more than cover any initial costs. As much as anything, we fear change in this country.

 

We do our bit by trying to push timber frame construcion using wood from sustainable forests, recycled materials, new materials etc. but clients just haven't faced upto the facts yet. Things need to change and quickly.

[Dirk]

Humanity is responsible for 3.4% of the world's CO2 output, the UK is responsible for approximately 2% of that (.0068% of total). We could totally cease all CO2 production tomorrow and it would make fuck all difference. Furthermore there is not one jot of credible evidence that CO2 is a major climate forcing, the Mann 'hockeystick' graph is a statistical artifact, and the algorithm responsible produces hockeysticks 90 odd percent of the time when fed random data. In brief it's all bollox (if you want references to relevant papers they can be provided.)

 

What is the source of your evidence?

[Wool Woolsson]

It's all over the web if you google

This will give you a starter. I believe the referenced papers are available on the web too. (Note this is the product of a 30 second google - do your own to find references both pro and anti AGW, and make your own mind up).

[Dirk]

It's all over the web if you google

This will give you a starter. I believe the referenced papers are available on the web too. (Note this is the product of a 30 second google - do your own to find references both pro and anti AGW, and make your own mind up).

 

I'm not being funny mate but I believe environmental scientists rather than right wing American think tanks that see things in terms of financial cost. I've actually done a bit of reading on this problem but it's not what I'd say a lot. Here's another global warming denier, Bjorn Lomborg, he's an economist, it's funny that.

 

The Sceptical Environmentalist

 

 

 

A quarter of the world's mammal species wiped out, half the world's human population faced with water shortages. The forecast from the United Nations was apocalyptic.

 

It is intended to prepare the ground for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held this September in Johannesburg.

 

Global warming has become more-or-less received wisdom. But at least one environmentalist begs to differ. Nothing more than a voice in the wilderness?

 

Jeremy Paxman interviewed Bjorn Lomborg.

 

Watch the item

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

This is a report based on 30 years of evidence, the work of 1,000 scientist. You are one bloke. Are you saying the report is wrong?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

(Author, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist')

No. Basically, what they say is they list a lot of problems, but they don't actually go in and say: "What should we do?" The real problem in the world is poverty. Basically the pollution problem comes from poverty.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

That is another problem.

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

Well, you know, you look around the world and ask where is the most pollution? Most people think it's in the rich world, right. It's not. It's in the poor world where you don't have money enough to worry even where you're going to get your next meal from. You don't worry about the environment.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

You are comparing apples with oranges. Let's stick with global warming. You accept this is a real phenomenon?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

Yes. Definitely.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Do you accept there are human agencies involved?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

Yes.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Right, why do you dispute the measures to control some of that human behaviour?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

We should not solve the problem if the cost of solving that would be greater than the problem itself. We are basically doing this to help the Third World down the end of the line in 2100. But if we could do better in spending that money - it would be costly to do very little - we should try to do that instead.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

That is an expression of staggering political naivety isn't it? You are saying that America, which produces 25% of the world's pollution, that the American President would be as likely to decree that the vast amounts of money necessary to alleviate global poverty be found by the American taxpayer, as he is in self-interest, to protect his own country from global warming?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

First of all, he is not even signing up to the Kyoto Treaty.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Exactly.

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

It's a moral argument. It's an argument saying, "if we are willing to spend 150-350 billion dollars a year on helping the Third World, let's do it well. Let's do something that works.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

You have accepted that the world is warming up and it's partly the consequence of human behaviour?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

Yes. The point is we can do very little at a very high cost.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

You don't know that.

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

That is something on the other hand we do know. Kyoto will do very little good.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Kyoto is the first step...

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

Yes. If you do even further, it's going to be tremendously expensive. This is not the result of one or a few models.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

The future of the planet is kind of important and the expense is therefore slightly peripheral, isn't it?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

The point is, we are not talking about the end of the world. If we were, then we should go ahead, then no cost would be no bar.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

The big difficulty here is, supposing you are wrong. Supposing you are wrong?

