Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)
**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some
more
research. Here are some prices in the US:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs
Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.
I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.
Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. Please do some
reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion
on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very
important issue. --
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like
'denier' that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to
put those who have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket
as the holocaust deniers.
**I was EXTREMELY careful in my use of the term 'denier'. I did not call you
a denier (though you may well be - or not). I called John Howard (and his
government) and George W Bush deniers. I was quite specific. John Howard was
a lawyer and a politician. He has little knowledge of scientific matters.
George W Bush was/is a drug-addled college drop-out, whose daddy managed to
keep him out of gaol and then became a politician. His knowledge of
scientific matters was/is virtually non-existent. Both these men employed a
bunch of very smart climate scientists (the EPA, NASA, US Academy of
Sciences - in the US. CSIRO, BoM, Australian Academy of Science - in
Australia) to inform them on the situation regarding climate change (aka:
global warming) and the relevance of human influence. ALL these
organisations informed both men that there was almost no doubt that human
induced global warming was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.
Not only did these men ignore the advice of the scientists that they paid to
inform them, but they actively denied the overwhelming evidence presented
and decided that the people who are employed by the fossil fuel industy were
correct.
That is what I call a denier.
And the "You're a smart guy" .... but
... I can almost see the head sadly shaking.
**Not at all. We've had dealings in the past and I have no issues with the
term. As a technical guy, you will likely have a good grounding in science.
I find it curious that you've managed to find fault with everything in the
IPCC AR4 though. I tazke it that you've read the report? All 1,600 odd
pages?
If you think that I'm
so smart, do you honestly believe that I never do any reading on all
this ?
**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?
Do you think my position on all this has come about as a
result of me just wanting to take an alternate view for the sake of
it ?
**Possibly. Many people take such a view.
I don't know what the situation is in your half of the world,
but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion.
**As it should be. Many researchers have predicted that if CO2 levels reach
500ppm, positive feedback will ensue and there will be nothing humans can do
to prevent catastrophic warming from occuring. At least one researcher
believes that the 'tipping point' has already been reached. It would seem
prudent to listen to the guys who study climatology, rather than the guys
who speak for the fossil fuel industry in this matter.
No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being
screamed down as a "denier".
**Well, it would seem that, since climatologists study the climate, ignoring
what they say is, at a very minimum, stupid.
When I say that the case is by no means
proven, except in the media,
**The Murdock controlled media claims it is all wrong. The scientific medai,
OTOH, has made it's case very clear. AGW is a problem.
it's reached the point now where the BBC
don't basically carry any news that might present an alternate view.
**Perhaps the BBC is concentrating on facts, rather than fiction. I accept
that. They leave the fiction, lies and distortions to the Murdock media.
Would you prefer that the BBC was more like the Murdock media?
If they do have anyone on a programme that dares to suggest any
alternate view, they make sure that there are three loud-mouthed
greenies in the studio, to shout the person down.
**I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.
Plus the
interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is twisted
to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.
**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her
a great deal about it.
Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models.
**No, it did not. The initial momentum came about during the early 1970s
(which is when I first began reading about CO2 induced global warming in the
pages of Scientific American). The warming that was occuring was begining to
alarm researchers. Sometime later (1988), the IPCC was set up to investigate
the measured warming.
Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill
correctly, when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's
with just a few variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from
the University of East Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed
'hockey stick' graph came from, that sought to show the rapid
warming, that actually hadn't taken place. The guy in charge of all
this was suspended from his position, after his emails were obtained,
showing communications with his contemporaries, inviting them to
massage the data to fit the model.
**I am familiar with the illegally obtained emails, which were carefully
cherry-picked for release, in a shabby attempt to discredit some very
dedicated scientists. Fortunately several independent inquiries have
exonerated the scientists.
It was largely as a result of
this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart, as
it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is
that ? What kind of scientist is he ?
**A very good scientist, actually. Of course, if you had taken the time to
investigate the matter, you might realise that the (Murdock controlled?) did
a number on the CRU.
My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation.
**Some do. Some don't.
As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic.
**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW a
* Idiots.
* Religious nutters.
* Fossil fuel apologists.
* Those who are too lazy to read the best information on the issue (AR4).
Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good
scientist should keep his mind open.
**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?
Fortunately, there is a recent
groundswell of alternate view from a number of equally reputable
scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand up and be
counted.
**Wrong. There are a very, very tiny number of climate scientists who
challenge the consensus view. Most are paid by the fossil fuel industry and
are, therefore, suspect. The opinions of scientists whose discipline is not
climate science are not of much interest.
And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have
you stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now
the green movement ?
**What are you attempting to draw a comparison here with? A wind turbine
manufacturer, compared to Exxon? Yeah, right. The fossil fuel industry is
extremely well-funded, entrenched and uses EXACTLY the same tactics as those
employed by the tobacco industry. In fact, they use the same organisations
to promote their position. THAT should send warning bells to any sane
person.
Do you think that for some reason, because they
are greenies, they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel
?
**I am not talking about nice. I'm talking about science. Keep the
discussion centred on the science. Personalities are a spurious issue.
Not prepared to have people in their pay to say what they need them
to ?
**Some people say what they're paid to say and some say what they believe.
And some say what the science says. They're the scientists and they are the
only ones I care about.
If the whole man-made global warming argument were to collapse,
it would spell the death of the green industrial machine, with no
less implications and impact that a similar demise of the fossil fuel
industry would have.
**You may as well ask what would happen if NASA admitted that the Moon
landing was bull****. It happened. Global warming is happening. The trend is
impossible to refute.
I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made
global warming is made with 100% certainty.
**Call it 95% certainty. That's close enough for me. If my local fire
authorities suggested that there was a 95% probability that my home would be
destroyed in a bushfire within the next 10 years, I'd make certain my
insurance policy covered such an event. Are you one of those people who
prefers to cling to the 5% possibility? I call that dumb.
That is your prerogative.
But please understand that I, and many others also read the same data
and arguments, and arrive at a different conclusion.
**Have you read AR4?
I don't have a
closed mind on the subject. I am still open to persuasion if
indisputable data is presented. But I would really like it to all
become detached from the religious hysteria that has gripped the
world over it.
**It's science, not religion.
I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history.
**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather.
Maybe man's activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously
don't believe that all of the changes that are perceived are down to
things that we are doing.
**NO ONE EVER said that humans were solely responsible. The Sun is the major
driver of climate on this planet. CO2 is _a_ driver of climate. A small one.
Small, but significant. CO2 is not insignificant.
There are many other factors that
contribute to weather patterns, and some of them may be more
significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's activities,
would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury is
still out.
**Have you read AR4?
Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change
anything, and I expect there will still be a lot of people pursing
their lips and shaking their heads at this poor deluded fool, but
hey-ho. That's life, and I don't really have the inclination to spend
any more time on it now.
**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au