David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.


They are in fact fairly correct.

Ships seldom get stuck in wasteful traffic jams or have to wait with
their engines idling at traffic lights.

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
"Brian G" wrote in message
...
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.
I don't think we're being taxed to high heaven because of carbon
emissions, governments have always taxed us but now the wrong things are
being taxed.

As for not believing in it, that's your prerogative but it isn't just
British scientists who do.

Russian scientists are predicting a global cooling cycle, which they expect
to start around 2012. There are also signs of global warming on Mars and we
have the scientist from the Cavendish Laboratory who tells us that only 15%
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the
radiant energy that CO2 can absorb while the real danger is water vapour.
Even Chapter 1 of the IPCC report is nowhere near as conclusive as the media
and government want us to believe. The extent of disagreement among the
experts suggests that none of them really know what is happening or what is
going to happen.

More rubbish.


Colin Bignell

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian G wrote:
That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.
And if the taxes do what they *say* they are intended to do and reduce
such emissions, they'll then have to find something else to tax due to
reduced government income. In other words, you can't win.

If the government achieves its target of a 60% reduction in emissions, it
will have little impact on a global scale, as we only produce 2% of all CO2
emissions now.


Depends on whether it refuses to import anything from China and India.

WE don;t directly emit..we buy the stuff made by the emissions of
others. A fact conveniently neglected.

Colin Bignell

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is
caused by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?

**** stirring.



At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

.... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

Yes.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt
The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

Although many people are surprised when you point out that shipping
worldwide produces twice the CO2 of all aviation, given how much
fuss is made about aviation.

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

What was it some American sain on radio 4 yesterday

"Your child has a slight fever: Do you

(a) go to the doctor who says 'this may well be and probably is the
start of something VERY serious, we should take immediate action inorder
to preventy it getting worse"

(b) Go to an astrologer who says 'no one can prove that this means
anything at all. Ignore it'"

"Andy McKenzie" wrote in message
...

The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your
foot on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I
don't see why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or
'It's not braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw
a documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that
this hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.

Andy


Just sit here?

No, they should be free to put their feet on the accelerator.

Mary

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.

That's probably the worst place for reliable information.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.

That's probably the worst place for reliable information.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.


I wasn't aware they did any research *to* challenge.

On 2007-04-04 09:19:21 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused
by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?


At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human production
of CO2 influences climate change?

The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your foot
on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I don't see
why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or 'It's not
braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw a
documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that this
hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.


Poor analogy

All of this presupposes that

a) the bus is rolling over the cliff

b) that there are any brakes

c) that they actually do anything

On 2007-04-04 08:55:22 +0100, Tony Williams said:

In article ,

If the government achieves its target of a 60% reduction in
emissions, it will have little impact on a global scale, as we
only produce 2% of all CO2 emissions now.

Yes, but it is a lovely political bandwagon......

They can put an emotive spin on it, there is no
hard target to measure the govt's performance
against, and, (best of all), they can tax us
like buggery for vague, unconfirmable reasons.

Not to mention that when it doesn't actually achieve anything, the
blame can go onto the nebulous populace for not doing their bit.

It's a politician's dream.

On 2007-04-04 10:21:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?

**** stirring.

Nope. Serious question.




At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

.... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

Yes.

I remain to be convinced.

On 2007-04-04 10:25:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt
The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

Although many people are surprised when you point out that shipping
worldwide produces twice the CO2 of all aviation, given how much
fuss is made about aviation.

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

What was it some American sain on radio 4 yesterday

"Your child has a slight fever: Do you

(a) go to the doctor who says 'this may well be and probably is the
start of something VERY serious, we should take immediate action
inorder to preventy it getting worse"

(b) Go to an astrologer who says 'no one can prove that this means
anything at all. Ignore it'"

Not reasonable analogies.

On Apr 4, 12:55 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-04 08:55:22 +0100, Tony Williams said:

In article ,

If the government achieves its target of a 60% reduction in
emissions, it will have little impact on a global scale, as we
only produce 2% of all CO2 emissions now.

Yes, but it is a lovely political bandwagon......

They can put an emotive spin on it, there is no
hard target to measure the govt's performance
against, and, (best of all), they can tax us
like buggery for vague, unconfirmable reasons.

Not to mention that when it doesn't actually achieve anything, the
blame can go onto the nebulous populace for not doing their bit.

And if it doesn't get any warmer or the cooling cycle predicted by
Russian scientists happens the govenrment and the greens will crow
about how they saved the planet. Heads they win, tails we lose.

