Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy

[Lifthasir]

During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little
Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising
from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

As Bellamy stated , over eighteen thousand scientists felt strongly enough
to sign their names to a petition. That's a significant number and they can't all
be dismissed as crack pots.

I think this debate has everything to do with this thread. Sweden's attempt to
move away from oil will contribute little to global warming, but it will insulate
them for soaring oil prices.

Volcanic activity puts up vastly more 'greehouse' gases than mankind.

Personally, I feel that Global Warming is pretty much a ruse. But, if it gets people, companies and nations to behave more environmentally responsible, it
is perhaps a well meaning ruse and on that basis it should be welcomed.

Then again, perhaps we should believe the 'on message' intelligence. They were
proved right over Saddam's WMDs, weren't they?

Labelling people as crackpots stifles debate and limits reasoning and freedom of
speech. Honestly, the government will think about introducing ID cards to
combat things like terrorism next...

 

[gregorach]

During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little
Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising
from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Enitrely irrelevant. The Little Ice Age was not a global phenomenon. The current rate of warming is unprecedented. Natural climate variability tells you precisely nothing about the effects of a significant, rapid, anthropogenic increase in CO2 levels. It's not an "either or" question.

As Bellamy stated , over eighteen thousand scientists felt strongly enough
to sign their names to a petition. That's a significant number and they can't all
be dismissed as crack pots.

Science is not a popularity contest. There are far, far more scientists who feel equally strongly in the other direction, who also can't all be dismissed as crackpots. The question is which side the facts are on.

Please, take some time to study and understand the science - you'll find that all these objections, and more, have already been dealt with extensively in the scientific literature.

 

[Lifthasir]

Gregorach - I fear you are too blinkered and have a mind naturally closed
to inquisitive balance. The science is there for all to read - if they've
a mind to do so. I have read the pros and the cons.The conclusion I've reached is not that 'global warming' doesn't exist, but that there are other factors that need taking into consideration in order to arrive at the TRUTH - or at least as close as possible. You simply cannot dismiss the mini-ice age and general warming over the last 3000 years. This is pretty much accepted by those for and against the arguement. You say that the current rate of warming is
uprecedented yet you have no proof of this - neither does anyone. At best it is
guess work.

You say that the Little Ice Age is irrelevant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Even on this link it states
that the significance of this event is not accepted by all. It is suspected that a
reduction in sun spot activity (the Maunder Minimum) was the cause of the
cooling at this time. Again this from Wiki - Some scientists believe that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Others believe that human-induced warming may be the reason for the end of the Little Ice Age.


The FACTS are quite simple. We don't have exact measured data extending
back thousands of years. Measurements depend on a reference point. If the
reference point was created during an abnormally cool phase, all subsequent
measurements would indicate abnormally rising temperatures. This is the way
that investment houses and governments produce stats in order to show
'measured' improvements. Lets take a poor performing moment as our start such that everything else - no matter how poor - looks better in comparison.
I believe that 1880 is taken as the reference point re. Global Warming. A time which is now generally accpeted as being during an unusually cool phase. How
convenient to use 1880, when records were being taken by scientific bodies
long before then (agreed not on a global scale).

When Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide - almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Just
in the first few hours. This single event cooled the entire globe by approx. 0.5C.
In the cyclical history of this volcano, this was considered to be a minor eruption!

There are some 600 active volcanoes on the planet!

If tens of thousands of scientists feel strongly enough to sign a petition, and tens
of thousands of scientists don't - there is an arguement. In other words, things
aren't as black and white as people like you think they are.

The conclusion is thus; there can be no definite conclusion. Scientists continue
to work and to disagree. Unfortunatley, those that believe in mankind derived Global Warming sought to publicy humiliate and discredit a much loved botanist
who has worked tirelessly for the cause of conservation. What a cheap shot. Still, I expect Bellamy is glad he didn't specialise in WMDs like Dr. Kelly!!!

 

[gregorach]

1880 is not a reference point, it's the start of the instrumental record. Once again, your "facts" are simply wrong. There are many well-verified temperature proxies (tree ring data, ice cores, lake sediments, etc) which go back for hundreds of thousands of years, and it's those data which provide the strongest evidence for athropogenic forcing.

If you think the case for global warming is based on an arbitrary choice of reference point in 1880, then you clearly haven't understood the most basic aspects of the science and I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct you further.

I think we've done this to death now. Peace out.

 

[Lifthasir]

I can't be bothered any more...see ya on this one...

