Climate Change - Man made or not?

[Dagmar]

Not consuming is definately the best policy. But recycling what we do use is the next best thing...

 

Can you give this statement more substance?

[Mr Ed]

Can you give this statement more substance?

 

in what direction?

 

It was meant in referance to the rampant consumerism / endless growth / throwaway society we live in.

 

To not buy flashy consumer gadgets is best. to not use fossil fuels at all in our lives. To not use anything that is not long term sustainable.

 

Of course, I know that this is totally impractical. A certain amount of consumerism is needed.

But I think that if people made things last, if items were repaired when broken, more durable materials used, less nasty's like PolyVinylChlorides, etc etc, our world would be a better place.

 

And recycling is a big part of that. I tend to look toward the scandinavian / German model, if they can get it right, there's no reason why we should'nt.

[Dean Lofthouse]

One example is our lass came home yesterday with a plastic bag with chopped onions in it, how f@@@@ lazy can you be!!

 

Buy a bleeding fresh onion, no wrapper and chop the blinking thing ya sen.

[Jack-Arb aka Tiago Sinclair-Julio.]

This was recently sent to me via e-mail and thought it appropriate for this thread:

 

'Global Warming Politics' reports on an eminent Japanese scientist, Professor Kunihiko Takeda, currently Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University, who is scathing about the use of 'global warming' as a political control paradigm:

 

'Japanese Professor: Paradigms of Fear'

 

“Fear is a very efficient weapon: It produces the desired effect without much waste. Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

 

Hi Tom,

 

I think that this Japanese chap hit the nail exactly where it hurts!

Just to add one more thing about on which side they want us to be or believe.

Theres been huge amounts of money put into research on climate, so theres lots of work available to lots of scientist and people alike. Not totally bad or wrong but money is cut from other sectors, goverments dont just create huge funds.

I heard if someone wants to research on a particular subject, for example something like - how are common ants populations doing in the south west, that its difficult to get funding but if you mention, common ants populations and the affect of global warming in the south west, you're much more likelly to get funding....

 

jack

[Mr Ed]

One example is our lass came home yesterday with a plastic bag with chopped onions in it, how f@@@@ lazy can you be!!

 

Buy a bleeding fresh onion, no wrapper and chop the blinking thing ya sen.

 

Or even better, grow the onions in your garden. We had a fantastic crop last year.

 

Good example though Dean. Remember when onions would come in a paper bag?

Now everything seems to have 3 layers of plastic wrapping around it...

[Dagmar]

One example is our lass came home yesterday with a plastic bag with chopped onions in it, how f@@@@ lazy can you be!!

 

Buy a bleeding fresh onion, no wrapper and chop the blinking thing ya sen.

 

 

Or, has the seller simply added value to a low cost item and filled a customer need.

 

We all like that little extra something.even if it costs more

[Dean Lofthouse]

A clever way of getting more bucks for the same item Dagmar I agree, but with twice the waste. The skin should be the only waste and can be composted.

 

Everything is turning into convenience this and that.

[skyhuck]

Brilliant stuff! Cut and pasted? Hope not as its a great quote.

 

Cheers Jason, not cut and paste, just my own tin pot theory, its a little simplistic for many.

 

It always makes me smile when on the news you hear "hottest day since records began or wettest month since records began" then you discover records began in 1850 or some in 1600, on the grand scale of things that the blink of an eye.

 

Even if we had records going back 20 or 30 thousand years we would not really know if it was a change, the weather may be on a 1 or 2 million year cycle for all we know.

[Jack-Arb aka Tiago Sinclair-Julio.]

[quote name=skyhuck;

 

Even if we had records going back 20 or 30 thousand years we would not really know if it was a change' date=' the weather may be on a 1 or 2 million year cycle for all we know.[/quote]

 

Hello Skyhuck,

 

Yes you are right records are in there early years not really enough for the big picture, at least they've started.

 

It's fun to hear things like - 'since records began this last April has been the hottest ever'. I enjoy this type of facts because it makes me realise that theres people recording these things...

 

I dont think that the climate is on a cycle, long or short! Like you say... Because things like volcanos cant be predicted and have a big influence on the climate...

 

Tiago

[Dagmar]

Hi Skyhuck,

 

 

Your statement says: if you cut down a tree and burn it and then grow a new tree you have produced no carbon!

Offsetting explains what you say about burning one and then grow a new to counterbalance, compensate. A bit like in the plane nowdays, depending on how many miles one flyes one pays a little tax to plant some trees.

 

Jack

 

Pulled this off the internet....................

 

The Trouble with Trees

 

Take, for example, carbon sequestration programs, which account for approximately 20% of the carbon offset market. Based on the idea that trees absorb carbon, these programs sponsor the planting of large forests designed to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For over a decade, governments and non-profit foundations in the developing world have been offering large sums of money to developing countries in exchange for tree plantations, also known as "carbon sinks".

 

However scientists point out that there is a major difference between the kind of carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and the kind of carbon stored by trees. "Carbon emissions from burned oil, gas or coal cannot be considered as equal to the same amount of biological carbon in a tree," write scientists at the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN 2005). Whereas in nature, carbon moves freely between forests, oceans and air, the fossil carbon pool is inert. Once out of the ground and into the air via cars, coal extraction, etc., fossil carbon joins the active carbon pool. It will not return to the fossil carbon pool for millennia. So, the carbon absorbed by trees does not zero out the carbon emitted by airplanes.

 

Even if the carbon were equivalent, trees are not necessarily reliable carbon storehouses. First, scientists point out that when trees burn, rot, or are chopped down, they release any carbon they have stored (Kill 2003).

 

Second, according to ecologist Ram Oren, principal investigator on Duke University's ongoing Free Air Carbon Enrichment project, if trees do not receive enough water or nutrients, any extra carbon they store very quickly goes back into the atmosphere (Cropping 2007). For instance, in 2002, the band Coldplay announced it would offset the environmental impact caused by the release of its second album by planting 10,000 mango trees in southern India. More precisely, Coldplay worked with CarbonNeutral, an offset company, which in turn contracted with Women for Sustainable Development, an NGO. Eventually funds went to local farmers who were supposed to plant and care for the trees. However, four years after the album's release, many of the trees had died - a drought dried the soil, and many villagers never received funding to help them maintain their trees (Dhillon and Harnden 2006).