MBQ

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:03:56 +0100, nightjar wrote:

The difference is possibly less than you think. The latest container
ships carry around 6,000 - 7,500 40ft containers.

How many mpg?

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:37:23 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.

I wasn't aware they did any research *to* challenge.

Yawn. Perhaps this tells us more about you than it tells us about
FoE.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Not really. The best starting point is probably Friends of the Earth
and then following up the references.

That's probably the worst place for reliable information.

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most
people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you
have not done so.

Without evidence the comment (which I didn't see) is worthless.

Mary

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-04 10:25:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt
The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

Although many people are surprised when you point out that shipping
worldwide produces twice the CO2 of all aviation, given how much
fuss is made about aviation.

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

What was it some American sain on radio 4 yesterday

"Your child has a slight fever: Do you

(a) go to the doctor who says 'this may well be and probably is the
start of something VERY serious, we should take immediate action
inorder to preventy it getting worse"

(b) Go to an astrologer who says 'no one can prove that this means
anything at all. Ignore it'"

Not reasonable analogies.


Not to an unreasonable person, no.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:03:56 +0100, nightjar wrote:

The difference is possibly less than you think. The latest container
ships carry around 6,000 - 7,500 40ft containers.

How many mpg?

probably about 1.. or less.

The great saving is the staff they don;t have and therefore the
consumption they don't generate :-)

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is
caused by climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

It was well referenced and the opinions were from leading scientists.
Because it contradicted your beliefs doesn't mean any deciet was involved at
all.

At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

Which seems to be exactly what you are doing.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The message
from "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com contains
these words:

we
have the scientist from the Cavendish Laboratory who tells us that only 15%
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the
radiant energy that CO2 can absorb

Of all the various points of the skeptic's case I think this is about
the only one that merits serious consideration and it is luckily a very
simple point to test. All that is required is to review the Earth from
outside the atmosphere and see whether or not there is the expected
complete lack of radiation at the absorption frequency for CO2. It
doesn't really matter if the requirement is for 15% or 50%. If the limit
has passed any additional CO2 should have an extremely limited impact
outside the absorption band (if the graph I came across can be relied
on).

AFAICR the Channel 4 program made no mention of CO2 being surplus to
requirements. ISTM much the reverse as it claimed that CO2 did nothing
as there was so little of it in the atmosphere.

--
Roger Chapman

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
....
Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

Probably because none has been presented. Chapter 1 of the IPCC report,
hailed as the definitive view, clearly states that its assessments are based
on expert judgement rather than on formal studies. Even then, in many areas,
those experts only think it 'more likely than not' that anthopogenic
activity contributed in some, unquantified way to the changes.

Colin Bignell

The Medway Handyman wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is
caused by climate change - not the other way around.
It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

It was well referenced and the opinions were from leading scientists.

The chief of whom threatened to sue the program makers for
misrepresenting what he said.

Because it contradicted your beliefs doesn't mean any deciet was involved at
all.


Why not read ALL the feedback on that program.

At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

Which seems to be exactly what you are doing.


Hardly.

Roger wrote:
The message
from "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com contains
these words:

we
have the scientist from the Cavendish Laboratory who tells us that only 15%
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the
radiant energy that CO2 can absorb

Of all the various points of the skeptic's case I think this is about
the only one that merits serious consideration and it is luckily a very
simple point to test. All that is required is to review the Earth from
outside the atmosphere and see whether or not there is the expected
complete lack of radiation at the absorption frequency for CO2. It
doesn't really matter if the requirement is for 15% or 50%. If the limit
has passed any additional CO2 should have an extremely limited impact
outside the absorption band (if the graph I came across can be relied
on).

Its not so much an absorber, as an insulator.


AFAICR the Channel 4 program made no mention of CO2 being surplus to
requirements. ISTM much the reverse as it claimed that CO2 did nothing
as there was so little of it in the atmosphere.


All of which is completely contrary to the data.

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
....
Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

Probably because none has been presented. Chapter 1 of the IPCC report,
hailed as the definitive view, clearly states that its assessments are based
on expert judgement rather than on formal studies. Even then, in many areas,
those experts only think it 'more likely than not' that anthopogenic
activity contributed in some, unquantified way to the changes.

Colin Bignell


Good grief. I am smply gobsmacked.

Between the FOE 'doom is nigh' ********, and the 'it isn't happening'
********, what ever happened to the sane hugely documented and very very
careful science?

Well there seems little hope that anyone will do anything about it now.

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:43:09 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

It was well referenced

A highly amusing assertion.

and the opinions were from leading scientists.

