GLOBAL WARMING: the truth! (1 Viewer)

[Moonshake]

Tyke wrote:

Population growth has clearly done the damage-but no one wants to talk about it.It's a very emotive subject of course. When mass starvation afflicts large groups of people living in areas which can barely support them-do we say this drought culls this population to sustainable levels-or do we say we must feed them because they are fellow humans & we can.

Err, is this some sort of trick question?

 

[turkish van]

And (partly because it feels wrong to agree), aviation may not be a huge issue now - it's time will come in the future, after expansion and the reduction of other energy sectors... emissions to fly or emissions to feed/heat/etc? Is flying that important?

 

[Jos Stratford]

Is flying that important?

No, not that important. Say goodbye to ecotourism in the Less Developed World, that is not that important. Say goodbye to the reserves still there due to their ecomomic value to local communities, they are not that important. Say goodbye to the trees, to the animals, no value in them anymore, tourists don't pay the bills anymore, they are not important.

I'd recommend any of those who really oppose flying to actually get on a plane and see the real world - sitting in comfy western city, incidently consuming energy by the bucketload, do they really see the true reality out there? Environmental protection as a preference, as a hobby, is the luxury of those of us lucky enough to live in the rich world. For the rest, the majority, environmental protection will only be an issue if there is an economic benefit - take away the income, take away the protection. Is this the world you want to live in? Me, no.

 

[Moonshake]

But Jos, you also have the problem that if we in the developed world can't curb our urge to fly, what's going to happen when the rest of the world develops enough so that everyone everywhere thinks it's okay and desirable to fly all the time? That would be clearly unsustainable. And the majority of people aren't flying to go and stay in eco-lodges in wildlife reserves or whatever - they're going to play golf on the Algarve or wherever else, places where they're damming all the rivers and concreting over all the wetlands on behalf of all the tourists - that's the real world.

 

[rozinante]

You could start with Jared Diamonds "Collapse"

Any set of stats on population & percapita consumption growth in India & China-eg-in a few decades may need 125% of total global oil output.

Do some research on the trade deals China is doing in Africa, Asia, S. America-they are stitching it all up.

Have a look at projected trends in fresh water resources.

Or alternatively persuade me that the human population is sustainable!

Colin

Thanks Colin, I will certainly look into the book, looks interesting. I do enjoy interdisciplinary books. I think they appeal to my own tendencies towards jack of all trades master of none.

I would not try to persuade you that "the human population is sustainable". A sticky wicket to start with as in my opinion we are already failing miserably to sustain it at the moment. That is not to say though that we could not should we choose to.

The stats though I will leave them to the experts I think. The only difficulty then is in deciding which experts to trust. I am no better equipped to meaningfully interpret them myself than I am capable of undertaking an independent investigating into global warming.

PS. Ordered the Diamonds book. Loads of remaindered copies available new for £3.20ish. Not sure if thats good news or not though.

 

[Jos Stratford]

And the majority of people aren't flying to go and stay in eco-lodges in wildlife reserves or whatever - they're going to play golf on the Algarve.

The majority of the world's most important wildlife areas are in parts of the world where poverty is a real issue - local communities need to survive, take your pick how they do it.

And all this for trying to cut down on a segment which accounts for just 5% of carbon outputs ... there are a lot more environmentally friendly ways of cutting your precious CO2 emissions - as said on an earlier post, look around you, look in your fridge. Savings for nowt, almost like something too good to be true ...and seems it must be, for carbonites and politicians seem blind to savings on their very doorsteps.

 

[scampo]

...

I don't think either of them are terribly articulate examples (sorry, Tim) but I know which one I think has some ideals in it.

Off thread - sorry.

Ah well - I did say I was a sentimentalist, Helen (and you would pick a rather pompous example of later Yes lyrics), and I'd guess, too, that lyric sound-bites could be found to prove either view.

Maybe I was thinking more of the music itself - prog rock's ambitious and complex suites represented a time when musical vision and experimentation were ideals. In many ways, I think, punk destroyed those ideals forever with its adherence to simple abrasive songs.

 

[Moonshake]

Jos wrote:

The majority of the world's most important wildlife areas are in parts of the world where poverty is a real issue - local communities need to survive, take your pick how they do it.

Yes, they need to survive today, but they also need to have a day after that too if there's any point to it. Most of the world's most important wildlife areas are also in parts of the world facing probably the business end of a changing climate. Bailing out the critters now ain't gonna stop 'em getting barbecued tomorrow. But we've been through this argument before I think.

And all this for trying to cut down on a segment which accounts for just 5% of carbon outputs ... there are a lot more environmentally friendly ways of cutting your precious CO2 emissions - as said on an earlier post, look around you, look in your fridge.

5% of carbon emissions that is rapidly growing with increasing demand for flights. The UK government wants to build further airport capacity right?

Also, like I said, 5% carbon just doesn't simply equate to 5% impact on climate change. Releasing pollutants at altitude multiplies their impact.

 

[Moonshake]

Okay, this is where I start to sound like a scratched (punk rock) record. I'm off to bed.

