Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack

Steve J wrote:
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?


11. There has to be some armageddon-like event for the masses to worry about:
We are either heading for nuclear annihilation, an ice age, or about to
overheat (all three in my life time). But whatever the case with the climate,
and whatever the cause, the planet will correct the situation. In the meantime,
it is, and always has been, unacceptable to pollute the environment - there is
nothing 'civilised' or 'clever' about rendering one's habitat uninhabitable.

What is the point of dragging ourselves out of the mud (as one poster has it) if
to do so means dropping ourselves in the merda? (as the AGW scenario has it).

As individuals, we can make changes. But another programme (forgotten title)
showed that in spite of what is said in the media, the UK has done nothing, or
worse than nothing, since it began claiming it is leading the world in tackling
climate change. That much hot air probably is a greenhouse gas! (I suspect
other countries are doing just as little - not singling out the UK.)


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *
'Ah you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction' (Barry Maguire)

In message . com, Steve
J writes
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

Given the reports made of the content of the C4 program, it would not be
of much, if any help, in attempting a balanced presentation. If you want
a balanced presentation try the IPCC reports.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.

While this is true, one should be careful not to draw the conclusion
from this that increased greenhouse gas levels are harmless.

3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.

Incorrect. Perhaps we're within sight of the exhaustion of easily
exploitable petroleum reserves, but there's enough other fossil fuels
such as orimulsion, tar sands, oil shales, coal and methane clathrates
to last us several hundred years at current consumption.

4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.

While this is true, one should be careful not to draw the conclusion
from this that GW is harmless - our infrastructure is set up for the
climate of the present (or recent past), the rate of change matters is a
significant influence on economic and ecological impacts, and the
problem is not so much the warming of the recent past, but the warming
that might occur in the future.

5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.

It is unsustainable on a timescale of centuries to millennia. I'm not
sure what line of argument you make for it being harmful if you exclude
AGW. (Particulates and other pollutants, in quantity, are not necessary
concomitants of fossil fuel usage.)

6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.

And the media have downplayed the AGW scenarios big time as well.

7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.

That seems a tendentious phrasing. (Not to mention that singling out
floating the idea of building more nuclear plants is a misleading
presentation of governmental responses to global warming.) Energy
policies are intended to combat the physical reality, not the term used
to describe it.

8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.

Only by the sensationalist and the ignorant. You can't reasonably
ascribe a single weather event, or even a single season in a single
region, to global warming.

9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.

For this to be true you either have to accept an anthropogenic cause, or
the precautionary principle, or the somewhat implausible position that
adding greenhouse gases does not warm the atmosphere, but removing them
does cool it.

10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Incontrovertible evidence is not something that it often - if ever -
available on matters of science. What matters is not
incontrovertibility, but support by the evidence; you should avoid
giving the impression that in the absence of incontrovertible evidence
all positions are equal.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Steve J wrote:
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!


It must be getting better here because Arnie says so. I don't know how
many folk here saw that
prolefeed nonsense on the 6:30 ITV news tonight with The Terminator
telling them at ITV how good
Uncle Tony's global warming taxes, sorry, policies are.

Little evidence of the globally warmed hell in Halifax, NS - I've had to
come home as the incessant cold / snow / gales have successfully given
me pneumonia and I've had to come back to the globally warmed scorched
earth known as the UK to recover.... to find the daffodils in full bloom
and the birdies singing their hearts out

Les

Steve.
You are correct in your statement that global warming is for real, but I
feel that our government has taken up and overplayed its seriousness for
revenue collection purposes.

I would love someone to justify just how raising the tax burden on us all is
going to stop what we know is happening. Why do "we" have to be the leaders
in taking up the challenge on carbon emissions? and have to pay through the
nose for the publicity.

I can never see the proposals working worldwide, until at least the forecast
disasters start to really hit home. (If they ever do!) But how much would it
have cost us as individuals by then?

When you hand money to charities like Cancer research or Oxfam the proceeds
go to helping the afflicted, but when the money goes to government it just
gets swallowed up fighting rediculous wars for which we have no involment
and many other wasteful causes.

