« Racists day off | Main | Afghan end game? »

October 25, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Tony, get back to reading Greenpeace stuff. You have been deceived on the hockey stick. When global warming deniers swarmed this site, the ‘hockey stick graph’ was their major obsession.

The end of the hockey stick illustrates the sharp rise in global warming in our times. The "hockey stick" graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century and then suddenly shooting up

There had been some criticism of the methodology employed in the graph. Gleefully the GW-deniers cult devotees seized on this to claim that GW was a hoax.

Of course this is unscientific and irrational. The fears on GW rest on the conclusion of thousands of studies. New Scientist returns to the hockey stick issue a year ago. The magazine has a great reputation for their objectivity. Their conclusion is the hockey stick graph is valid. Independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

Further back in the past, though, it certainly has been hotter - and the world has been a very different place. The crucial point is that our modern civilization has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems. This is so much more important than the irrational views of right wing conspiracy theorists who swarmed in here to mouth their ignorance.

In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

Kay Tie

"or do we all follow the group think on this ?"

You know the answer to that, Tony. Lefties require all to obey the group. Woe betide anyone who thinks differently to the group. Example: the BNP has left wing policies like nationalisation. But to dare call them extreme left and the groupthinkers become furious.

Kay Tie

"How dare people try and stop this!"

Send them to work camps. Good intentions permit evil acts by socialists.

Tony

True its just another book but its sources are good - not think tanks but offical governemnt / UN sources
Just like one 'The Sceptical Envionmentalist'
Just because there is a heaf of steam here I still think we could examine the data.
I saw Gore's film but how is it that the 'hockey stick' graph has been discredited and yet its still being used?
I know that Keynes said ' when the facts change I change my mind' - but the implications for us as a society could be huge either way - so lets look at the evidence - or do we all follow the group think on this ?

patrick

perhaps it's best as KT says to let them (the children) decide a life of computer games, junk food and obesity.
Evolution will no doubt produce a fat looking blob with TV shaped eyes that has lost the ability to move further than the fridge.
How dare people try and stop this!

HuwOS

"That you think that if children use less energy it will mean a reduction in emissions."
"...but they will not and do not consume fewer calories, the rise in obesity demonstrates that"

"Err, yeah, that's how it goes. Only in your topsy-turvy world where science is subordinate to Marxist dogma can a negative number be a positive one. Leave the science to people with actual knowledge and save your ideology for schismatic fights with your fellow socialists."

Leaving out the rise in childhood obesity which more than adequately provides the necessary data to do the sum and understand the science which is impossible to ignore and highly relevant but doesn't suit your argument is yet another example of your style KayTie.
You also ignored that that type of carpooling is not common and that common usage is one child per car and you further ignored of course that SUV's and 4x4's are not "standard" cars.

Once again misleading, dishonest and duplicitous.
Do you really think that no one has noticed?

When you have to fall back on those tricks KayTie, whether you realise it or not, it means you lost the argument.

Actual facts:

The average length of the trip to school for children aged five to 10 is 1.6 miles in 2008. NTS

Occupancy rates for trips relating to education is on average 2.0
36 per cent of school run stages were single occupancy.
National Travel Survey

30% of car trips between 08:00 and 08:59 on weekdays are cars on school run. NTS
(interestingly at precisely 08:45 during term time 20% of all traffic on the roads at that time is on school run.)

43% of primary school children are driven to school. For secondary school children, one fifth travelled by car. National Travel Survey

Nearly 30% (29.7%) of children aged two to 15 were classed as overweight or obese in 2006. (Dept of Health)

For fictions please see KayTie's posts.

Kay Tie

"Because the reality as opposed to KayTie fantasy is that these 4x4 and SUV driving "environmentalists" as you would paint them are generally ferrying up to one passenger in multiple short stop start journeys."

More poisonous socialism: everyone is the same, all behave the same, Huw judges everyone by the behaviour of some, all must be punished.

Such bigotry! Add a dollop of racism and we'll have another BNP candidate.