 

BJORN LOMBORG:

I'm not saying that this is a question of me saying, "oh, it's going to be a little problem", I'm saying all of the models have looked at, what will be the costs and benefits. We should do something else. We can actually do a lot more good elsewhere.

 

JEREMY PAXMAN:

Bjorn Lomborg, thank you.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2002184.stm

[Dirk]

Just to add , the National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390 900 in funding from Exxon Mobil since 1998. That's like David Irving being consulted on the holocaust.

 

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55

[Dirk]

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS (NCPA)

 

According to its website, the NCPA is a nonprofit public-policy research institute that receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals.

 

Founding board members included:

 

* Wayne Calloway, President and CEO of Frito-Lay

* Jere Thompson, President and CEO of the Southland Corporation

* Robert Dedman, President and CEO of ClubCorp

* Russell Perry, President and CEO of Republic Financial Services

* Sir Antony Fisher, President and CEO of the Atlas Foundation

 

National Center for Policy Analysis Board of Directors

 

* Thomas W. Smith, Managing Partner of Prescott Investors, Inc.

* John C. Goodman, President, NCPA

* Pete du Pont, Richards, Layton and Finger

* James Cleo Thompson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Thompson Petroleum Corp.

* Jere W. Thompson, President, The Williamsburg Corporation

* Dan W. Cook III, Senior Director of Goldman Sachs & Co.

* Robert H. Dedman, Chairman of the Board, ClubCorp International

* Virginia Manheimer, Trustee, The Hickory Foundation

* Henry J. "Bud" Smith, Chairman Emeritus, Clark/Bardes, Inc.

 

(all of the above is from http://www.ncpa.org; January 15, 2001)

 

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html

[Bob]

In general it's more expensive to build eco-friendly and people aren't willing to pay these initial costs. However over the life of a building many of these costs are made up in energy savings etc and more than cover any initial costs. As much as anything, we fear change in this country.

 

We do our bit by trying to push timber frame construcion using wood from sustainable forests, recycled materials, new materials etc. but clients just haven't faced upto the facts yet. Things need to change and quickly.

 

 

do you beleive that? I work in the contruction industry-ish (Building Services Consultant) and i wont pretend to know the environmental issues relating to building fabric and construction issues, but of the environmental factors of which i am involved i know that most of them are looked at in terms of saving money rather than saving the world. Sustainibility in industry is about looking good to potential buyers or clients, or getting one up on your competitors.

 

Everyone wants wind turbines on commercial development until it is seen that there is a long payback (often none at all) within the life of the turbine. This is sometimes overlooked because it is good to be SEEN to have wind turbines, but no-one ever wants to know the ACTUAL carbon savings of the product. The savings are quite good when first considered, but the manufacture and transport of the system means that the chances of becoming truly carbon neutral are limited.

 

All of this is objective and on a personal level not one of you is going to save the world, together we're not going to save the world, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt be arsed. I personally think that setting a good example to the next generation is the most important thing, and we can only do that by changing ourselved for the better to as big an extent as we can. Firstly by not buying a gas guzzling 4x4 to take the kids to school, secondly by turning the lights off etc, recycling where you can. If its not going to ssave the world it'll save you money so why not.

[Wool Woolsson]

This discusses the algorithmic errors in Mann's hockeystick calculations. As for who you believe, I don't believe 'anyone'. That the climate is changing is plain, but then it always has done so that's no surprise. Is it changing more rapidly that it has at times in the past, or beyond previous norms? Not, in all honesty, as far as I can tell from looking at the available data. You might like to look at the work of Dr Theodor Landscheidt, who had a different view of the major climate forcings, and made predictions from his model, one of which is a new mini ice age beginning about 2012 - so we'll find out soon enough if he was right.