 

[glance366]

glad to see somone doubting

OFFS! 'Hack Scientists???' Co-founder of Greenpeace, Ex-Editor of New Scientist, Chairman of the International Antarctic Survey, Chairman of the WHO Epidemiology Council.... All of these (and many other contributors) come from the highest ranks of Science and were at pains to answer your point about Exxon etc. The fuel companies are RICH and getting RICHER! This orchestrated breast-beating about GW won't affect their revenues one bit! They'll have ready markets for all they produce indefinitely!
(And, you being in the USA and incapable of receiving the programme are hardly entitled to state an opinion about it. OBTW: It was on Channel 5!)

It's amazing to see the amount of people that will beleive anything that is said by scientists. I think to many politicians and media bigshots try to scare people into action. I think this whole thing is about one thing.....Money. Sort of like the y2k scare. The EPA I beleive is lining the pockets of alot of people with all the restrictions they put on consumers. THe gasoline has to be refined to the specifications of the area it is being shipped to, each area different from the other depending on the air quality. THis expense is passed on to the consumer and that is alot of the expense we see at the pumps now.

You guys are way out of my league on the particulars, but I smell a rat. And I see a rat too......Al Gore

Do i think we need to be wise about obvious pollution problems ofcourse. I just feel this GW thing had a hidden agenda of its own. Al Gore had to go to Hollywood to get them to buy into his doom and gloom. Why? He couldnt sell it in Washington.

I'm just an average guy. I am not saying I understand it all. But Sorry I dont buy the GW Propaganda.

 

[Moonshake]

The EPA I beleive is lining the pockets of alot of people with all the restrictions they put on consumers. THe gasoline has to be refined to the specifications of the area it is being shipped to, each area different from the other depending on the air quality. THis expense is passed on to the consumer and that is alot of the expense we see at the pumps now.

Hang on, you're saying global warming is a conspiracy to make oil companies richer?

 

[turkish van]

To any Mods - Why can I not see Tranquility Base's posts? He seems to have posted something new... but I see none of them.

 

[Keith Reeder]

mmm, dunno Dean but Pink Floyd were certainly an evolutionary dead end, and prog rock went the same way, superceded by the lean and mean young punks

Yet the prog rock "dinosaurs" are still around Tim - not much left of the punkers though..!

 

[whomes]

Yet the prog rock "dinosaurs" are still around Tim - not much left of the punkers though..!

Neither are producing anything worthwhile now, that's for sure.

Certainly Nick Mason's carbon footprint is probably greater than average!

 

[Imaginos]

As I said: just spend half an hour online, and you'll see there are as many Scientists repudiating anthropogenesis as there are supporting it.

Fortunately I don't spend my time looking at second-hand online sources & uncritically accepting what I'm told by the lords of television. I read the journals.
Here is a list of academic peer-reviewed journals, some of which you can link to and read the research. Some to look out for that frequently deal with this issue: Science, Nature, Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, Eos, Earth Interactions, Biological Reviews, Ecology, Journal of Ecology and that's just scraping the surface. That list doesn't include the Journal of Applied Ecology, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Global Change Biology, Annals of Applied Biology and many more. How many of those in this thread who claim to have read around the subject has read any of these titles? My guess is very few.
Of course you may have to visit a library to read these, but surely that is preferable to letting other people form your opinions for you?

 

[Imaginos]

Apologies if this has already been stated, but I found this about Martin Durkin on another forum:

Martin Durkin is a television producer and director, most notably of television documentaries for Channel 4 in Britain. He has caused consistent controversy over the alleged bias found in many of his documentaries.

Against Nature

In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast Durkin's Against Nature, a documentary series which criticized the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development. Against Nature was subsequently investigated by the Independent Television Commission of the UK, following a number of complaints from viewers and from some of the interviewees featured in the program. The Commission did not uphold most of the claims, concluding that it was entirely legitimate to open up debate about environmentalist policies and ideologies. It also pointed that environmentalists had been permitted a fair chance to air their side of the story in the televised debates that followed the broadcast. However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV. According to The Independent, Durkin "accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh."

Equinox

Subsequent television documentaries by Durkin include a 1998 Equinox program which argued that silicone breast implants were in fact beneficial to a woman's health; another Equinox program called Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM, which argued in favor of genetic modification; and The Great Global Warming Swindle, which claimed that theories of man-made global warming were in fact false. None of these documentaries were without controversy. The 1998 documentary on breast implants was shown on Channel 4 only after it had been rejected for broadcast by the BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program. Another researcher hired by Durkin to work on this same documentary allegedly quit her job, claiming that her research had been ignored and that "the published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case." She is also reported to have said: "I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it."

Modified Truth

Durkin's documentary on genetic modification which was broadcast on Channel 4 on March 20th 2000, also met with complaints. A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."

The Great Global Warming Swindle

One scientist featured, Carl Wunsch, said he had been "swindled" and "completely misrepresented" by the programme, calling it "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Durkin denies that Wunsch was misrepresented. The film is critical of the concept of man-made global warming, and claims that the current state of knowledge on the topic has numerous flaws. Only those skeptical of man-made global warming were interviewed (barring Wunsch, who said he was misled) and there was no attempt to present the most widely held scientific opinion on climate change except in the context of counter-arguments. Channel 4, preempting the controversy, said, "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Anyone else feel as if, for some reason, they don't want to place their trust in this documentary?

