大象传媒

Me thinks only the decision to leave some of the service personnel out in the cold while others get a cheque makes us look weak and democratic i.e. chaotic in the ancient Hellenne way.

Well beyond the crass nonsense about eco-burials, individuals can do a certain amount about climate change on their own, without donning the sandals and eating brown rice. But when we decide to do so, we badly need government support. When we decide to cycle instead of use the car, it really doesn't help that central government continues to defend pro-car traffic laws that make cycling dangerous and unpleasant. Is it no wonder that here, fewer women than men cycle, whilst in bike-friendly countries more women cycle than men?

As long as politicians witter on but refuse to challenge this car culture, the only way individuals can change things is through civil disobendience. As long as cycling is so crap in this country, use the pavements.

Just this evening I looked at journeying to Manchester from London in May (a month away!): flying would cost me 拢74 return and the train would cost 拢120... Admittedly I only looked at one train website but the choice is clear and it is not a green one, Mr Miliband.

It was a pity that Gavin Essler did not ask his guests pontificating on Energy Ethics which of them owned several houses in several countries, say 7 or 8 and flies between them frequently.

Hypocricy

Global warming is happening with the CO2 that is in the atmosphere now.
Whilst we need to use fossil fuels as frugally as we can that alone will not be enough. We must try to get an international effort to engineer a solution. A start would be to route as many long haul aircraft near the poles as practicl and to develop fuel additives which make their exhaust filter or reflect sunlight.

The MOD had Des Browne's Ok to proceed agreeing that serving Officers & ranks sell their stories to the Media! Blair says with hindsight it was a mistake...now lets move on!!
The whole sorry saga leaves me speechless, gobsmacked ...VERY ANGRY that yet again this Prime Minister( of course he knew what was going on before Sunday) can be so stupidly irresponsible..
Thank-goodness he will be gone very soon!

When will Justin Rowlatt and the rest of the 大象传媒 stop spewing out the myth that "2500 scientists" signed up to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers published in February.

21 scientists led the writing of that Summary, all of them heavily into climate modelling, which has been shown to be very unreliable in terms of multi-decadal climate prediction. ("The 2500" is the total number of contributors to the process overall -- reviewers and bureaucrats included.)

The IPCC is an exercise in pseudo-consensus manufacture, and the mainstream media largely just seem to jolly along for the ride.

As it is already dawning on the public that "the Science" is way more complex than Milliband, Newsnight or the IPCC would have us believe, the debate is beginning again to move forward.

See the blogs Climate Science (google climatesci colorado) and ICECAP (icecap dot us) for a far richer (buzzword NUANCED) perspective than the 大象传媒 or the Government deems it necessary to offer us.

In the end the real science will stand: just make sure the legislation that is inevitably going to go forward in the near future is peppered with sunset clauses...

The MoD and Iran

Defence Secretary Des Browne admits errors were made. Tony Blair has said "in hindsight" the navy's decision to allow sailors held captive in Iran to sell their stories to the media was not a "good idea". Hindsight is wisdom after the event. The point is there was no wisdom in evidence when the decision was made, hence the grave error of judgement.

It is difficult to believe the sailors could have sold their story without approval from No. 10 and, rightly, the matter is to be raised in Parliament next week. The Government should be held to account.

I don't see how China can avoid having to introduce a clean air act to sort its Sulphur emissions out. It'll just need compulsory Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) like the developed nations use to good effect. Once this happens, we will begin to see how Sino-Sulphur has been affecting the climate and weather patterns in recent years. When this happens, we can consign this to history. Then, and only then can the developed world, which by then will include China and India, then, the world will act in unison to reduce Carbon emissions because the finite oil reserves will be consumed at a rate several times current levels, and will imminently run out with certainty. Our current use will deplete reserves around 2050, in ten years, global consumption will have at least doubled, making it run out by 2030. At this time, the Middle East will be screwed, with nothing to sell and will bomb the rest of the world out of oblivion for persuading it to part with it's only natural resource. We'll then all starve in a nuclear apocalypse, and God will reappear saying I told you so, why didn't you take any notice all those years ago.

If ever it was to be demonstrated what a make belief world we all live in, last nights ethical man was it.

Globalisation, the new religion, where ever increasing consumption is the the pathway to heaven, where humankind is consuming dwindling resources at an ever increasing rate of knots, where the developing world of billions has been handed over the mantle of continuing this race to the world's end, hundreds of new coal powered electricity power stations, extending runways, new airports in the pipeline, newer and bigger-mega airliners.... and the list goes on and on and on.

And yet, none of this was acknowledged by the stewards of ethical man, Gavin Estler may have touched on this but really the debate was re-arranging the deck chairs and tinkering at the very edges. It was absolutely clear, our lifestyle is sustainable provided we tweak it here and there, long may it continue.

Actually all of this pontificating is a waste of time, Mother Earth has spoken, it is no longer in our hands, which it never was any way - we have been given notice, it's all over - come to think of it, humankind knows this and is living life to the full.

It was revealing to hear the comments of the panel after last night's broadcast, goaded on by Gavin Essler, concluding that the solution to our environmental woes was to limit family size. I realised some time since that the UK was in its 'post Christian' era, but I hadn'd realised it had gone almost entirely athiestic.
The correction(?) referred to by one panel member, in the form of family planning in the 1960's(including abortion)has, in fact, been the primary cause of the missing generation (6,000,000 + , which would probably convert to 10,000,000 if further generations of those aborted were included)which now threatens this country's very future.
One must be blind if they cannot, at this late stage, identify the manipulation of people's minds which has evolved over the last fifty years, and especially in recent times.
As channel 4 exposed, the Global warming issue is most likely a short term and natural development which nature will sort out in its own good time through one of the many evolutionary mechanisms it posesses and of which man is still unaware.
However, the anti christs of our time (and there ar emany)are determined to stir up as much mayhem as possible while the opportunity lasts, so as to drive the world further into that darkness which is godlessness itself.

Christ is risen! Alleluia !

Despite Justin Rowlatt's efforts his gains were wiped out by the impact of a further child in his family and this was further compounded by his one flight of the year.

Bjorn Lomborg made a good point about taking steps now to invest in future emissions reductions. But as we don't know at what point we are committing ourselves to disasterous changes, there is nothing lost in any steps to reduce emissions, and other human impacts such as deforestation.

But with:

1) Findings such as Archer's "Fate of fossil fuels in Geologic Timescales". Which concludes that human CO2 emissions will persist for over 300 years, but crucially will leave a tail end of 1/5 of the maximum atmospheric concentration that will persist for over 40,000 years.

2) The availability of fossil fuels, some 5000,000,000,000 tons of extractable fossil fuel carbon (largely coal).

3) The continuing relative cheapness of energy from coal. In view of the global market's influence, this means coal is likely to remain the main global source of energy for us as we move into this century and beyond.

4) The reductions in ocean uptake of CO2 due to stratification with warming, CO2 concentration and ocean acidification. And the likelihood of further additions to human greenhouse gas emissions by feedbacks on the natural world.

I really don't see any of this talk of sustainability as being in any way rational or supported by evidence.

CO2 increases are almost certain to continue, and (needless to say) with them will come warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect and the resultant changes in climate.

Best of luck to those who see a solution to our predicament. Sadly I don't.

The driving force behind green policies must be the drive to EQUALITY.

According to Stern I live on world average income. How is it exactly who thinks themselves worth a penny more than the average? Who is it who says some should suffer on less? The rich in India? Newsnight journalists? The children of Marx(ists) like who believe that to each according to ability? The children of Coca Cola who won't drink tap water? Well, all of these. And it is from their unwarranted affluence that we should pay for safe energy in India and China and for all the home conversions needed here. Why are we still planning fossil power stations? And why isn't there any serious palnning for HEP? Provide enough safe electricity (enough for fuel production as well) and everyone can fly or drive to the extent their EQUAL income permits.

Beware the nuclear lobby. Its a bunch of people defending their arcane scientific training at the expense of the safety of the rest of us.

In the equal society we'd do what's needed for safe power because the suffering through not doing anything would reduce our EQUAL income by more.

Mac

PS How about a spell checker on this ffacility? I. M.

The driving force behind green policies must be the drive to EQUALITY.

According to Stern I live on world average income. How is it exactly who thinks themselves worth a penny more than the average? Who is it who says some should suffer on less? The rich in India? Newsnight journalists? The children of Marx(ists) like who believe that to each according to ability? The children of Coca Cola who won't drink tap water? Well, all of these. And it is from their unwarranted affluence that we should pay for safe energy in India and China and for all the home conversions needed here. Why are we still planning fossil power stations? And why isn't there any serious palnning for HEP? Provide enough safe electricity (enough for fuel production as well) and everyone can fly or drive to the extent their EQUAL income permits.

Beware the nuclear lobby. Its a bunch of people defending their arcane scientific training at the expense of the safety of the rest of us.

In the equal society we'd do what's needed for safe power because the suffering through not doing anything would reduce our EQUAL income by more than we need to do.

Mac.

PS A couple of points. What about a spell checker on this facility? The posting is very slow. An interim message 'Posting your message' would stop the feeling one should click on Post a few more times.

This Global Warming programme was facile and - like many reports on the subject - a Swindle.

When will the 大象传媒 get it into its head that there is NO man-made global warming and that the Global warming which THE SUN is causing results in extra CO2 emissions not the other way round. All the evidence on this has now been published and the IPCC has got egg on its face - and now the 大象传媒 has too!

A mere 150 scientists - all with government funds - have produced the whole of this false science and Newsnight has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

What we need to be considering is how TO COPE with the warming that is occurring as part of the normal climate change patterns

Your ethical man stunt was just that.- a cheap stunt - poor bloke. I hope he was well paid

WHY were there no opponents of this false science asked onto the programme? Bias?

To Christina Speight (Message 18):

Any schoolboy studying chemistry will be able to tell you that combustion of hydrocarbons produces carbon dioxide. It follows that by burning fossil fuels, we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. And that *is* directly attributable to human activity -- it can't be written off as "normal patterns".

One estimate is that humans are responsible for some 244 billion tonnes of CO2. Apart from going into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas, it's thought around half the human-produced CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans, causing their acidity to increase, and adversely affecting marine life.

It's all very well asserting the warming "is occurring as part of the normal climate change patterns", but if that's the case, then there must be some natural change(s) which account for the rise in global temperature over the past few decades. What are these natural causes?

-- Has the earth's orbital position changed? (Not due for a couple of thousand years, and will herald the start of the next ice age.)

-- Has the sun's output changed? "Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more."

-- Reduction in galactic cosmic rays (as per Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" programme): but there's no trend in cosmic rays which can explain this: . The theory was said to be "improbable and unproven" by Prof. Jo Haigh ( )when she debated it with Nigel Calder on Newsnight on 2007-02-14 .

-- Volcanic activity: but volcanoes tend to produce a cooling effect, because the aerosols they spew into the atmosphere reflect sunlight away from the surface and in fact mask global warming.

-- Some other natural cause(s)? But remember, it needs to be able to account for 0.2C per decade rise in global temperature over the last three decades.

If natural causes can't explain the rise, then we have to consider human action, and the fact is humans have been putting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere.

Once again Goverment and ministers try to move the Green debate on to a punitive footing without putting forward any policies that help 'normal' people.

Tax car users because they have little or no options for public transport outside of London and a few major cities.

Many of us need to get to work before proper bus services start and would like to be home with our families before they go to bed.

Tax/Levy/Ban domestic or short haul flight. Use the train network and EuroRail!!!! Thats all well and good if you are within 50miles of London, but the majority of the country aren't.

Looking at booking a ticket tonight to go to London by train tomorrow evening, returning Sunday night, my wife and I would spend a minimum of 拢150 (if the Super Saver were still available) upto 拢616!!!. Thats 2hr and 20 mins before we even boarded and payed for Eurostar.

What happened to the high speed rail link that was promised for the North when we ALL finance the channel tunnel?

Minister other proposals include a 'Green Tax' for refuse collection but they do not dare suggest legislating against the food and packaging industries who create the unwanted waste in the first place.

Regarding saving energy in the house, where are the government propsals stating that all new house must have solar panels, water butts, cavity wall insulation and ready fitted with energy saving bulbs.

The housing industry will moan and groan about consumers not stomaching the cost, but with the economies of scale and investment, this would be negligible against the total cost of the house and for the basis for reduced council tax.

Governements are there to govern so do it, otherwise stop taking my hard earn't cash and leave me to do my own thing.

What a relief for Justin Rowlatt. Now he doesn't have to pretend to be ethical anymore.

The 大象传媒 program Ethical Man with Justin Rowlatt was excellent as a media "bit of fun" programe.Part of the program delt with the carbon foot print of the family home. We all know exactly what this is, as it is proportional to the sum of the electricity and gas bill in kilowatt hours. We do not require an official to crawl over the property and give a very poor estimate. The less insulation in the building will give rise to the tendency to heat the property more to maintain a comfortable temperature(19 deg.C).Burning less gas will reduce CO2 emisions.Using less electricity will not. Principally because power stations do not shut down because you have switched your lights out. They always run above the anticipated load to ensure continuity of supply.
Until we replace our old powerstations with atomic power and wave generation,like France, we will always emit a lot of CO2. It may appear initially that reducing gas and electricity consumption in the home will reduce bills but this will be short lived because energy companies will increase their charges if all house owners decide to follow the media led direction to reduce power consumption. The quickest way to reduce power station emissions would be to import all of our electricity from France. They are quite happy to build new nuclear stations as is Switzerland and Germany. The English government would then have more time to potificate and do nothing whilst being able to claim that the UK was meeting its emision targets. It would also allow the government to invest in global science to find the true scientific DNA of global warming.The CO2 concept trumped up by the IPCC is not good science and the World needs to find out before we reduce all developed nations to the stone age whilst China, Russia,India and Africa sit back and flourish.