 

Oh, and as for all the ' all the sceptics are funded by big oil ' slur. Frankly I don't care if they're funded by the tooth fairy, either the science stands or it falls on its own merits, one could as easily suggest that since all of the government money in climate science appears to be predicated on the assumption that AGW is real then being sceptical of the claims would be something of a career limiting move for any climate scientist. Anyway, make your own mind up, (actually it would seem you already have) I don't care what you think, fill your boots.

[Stouffer]

All of this is objective and on a personal level not one of you is going to save the world, together we're not going to save the world, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt be arsed. I personally think that setting a good example to the next generation is the most important thing, and we can only do that by changing ourselved for the better to as big an extent as we can. Firstly by not buying a gas guzzling 4x4 to take the kids to school, secondly by turning the lights off etc, recycling where you can. If its not going to ssave the world it'll save you money so why not.

 

I like the cut of your jib.

[Dirk]

This discusses the algorithmic errors in Mann's hockeystick calculations. As for who you believe, I don't believe 'anyone'. That the climate is changing is plain, but then it always has done so that's no surprise. Is it changing more rapidly that it has at times in the past, or beyond previous norms? Not, in all honesty, as far as I can tell from looking at the available data. You might like to look at the work of Dr Theodor Landscheidt, who had a different view of the major climate forcings, and made predictions from his model, one of which is a new mini ice age beginning about 2012 - so we'll find out soon enough if he was right.

 

Oh, and as for all the ' all the sceptics are funded by big oil ' slur. Frankly I don't care if they're funded by the tooth fairy, either the science stands or it falls on its own merits, one could as easily suggest that since all of the government money in climate science appears to be predicated on the assumption that AGW is real then being sceptical of the claims would be something of a career limiting move for any climate scientist. Anyway, make your own mind up, (actually it would seem you already have) I don't care what you think, fill your boots.

 

 

It's not necessarily that the science proves anything it's how the data is presented. In my own field, big business has lied and massaged the figures to get people to take pharmaceuticals that are harmful. We're talking suicide and such like. You argument is distinctly flimsy, people have agenda, I trust those who are in it for the knowledge over those who stand to lose millions, if not billions. It's the way of the world.

[Karl_b]

do you beleive that? I work in the contruction industry-ish (Building Services Consultant) and i wont pretend to know the environmental issues relating to building fabric and construction issues, but of the environmental factors of which i am involved i know that most of them are looked at in terms of saving money rather than saving the world. Sustainibility in industry is about looking good to potential buyers or clients, or getting one up on your competitors.

 

Everyone wants wind turbines on commercial development until it is seen that there is a long payback (often none at all) within the life of the turbine. This is sometimes overlooked because it is good to be SEEN to have wind turbines, but no-one ever wants to know the ACTUAL carbon savings of the product. The savings are quite good when first considered, but the manufacture and transport of the system means that the chances of becoming truly carbon neutral are limited.

 

All of this is objective and on a personal level not one of you is going to save the world, together we're not going to save the world, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt be arsed. I personally think that setting a good example to the next generation is the most important thing, and we can only do that by changing ourselved for the better to as big an extent as we can. Firstly by not buying a gas guzzling 4x4 to take the kids to school, secondly by turning the lights off etc, recycling where you can. If its not going to ssave the world it'll save you money so why not.

 

 

For me its not about getting clients to want a wind turbine or other such fad-like short term fixes. The more important things are sustainability in buildings and materials. When I get home after the weekend I'll write a bit more about what I think, for now I have to go work on some eco-homes (true story that).

 

Oh and anyone interested in a good example of eco-housing should look at BedZed in Beddington (Beddington Zero Energy Development), by Bill Dunster Architects.

[Dirk]

Maybe my points deserve an elaboration. The aims of business and the aims of a science are two distinctly different things. A business is concerned with generating profit, otherwise it wouldn't exist, a science is concerned with improving the knowledge base of its field.

 

The role of outside organisations in business has been widely publicised. I'm talking about the role of far right groups in funding research into IQ differences between the races - according to them they've proved that white people aren't as thick as black people, it's in the science - psychopharmaceutical companies stating that SSRI's don't lead to suicide. Below is an article on the role of corporations in science.

