Tag: Global warming

Copenhagen – that’s clear then.

Will we ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

It’s a week since the start of The United Nations Climate Change Conference – Copenhagen, 2009 and it’s clearly been a media success if nothing else.

My instinct has, for many years, been the assumption that mankind behaves in many ways that harm our environment and that, ultimately, harming the very planet upon which our survival depends could happen. Stupid, yes! But in line with some of the more strange behaviours of homo sapiens.

But like millions of people, I do not have either the scientific background or the time available to test the statements made by so many governments and other ‘wise’ bodies as to whether the science of climate change, global warming or whatever, is real and irrefutable. One thinks that would be relatively easy to do and that after all the years and millions of dollars spent on climate research, the proof would be there. Cause and effect were perfectly understood.

Save the planet – eat a carrot!

Another political masterpiece!

British Health Minister Andy Burnham is urging us to give up meat; this will apparently help to save the planet.

Now, it is very noble of the Minister to try to help save the planet. However, his efforts do raise some questions.

The thing is, if it is essential to stop eating meat then shouldn’t the government put its money where its mouth is and DO something about it? Such as tax it? (usually the first instinct!) Or do they only do things that are electorally favourable? (this is a rhetorical question, by the way – feel free not to answer it …)
Or is this perhaps a long process of “educating the electorate”? Well, there are plenty who leave school hardly literate already, so he’s being a bit optimistic, isn’t he? And why start with poor, little Britain? There are tens if not hundreds of millions of our American buddies to convince ….

And at the same time as we are being sermonised about our meat-eating the the USA is edging towards the opening-up to oil-exploration of previously off-limit areas.

In our quaint British lingo this is known as “not singing from the same song-sheet”. And as for oil, I wish they would make up their minds once and for all; either we have to reduce its use or we don’t.

At the moment, all they seem to be doing is organising conferences (at vast carbon footprint) where they promise to reduce emissions. This is schizophrenia, isn’t it?

Re the British sermon, one wonders whether the noble minister is himself a vegetarian, and of course whether he is among the vast government contingent attending the international climate conference. And does he drive the car 50 metres to the baker’s on Sunday mornings?

Personally, I’d be prepared to give up meat if: A) I were convinced it would do any good and B) I thought that the great and good (and rich) would make a similar sacrifice.

These are two VERY big “ifs” ………

Must go – got some burgers in the pan …..

By Chris Snuggs

Consequences and probabilities

How Peter L Bernstein’s work helps us make the safest decision with regard to global warming.

Probably like me you hadn’t heard of Peter Bernstein. He was instrumental in understanding risk and that alone makes him worth knowing about. Here’s the entry from Wikipedia:

Peter Lewyn Bernstein (January 22, 1919 – June 5, 2009) was a financial historian, economist and educator whose development and refinement of the efficient market theory made him one of the country’s [USA] best known authorities in popularizing and presenting investment economics to the general public.

Watch the YouTube video before reading on:

You could not have missed a fundamental message in the interview – if the consequence of something is critically harmful then don’t take ANY risks. Bernstein’s book on risk is Against the Gods.

Continue reading “Consequences and probabilities” →

Chickens coming home to roost?

Chickens, farming and global issues.

We keep chickens at our home in Devon, England and, thus, we have an account with a local farming supplies organisation called Mole Valley Farmers. Once a month we get a small news letter which I find fascinating. The first page always has The Chairman’s Newsletter and I love reading about the current price of grain, what’s current in the dairy world and a bit about food politics – usually very little about chickens but then I’m biased!

The Chairman quoted a British Government minister at a recent conference making a reference to the need to increase food production but then spending most of his speech talking about “rewilding” the countryside by reintroducing lynx and elk. (The link is to a slightly tongue-in-cheek article in the Times Online.)

Quite how that would help food production was “incomprehensible” but it shows a complete lack of understanding about the serious threat to the UK, and other countries, as we now import so much of our basic food needs and many local farmers have been underpriced out of farming by the monopoly of the supermarkets. An interesting parallel with the banks and greed in general.

With a world food shortage affecting many parts of the world it makes me wonder what is in store for us, especially our children. So far, I am unaware of anyone in UK politics making a link between pollution, food shortages, global warming and the fact that unless we wake up soon, we stand a big risk of reproducing ourselves out of existence.