 

[bushtuckerman]

It's worth noting that the petition signed by 18000 "scientists" was not subjected to any kind of 'peer review' process that scientific theories and hypotheses normally are, whereby when a scientist writes a paper they may send it off to several independent journals, where it can be scrutinized for errors and misnomers by 1000s of other scientists. Here's the article that accompanied the petition if anyone is intrerested: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

On the petition there was the option of declaring your degree...it turned out that the vast majority were only bachelors of science, this does not necessarily deem them scientists if they do not practice science, and who knows if they do? Anyone can have a theory or two, scientists need data to back up and test their theories if they are to be credited.

I also hear that Bellamy sourced most of his argument from a the site www.iceagenow.com, and also that the person running the site is an architect...he writes books on ice ages, and apparently has promoted them a fair bit on the radio.

If you are cautious to take into account the effects of volcanoes then be assured that so are practicing scientists! believe me, when data is analyzed these factors are taken into account. The Mt Pinatubo event spikes clearly on climate records, but it did not affect the general trend.

18000 may sound a lot on paper, but anthropogenic heating of the atmosphere and biosphere is not disputed by the vast majority of climatologists who work with the data. The disputers are, let's face it, mainly people with a hand or two in the oil industry, so when you read an article make sure you ask questions of it rather than accept everything it says, as there is more often than not an ounce of bias.

Lifthasir, I agree with you that building new houses to replace old does not help matters, as ultimately it increases emissions, property is best used to its fullest extent to maximise efficiency.

Re. The National Grid: our technology has advanced somewhat since WW1, so perhaps the limits of yesteryear no longer apply to the same extent. Either way, an open mind will win over a closed one, as you say. The overall balance we have to strike is tricky; we need to make decisions quickly while keeping options open.

 

[Lifthasir]

OK, I've been tempted one last time.

Bushtuckerman, are you aware of how contradictory your answer is?Perhaps
it's not your intention.

You open up by referring to proper scientific scrutiny and then start using such phrases as 'believe me'
and 'I also hear', 'be rest assured', vast majority', 'let's face it', etc.. hardly scientific or based on empirical evidence. You also talk about the oil industry
and when reading articles to ask questions about it rather than accept it - this
of course works both ways you know so I offer you the same advice.

You further scrutinise the credentials of the 18000 signatories. Yet you don't offer
the same kind of scrutiny to those that believe in human caused Global Warming.
You further do them the disservice of denigrating their professional qualifications
and making assumptions about their working lives.

All of this hides behind the real issue. Instead of a New Labour type declaration
such as 'we know the truth - you just have to take our word for it' the arguement
must be advanced correctly. This means applying the same rules for and against - something the Global Warmists on this thread don't do.

Now I've said before that if Global Warming serves no other purpose than to
encourage individual, businesses and nations to behave in a more
environmentally friendly way, I'm all for it. As a rallying call - it appears to be working.

This debate basically started when someone had a pop at David Bellamy -
calling him a crackpot. What's in it for Bellamy? What does he stand to gain?
Is he a rich man? Has he ever lived like a rich man? Does he work tirelessly for the environment or not? He is a botanist with almost unrivalled experience who has given over his life (and personal freedom) for the environmental cause.

He is a scientist. And a good scientist challenges - he doesn't accept. He has'nt rejected Global Warming outright. He has challenged some of the science, the
sound bites, the politics. For that, he suffered at the hands of a (deliberate) well
organised campaign against him.

I've deliberately not included any more science or facts in this post simply
because there's no point - unless Gregorach wishes to enlighten us with the
reference point for Global Warming. As he is confused with regards to exactly what constitutes a reference point, I shan't hold my breath!

By the way, trees love CO2 even if humans don't!!

 

[bushtuckerman]

That wasn't contradictory, that was...casual. The thread has reached its fullest extent, i was merely adding some info for people to mull over in their own time.

But, to answer your question, I have not personally scrutinized scientists in research on the subject because other scientists have already done that for me, IF their papers are put up for debate among the scientific community (writing in the daily mail doesn't really count, sorry to sound like a snob, but it's not a scientific journal, nor is the guardian, the times or any other newspaper).

I question my lecturers all the time, even though they do have phd's in the subject in question and not botany.

Your question is a good one, why exactly is a botanist so deep in a subject he doesn't understand, for seemingly no benefit to himself? crackpot would not seem far from hitting the nail on the head if he is willing to exhibit such suicidal tendancies. i'd bet he's just let something get his goat, and has decided to run with it...or, maybe he is employed to write such nonsense because it creates a furore, and hence furious buying of papers. who knows?