 

Commercial pressures are distorting academic science and society is not getting the full benefit from the science it is paying for. Prof. Peter Saunders and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho report on a recent conference in London.

 

 

 

"Corruption of Scientific Integrity? The Commercialisation of Academic Science" was the title of a day long meeting held in the British Academy, 2 May, under the auspices of the Council for Academic Autonomy and the Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards. The room was filled to capacity, and people had been turned away.

 

"Down which river has academic science been sold?" began John Ziman in a provocative mood. Ziman, well known both as a physicist and for his work on the social responsibility of science, argued that there are two kinds of science: "instrumental" and "non-instrumental". The first is generally directed towards practical ends, wealth creation, improving health, preserving the environment, and so on, which are foreseen at the outset. It is also generally proprietary (someone owns the results), local, limited (to foreseen problems and needs), and partisan.

 

In contrast, the goals of non-instrumental science are not so clearly defined. It lays the foundation for instrumental science, and fulfils other roles as well. It provides trustworthy knowledge of the world and of ourselves, and is a source of wonder. It helps us develop an attitude of critical rationality, reminding us not to accept without questioning, dogmas, theories, ‘facts’ or authority. It is a source of non-partisan expertise, a necessity in an age when governments require scientific advice in taking many decisions. Non-instrumental science is public, available to all, imaginative, self-critical and disinterested. It has traditionally been largely carried out in universities, though also to some extent in government sponsored laboratories.

 

Society needs both kinds of science, but there is an increasing tendency to focus on practical utility to the exclusion of everything else. This leads to a new ‘post-academic’ culture in which everything, in universities as in industries, is directed towards practical instrumental values. All the UK research councils except PPARC (Particle Physics and Astronomy) have wealth creation at the top of their missions, and Ziman reminded his audience that particle physics too got its big push during and after the war on practical grounds. But post-academic science cannot perform many of the functions society requires of science, and so by treating all science as a saleable commodity, society risks losing many of the benefits.

 

If non-instrumental science is to survive, Ziman said, we need new structures, funding arrangements, contracts of employment and even a new culture within science itself. He did not suggest what these might be, but told the meeting that developing them must be a high priority for the scientific community.

 

The second speaker, Professor Nancy Olivieri, described her travails at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, part of the University of Toronto. She had been working on Deferiprone, a drug for treating the blood disease thalassaemia. The first results had been encouraging, but the researchers later became concerned about the level of toxicity. The company involved, Apotex, made great efforts to prevent her from informing her patients and other scientists.

 

The result has been a long legal battle, in which the University has sacked and reinstated her several times. Olivieri acknowledged the support of colleagues and of her union, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). She knew of similar cases in other universities, and it was significant that in none of them had the institution supported its staff. She herself had been relatively fortunate, she said, because the company’s actions had been overt: they had written her letters and left messages on her answering machine. In many cases, the pressures are covert. You just don’t get the grant or the job, and however convinced you may be about the reason, there is no evidence that will stand up in a court.

 

Olivieri pointed out that to conceal information about possible toxic effects is a violation of the Hippocratic oath, which incorporates the precautionary principle. Contracts that require such information cannot be binding in Canada because they violate the common law provision that a contract may not contain a clause that is against public policy.

 

Many in the audience were aware of another incident that had been reported in the press shortly before the meeting, and which also involved the University of Toronto. David Healey, a British psycho-pharmacologist, had been offered, and accepted, a post in the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) at the University. In November, he spoke at a conference that was being held at CAMH, and claimed that the highly profitable drug Prozac could cause people to attempt suicide. The job offer was withdrawn within a week. Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, is a major funder of CAMH, but both the company and the University denied they exerted any influence on the decision. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has, however, described the affair as "an affront to academic freedom in Canada."