Kay Tie

"That you think that if children use less energy it will mean a reduction in emissions."

Err, yeah, that's how it goes. Only in your topsy-turvy world where science is subordinate to Marxist dogma can a negative number be a positive one. Leave the science to people with actual knowledge and save your ideology for schismatic fights with your fellow socialists.

HuwOS

"Do the children stop breathing altogether then?"

"No, they burn fewer calories than walking.

This neatly illustrates my point: someone like Huw, ignorant on science, thinks that people like him should decide how we all must live. Even if it makes things worse. Somehow in the mind of a socialist this doesn't matter if the intentions behind the idiotic rules were good ones."

This rather neatly illustrates everyone else's point, that KayTie is apparently just plain ignorant.
That you think that if children use less energy it will mean a reduction in emissions.
Children might use less energy KayTie if they are driven everywhere, or rather as in the fantasy scenario you related where SUV's and 4x4's are "standard cars" and have a driver ferrying 4 children to school, presumably not factoring in the 2nd leg of each trip when the car is doing the journey containing only the driver, but they will not and do not consume fewer calories, the rise in obesity demonstrates that; therefore even the fantasy scenario would not be reducing emissions at all, although it would be compounding health problems while maintaining and increasing damaging emission levels.

Because the reality as opposed to KayTie fantasy is that these 4x4 and SUV driving "environmentalists" as you would paint them are generally ferrying up to one passenger in multiple short stop start journeys.

Kay Tie

"I am however delighted that you suggest carpooling is a good idea, and that it should be encouraged rather than discouraged by government."

It should be neither encouraged nor discouraged. The impact of choices should be fully included in the cost of those choices. So petrol should have its COe level taxed as should food, with meat being higher CO2e tax and the CO2e on transport included, and so on. Then the impact is revealed in the price and the behaviour changes accordingly. Where it makes sense to carpool, people will generally carpool. Someone might prefer to save their money on a foreign holiday and drive a 4x4 instead. Who are you to tell them they made the wrong choice, Huw?

Kay Tie

"Do the children stop breathing altogether then?"

No, they burn fewer calories than walking.

This neatly illustrates my point: someone like Huw, ignorant on science, thinks that people like him should decide how we all must live. Even if it makes things worse. Somehow in the mind of a socialist this doesn't matter if the intentions behind the idiotic rules were good ones.

Kay Tie

"On the last thread i asked you to produce any evidence that the BNP was a left wing organisation. What's happened , still looking through google?"

I already told you: their policy is to nationalise British industry. A typical left-wing Old Labour policy.

Paul Flynn

Why do people not see Peter Davies for what he is? He has just cost Gwent council taxpayers at least £100,000. Saying sorry and admitting he was wrong would have stopped it happening. Some of the LibDem councillors turned up at the Peace Vigil. How can they tolerate Peter Davies as their coalition partner?


I'm told that he was asked three time at a recent meeting to apologise. He refused.

Paul Flynn

It's only a book Tony. There have been plenty of other GW denying book. Why is this one special?

HuwOS

"a shared average car on the school run (4 kids) emits less CO2 than the kids walking"

Do the children stop breathing altogether then?
An SUV or 4x4 is an average car now?

"Ah, the glories of socialism: idiocy applied equally."

Unfortunately for you KayTie this capitalist state with its successive right wing governments from the 80's to the present day seem to have given you a far greater share of idiocy than you would otherwise have been entitled to.

I am however delighted that you suggest carpooling is a good idea, and that it should be encouraged rather than discouraged by government.
You've been giving the impression that the government encouraging behaviour designed to reduce our negative impact on the environment would be somehow a breach of human rights and freedoms, glad to have you aboard.

patrick

Kay Tie
"Now since you insist on things being decided rationally you'll be interested to know that a shared average car on the school run (4 kids) emits less CO2 than the kids walking."

Since when have you seen 4 kids in a fourtrack?

Even if a few cars did have 4 kids in them the majority would arrive with only one child per car. So even a baboon could calculate that walking would be beneficial from a co2 and a general health viewpoint.

