eliotness

There are many things that the government could do to help the rural areas to reduce their reliance on grid electricity. But rural usage pales into insignificance compared to the big cities and their shopping malls (as an earlier poster mentioned). The cities require, and will always require into the foreseeable future, big generators, whatever the source of the power, be it nuclear, gas, coal or garbage. NIMBYs will moan, but unless there is a mega change in lifestyle, big power-stations are needed "full stop".

There's a video on you-tube, made to the music of Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" featuring B_lair and Baby Bush. A must watch, really gives the chills.

-No three finger salutes

-No reading of certain books in public.

-No wearing of red on certain days, etc etc.

And some westerners raised in democratic countries still support this heinous bunch!

You forgot about eating sandwiches in public !

I've been caught in the queue of Chinese Thais waiting to cross the border into Cambodia. Never try to cross the border for your 90 days on a Friday afternoon or Saturday. Not shown in the report, but I wonder what % are Thai as against Vietnamese. Plus they're building a new casino across my nearest border crossing and it's really big.

it seems that every company that sells bottled gas uses the 2 stroke bikes to deliver it.

There are a lot of 2 stroke bikes around, maybe they just don't sell new ones these days.

still you see diesel trucks belching out black clouds of smoke, the skies are constantly being

sprayed with chemicals day in and day out, GMO's and glyphosate are poisoning the people.

There is a lot of work do be done. Screw the laws to regulate, have laws to ban!

While I see only rarely trucks belching black clouds, these black clouds are just carbon particle, and relative big one. They are harmless....The invisible carbon particle from a modern good diesel engine are far more dangerous.

There's even more to worry about than "the invisible carbon particle". A poorly maintained diesel engine will emit a lot of invisible carcinogens and NOx, but a "modern good diesel engine" will still emit a lot of NOx. Hence the orange cloud seen over most industrial cities worldwide.

"Pet expert scientists"?

No.

Obama is advised by the scientists that make up the National Academy of Science that have been advising presidents since Lincoln.

Only the top scientific researchers get invited into this exclusive group.

They are very elite and distinguished professionals that do this work pro bono.

So these "very elite" people work "pro bono". So how do they live, buy a house, buy food, someone is paying them.

So tell us all, what is Obama done or plans to do to stop GW ? He's been president long enough to make significant changes. As for the invites " to this exclusive group", please don't sound so naive, do you really really trust politicians to listen to critics.

As for the Pope, you really trust a man that denies the theory of evolution, is convinced that if you confess your sins you will be forgiven, that asks the world to alleviate poverty whilst heading one of the richest organisations in the history of the planet, that will not condone family planning, while the earth's population looks like topping 12 billion by 2100.

Up until just recently the USA was the biggest, by far, polluter of planet earth in history, so has every generation of your National Academy of Science been asleep for 150 years ? How can your countrymen purport to tell the world to clean up its act when you have profited so much as a nation from the pollution you have caused, not just in your homeland, but around the world.

Some people are a bit thick in the head.

Yes, they work pro-bono for the Science Academy. You see, Nobel Prize winners usually don't have money problems.

Being elected as a member is one of the highest honers a scientist can receive.

About 200 or so members do have Nobel Prizes.

You dont trust the Pope? By the way, the Pope is going with evolution these days. Google it.

I am very tempted to tear your argument apart at the seams, but as you said I was "a bit thick in the head", I will not lower myself to your level and be baited by you.

"Pet expert scientists"?

No.

Obama is advised by the scientists that make up the National Academy of Science that have been advising presidents since Lincoln.

Only the top scientific researchers get invited into this exclusive group.

They are very elite and distinguished professionals that do this work pro bono.

So these "very elite" people work "pro bono". So how do they live, buy a house, buy food, someone is paying them.

So tell us all, what is Obama done or plans to do to stop GW ? He's been president long enough to make significant changes. As for the invites " to this exclusive group", please don't sound so naive, do you really really trust politicians to listen to critics.

As for the Pope, you really trust a man that denies the theory of evolution, is convinced that if you confess your sins you will be forgiven, that asks the world to alleviate poverty whilst heading one of the richest organisations in the history of the planet, that will not condone family planning, while the earth's population looks like topping 12 billion by 2100.

Up until just recently the USA was the biggest, by far, polluter of planet earth in history, so has every generation of your National Academy of Science been asleep for 150 years ? How can your countrymen purport to tell the world to clean up its act when you have profited so much as a nation from the pollution you have caused, not just in your homeland, but around the world.

Some people are a bit thick in the head.

Yes, they work pro-bono for the Science Academy. You see, Nobel Prize winners usually don't have money problems.

Being elected as a member is one of the highest honers a scientist can receive.

About 200 or so members do have Nobel Prizes.

You dont trust the Pope? By the way, the Pope is going with evolution these days. Google it.

To quote a phrase "there is none so blind as those who cannot see".

"Pet expert scientists"?

No.

Obama is advised by the scientists that make up the National Academy of Science that have been advising presidents since Lincoln.

Only the top scientific researchers get invited into this exclusive group.

They are very elite and distinguished professionals that do this work pro bono.

So these "very elite" people work "pro bono". So how do they live, buy a house, buy food, someone is paying them.

So tell us all, what is Obama done or plans to do to stop GW ? He's been president long enough to make significant changes. As for the invites " to this exclusive group", please don't sound so naive, do you really really trust politicians to listen to critics.

As for the Pope, you really trust a man that denies the theory of evolution, is convinced that if you confess your sins you will be forgiven, that asks the world to alleviate poverty whilst heading one of the richest organisations in the history of the planet, that will not condone family planning, while the earth's population looks like topping 12 billion by 2100.

Up until just recently the USA was the biggest, by far, polluter of planet earth in history, so has every generation of your National Academy of Science been asleep for 150 years ? How can your countrymen purport to tell the world to clean up its act when you have profited so much as a nation from the pollution you have caused, not just in your homeland, but around the world.

U huh. Marsha Blackburn the US Republican that represents the industrial polluters says "ignore the Pope."

Does she think the Pope just dreams up these policies?

He is advised by a team of scientific experts. Just like Obama is advised by the National Academy of Scientists.

Who you gonna believe? The above mentioned elite scientists or Marsh (dumbshit) Blackburn?

The Pope believes many things, as does Obama. Trouble is that a lot of people don't trust what they say compared to what they do. As for Blackburn, I wouldn't trust her if she said "the sun will shine tomorrow. Both sides have their "pet expert scientists" to advise them. So what makes a scientist " an elite" in your humble opinion ? You are free to side with whoever you want, but just remember the millions who died to give you the right to choose.

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I remember seeing that before I left the UK. Interesting. I live a mile or so outside the village so things like using wind power and especially solar are of great interest. Trouble is we don't seem to get enough good breeze, either nit noy or v rarely mak mak, no happy medium. Solar panels seem a bit too expensive at present and I'm not sure what the pay-back period would be for, say, enough panels to power the aircon in the bedroom, because if it takes more than 10 years to recover the outlay against the saving on my electricity bill, then as I'm mid 60s I am not going to be interested. I'm sure technology will develop to help decentralise electricity systems, but the use unfortunately will be limited, unless someone invents a mega cheap system, with low and easy maintenance.

Elon Musk projects that in twenty years, 50% of energy consumed in the USA will be from clean renewable sources.

The Solar City Co. will install solar on your house for free and the monthly payment will be less than your current electric bill.

Musks 5 billion dollar battery factory, currently under construction will produce more batteries than all the worlds factories combined.

His power wall battery pack can be installed in every home and business, be networked and be called up at peak times eliminating that extra powerhouse in town.

His Tesla car has the best safety and consumer rating of any car ever made and can be fuelled with the sun.

The solar powered hyper loop transport system will move you in comfort at 700MPH.

Now he revealed plans for an electric plane.

Fossil fuels are on the way out.

That's good news about those solar cells.

As for fossil fuel, whatever GW side you're on, it is a finite resource and will not be able to be consumed at present levels for much longer. So the world needs alternative "fuels" not just to "save the planet" but to meet peoples aspirations all over the world. I saw a programme on the Tokyo motor show and Honda have developed an electric moped and that could have a huge impact in South East Asia. Fracking I regard as the last gasp of the fossil fuel corporations.

Elliot, time to look up revolutionary new product called Graphene, on University of Manchester's website. It has huge potential, not least in solar technologies, which could make decentralised electricity systems much more viable in the future.

I remember seeing that before I left the UK. Interesting. I live a mile or so outside the village so things like using wind power and especially solar are of great interest. Trouble is we don't seem to get enough good breeze, either nit noy or v rarely mak mak, no happy medium. Solar panels seem a bit too expensive at present and I'm not sure what the pay-back period would be for, say, enough panels to power the aircon in the bedroom, because if it takes more than 10 years to recover the outlay against the saving on my electricity bill, then as I'm mid 60s I am not going to be interested. I'm sure technology will develop to help decentralise electricity systems, but the use unfortunately will be limited, unless someone invents a mega cheap system, with low and easy maintenance.

Mostly, language. I did speak elementary Thai is CNX. Here the speed of their speech is far too much for me.

Village Lanna is a different language to CM Lanna.

Got a similar problem in Isaan. My wife's family and most of the village speak a form of Lao. The next village speak Cambodian. I'm trying to learn to speak Thai so most language books for Thai don't really help locally. I also find everyone speaks so quickly with so many grunts, makes it very hard to follow, but hey I suppose it's the same problem for people going to England to learn English and being faced with the regional accents.

No, the words are different.

It's like a foreigner who learned English speaking to a Scot who talks in Gaelic.

English/Gaelic

How are you = Kimma Ha oo

I'm fine thankyou = goo ma

I take your point, but everyone seems to have Thai, but use either Lao or Cambodian, so I guess England was a poor analogy, probably Belgium or Switzerland might be better comparisons, but then not really the same. Anyway whatever ! it makes learning the language a bit more difficult.

Mostly, language. I did speak elementary Thai is CNX. Here the speed of their speech is far too much for me.

Village Lanna is a different language to CM Lanna.

Got a similar problem in Isaan. My wife's family and most of the village speak a form of Lao. The next village speak Cambodian. I'm trying to learn to speak Thai so most language books for Thai don't really help locally. I also find everyone speaks so quickly with so many grunts, makes it very hard to follow, but hey I suppose it's the same problem for people going to England to learn English and being faced with the regional accents.

We've got a mushroom farm a couple of hundred metres up the road. Wasn't there when we built the house 10 years ago, only built the "tents" last year, but every day there is a plague of flies. The only "good" thing is the people who own the mushroom farm are just down the road and they are plagued by the damn things too.

Never had the mushroom problem like you, but we often have issues like this with our neighbors. Usually it is something like a temporary frog farm that stinks to high heavens. Often it is constant loud music or burning garbage or whatever. Most times they just don't think about the impact on others.

Trouble is Thais love mushrooms and they fetch a good price now. Went to the farm today and they're building yet another tent, so if anything it's going to get worse.

We've got a mushroom farm a couple of hundred metres up the road. Wasn't there when we built the house 10 years ago, only built the "tents" last year, but every day there is a plague of flies. The only "good" thing is the people who own the mushroom farm are just down the road and they are plagued by the damn things too.

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

On climate change, you can really only be a Denier or an Alarmist. That is the nature of ideological disputes. As a socialist, I am automatically aligned to the Alarmists. Half the fun of hanging around on TVF World News is poking the eye of the opponent.

I do not subscribe to your views on population. There will always be technological solutions. Food technology does not only mean GMO. I am quite agnostic on that issue. Besides, while earth remains a closed eco-system, there will be natural methods of population control. Technology too will contribute to the lifting of the living standards of people in emerging economies. Old models of infrastructure based on mega-projects, huge capex and lots of cement and other resources are already being overturned by technology. It has been happening i the communications industry for decades. It is now happening in the energy industry. I am very bullish on economic progress and the impact of wealth generation on poverty alleviation and, ultimately, reduced population growth.

I do not worry too much about religious views on birth control. Most people, including the 'faithful' ignore such silliness. The more societies move towards agnosticism and find alternatives for spiritual well being, the less influence these archaic institutions will have. Again, more economic development and higher standards of living will accelerate this process.

Much of your rationale is based on existing models e.g. the need for large families in under developed agrarian economies, the exploitation of the genetics of food crops for corporate wealth generation etc. If you try to apply these models to problems of the future, they won't work. I am a strong believer in social progress - look it up, it is actually a 'thing' - not in the imperialist sense but in the optimistic sense.

So you think it's a simple black or white issue. I think you're wrong, but you are entitled to your view as I am of mine.

I do think you are viewing the population question through rose coloured glasses, but I actually hope you turn out to be correct because if you're wrong the consequences could be horrific.

Social progress is largely dependant on governments, who control access to education and capitalists who create better paying jobs. Very few governments want true educational progress. After all a well educated population might challenge the "powers that be", and that applies as much to the UK as Thailand. The last period of New Labour had a very detrimental effect on social progress in the UK. My opinion, but as you admit to being a socialist I'd expect to to disagree, but I'm going off topic sorry.

I am greatly concerned about the religious aspect of population control and do not agree with your "it will be right mate" view. There are regions of the world where religions rule and religious leaders decide what type of education children receive, if any. How does your rosy socialist address that ? No sorry I think you are so wrong your view is actually dangerous.

They need to move to biodegradable bags if the current ones take 450 years to decompose But really 450 years, what type of plastic is that ? And is that 450 years in a landfill or 450 in a ditch at the side of the road ?

So Mr Lostboy, you raised some good points. Sorry to be on the defensive so quickly but I was expecting a response similar to Up2u2. Your response however showed a good degree of professional knowledge.

To clarify, I have never been a "denier" of climate change. I have seen professionally the effect of pollution both aqueous and terrestrial. My experience of aerial pollution is limited, but if mankind can cause such damage to the 2 former it would be expected that we can damage, or change the latter. My worry is that the GW debate is featuring people with a rather more political agenda than an environmentalist one. Of course man is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but my contention is, in a dynamic atmosphere how can you actually quantify it and then predict what the Earth's climate will be in 100 years. Furthermore by using wild claims (or more correctly, what are seen by lots of people as wild claims) the GW lobby is actually having a negative effect on the environmental professionals trying to combat pollution in all its facets.

What I do have issue with you is over the increasing population. You state it was a 70s scare, now defunct. I point you to that article I mentioned to Up2u2 in the Guardian last year that said the scientific consensus that the Earth's population would peak in 2050 looks like being wrong and the population will keep increasing to 12 Billion or more by 2100. No mention of thereafter. Your mention of falling birthrates when GDP increases has happened in 1st world countries, but when a country has no social security or old age pension then having a large family is a way of ensuring you will be taken care of in old age. This has always been the case in 3rd world countries and even if they could raise their GDP it would take several generations for the benefit to be realised, then too late 12 billion have arrived. But the elephant in the room of your argument is all the major religions are opposed to family planning and that is where the Pope came in.

The problem with food technologies is there is a big public resistance to GM food and we are yet to see the long term effects of such technology. Furthermore all it would need is something similar to potato blight to occur to a major food source to see a replay of the Irish famine multiplied by x.

I have dealt with the USEPA on several occasions and found them so helpful on specific matters, much more so than the UK's EA. I have also dealt with big multinational corporations and know profit is everything and the environment is pretty way down on their list, but they do wish to look "green" even when they are most certainly not. The latest problem for them is "Corporate Social Responsibility" - there's an ISO standard for that, which is so important for the world's population and if applied worldwide would be a real game changer.

So call me a conservative, OK, but I am in neither "camp" but I am worried when science is used as a political weapon. Predicting what will happen over the next century can be given a qualified judgement, but when someone says "it's true, the science is proven" when it's a prediction based on computer modelling then my scientific background says "woo wait a minute !". You can disagree with me, your choice, but that is my view and it will take "road to Damascus" moment to change it.

<<SNIP>>

These climate change threads only offer a choice between geeking out on scientific minutiae and endless charts - like we have witnessed in this thread or slagging matches based on ideological positions and gotcha attempts. This comment is a case in point. Wilful ignorance masquerading as an attempt at rebuttal but so deep in the denier ideological roots that it becomes moronic.

The idea of reducing the impact of humans on the environment has resulted in a huge range of strategies over the last decade; regulatory and market based; macro-level and micro-level. Emissions standards imposed by regulators on automobile engines has resulted in major improvements in the internal combustion engine. One of the main reasons electric vehicles haven't yet dominated the market is the reliability and proven technology of the internal combustion engine which remains competitive with electric vehicle technologies at current costs. This is en example of regulatory interventions.

The development of carbon markets also known as Cap and Trade is an attempt at market based solutions to minimising human impact on the environment. These markets aim to identify the true cost of environmental impact. Stock markets are quite efficient at determining the cost of capital (price of money) but stock markets are centuries old. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established in 1602. So these markets have had a long time to work out efficient, effective and fair market rules. At the moment carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair but they may be. Establishing the true cost of what economists call 'externalities' is a worthwhile and significant exercise. When you drive your car, do you have to pay the full cost of externalities involved? Not just things like its emissions and other pollutants but the impact your choice has on congestion, the cost of building and maintaining roadways or the cost of disposing of the materials at the end of the car's life. If all transport methods were priced a the true cost of all externalities, you will probably find people choosing public transport which will be more efficient because investments will be made more easily under a true pricing model. This is an example of market based solutions.

At the micro level, there has been a movement towards residential waste recycling for many years. Solid Waste Management (SWM) technologies and systems are being introduced to sort and recycle waste and turn the waste into energy (WTE). Thailand is pushing the WTE option and it has implemented world class SWM systems and technologies in a number of municipalities over the past 15 years including Phitsanulok and Lampang. At the macro level, conferences and gatherings that are so derided and scoffed at by the Deniers actually helps in sharing information and developing consensus about goals, targets and strategies.

There are just 4 strategies. There are many more based in regulatory, market, micro and macro structures.

I do not care about who wins the Climate Change argument. It is political now. Sides are taken based on ideology. The Deniers are on the wrong side of history. It is no coincidence that the Deniers are also generally the ones who oppose liberalism and the emergence and, frankly dominance of the new generation of millennial in the culture wars. This new generation are tackling the issue and have no time for the silly old nay sayers. So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years.

The one difference in this thread was the issue of the Pope. Some interesting observations at the start of the discussion but it soon degenerated into the usual slagging match. I believe a populist pope moves the established church closer to a position of refuting the existence of a god than a reactionary Pope (like Red Prada Shoes ret.). Without the need for a god, then more people will realise the importance of protecting the earth's environment. I look forward to the day when those people currently suffering under the psychological delusion created by religion abandon this fantasy and become true humanists.

So how is that cap and trade scam working out for Australia?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia Repeals Controversial Carbon Tax

AP | By KRISTEN GELINEAU

Posted: 07/17/2014 12:41 am EDT Updated: 09/15/2014 5:59 am EDT

SYDNEY (AP) Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Article continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/australia-repeals-carbon-tax_n_5593843.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, in the end, this is all most of you folks have in the way of an argument...

"So the grumpy old white men should just sit back and try and enjoy their remaining years."

I am pleased that I have been able to provide some useful activity for your Sunday lunch time by googling articles on Australia and finding out more about my wonderful country. But come on Charles, your Texas Good ol' boy act isn't working on this one.

How is cap and trade working out in Australia? Well look at the consequences of Abbot's decisions. He is no longer leader. Carbon markets or similar or alternative strategies will be introduced in Australia, if not under the Libs then certainly when the government changes. The Mad Monk was too zealous and partisan for his own good and went the way of the dodo. Not before embarrassing many Australians however.

I have engaged through my work for Thai agencies with Australian officials working in the relevant Ministries and statutory authorities on climate change and energy issues and I am quite confident that environmentally friendly policies will resume.

Besides, I made it clear in my post that carbon markets are not efficient, effective or fair - yet. As one of those pushing the edge of the right wing envelope, surely Charles you must appreciate the attempts at market based solutions to problems.

As a self confessed old white man (not sure if you're always grumpy or not), you can tell us precisely what impact you have on global environmental policy now? Sure, your career, from what I understand, contributed significantly to the American Energy Imperialist Economy but now in your Isaan village, do you have much sway over Arab princes and various Asian Generals? Or is TVF the only outlet? I use the phrase grumpy old white men to herald the emergence of the millennials who are fixing problems of long standing and of personal immediacy to me. So the old white men can keep shaking their fists at the sky.

Please let me know if you would like more primers on Australian politics and culture. Last time I was in Texas driving down to Freeport from Houston, I was surprised how much it resembled many parts of Australia where I grew up.

Looks like you've got a lot on your plate if you are working for Thai agencies because this is one of the worst countries I've lived in for pollution. I have yet to see any constantly and fairly enforced policies from this, or previously elected governments that have had significant environmental benefits.

As an aside,I bought a reusable bag from Lotus/Tesco, great !, but the only problem was it was heavy duty plastic. Not exactly a solution. As for the one day a month no plastic bag "suggestion", well you just got to laugh.

Recycling of waste has its merits if done well, but there are drawbacks and questions over markets for recycled material and the environmental damage that may occur during the recycling process. Bangladesh being just one of many examples. Much more needs needs to be done in the first place to reduce the amount of waste generated. When I was young, TVs, radios, fridges etc could be repaired, such that appliances lasted a lifetime. That is no longer the case. The huge piles of discarded fridges, supposed to be "recycled" are a prime example.

And Sir, before you attempt to bait me as you clearly tried to do with a previous poster I was and still am on several ISO EMS technical working groups, one of which has just issued the new version of ISO 14001.

As for "energy from waste", good idea in theory, works well if run as it should be, but so open to abuse, e.g. reducing running costs to increase profit, reducing maintenance to again increase profit, lack of qualified experienced and motivated people to run the plants down the line.

Furthermore, like your fellow traveller up2u2, you cannot save the planet from a doubling of its population this century, with all the environmental effects that will have on planet Earth, never mind the huge political unrest that will be certain to ensue when living space, jobs, food and fresh water become scarce. So if by 2100 the climate has warmed between 2 and 5 degrees C, I think the politicians in charge then will have far far more to worry about than little bit of climate change.

Not that I'm saying do nothing, far from it as I firmly believe we have no right to abuse our planet and we must do all we can to sustain life on Earth. But the "holier than thou" attitude expressed by many of the global warming believers actually hinders open discussion on the matter as I have seen over the days on this thread.

Finally, as you admit to being an Aussie, am I correct in saying Australia has the greatest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, if not THE greatest it's well up there with the big boys ?

Isoprene

Recently scientists from Germany and France found that Isoprene can be produced from an Ocean micro layer. The importance of this is that it answers the discrepancy between field measurement calculations and climate modelling. Climate modelling showed Isoprene levels should be higher but field measurements calculated lower levels. Once this source of Isoprene production is included it shows the Climate modelling is more accurate than thought.

The Climate Denier media and 'journalists' like James Dilingpole started publishing misinformation on the research. 'more Isoprene the Earth is cooling', may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory. "a hitherto unknown cooling process"

All absolute rubbish of course. There is not more Isoprene and Isoprene combines with Aerosols and moisture to form clouds, Currently Clouds create warming not cooling. This research doesn't threaten AGW it shows the climate modelling is accurate. It isn't a hitherto unknown cooling process it was actually more accurate knowledge than we first thought.

This is the type of drivel Congresswoman Blackburn accepts as 'science' idiot journalists intentionally undermining the science.

See post #467 for links

(Last post on this thread. Thanks for the debate guys I enjoyed the discussion. eliot, tbl canuck et al. All the best guys)

I was wondering why you raised Isoprene, now I understand, your latest research project I guess. While Isoprene may help clarify GW models it is nothing at all to do with how can man mitigate any effects of CC or GW.

By the way, as you are butting out, how is the weather, 'cause you sure aren't living in Thailand, USA I'd guess. Have a nice day !

Why don't you guys get a room.
Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake!

Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution.
I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement.

Of course there are solutions. Unfortunately there are unethical and immoral right wing politicians throwing up roadblocks to protect their constituents, the polluters.


Got to laugh. You accuse fight wing politicians for blocking solutions to GW. So which "left wing or Liberal politicians are busy truly, practically implementing solutions in their own countries ? Or were you just on an anti capitalist rant ?

As for the Pope, well the fact he signed onto the propaganda says it all "a populist Pope". Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

So pray tell, what "of course there are solutions" are those that will be acceptable to the general mass of people ? Not of course applying to "the elite" be they scientists, politicians or pop stars, who will continue to jet all around the world, travel in limos, leave a huge carbon footprint whilst preaching the GW mantra.

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

"The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature"

It is very simple to detect the 'fingerprint' of man made CO₂. Fossil Fuels are dead plant material deposited many many millions of years ago. Living plant material contains a balance of specific Carbon Isotopes mostly ¹²C but traces of ¹³C and ¹⁴C. Once a plant dies it stops exchanging Carbon with the atmosphere and over time (+5000 years) the Isotopes ¹³C and particularly ¹⁴C degrade. This is known as the Suess Effect.

So take a piece of Coal or a barrel of Oil and we burn it. When the CO₂ molecule is analysed we find the resulting molecule is depleted in Isotopes ¹³CO₂ and next to no Isotope ¹⁴CO₂ So it is a very simple process to arrive at the quantity of Natural CO₂ it will be rich in ¹³C and ¹⁴C Isotopes and split out the Fossil Fuel CO₂ as it will be depleted in ¹³C and little to no ¹⁴C Isotopes.

( C= Carbon)

So what about the other means of man generating CO2. 7 billion, and rising, people breathing, going to the toilet, farting, burning "new" wood (I wish you could see the rolling smoke cloud coming out of some of the shanty towns in the mornings in 3rd world countries, they are not burning fossil fuels). Current governments are pushing for biomass energy plants, many exist. How does that fit your C14 methodology. Methane, a major "greenhouse" gas, generated by landfills, livestock, compost generation etc, not the same as methane from defrosting tundra. You are too focused on fossil fuels, you need to view a bigger picture. Come outside my friend, the coffee sure smells good !

Dear Up2u2

CFCs can be produced from volcanic eruptions, OK I admit it happens. Nevertheless it does not really affect what I said, man-made chemicals (albeit a group of cpds that can be found in trace amounts naturally) were identified as causing harm to the Ozone Layer. Campaigns were undertaken against the use of those chemicals. Those chemicsls are now banned in most countries and the Ozone Layer is recovering. Surely you don't have a problem with that ?!!!!!

I don't understand your mention of pyrene, which is a naturally occurring chemical found mainly in certain species of trees. Man's current generation comes mainly from natural rubber processing, although in the past the processing of coal/coke to produce town-gas would have contributed, as coal was formed from ancient forests. So I would appreciate to know your logic on choosing pyrene.

Have a nice day

Hi eliot

100% agree with the science on CFC's depleting the Ozone layer and the remedy put in place at the time and now.

pyrene? Do you mean the latest Paper on Isoprene?

Ooops sorry, yes I did mean isoprene. Had a bad day, electric went down, 32 degrees Celsius and a plague of flies from the mushroom farm up the road. Not quite sure about what you mean by "the latest paper" though, got a reference ?

My basic point is, rather than a blanket CO2 campaign, if you pick off individual groups of man-made and man generated chemicals then a public acceptance of your campaign is far more likely to a success. For instance deodorants. Why are so many companies still using pressurised gases, probably of a high global warming potential. Pump action pressurisation works just as well. To quote a phrase "go for the low lying fruit first". Not only would that reap, albeit small but significant benefits. CFCs proved it, so why not build on that success, one piece at a time.

But please do not ignore other facets of pollution, e.g. water pollution, pesticides, heavy metals, plastics etc. No point in saving the climate if we have to live on a poisoned planet.

With the best will in the world, I am still certain that unless mankind curbs the current rate of population growth anything done or promised in Paris and thereafter will be meaningless. The route cause of the population problem is fundamentalist religions, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and I cannot see a way to change their minds. Fundamentalists feed off natural disasters (ignoring the fact it could be man's greed that contributed to that disaster) saying "it was an act of God" or whatever deity they worship and think they will go to heaven (or whatever they wish to call it). Put another way, no point in turning off the gas when your house is already fully ablaze ( I'm sure someone could give a much better analogy ).

Dear Up2u2

CFCs can be produced from volcanic eruptions, OK I admit it happens. Nevertheless it does not really affect what I said, man-made chemicals (albeit a group of cpds that can be found in trace amounts naturally) were identified as causing harm to the Ozone Layer. Campaigns were undertaken against the use of those chemicals. Those chemicsls are now banned in most countries and the Ozone Layer is recovering. Surely you don't have a problem with that ?!!!!!

I don't understand your mention of pyrene, which is a naturally occurring chemical found mainly in certain species of trees. Man's current generation comes mainly from natural rubber processing, although in the past the processing of coal/coke to produce town-gas would have contributed, as coal was formed from ancient forests. So I would appreciate to know your logic on choosing pyrene.

Have a nice day

Well done excellent effort to deflect the point. The point is climate change (hot or cold) is caused by pollution, mainly hydro carbons from oil. That is the issue because it is the cause. Plastics pollute the sea, not just the rubber duck armada but small globules that are killing the fish today have not already been swept up by Taiwanese longline trawlers.

An interesting suggestion regarding the effects of climate change is that the Gulf Stream which is driven by polar waters could stop because the surface water is no longer colder than the deep water - and that will start an ice age !! Crazy but GW could trip an ice age!

Good post, but I thought the Gulf Stream change would be because of changes in salinity of polar waters not water temperature. If it happened it would mean London would have similar winters to Moscow.