 

Like the other speakers, Sir David Weatherall, who recently retired from the Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, accepted that there has to be cooperation between universities and industry. This will inevitably lead to problems, which we must try to solve. What John Ziman had called non-instrumental science was also important even from a practical point of view. When medical students were asked which discoveries are the most important for the treatment of disease, over half those they named arose out of ‘curiosity based’ research. If we concentrate on goal-directed science, we may fail to solve the really important problems.

 

There is also a problem with clinical research because it is seen as close to market and therefore something that industry, not governments, should pay for. But this can lead to conflicts of interest or bias when the investigators are financially linked to the company. There can be great contractual pressures, and Nancy Olivieri’s story was very much the tip of the iceberg.

 

There is also evidence that someone who has an interest in the outcome is more likely to produce a positive result. The learned journals have been slow to note conflicts of interest. Weatherall described as "not uncommon" a practice known as ghosting, in which scientists working for a company write a paper and pay an outside academic to be the "author".

 

One of the problems is patent law, which he described as being "in a mess", at least so far as biological material is concerned. What should be patentable is a novel use, but the law is at best not clear on this point. If it is possible to own genes, that can hinder research.

 

Weatherall stressed the need for safeguards at the interface between universities and industry. There must be reduced pressure for short-term gains and a rationalisation of the patent laws on biological material. Journals should demand statements about possible conflicts of interest. There should be more protection for scientists. This is difficult to achieve because the usual pressure on them is simply a failure to fund them, but it would be a step forward to have review panels to sort out problems. Weatherall also urged that young scientists should be taught how to deal with industry; he felt that both scientists and the universities were naïve, and easily taken advantage of.

 

The final speaker George Monbiot began by apologising for arriving late; he had been at a meeting on the corporatisation of agriculture, which gave an idea of how pervasive is the problem of corporate takeover. Scientists must join up with the general struggle of society, he admonished.

 

He reminded the meeting that because the government sees science as a driver of the growth economy, it ties funding more and more to the needs of business. Industry has more and more influence in universities. One way is by giving money to departments that are involved in research that directly affects the company. On the face of it, this might seem natural enough, but when combined with the general shortage of funds, and the presence of many industrialists on Research Council boards, the result is to bias academic research heavily into the direction the companies want. For example, UK universities spend five times as much money on research into oil and gas as into renewable energy sources. Yet you would expect that the latter, being a new field, would require more academic investment than does a mature technology.

 

The government expects research establishments to attract outside funding, but this makes it difficult for any laboratory such as the Centre for Coastal Research, whose function is largely to monitor the effects of pollution. Corporations are unlikely to fund an institution whose job it is to study the harmful effects of corporations. Monbiot pointed out that the one pollutant that seems to be studied extensively is radon, which happens to be almost the only one that occurs naturally and not as a by-product of industry or agriculture.

 

In the same way, a disproportionate amount of public money has gone into research in agricultural and biomedical biotechnology. Research into the risks of genetic engineering, which ought to have been high on the agenda of public funding councils, is almost non-existent. Instead, as in the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, whose scientific findings go against the interest of corporations, he is sacked and villified.

 

Monbiot ended by charging that scientists tend to side with the corporations and not with the public. "We need a revolution in the laboratory", he said, though he didn’t say how we could go about it. When asked how an independent scientist could work for the public good, all he could advise was to set up shop independently, like the staff of the Centre for Ecology, who were driven out of Edinburgh University for criticising the government and industry.

 

There were lively interjections from the floor on issues that were hardly touched upon on the platform, especially those that might begin to solve some of the problems aired. For instance, little, if anything, has been done to promote critical public understanding of science by those charged with the task, such as the Royal Society’s Committee for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS), nor have they made any effort to engage the public in open dialogue. A public with critical understanding of science is necessary, both for making democratic decisions on science and science-related policies and in ensuring that science is accountable to society. The suppression of scientific dissent by the scientific establishment must be strenuously resisted by all concerned, as it serves to promote the corporate agenda and threatens to stamp out any effective opposition to the corporate take over from within the scientific community. Above all, scientists need to reject biotech patents and to recapture public funding for scientific research that genuinely serves public good.