By Jon Lavin

I haven’t got the energy ….

Energy contradictions underline some very strange attitudes.
h-mountains I went for a bike ride this afternoon ….. there is a super 6km circuit that goes from our village Unterthingau along a country road, up past a farm with magnificent views over the Allgäu countryside then along to Oberthingau and back home ….. On the way there are horses and cows munching happily in fields and of course the snow-capped Alps in the background …. The exercise and the fresh air were great, but during the ride I was struck by a couple of things. On the skyline in the direction of Kempten was – as usual – a line of a dozen wind turbines. All were – as usual – immobile, save one which was doing its best to turn languidly, and hardly succeeding.

Now the Germans do things properly, as we know. This area is pristine, hardly a blade of grass or a stone out of place; it is stunning. So when it comes to energy-saving, they do it seriously (up to a point).

For a start, there are solar panels covering many roofs; the farmers get a subsidy for the installations and sell any surplus to the German National Grid. And then there are those windmills …. but the point is, they are usually motionless. There may be plenty of winter snow in this area, but there isn’t much wind.

This confirmed my view that windmills in most places in Europe are never going to solve the energy shortage. They are contributing almost nothing now, and of course only produce anything at all when there’s wind. Full marks to the Germans for trying, but it’ll never be enough.

Then as I rode through Oberthingau I saw a local resident blowing leaves off his forecourt with one of those “leaf-blower” machines …. This struck me as bizarre.

In truth, I’ve NEVER understood those things. What is the point? You blow the leaves from one place to another and later on when there is a little wind it’ll blow them straight back again. If he had been hoovering UP the leaves, fine, but blowing them from one place to another? Why not use a broom? And what have they got against leaves, anyway?

And I thought, on the one hand we are rushing around like headless chickens trying to think of ways of generating energy and on the other we are totally wasting it on ludicrous non-essentials.

As has been claimed and to my mind proven for Africa, what is needed is not giant, national and international projects (though more nuclear power-stations would help) but micro-projects for the masses, and especially a cosmic change in the mindset. You only have to look around to see examples of humungous waste of energy. Get rid for a start of most traffic lights! Dangerous? Errrmmm, no actually … experiments have shown that when there are no lights people drive more cautiously …. Get rid of those barriers on motorways that go up and down thousands of times every day. How many people actually drive through a toll barrier without paying? And even if they do, the operator can take their number and report them; why on earth do we need an energy-consuming barrier?

It’s individual mindsets that need to change … Do people really have to fire up their car to drive 300 metres to the baker’s on Saturday mornings? What happened to walking? The British “school run” is a classic example; kids are driven to school, don’t get enough exercise and so get fat, the roads are clogged up (and dangerous) and loads of CO2 is produced. Insane …..

One thing is sure, insanity will not save us ….

Climate warming – the argument continues

Alan Carlin’s response to Patrice Ayme.

Learning from Dogs is very grateful for having Alan and Patrice argue this very important issue through the medium of this Blog. Because if there is one thing that has the power to overturn our way of life over the last 50 years, it is climate warming (as a result of man’s activities).

On the 26th October there was a Post published that contained Patrice’s reply to an earlier article containing Alan Carlin’s hypothesis. Learning from Dogs invited Alan to reply to Patrice and this is his contribution.

With one exception the recent comments by Patrice Ayme are typical of what climate alarmists/warmists so often say when presented with serious climate science by skeptics. They presumably do this in order to try to distract attention from their inability or unwillingness to respond to the scientific issues raised by skeptics or a desire to hide the weakness of their science. They appeal to alleged authority; they attack the opposition, often personally–anything to avoid discussion of the science.

In this case, the only exception is Ayme’s weird contention that there should not be a tropospheric hotspot in the tropics IF the UN GHG hypothesis should be correct. This is weird because there is actually rare agreement between most informed alarmists/warmists and skeptics that such a hot spot should be present IF the UN hypothesis is correct. So his contention that it is an “absurdity” puts him at odds with his much favored UN reports and with his views on the science of warming. For further information see Evans here (which is a link from the link I originally gave–but perhaps Ayme did not bother to read it before responding??)