An even more amusing assertion.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece is
a good starting point for those who wish to consider this assertion.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:03:56 +0100, nightjar wrote:

The difference is possibly less than you think. The latest container
ships carry around 6,000 - 7,500 40ft containers.

How many mpg?

Ships measure consumption in miles per tonne. Looking at some figures I got
from various sources on the internet, it seems that the trip from Hong Kong
to Harwich is around 9,700 miles and would use about 1,400 tonnes of fuel
oil. That is 187 kgs of fuel per 40ft container for a 15,000 TEU container
ship. DoT figures give an average of 319 g/km for an artic capable of
carrying a 40 ft container travelling on a motorway, so the fuel needed to
get the container from China would get it about another 365 miles by road,
assuming no urban driving and no hold-ups.

Colin Bignell

On 2007-04-04 17:19:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-04-04 10:25:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

What was it some American sain on radio 4 yesterday

"Your child has a slight fever: Do you

(a) go to the doctor who says 'this may well be and probably is the
start of something VERY serious, we should take immediate action
inorder to preventy it getting worse"

(b) Go to an astrologer who says 'no one can prove that this means
anything at all. Ignore it'"

Not reasonable analogies.


Not to an unreasonable person, no.

If all of this were being handled on a purely scientific basis without
the vested interests, political twists, media hype, taxation
opportunities and all the rest of it, it would be possible for it to be
taken more seriously.

There are all kinds of "might happen" doomsday scenarios where one
could use this analogy. They don't receive the same air time and if
anyone used it in connection with them it would likely be deemed
ridiculous.

It seems that in connection with this particular issue, any kind of
analogy, loose correlation, emotional blackmail and so forth is
considered fair game and is justified for the cause.

It's dishonesty of the highest order.

In message , nightjar
writes

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Brian G" wrote in message
...

That's OK Mary, but I'm not really a believer in this 'global warming'
caused by excessive carbon emissions theory and niggled to hell because
of this government taxing us to high heaven as an excuse for it.

I don't think we're being taxed to high heaven because of carbon
emissions, governments have always taxed us but now the wrong things are
being taxed.

As for not believing in it, that's your prerogative but it isn't just
British scientists who do.

Russian scientists are predicting a global cooling cycle,

What's that then ? (doing a "Mary" [1] )

[1] too lazy too google


which they expect
to start around 2012. There are also signs of global warming on Mars and we
have the scientist from the Cavendish Laboratory who tells us that only 15%
of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the
radiant energy that CO2 can absorb while the real danger is water vapour.
Even Chapter 1 of the IPCC report is nowhere near as conclusive as the media
and government want us to believe. The extent of disagreement among the
experts suggests that none of them really know what is happening or what is
going to happen.

Colin Bignell



--
geoff

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is
caused by
climate change - not the other way around.
It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?

At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

.... While lagging behind it


--
geoff

In message , Andy McKenzie
writes
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused
by
climate change - not the other way around.

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?


At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human production
of CO2 influences climate change?

The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your foot
on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I don't see
why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or 'It's not
braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw a
documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that this
hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.

So, what you are really saying is "put your hand out of the window,
maybe the air resistance will bring us to a halt"

--
geoff

On 2007-04-04 19:22:14 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:43:09 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

It was well referenced

A highly amusing assertion.

and the opinions were from leading scientists.

An even more amusing assertion.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece is
a good starting point for those who wish to consider this assertion.

That would assume that one considers the Independent as a reliable
source of information.

However, assuming that Wunsch has been quoted verbatim...

The first and penultimate paragraphs are the most telling.

At least he is honest enough to say that science is not mature enough
to give definitive answers in a number of areas which are *actually*
important - i.e. how to deal with the effects of climate change.

Otherwise the exercise does have shades of King Knut about it.

On 2007-04-04 19:05:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
....
Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

Probably because none has been presented. Chapter 1 of the IPCC report,
hailed as the definitive view, clearly states that its assessments are
based on expert judgement rather than on formal studies. Even then, in
many areas, those experts only think it 'more likely than not' that
anthopogenic activity contributed in some, unquantified way to the
changes.

Colin Bignell

Good grief. I am smply gobsmacked.

Between the FOE 'doom is nigh' ********, and the 'it isn't happening'
********, what ever happened to the sane hugely documented and very
very careful science?

Well there seems little hope that anyone will do anything about it now.

Exactly. That is the real problem. There is way too much
pollution of information with emotion.

On 2007-04-04 20:20:19 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy McKenzie
writes


The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your foot
on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I don't see
why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or 'It's not
braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw a
documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that this
hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.