 

Unfortunately, the wider issues never got discussed, as the organisers’ concerns seem to be too narrowly focussed on the protection of whistle-blowers. The corporate take over of science needs to be tackled at source, in the structure of governance, in the social responsibility and ethics of science. It is not just the individual freedom of scientists to tell the truth that is at stake, important though that is; it is their independence and their freedom to work for public good that must be restored and maintained.

 

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/BigBizBadSci.html

[Anny Road]

For me its not about getting clients to want a wind turbine or other such fad-like short term fixes. The more important things are sustainability in buildings and materials. When I get home after the weekend I'll write a bit more about what I think, for now I have to go work on some eco-homes (true story that).

 

Oh and anyone interested in a good example of eco-housing should look at BedZed in Beddington (Beddington Zero Energy Development), by Bill Dunster Architects.

 

 

They may be low energy but look like a shit hole.

[Karl_b]

Thats not a great photo, it looks ace up close. I'll post some pictures next week that I took.

[cochyn]

Oh and anyone interested in a good example of eco-housing should look at BedZed in Beddington (Beddington Zero Energy Development), by Bill Dunster Architects.

 

I met Bill Dunster when he was working for Hopkins - interesting bloke. BedZED hasn't worked out as was hoped, yet it is a big step forward and has proved to many that you don;t have to live like Tom & Barbara inthe Goode Life to be green.

 

In answer to Paul's earlier question; In order to prove the 'green' credentials of a building, designers have to jump through a number of onerous hoops, which equates to higher fees, and up-front build costs. Now this isn't mandatory (yet). Aslo, many clients will only pay lip service to sustainability, and back away entirely once confronted with these 'extra' costs. While the long-term benefits of a sustainable approach are real, but it doesn't fit in with the "I want it now, and I want it cheap" culture. After all, sustainability doesn't show up on a balance sheet.

[Wool Woolsson]

It helps us develop an attitude of critical rationality, reminding us not to accept without questioning, dogmas, theories, ‘facts’ or authority.

... and that's all I'm saying, question, and look at the available data. I don't have an argument to be flawed. My reading leads me to suspect that AGW is at most a storm in a teacup, and quite probably an ideologically forced hodge-podge of mights and maybes, your mileage may, of course, vary - all I ask is that you read into the subject, both sides of the subject, and make your own mind up.

[aikido]

First time since 1877 that it has not snowed at this time in New Jersey/ New York, and the warmest winter on record to date. Supposed to be 65*F tomorrow which is unheard of at this time of year. Great on the heating bills.

 

Last year we had one of the coldest winters on record.

 

What I want to know is how come, when they compare record high/low temperatures for particular days, the records were always set in an era before Global warming was a concern? 1910, 1895, 1923, record snowfalls, rain, low/high temperatures and so forth.

[bigredruss]

Is there some utterly deflating fact like 'If the UK stopped producing all emissions, China would make up the difference in 5 years'? I can't see China being that arsed.

 

the uk produce less than 1% of the worlds co2.if we didn't produce any co2 emmissions at all it would make no differance at all. why don't they have a go at china and india the usa and russia. fat chance of that, so they tax us under the green issues. just more money for them to waste on crap and tax us again:wallbutt:

[Dropkick]

Humanity is responsible for 3.4% of the world's CO2 output, the UK is responsible for approximately 2% of that (.0068% of total). We could totally cease all CO2 production tomorrow and it would make fuck all difference. Furthermore there is not one jot of credible evidence that CO2 is a major climate forcing, the Mann 'hockeystick' graph is a statistical artifact, and the algorithm responsible produces hockeysticks 90 odd percent of the time when fed random data. In brief it's all bollox (if you want references to relevant papers they can be provided.)

 

Where does the other 96 percent come from ? And is carbon dioxide the one gas that is supposed to be making the climate change ?