As Evans points out this alleged hotspot predicted by the UN climate hypothesis is actually crucial to the UN hypothesis “because the same water vapor feedback that produces the hotspot in IPCC climate theory also doubles or triples the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC climate models. If the IPCC climate modellers just turn down the water vapor feedback in their models enough so their theoretical signatures match the observed warming patterns, then the predicted temperature increases due to projected carbon emissions are greatly reduced and are no longer of much concern.” So Ayme apparently did not realize that his statement that there should be no hotspot means that he believes that one of the crucial features of the UN climate hypothesis is wrong and hence that his views of the science are wrong.

I note that except for his weird statement on the hotspot, he makes no serious attempt to respond to or analyze my four fundamental scientific tests of the UN GHG hypothesis.

For a different view as to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the IPCC see here.

Most of the remainder of Ayme’s comments are best ignored as attempts to distract readers from the fundamental (and telling) scientific tests discussed in my post.

Alan Carlin

By Paul Handover

Climate warming – two very different views!

Thank goodness for two so very different opinions.

The problem for lay persons, such as me, is that it is very difficult to read in the popular media well-reasoned arguments for each side of important issues, such as climate. You can see my confusion being expressed in the opening paragraphs of an earlier Post on Climate Change.

It might not be rhetoric to say that the issue of man-made climate change could be one of the most pressing issues of all for mankind. Thus having two very clearly opposing views is incredibly useful. Learning from Dogs is grateful to both guest authors.

On the 16th October, we published a general Post about the subject that tended to lean towards the view that mankind was not affecting the climate in such a direct way as had previously been thought.

That was then followed by a Post largely consisting of an article by Patrice Ayme arguing, scientifically, that there was a direct link between mankind and global warming.

Then a Post that contained the full article by Alan Carlin arguing, again on scientific grounds, that there was not a direct link.

Patrice commented on the Alan Carlin article. But to give greater visibility to this debate, this Post carries Patrice’s comment. We hope to have a response from Alan Carlin soon.

Read Patrice’s comment on Alan’s article

Climate warming: the debate continues

Alan Carlin believes that rising greenhouse gases are not the cause of warming, on scientific grounds.

Yesterday we published a long guest Post from Patrice Ayme who argued that climate warming is a very serious risk to this planet, as we know it.

Alan Carlin has gracefully given Learning from Dogs permission to reproduce his article that argues, on a scientific basis, that man-made greenhouse gases are not the cause of warming.

Again, this is an article that needs to be read. Alan’s Blog is here.

Read Alan Carlin’s article

Climate warming: the debate

Patrice Ayme believes it is real, on a scientific basis.

On the 16th October, we published a Post called Climate warming?. The sub-heading gave a clue to the content of the Post: What’s the truth about climate warming, e’rr change?

My stance was to express doubt about man causing climate warming. But then, a good friend of this Blog, Patrice Ayme, added this comment:

Lowest ice on record in the Arctic was 2007, then 2008, and now 2009. [More exactly the sea with more than 15% ice reflecting.]
As I pointed out on http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/05/ (May 31, 2009).
The sun has been going down in the last 30 years or so… Watch the nice graph there, extracted from Science Mag…
We are just coming out of a solar minimum so pronounced that cosmic rays, less deflected by the sun’s magnetic field, have become a problem… This explains why greenhouse heating has been less pronounced than some expected in the last few years. Things should pick up in the next 7 years, as the sun heats up. The multiplying factor is 3 or 4…

It seemed appropriate to ask Messrs Ayme and Carlin for permission to reproduce both their Blog articles. Both very kindly agreed – thanks Gents.

These are long articles – but will inform you in a way that the mass media never do.

Here’s Patrice (Alan Carlin’s article tomorrow):
Read more about this important subject

CERN

Is CERN investing in fundamental science or wasting money?

Frankly, any rational assessment of CERN must conclude that it is the most humungous and nonsensical waste of money at a time when millions or even billions of people are threatened by a) starvation and/or death from lack of water and/or b) flooding, burning or freezing caused by Global warming not to mention the wars that are inevitable as people (probably mostly in the Middle East, Asia or Africa) start to fight over scarce resources.

The billions spent on this rather esoteric and ridiculous research would be better spent on practical steps to save people and the planet. And, “yes”, I do know that basic research can lead to useful “products”, and I have nothing against research into, for example fusion power. But why we really have to know what happened in the universe one millisecond after it blew up is beyond me, especially given the cost.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: