Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

I repeat that Pachauri is NOT a "leading scientist" as the Guardian puts it. The IPCC is a politically-motivated organisation, the Chapter 4 reports of which have largley influenced by input from the same people at the Hadley Centre who are at the centre of this controversy.

My beef about this is that all this talk about "a very REAL threat to human survivability" is largely tosh. It is alarmist talk with little basis in fact, IMHO.

Of course, resources are finite and societies will need to adapt and new technology will reduce our consumption and provide an even better environment.

The economies and lifestyles of the West will undergo a transition, but it is crucial that such a transition is gradual and measured. It is equally crucial that any decisions taken are sensible, apolitical, and based on real, open, science. Slamming the West's economies into the wall while spouting hackneyed Chicken Little phrases is not the way. I prefer a mature approach.

Remember that oil and coal will be with us for some time yet until portable personal nuclear units become the norm in mid-century (I expect). Also remember that the world uses just one cubic mile of oil per year and the entire population of the globe could live in the state of Texas at a density of Manhattan.

I am optimistic for the future, provided that politics is returned to the people and the western economies are allowed to survive and thrive.     


And as for Spanish tomatoes - they are foul.     

[Dishevelled Den]

Have you fully read his history Zulu?  Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?

There are times when individuals have to assess the facts accumulated over a period of time.  Pachauri has been part of this process since the 1980s, so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.

My position on this subject is one of a neutral interested (as everyone should be) party, continually assessing and just listening to the many varied arguments.  To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish bordering on a conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.

So the polarization of one side of the argument that I have seen developing on here, with the 'rubbishing' of any conterary view, and the people expressing it, I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme.

Have you fully read his history Zulu?  Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?


I have indeed Ms Z and very impressive it seems however how does this relate to the undoubted warming being firmly placed at the collective feet of recent human activity to the apparent exclusion of everything else?


so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.

I'm gratified that you are able to accept his analysis with such conviction.  I would rather be more discerning when trying to establish whether or not Dr. P is well enough placed in terms of definitive science regarding the AGW aspect of global warming.

To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish

...are you suggesting that I have adopted this position?  (I haven't by the way)


conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.


In the light of the following I would disagree with you;


Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit



[b]He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles. The proposal was dropped by Boris Johnson and the charge currently stands at £8. Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.

Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now[/b]."

source:  Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen

Will you be prepared to make sacrifices in your lifestyle on the basis of what Dr. P asserts?  Those will be fundamental changes by the way, what you eat, what you discard, how you travel, how much energy you use and so on?


I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme


I would be most unhappy if you considered my contributions here to be arrogant, however I do note with some dismay that the treatment of those who seek greater information on this very important matter seems to border on the arrogant and dismissive for having the temerity to question 'settled science' when it seems everything but.

[Dishevelled Den]

Mind you, while you have nutcases like this around, the extremists will always score points:


"Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri"


"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen

I should point out that Pachauri is NOT a scientist or, indeed, any kind of expert.

Observer LIES again. 

Western Lifestyle IS unsustainable. "Westerners" are consumers par excellence. Who can blame them . Most spend a totally miserable 9 to 9 type existence and when not working are stuck intraffic jams etc.

So when they have a treat like staying in a hotel they leave the lights on when they go out, turn the heating up, have endless deep baths or whatever takes their fancy. It doesn't matter  as it is included in the price. Of course this sums up some peoples attitude to the earths resources.

And my favourite - water. North Europeans like tomatoes at any time of the year even though they probably end up throwing some of them out. They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up. Whatever happened to people eating seasonal veg!! Maybe tomatoes should be taxed out of season?


V

They are grown in southern Europe in absolutely vast ecologically unsound poly green houses that are fed by ever deeper wells sucking vast amounts of water out of the ground making other wells run dry and rivers to dry up.


...the easiest way to deal with that surely is for the southern Europeans to stop growing them. - no?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Have you fully read his history Zulu?  Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?

There are times when individuals have to assess the facts accumulated over a period of time.  Pachauri has been part of this process since the 1980s, so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.

My position on this subject is one of a neutral interested (as everyone should be) party, continually assessing and just listening to the many varied arguments.  To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish bordering on a conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.

So the polarization of one side of the argument that I have seen developing on here, with the 'rubbishing' of any conterary view, and the people expressing it, I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme.

Have you fully read his history Zulu?  Does his experience, training, and association with many highly qualified individuals on the subject of the environment not count for anything?


I have indeed Ms Z and very impressive it seems however how does this relate to the undoubted warming being firmly placed at the collective feet of recent human activity to the apparent exclusion of everything else?


so sorry but I consider him and many others far more qualified to comment on this subject than anyone else on this Forum.

I'm gratified that you are able to accept his analysis with such conviction.  I would rather be more discerning when trying to establish whether or not Dr. P is well enough placed in terms of definitive science regarding the AGW aspect of global warming.

To cliam one 'side' or the other has all the answers on this very complicated issue and the other argument is talking rubbish

...are you suggesting that I have adopted this position?  (I haven't by the way)


conspiracy against Western Liberal ideals is not only stupid but could well be disasterous.


In the light of the following I would disagree with you;


Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock. He is scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen summit



[b]He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." He added he was a supporter of former London mayor Ken Livingstone's plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for the most polluting vehicles. The proposal was dropped by Boris Johnson and the charge currently stands at £8. Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.

Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. "I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now[/b]."

source:  Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen

Will you be prepared to make sacrifices in your lifestyle on the basis of what Dr. P asserts?  Those will be fundamental changes by the way, what you eat, what you discard, how you travel, how much energy you use and so on?


I consider most unhelpful and dare I say, arrogant in the extreme


I would be most unhappy if you considered my contributions here to be arrogant, however I do note with some dismay that the treatment of those who seek greater information on this very important matter seems to border on the arrogant and dismissive for having the temerity to question 'settled science' when it seems everything but.

You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims.  In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.   

If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:

[size=20]"[/size]"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:

1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose [size=20]"[/size]

then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.

In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power, and anyone who agrees is being conned, then I will not contribute any more to this debate as it is going nowhere.   

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I ran out of the word allowance on the previous post, so:

As I have stated before Nick, if you feel so strongly aboutthis issue, and I really do admire your conviction, then take it into the wider political world.

[Dishevelled Den]

You Zulu are doing exactly what I am very concerned about, and taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase) becuase the argument does not clearly support the authors aims.  In fact, I repeat yet again, that I am completely neutral on this particular issue as neither 'side' has yet to satisfactorily prove their case.   

If Nick wants to publish such far fetched assertions as this, as he did to Banjax on page 1 of this post:

[size=20]"[/size]"They" refers to anyone you want really. Radical envrionmentalists, politicised scientists, the IPCC. They all run with the same agenda:

1. The West and its capitalism are evil
2. The West's wealth should be transferred to developing countries
3. The West should give up its standards of living
4. The West's population should be reduced
etc, etc.
You choose [size=20]"[/size]

then that is up to him, but it weakens his argument to one of a pre-conceived political judgement that is his view of what is transpiring, regardless of fact.

In view of the entrenched views, biased very much on the notion that all the top politicians of the world are being fooled by the vast majority of leading scientific brain power

taking observational comments personally, then clearly criticising any perceived attempt to support 'settled science' (a contridiction in terms in anycase

...far from taking your comments personally Ms Z and thank you for your concern, I was merely concerned that you regarded my contributions as being arrogant.  I’m well enough equipped to accept any criticism that’s directed towards me without animosity or hurt so I consider this to be a non-issue.

The contradiction of 'settled science' can be placed firmly in the mouth of the individual who uttered it - former Vice President A Gore, a leading proponent of AGW.

In terms of the controversial nature of this matter and your suggestion that Nick takes it to a wider political audience, does that men we have no right to debate the issue here?

The fundamental proposals for behavioural change in terms of the desire to stave off global warming will have far reaching consequences for each and every member of this forum and as such I thing think that at the very least, a debate should be conducted here on such a relevant matter.

I would also assert that the justifiable questioning of these issues is far removed from critisim in terms of my intent.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I believe that Zulu ....Lizzie....and myself...have strong opinions regarding the reality or unreality of global warming.....as to whether it is science fact or science fiction.
But.....I have said repeatedly......I could be wrong.
But Nickbat concerns me........because he seems to have closed his mind to any possibility that perhaps he may be incorrect with his findings.
I believe his view to be .......that he is categorically right......and anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong.....
Nickbat is fully entitled to his viewpoint however.Only time will tell if he is correct.

[STMO999]

I believe that Zulu, Lizzie and myself have strong opinions regarding the reality or unreality of global warming, as to whether it is science fact or science fiction.
But I have said repeatedly, I could be wrong.
But Nickbat concerns me because he seems to have closed his mind to any possibility that perhaps he may be incorrect with his findings.
I believe his view to be that he is categorically right and anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong.Nickbat is fully entitled to his viewpoint however.Only time will tell if he is correct.

That's better.

[Brick Tamland]

This thread has become way too political and putting the actual science debate to the side

Is this some evidence of making up numbers that are put together in a very sloppy manner?

Can these scientists travel through time?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxuS67UOs0A[/media]

This isn't my video so ignore the farmer accent.

Having a look at the graph at about 2:30.
Look closely and on his own graph, the Co2 change is slighty after the change in temperature.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ&feature=related[/media]

I also see that "climate scientist" Phil Jones has stepped down.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28168-Hillsborough-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d1-UK-Scientist-steps-down-during-Climategate-investigation

[Brick Tamland]

And now he wants $1,200 for a handshake.

http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/composite-4994.htm

I think I'll just give him the finger for free.