"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
....
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?

The problem is that the science has only produced theories, lots of them,
many of which are contradictory. Until at least one of those theories has
produced accurate and repeatable predictions of future climate behaviour,
they all remain theories. An ability to model what has happened in the past
is a way to filter out the theories that do not work, it is not a proof of
one that does work. The only current certainty about climate change is that
it changes.

Colin Bignell

"Huge" wrote in message
...

I expect container ships are a lot more efficient; fuel efficiency is not
one of the armed forces' priorities.

Tell that to a fighter pilot.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:33:08 +0000, Huge wrote:

I expect container ships are a lot more efficient

One hopes so. Even so shipping something 1000s of miles must be
comparable with trucking it for 100s. And goods will still be
trucked 100s of miles to and from ports on their journeys as well as the
sea voyage.

In article ,
AJH wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:16:10 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:33:08 +0000, Huge wrote:

I expect container ships are a lot more efficient

One hopes so. Even so shipping something 1000s of miles must be
comparable with trucking it for 100s. And goods will still be
trucked 100s of miles to and from ports on their journeys as well as the
sea voyage.

I'm unsure of how costs related to energy consumption in the mid 70s
but we were told it cost double the amount per tonne to send round
wood timber 55 miles to Southampton as it cost a Canadian east coast
producer to send a similar product to Liverpool docks.

As a kid I had a pal whose father owned a trawler. And I can remember it
was possible for a kid to pull it into the jetty in the harbour by hand -
just with the weight of one teenager. Try moving a lorry like that. ;-)

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:40:28 +0100, AJH
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:16:10 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:33:08 +0000, Huge wrote:

I expect container ships are a lot more efficient

snip

Container ships are no more 'energy' efficient than any other ship
fitted with similarpropulsion engines. In fact it can be said they
are less efficient as they are designed to be 'fast' (20 knots plus)
Fast=higher fuel consumption.

Container ships efficiency is related to efficient handling of cargo
thus reducing the in port time.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

My footprint is usually mud!

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Brian G wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

Mary

This may be of interest to you Mary http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/
and could well steer you to the information that you are asking for.

Brian G
Ask Charles Windsor, I am sure he knows as a green advocate and probably
the person in the UK with the largest carbon footprint.

And his farm shop is not organic!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"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.

Which is just about true of global warming!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

No, probably because it's complete cobblers dreamed up by the environ mental
industry to create a few more easy jobs.


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

On 2007-06-18 22:33:55 +0100, Owain said:

Alan Holmes wrote:
Ask Charles Windsor, I am sure he knows as a green advocate and
probably the person in the UK with the largest carbon footprint.
And his farm shop is not organic!

And his pasties have more fat than McDonald's burgers[1]

Owain

[1] Exact figures will depend on products being compared.

That doesn't matter. Organic or even pseudo-organic doesn't have to
equate to low fat.

On 18 Jun, 19:29, "Alan Holmes" wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message

t...

Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

My footprint is usually mud!

As will be your name if you persist in this bizarre practice of
ressurecting old threads which have long since been done to death, and
have expired from most peoples's servers months ago.

David

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
Is there a reliable and comprehensive source of information about the
carbon footprint for various appliances etc?

No, probably because it's complete cobblers dreamed up by the environ mental
industry to create a few more easy jobs.


Rather to make a stack of moolah out of the gullible with misplaced
consciences

--
geoff