By the way, trees love CO2 even if humans don't!!

 

[Lifthasir]

Why wouldn't a botanist know about, have an interest in, or study the climate?

Climate is a major topic within botany. Climate has a critical affect on plants
and trees.

I know the educational system isn't what it once was, but as an infant, I remember lessons on leaves and photosynthesis.

Bellamy wrote to the Daily Mail perhaps to offer a layman's summary to the layman.

Afterall, Blair help but write columns for the Sun, appear on Richard and Judy -
neither of which have any credibilty as political mediums. However, it does serve
to bring a basic summary of events to the masses.

Botany isn't about plant recognition - about whether dandelion roots can be
ground to make coffee. Resorting to Wikipedia for a rasonable definition is
recommended...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany

I think you under-estimate the depth of subject matter in elementary botany, let
alone the specialism a professor like Bellamy must have.

All I am saying is this. If someone like Bellamy is questioning the mainstream
science regarding Global Warming, there is perhaps more to it than meets the
eye.

As a passionate botanist, Bellamy would be the first to proclaim something
which is damaging his beloved plant world.

He is also big enough to admit when he is wrong. A sign of a truly great man.

 

[bushtuckerman]

well we await his admission, good luck to him in the mean time.

 

[Great Pebble]

Has "teeth" this debate, doesn't it?

Global warming..... I believe it's happening. Although I'm not 100% convinved that carbon emmisions are the only (or even the major) cause. They are a factor.

Renewables? - Sticking plaster on a bullet wound. Much as I would love it to be the case, they are not going to provide enough of the energy we require to significantly impact fossil fuel generation. At the moment our growth consumption is outstripping our manufacture of renewable generation means.
Further, I honestly don't care what anyone says, there's an environmental impact involved with renewable generation.

Nuclear? - *shrug* I don't need to tell you the problems.

Fossil fuels? - Despite what's been said in the press and, indeed, on here, they aren't going to run out any time soon. They're just going to get a lot dearer.
Current estimates put the crude reserve beneath Siberia at a significantly greater size than was ever to be found in the Middle East.

So what's the solution?

Stop wanting so much.

Or

Get used to swimming, baking and killing mosquitos.

 

[Lifthasir]

It is the inalienable right of every (or woman) to have free speech. I think the
debate has been healthy. As members of this forum, I presume we are all
environmentalists in our own way. Therefore I feel it's important to be vigilant.

About 12 years ago, I was in Russia and read an interesting article - though I have no idea if it was true.
It basically said that a geographical survey which commenced in the Soviet
era had been completed after 10 years. It was a
survey of the Russian Arctic coast. One of the findings - so the article said -
was the discovery of natural gas reserves larger than those known to exist in the
whole rest of the world.

A worry is that America is known to have the largest coal reserves. It has
enough coal to last for centuries. Gas can be extracted from coal (as it once was over here) but it is dirty and not efficient. Perhaps the danger isn't so much from oil but from a possible return to coal. We have significant coal reserves too.
At the moment, we can buy coal cheaper from overseas. If the price goes up,
UK coal could become competitive. If nothing else, we've used everyone else's
and kept ours for a rainy day.

We could all make rudimentary mini wind turbines. Everyone must have seen
the Faraday torches. You can buy little solar panels from Silva (and others) to
charge your mobiles, laptops and AA batteries (designed for use in the field).

 

[bushtuckerman]

carbon emissions are not the only greenhouse gas to reach the atmosphere. they do however constitute the major forcing on the climate (atmospheric water content water merely mirrors the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which, though, is precisely why it is also very important, since it is the principle greenhouse gas). the relationship here between water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a difficult one to comprehend, for all involved, it is still not understood 100% by the scientific community, but the basic principles have been largely established.

i think you were being sarcastic, Great Pebble, but it is not a solution to sit back and admire the warm weather. the change in global temperature of even a few degrees is likely to cause a runaway chain of events, the problem is that change will happen more quickly than it normally does on natural (i.e. milankovitch cycle induced) timescales, and that the biosphere will not be able to keep up, as it has not had to, before, in quite the same way and will be given little time to adapt.

it is a bit of a crass joke that there are still people who are convinced there is no [anthropogenic] global warming, the evidence has mounted up in recent years, but it is no-one's fault in particular for reading about arguments which have been rubbished years ago (such as the 'maunder minimum - mini ice age' argument), which by the process of regurgitation still do the rounds of the media, since the up to date scientific information is not widely available, which is a huge shame, as it is everyone's concern.