So, what you are really saying is "put your hand out of the window,
maybe the air resistance will bring us to a halt"

Yes, but at least everyone will have had the opportunity to take part.
Don't forget that it's collectivism that counts here.

On 2007-04-04 20:20:19 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-04-04 07:38:05 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:19:55 +0100 someone who may be "The Medway
Handyman" wrote this:-

According to a documentary on the box recently, excessive CO2 is caused by
climate change - not the other way around.
It was not a documentary, rather it was an opinion piece. That some
people think it was a documentary illustrates the deceit involved in
producing it and putting it on the television.

Motivation?

At the time the flaws in the opinion piece were pointed out. Of
course those who want to believe the same as the authors of the
opinion piece will continue to clutch at anything to prop up their
belief.

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

... While lagging behind it

It's amazing what science can do these days.

In message , John Stumbles
writes
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:03:56 +0100, nightjar wrote:

The difference is possibly less than you think. The latest container
ships carry around 6,000 - 7,500 40ft containers.

How many mpg?

A factor of 10 better than a lorry IIRC


--
geoff

The message
from raden contains these words:

... and somehow this is different from the belief that human
production of CO2 influences climate change?

.... While lagging behind it

It appears that warming the oceans leads to CO2 output. What the program
makers claimed was that because of this the CO2 has no effect on
warming. That conclusion just does not follow and the very fact they ran
it casts doubt on the objectivity of the program.

--
Roger Chapman

Andy Hall wrote:

If all of this were being handled on a purely scientific basis without
the vested interests, political twists, media hype, taxation
opportunities and all the rest of it, it would be possible for it to
be taken more seriously.

There are all kinds of "might happen" doomsday scenarios where one
could use this analogy. They don't receive the same air time and if
anyone used it in connection with them it would likely be deemed
ridiculous.

It seems that in connection with this particular issue, any kind of
analogy, loose correlation, emotional blackmail and so forth is
considered fair game and is justified for the cause.

It's dishonesty of the highest order.

I do believe you have just described the Passive Smoking argument.



--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:19:21 +0100, "Andy McKenzie"
wrote:

The bus is rolling down a hill towards a cliff. Someone yells 'put your foot
on the brake' and you then get the passengers helpfully saying 'I don't see
why we should brake - that other bus is bigger than we are' or 'It's not
braking that's the issue its all the fault of gravity' or 'I saw a
documentary the other week that said that an astrologer predicted that this
hill was an optical illusion, let's just sit here'.

Your analogy would undoubtedly appeal to the greenwashers of FoE in
terms of its emotional content, lack of relevance and inaccuracy. A
more realistic one would be:-

"OK you lot in steerage - this your Captain speaking. We have hit an
iceberg and although the Titanic can't sink it's important that you
all run around doing something as every little helps - so each of you
grab a teaspoon from that pile on the floor and get baling."

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2007-04-04 23:23:39 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

If all of this were being handled on a purely scientific basis without
the vested interests, political twists, media hype, taxation
opportunities and all the rest of it, it would be possible for it to
be taken more seriously.

There are all kinds of "might happen" doomsday scenarios where one
could use this analogy. They don't receive the same air time and if
anyone used it in connection with them it would likely be deemed
ridiculous.

It seems that in connection with this particular issue, any kind of
analogy, loose correlation, emotional blackmail and so forth is
considered fair game and is justified for the cause.

It's dishonesty of the highest order.

I do believe you have just described the Passive Smoking argument.

In a way.

On 04 Apr 2007 08:22:55 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:09:57 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

I can guess that something made in China has a bigger carbon footprint
than the same thing made in the UK because of transposrt

The manufacturers of the ship full of toys which arrived from China
before Christmas claimed that the carbon emissions of ships are
surprisingly low. Similar claims are made by exporters of New
Zealand lamb.

Although many people are surprised when you point out that shipping
worldwide produces twice the CO2 of all aviation, given how much
fuss is made about aviation.

Fortunately I'm not a believer in man-made CO2 causing global
warming as I've not yet seen any valid scientific evidence,
but I do believe in not wasting energy for other reasons.


I have no idea what point you are trying to make. However I will rise
to the bait. Shipping is the most efficient method of transporting
freight in terms of fuel burned per tonne transported. Marine diesel
engines are principally low or medium speed diesel engines burning
'heavy' fuel with efficiency close to 40%. It is simply stupid to try
to make any comparison between aircraft and ships. Aircraft pay loads
are measured in 10s of tonnes, ocean going ships' in increments of
10,000 tonnes. Marine diesel engines are more efficient than steam
turbine power station that burn fossil fuels.