 

[deborah4]

. And the majority of people aren't flying to go and stay in eco-lodges in wildlife reserves or whatever - they're going to play golf on the Algarve or wherever else, places where they're damming all the rivers and concreting over all the wetlands on behalf of all the tourists - that's the real world.

Presumably much the same could be said for car use. The intentions and purposes of a few to travel for 'conservation' purposes (if one accepts that argument and it's impossible to reach those same destinations by cycle or train) can't be used as a wider justification for air and car travel for the majority of the population in the West that don't!

Putting carbon emmissions aside for one moment - we have extensive road building carving up the countryside, noise pollution, increasing aspiratory problems in young children in inner city areas (which has been attributed to car fumes), the use of large amounts of brown field sites for car parks thus creating further pressure for housebuilding on greenfield sites, and mass slaughter of animal and bird life on country roads, out of town supermarkets and Hypermarkets (just because people can get to them in their cars) - creating commodity markets that make it difficult/impossible for small local traders to stay in business, increasing reliance on car use to get to supermarkets - what a circle!!! Finally, the fuel resources required to keep airplanes in the air and cars on the road - pressure on already depleting resources = pressure on wildlife habitat to meet supply (drilling in the AWR) or find alternative resources, windfarms in Scotland and Wales etc etc and the environmental destruction that comes with the infrastructure to meet the ''environmental need'' for people to travel by air or car. Very much agree, it's more than % carbon emissions, it's the bigger environmental picture/impact both in the long and short term of societies,communities,leisure activities built around heavy car reliance.

 

[Jos Stratford]

The intentions and purposes of a few to travel for 'conservation' purposes (if one accepts that argument and it's impossible to reach those same destinations by cycle or train) can't be used as a wider justification for air and car travel for the majority of the population in the West that don't!

That is a matter of opinion. Can't be bothered to go into this again, 'cos some heads don't wish to see beyond a single issue, but those 'few that travel for conservation purposes' just happen to be the only tourists to many of the wildlife hotspots of the world. Take them away and use your own intelligence to work out the consequences.

Turned down your heating yet anybody? Enjoy imported food today? Hypocrites.

 

[Moonshake]

Turned down your heating yet anybody? Enjoy imported food today? Hypocrites.

Hello Jos, maybe I'm clutching at straws here, but these sorts of arguments do kind of suggest that some kind of personal carbon quota would be a way of solving these issues? Moving away from solely transport emissions and considering a person's impact in more of a holistic way taking into account domestic energy, food etc. What do you think of that approach?

 

[deborah4]

That is a matter of opinion. Can't be bothered to go into this again, 'cos some heads don't wish to see beyond a single issue, but those 'few that travel for conservation purposes' just happen to be the only tourists to many of the wildlife hotspots of the world. Take them away and use your own intelligence to work out the consequences.

That's a completely different issue to using this as a justification for air and car travel in general by the majority who don't travel for this purpose - which is what I was talking about . It's irresponsible IMO to present it as such. Not everyone is such a paragon of virtue, that they only travel for the absolute and altruistic purposes of promoting conservation - even I don't do that!!!!

Turned down your heating yet anybody? Enjoy imported food today? Hypocrites.

Haven't used heating in weeks, buy local and domestically produced products with minimum packaging where possible, recycling everything recyclable, don't have TV, Stereo, dishwasher, washing maching, car etc, on average have 1-2 lightbulbs on in evening and never have baths but quick showers - BUT I still make a negative impact which is too large for one person. The point is, my single issue is the environment as a WHOLE not just the conservation of particular species, or car or air travel, or global warming and in that sense, all that one can do is minimise rather than cancel out the 'harm' because to cancel out one cause completely could create a domino or collateral negative impact from the other which is what I think you are saying and I agree with. However, what is deemed 'necessary' travel is subject to opinion of course and interpretation of what we think our own needs are. At the end of the day, it's a question of balance surely? As far as arguments to justify travel for conservation work, there are plenty of threats to wildlife here let alone on the other side of the world and which although less 'glamorous' or exciting are equally important and far more accessible for most. I would like to see further encouragement and incentive for local people to get involved in local conservation in this Country as much as anywhere else. The 'hypocrites' are the ones travelling to the far corners of the world doing conservation work and not giving a flying sh*t what's happening on their own doorstep or thinking about the impact other areas of their lifestyle are having on the environment.

Incidently some of the best habitat in Europe is going to be destroyed as a result of Via Baltica - regardless of the route it takes however, the need is the same, to provide faster and 'better' road links between the Baltic States and Warsaw but it doesn't matter, because all those using it of course will be doing so to visit wildlife reserves and not for any other reason.


PERSONAL QUOTAS; I think would be an excellent idea - but I'm not sure if quotas with economic incentives would help in the long term - isn't this the problem with Kyoto? - will trading excess and surplus emission quotas simply make more people use less which I'd find hard to see much more benefit in than less people using more - other than creating a more level ground for social and industrial development between developed and developing Countries?