 

[Lifthasir]

I thought we'd moved on Bushtuckerman.

However, as you are privvy to up-to-date scientific data which the rest of us
apparently aren't, perhaps you'd be so kind to share it with us.

If you can't share it with us, then I won't share my top secret up-to-date information
either! Na na!

 

[Great Pebble]

I wasn't being in the least sarcastic. Get used to the idea.

It's going to happen. And windmills, wave machines and solar roofs ain't going to save us. Drop in the (rising) ocean.

 

[bushtuckerman]

Lifthasir, if that was an attempt at a joke, I can only force laughter. However, I realise my post could have come across as elitist. I have no information which I wish to hide as a trump card in this debate; I have no ulterior motives.

I admit that I have taken this topic too far for my own good (although not single-handedly, you have played your part), but my care for scientific awareness, the environment and others who rely on it remaining our life-support system, will always come before my care for esteem among others, and in my defence it is because I am more than interested in this area of science, and also I have only been answering other postings. You have convinced me that you care too, which is more than can be said of some people, and I believe you are right in saying that members on here will all have their own way of appreciating the environment, which is only a good thing. Bellamy…he cares, but I do not accept his argument is worth more than a sideways glance as it has already been considered and discarded by self-respecting scientists. Why should I have confidence in what he says on climate change if he is not confident himself?: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18625033.300

This is a discussional forum and since I do not have papers of my own to publish, rather than plagiarise I will gladly direct you to relevant sources. As gregorach has already stated the scientific literature is there to read, when I said it is not widely available I was not entirely accurate, what I meant was it is not widely read, and not easily understood. You were right that Bellamy was playing to the layman. I am sure you are aware of the journals Science, PNAS and Nature. Nature has a free weekly podcast which recently discussed climate change: http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html - the podcast from the 17th November.

It is more pertinent, however, to consider the findings of the IPCC, and their reports can be found here: http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/index.html, and more specifically here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF. Not to try to sound blunt the summary for policy makers is probably a good place to start, bear in mind this report is due to be replaced quite soon. Given your apparent interest I would assume you have probably already read this document, but since you asked I thought I should highlight its existence anyway.

Great Pebble, I was referring to your use of the word ‘solution’. I did not believe you were being sarcastic about our predicament, rather that you were being sarcastic about the solution. Solutions are by definition pro-active, burying our heads in the sand is not. Confidence breeds confidence, and this attitude will give us our best chance of emerging on the other side of the trial beset upon life on earth, but there will always be pessimists among various species, typically they die out through their lack of creative innovation and adaptation. I agree, we will very likely not halt climate change, but this is irrelevant. We have the ability to slow its advance, we also have technologies to invest in which will help us if and when the climate does change dramatically, so give me your best reason for being pessimistic. It is not about being blindly optimistic, and I particularly like the signature of a member on here which suggests that realists will cope best with change, and ‘adjust the sails’ to suit the wind direction, and this is precisely what we are doing, and what we have to continue doing.

 

[Lifthasir]

Bushtuckerman, perhaps I should have inserted a mini drum roll at the end
of the joke - just to make it clear!!

Ah..the IPCC - the authorised, official version.

The 'authorised King James' bible springs to mind as does the official one taken that the Earth was once flat. I don't wish to be light on such matters. But in the
last 10 years, official information has almost entirely been based on falsehoods.
No 10 was cleared on MWD intelligence, Dr. Kelly was apparently found with wrists cut in the open countryside - one can only assume he had extremely thin blood...this is just the tip of the 'official' papers in recent times.

If mankind didn't exist, the Earth would still be warming. 20% of the world's
rainforest was cut down in a 30 year period from the 50's to the 80's. Variations
in the Earth's magnetic field alter the amount of solar radiation deflected back
into space, volcanic activity, prescession, axis-tilt, low sun spot...the list
goes on and on - all of which have almost infinite variations..and all of
which remain a scientific mystery to science. If the odds were stacked like
this in any other arguement, common sense alone would subject it to ridicule.

To put this into perspective, the 'official' boffins at NASA have hatched a plan
to move the Earth 50million miles further from the sun (oh yes). They plan to
do this by 'capturing' a 60 mile asteroid and putting it into an orbit around the sun
with a trajectory that just misses the Earth. The resulting gravitional pull will jerk
the Earth back a million miles each time! Utter madness. Apparently, someone
pointed out the flaw in the plan - what if the asteroid is actually sucked in by
Earth and strikes the surface - er..mass extinction...the thinking goes on.

