> Geoff Benn wrote : "Nuff said"

Geoff, you do realise the Marcott study you linked to:

All they've done is glue together two completely different data sets to create the illusion of modern warming: The 50 marine sediment proxies they use have a low resolution of about 300 years so they smooth out annual variations. So they tacked them onto the modern thermometer record - and claim the resulting graph demostrates exceptional modern warming. No it doesn't. All it shows is the difference between a low-pass filtered signal and a high-frequency signal. It's a pretty pathetic attempt. You can't wave that rubbish graph in front of trained engineers and expect them to take you seriously. And that's before we even get into how they selected the 73 proxies and what the proxies they rejected show. Or how badly their results match other proxies such as Greenland ice cores etc.

The fact that such a piece of regurgitated junk science is being unquestioningly promoted by alarmists world wide give you some idea of how desperate they've become.

Meanwhile there's been no global warming this century and in the UK it's mid-march and snow's still on the ground.

Test. I think we may have reached the max number of posts since this thread doesn't seem to be accepting new ones,

What mega changes have/are you making to your life then, in order to deal with this 'mega problem'?

Regards.

The forum does something strange when it adds pages. (IMHO)

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

This is getting a bit personal but if you really want to know (& accepting the significant risk of getting shot down in flames!) .....


Reduced car use - currently approx 6000miles p.a.

Increased house insulation - now no coal consumption, instead burning self-gleaned wood; but still have ancient oil fired Rayburn!

Invested in wind energy company

10+ years since I traveled by plane

Holiday within 1 days drive from home

Generally use bike for local travel and, when possible, bus for longer journey (my bus pass is a useful bit of plastic!)

Only occasional red meat consumption

Support some 'green' charities



I don't know the size of my carbon footprint, but it must far exceed that of the majority of humanity; so I certainly can't claim to have solved the problem but I do accept that there is one.

Regards....Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown

It is good to see that you have made some changes because it supports the message you are putting accross and shows that you take some personal ownership.

It is however interesting that air travel is on the increase and is predicted to continue increasing. Cars of course are becoming more fuel efficient however nowadays more cars are on the road and this is also predicted to continue increasing.

I accept there is a problem as well, but it is not the climate.

Regards.

Clive, well done for actually trying to practise what you preach.

That makes you a much better man than 99% of professional man made global warming alarmists. From the multiple-mansion-dwelling, lear-jet flying, private-holiday-island-owning likes of Al Gore, Richard Branson and James Cameron, to the circus of climate scientists and IPCC/gov bureaucrats who spend half their lives flying to climate change conferences in various exotic locations when they could easily skype conference instead.

I went with my son to an open day at Man Met University yesterday, he wants to study Geography a proper subject methinks. The politicisation of the presentation was staggering, something not observed at other universities. The Head of Department is a self confessed Guardian is the only true newspaper reader.
He offered a picture of a flooded Shrewsbury as evidence of 'climate change'. The Manchester Poly graduate had missed the point that the recent activities of the River Severn suggested no change.
I'm a Wulfrunian by orgin and know the river and watershed well having fished it for over 40 years.
Scary how academia works. Tell me funding isn't the root of this behaviour.

Edited: 18 March 2013 at 12:01 AM by HazelGroveWolf

A question for Westonpa:-

If the problem isn't Climate Change, what is it?

Regards

-------------------------
clivebrown

You know Geoff and his camp followers may be right, it might be the end of the world, but maybe not.

Looking out of the window everything appears exceedingly normal, UK weather appears depressingly the same as it always has been, which is extremely variable but always disappointing.

I observe the wind turbines only work when its not too cold, not too windy, or not too still, which seems to mean that they don't work most of the time!

There are far too many cars around, most of them appear to be in my way!

But generally people seem to be getting on with their lives, so maybe Geoff and his army should just get on with their lives (there is no second chance).

However how Geoff chooses to live his life is up to him, that is his choice, that is the most precious freedom we have above everything else, that each individual can choose.

Nobody knows what the future will bring, I cannot think of one prediction of the future that has proved to be correct, my crystal ball has become cloudy as I have got older, I generally just try and live my life as best I can.

Pessimism.

Regards.

I've just been reading an interesting article, published last month by James Smith who until fairly recently was chairman of Shell Uk and is now chair of the Carbon Trust; the article is entitled 'Can we do without nuclear?'

The first few paragraphs read:-
"The euphoric phase on low carbon energy is over. There is no solution that is clean and cheap and always on.

Yet we must make major investments in energy. Old coal and nuclear plants will have to close. And climate change has to be tackled or it will result in costly economic damage.

So let's consider the options for investment in low carbon electricity. Over the coming twenty years there are only three options that are relevant - wind, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear. Each has significant imperfections yet each works. And there is no muddle through option.

Each technology has deeply entrenched opponents. But if all the opponents have their way, we are left with no solution. Or at a minimum there will be a long period of argument, muddle and delay, followed by a rushed, expensive and late period of investment. Isn't that how it is already feeling?

Let's consider the three energy technology options in turn. Each is a different kind of curate's egg."..........



He then gives a brief but pragmatic assessment of the three, including their pluses & minuses before concluding:-



......."So where does this leave us? There are no emotional highs with any of these technologies. They are hard work and more costly than current technologies.

But, imperfect though they are, these low carbon technologies work. And, though more costly, the cost of climate damage looks likely to be higher. Also, it is clear that at least any two of these technologies will have to be deployed if our energy and carbon reduction targets are to be met. Looking at it another way, diversification makes sense and the weaknesses of each option tend to be compensated by the strengths of another. In short, it is best if we have all three.

But of course we can't write blank cheques on any of these technologies. The focus has fallen on nuclear, particularly with Centrica pulling out of the nuclear joint venture with EDF.

There is a decent case that the consumer, us, takes some of the risk to get the first few nuclear plants going. Let's hope that DECC has enough tools in its negotiating kitbag. They need to get the balance right in creating incentives for EDF to deliver, to shoulder a realistic level of risk but not to earn super profits. Both DECC and EDF know that paying a high price for the first few nuclear plants can only make sense if it represents a credible pathway to lower costs in future.

As consumers we should have two serious worries if nuclear prices itself out of the energy market. Firstly the benefits to innovation and cost control that come from inter technology competition would be much diminished. Secondly a key source of diversification of risk to our energy system would be lost. The outcome could be a more costly and risky energy system. Like the other technologies, nuclear has to prove itself in cost terms. But we should not be thinking of giving up now."



The full article may be read here can we do without nuclear?


Pretty realistic words I think although personally I'm not entirely comfortable with new nuclear - maybe OK for the UK but not world wide; and there could usefully be mention of financially viable energy conservation.


Regards......Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown

A good mix of energy sources seems to be a sensible option for the future.

Regards.