"Arfa Daily" wrote in
:



"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
That is assuming that CO2 actually is the cause of the latest
warming since the 1700s (really - it started back then with the
end of the mini ice age) and that humans are contributing to
this CO2 increase by more than a couple of percent.

This is one of the confusing points. The "Little Ice Age" (which was
not universal) ended roughly at the time industrialization began.
Cause and effect are not clear. However...

I'll keep saying this until someone listens. It doesn't matter
whether or not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming. We need
sources of renewable energy that are either carbon-neutral, or emit
zero carbon. If we focus on this, the warming problem will probably
take care of itself.


That point is not really in dispute for most serious-thinking people.
The problem is that this whole thing has taken on an almost religious
life of its own, and anyone not swept along with it all, is denounced
as a 'denier' - the equivalent of a heretic in real terms. There is a
well respected and long-running TV programme here called "Horizon". It
examines all manner of scientific issues in readily understandable
terms, and is highly watchable from an entertainment point of view,
even though it is a properly 'serious' show. A couple of weeks back,
the incoming president of the Royal Society (the oldest and most
revered seat of science in the world) presented the programme, and it
was entitled 'Science Under Threat' I think. He was basically looking
into why the tide of public opinion seems to have started to turn
against the scientists, particularly on the global warming issue, and
more and more people feel that they are being lied to. This anti GW
movement gained a lot of momentum with the very bad publicity that
surrounded the 'Climategate' affair, where the head honcho at the the
University of East Anglia Climate Research Faculty, which advises
governments world wide on climate change, was found, through leaked
emails, to have been apparently 'massaging' and even suppressing data,
to fit the wanted conclusions about man being responsible for GW. The
conclusion that the guy came to was that scientists were being too
insular, and not talking to the general public, and explaining
themselves enough. This, he decided, was making the public unjustly
suspicious of everything that was being said, fuelled by revelations
like Climategate.

But I think that he was missing the point completely. He failed to
understand that it has become a religion, with its own mantras, and
its high priests are in fact very vocal at every opportunity,
appearing on TV, radio and in newspapers just about every day. They
have this attitude of 'we're right so you must be wrong', which is
forced down the public's throat continuously, through the media, and
all this legislation which is depriving us of 'comfort' items like
incandescent light bulbs, and stopping our waste bins from being
emptied every week, and stopping the local tips from taking any
rubbish that they don't consider to be recyclable and so on. I think
what we are actually starting to see is a backlash from the public at
having their lives interfered with continuously, and they see this as
a result of the preachings of the scientists.

Alternative power is fine, as long as it is worth the effort and
energy budget used to produce it. The figures for wind power - at
least in this part of the world - don't bear out the claims which are
made for it. Wind turbines take a lot of manufacturing, shipping,
installing and maintenance, all of which uses very substantial amounts
of energy, and the returns from them are very small at best. Make no
mistake, the erection of windfarms is about corporate business, as is
an awful lot of green technology. Problem is that it's gone so far
now, that even if it was all proved to be wrong tomorrow, we wouldn't
be able to stop without causing a world-wide financial meltdown in the
multi-billion dollar industry sector that has grown up around this
dubious 'science' ...

Arfa



I'm not buying the idea that humans can have an effect on global climate.
(aside from a major nuclear war...)

not compared to solar output changes,volcanoes,major forest fires,and other
natural causes.
Also,I doubt that "developing nations" are going to change their practices.

then I REALLY get creeped out when people start talking about lowering the
world population. For that,They Go First;they can set us an example,show us
how truly caring they are about it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com