Talking of mass extinction - this was a time when the Earth's climate changed
too rapidly for life to keep up. On the plus side, it ridded the Earth of giant reptilian
monsters and paved the way for mammals and then humans!!!

The thing I fear from the Global Warmists is that they have the ego to believe
that they can control the forces of the Universe. Even worse, they believe they
have the right to do so. If global warming takes place, not all life on Earth will
be destroyed. Some will, some won't and in others genetic mutations will evolve into new species.

Let mankind do want it wants. Let us have fun. Soon we'll die off and the rest
of the planet can just get along with things. We will have had our shot and
blown it...good luck to the next ones!!!

 

[Great Pebble]

It's not so much pessimism as realism.

 

[Lithril]

Ok I've enjoyed reading this thread but keep it friendly, if everyone believed the same thing the world would be very dull place, you need to appreciate not put in digs at every point.

The thing about science (and I have to try and teach kids this) is that there are very few hard and fast answers, most of Physics is built on maths that "works", we make assumptions based on current data, that data can often be interpreted in different ways, hence the different factions of this debate.

Personally I feel that although global warming is natural, we are speeding it up, but then the same sources that I've read to get that from also state that the end point of global warming is an ice-age. I don't necessarily think its something we CAN stop but I don't think we should be helping it along.

Another arguement on a slight tangent to think of is why peoples health is generally worse in heavily industrialised areas, I know people that moved out of cities because their kids were coming down more and more with respiratory problems.

One point that is interesting, especially with fuels for transport is that the technology is out there to stop using petrol and diesel, its relatively cheap to convert a car to run on alcohol (about £300) but this technology has pretty much been shelved, there are many, many alternatives to diesel. It seems that as soon as a new idea comes out, shell, BP or Esso buy it and shelve it.. funny that isn't it.

Back to the start... keep it friendly, I enjoy a good arguement as much as the next but don't let it get personal!!

 

[Lifthasir]

Exactly - it was a very 'real' fact that the Earth was much warmer between
the 10th and 15th centuries than it is today - an era which saw extensive
vine-yards in England and the Vikings settling in Greenland and Canada.

The answer is quite simple. Huge chunks of the Earth are industrialising. This
is going to consume our energy resources in double quick time. Too quick
for something to be done about it. What was needed was a ruse to somehow
slow this consumption down - to buy a bit of time. Enter Global Warming. The
science was plausible enough and actually made some sense. Hurrah!

Apparently, a Gallup poll found only 17% of of the Meteorological Society
and the American Geophysical Society believed that the warming which has
taken place during the 20thC has been as a result of 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
In other words 83% don't believe it! Yes, there are probably other
polls, differently worded questions etc.. but the consensus is anything but in
agreement.

We are starting to suffer flooding in the UK not because of global warming, but
because of the natural phenomenon of flooding - hence flood plains. Huge
tracts of England have been drained to provide farm land. It's natural state is
wet, damp, bog land. Flood plains are nice and flat, easily managed, fertile and
close to a source of fresh water. Ideall for setting up home. However, they take
a long long time to be created - hundreds if not thousands of floods are required.
New Orleans wasn't a victim of global warming - it was the victim of a regular
as clockwork hurricane season and building a giant city below sea level slap
bang in the middle of such a hurricane zone.

A volcanologist on TV last year stated that global volcanic activity over the last
few hundred years, in particular the last 100 years, was going through a
particularly quiet phase. If we move even slightly into a more 'normal' phase
of volcanic activity, it won't matter a jot about so called 'greenhouse' gases. If
anything, we'll be glad of a bit of global warming to prevent the volcanic induced
wintery summers from being too cold!!!

So why spend billions and billions on combating global warming? I don't believe
we are. We are in general making the world a dirty place and it's time to clean
it up and look after it a bit better. If people wish to rally behind an international
crisis - let them. If they want to march under a banner or slogan, let them. But
please don't try and suck able-minded individuals into the freakshow/cult
because we are smart enough to see through it and instead make better informed choices and take more relevant direct action to look after our natural
surroundings. Charity begins at home - so switch of your telly at the mains,
wear a 100% wollen jumper on cold evenings, plant a tree or shrub, grow your
own veg, buy a mulching lawn mower and leave the mulched cuttings on the
lawn (don't need lawn feed then), accelerate your car slowly, drive like an old
duffer, use your outdoor gear till it rots, stop popping into town on Saturdays
(no temptation - no shopping), buy a solar battery charger.

Don't be a sheep. Baaa! I'm Brian and so is my wife!