On the last thread i asked you to produce any evidence that the BNP was a left wing organisation. What's happened , still looking through google?

DG

Peter Davies is a bl00dy menace - I'm embarrassed to have him as my councillor. Hope to heavens that the local Labour party puts up a better show than they did at the last local elections.

Kay Tie

"justify the SUV's and 4x4's used on the school run"

The great thing about freedom is that I don't have to justify it. People make their choices according to their own circumstances, not according to your statist we'll-decide-for-you oppression. What they waste on a 4x4 (unnecessary in your view) they don't waste on something else. How dare you decide what's necessary and what isn't.

Now since you insist on things being decided rationally you'll be interested to know that a shared average car on the school run (4 kids) emits less CO2 than the kids walking. Yet your statists ideologues have banned car pooling for kids. Ah, the glories of socialism: idiocy applied equally.

Kay Tie

Ooo, Tony: the screechy socialists will call you a climate change denier for that.

HuwOS

"In your socialist nirvana, we will all eat Soylent Green and take public transport. And we will be equal and happy."

I can't imagine socialism coming up with soylent green. Whereas I could easily believe that companies would try to sell it, if there wasn't legislation to prevent them and strict regulation to prevent them simply ignoring legislation.

In other words KayTie it is far more likely to arise in your dream of unfettered unregulated free market capitalism.

Please if you wish, justify the SUV's and 4x4's used on the school run for one child in cities, towns and suburbs all over Britain on a daily basis, otherwise accept that some waste does need to be challenged, stop crying about it and wildly claiming it to be communism by the back door.

Tony

Or you might read this ..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1441110526/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

As a member of Greenpeace for 25 years this came as a bit of a shock

Kay Tie

"Eating necessary."

In your socialist nirvana, we will all eat Soylent Green and take public transport. And we will be equal and happy.

patrick

The world needs to collectively accept that overpopulation is the biggest threat to our species.
Politicians are not going to be made reduntant by suggesting one child per family but this is about our only hope.

Our prize asset , the breathing and cooling lungs of our planet , the rainforests are diminishing daily. Ancient trees and unknown amount of wildlife destroyed so that European industry can fuel woodburners.

Just about every new green concept including burning wood rather than coal or gas becomes a new ecological disaster due to the size and continued population growth.

We need to get real about our finite resources.

HuwOS

"A milk cow emits 1.5 times the CO2e in a year as a Land Rover Discovery does. Stop eating cheese and drinking milk?"

Eating necessary.

For most who have them
Land Rover Discovery - not necessary.

Way to compare like with unlike KayTie.

HuwOS

Far better to both exercise restraint and look for technology to provide solutions, the desire to focus exclusively on technological solutions which may not exist is remarkably obvious short termist self serving duplicity.
I don't remember who made the analogy to our societies approaching climate disaster being like people aboard a train travelling at ever increasing velocity with many warning of a chasm ahead but others arguing that there either wasn't a chasm or if there was the tracks would turn away from it before it was too late and refusing to even attempt to slow down the rate at which the train was accelerating never mind actually slowing down or stopping in an attempt to delay or avoid total catastrophe.
If you find yourself on the same side as the worlds most recent example of powerful anti-intellectualism George W. Bush, then you really should be questioning yourself.

One thing we do know, is that where waste and emissions may destroy something whether rivers, lakes or the global environment what we certainly cannot do is rely on business to resolve the situation without being pressured heavily to do so, with both incentives for making real positive steps to reduce or eliminate the harm they do and sanctions when they don't.

Kay Tie

"An imaginative idea of reducing our carbon footprints is the advice to 'eat our dogs'. Their lifetime of food burdens the planet as severely as running a 4*4. "

A milk cow emits 1.5 times the CO2e in a year as a Land Rover Discovery does. Stop eating cheese and drinking milk?

It's all an Ecomentalist-cum-Communist's wet dream, with People's Committees for this and that micromanaging every aspect of our lives. Far better to focus on technology to produce solutions that improve our lives.

The comments to this entry are closed.