If we are going to cut carbon emissions lets do it as a world and lets not
tax the hell out of one nation, because money will not stop it happening,
but will and commitment may make a difference.

"Steve J" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk

In message .com
"Jack )"
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack


Except that there is a little thing called the law of conservation of
energy. Energy cannot be "used".

So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

Martin





--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent.

Interesting perspective Steve. Out of interest how far do you think
alternative views should be presented to pupils? For example is it OK
to present some evidence from the tobacco industry that there is no
tangible link between smoking and lung cancer, or, from the Canadian
asbestos industry linking asbestos and chronic respiratory disorders,
or, the flat earth hypothesis, or evidence suggesting a link between
the MMR vaccine and autism ? I am not intending to be provacative just
interested.

Today's max +14.8 C

Regards,
Richard.

Dartington, South Hams

"Steve J" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well boys and girls, what a hornets'nest last week's channel 4
programme stirred up!

As a teacher, I have to try and put both sides of an argument, and in
this debate this is difficult because all texts, even at A2 level
support the argument for AGW without ant dissent. However, TV
programmes like this, books like "State of Fear", some articles posted
on the internet and in newspapers have offered the chance to at least
attempt a balanced presentation.

However, as the various threads on this learned NG domonstrate, there
*ARE* some entrenched views, and some of us do get "hot under the
collar at times in our exasperation at an alternative view. I hold my
hat up to Gianna for some spirited points of view however, and there
should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW.
Too many are afraid to stick their head above the parapet because of
potential abuse from the 'other side'.

Anyway, some things are undeniable IMHO;

1. Global warming is a fact.
2. Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth.
3. Man has burnt fossil fuels almost to exhaustion, so there are more
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today.
4 The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic
past.
5 Whether Man is responsible for GW or not, burning fossil fuels in
such profusion ia harmful and unsustainable.
6 The media have over-hyped the AGW scenarioa big time.
7 Governments are now driving energy policies into the 21st century
(like building more nuclear plants in the UK) to combat that overused
term 'climate change'.
8. Climate change is blamed for every "freak" natural atmospheric
hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves,
to gales, to heavy rain, atcetera ad nauseam.
9. Global warming has forced us to implement energy conservation
measures and planning a sustainable future.
10. My last one, to give others a chance, neither side can yet offer
positive proof to the other that their arguments/
eveidence is incontravertible.

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,
but as an academic debate, this still has a lot of mileage in it just
yet.

Anyone else care to add to my 10 "undeniable points"?

Or will you take issue with my 10 points?

Steve Jackson
Bablake weather Station
Coventry UK
www.bablakeweather.co.uk
------------------

I pretty well agree with that, but how about :-
11. Whenever there is a contentious issue there is a conspiracy theory to go
with it. Unshakable to those who believe in it but never proven. ;-)

Dave

In message ,
writes
In message .com
"Jack )"
wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:16, "Steve J" wrote:

Personally, I'm getting sick to death of GW on TV and in the press,...snip

So too am I. It's become like a worn out gramophone record and if it
keeps being replayed, in the end, no-one will bother to listen any
more.

Now what would encourage me to use less electricity would be
information just how much that TV on standby (for example) is actually
using. It cannot be difficult to devise a "master panel" that can be
fitted into home circuits so you can see just what each appliance/
light, etc is using. Once we see the cost of our "toys" then we might
take some action. But as it is, we haven't a clue and frankly, there
is a temptation not to be bothered.

Jack


Except that there is a little thing called the law of conservation of
energy. Energy cannot be "used".

So where does the extra energy go when we leave our TVs on standby, or
use a conventional light bulb? The answer is it is converted to heat.
Which warms the rooms in your house. which means that your
thermostaically controlled central heating system uses correspondingly
less fuel to maintain your chosen temperature.

So by reducing the heat generated by your lighting and entertainment
systems, you increase the fuel required by your heating system. I
fail to see how this will reduce carbon emissions.

Martin


Quite possible the energy savings of not leaving electronic devices on
standby are less that the headline figures, for the reason you give. But
during the summer the waste heat is not offset by reduced heating bills,
and may require additional expenditure of energy on air-conditioning.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley