h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not really sure what Mount Pinatubo has with CO2 levels in the atmosphere rising from 280 parts per milliion to 380 ppm. Which is what's happened in the last few hundred years, as we've been burning coal and oil etc. Therefore, we can and do have an effect on the atmosphere that volcanoes haven't had in the last few centuries.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

Commented one conspirator

"Well, I would say that the Earth *is* actually pretty big and Mother Nature has an ability to self-regulate."

You can and have said it SWL, but it merely adds anthropromorphism to the other diverse kinds of twaddle you spout in place of a structured or reasoned argument. In my opinon it is this repeated spouting of twaddle rather than the name calling we both indulge in that stems the flow of debate, old pal.


"There's such an arrogance behind thinking we can influence what we barely understand.

Who exactly are you refering to as "we" in this sentence? Not me Ive admitted I dont fully understand how GW humanity's actions interact, but neither do am I possesed arrogance of think we can stop it. My view and that of others is that: while the possibility remains we can do "something" isnt it worth a shot given the possible consequences of doing nothing to attempt a change of direction or some slowing of the process. Moreover the only fact we can reasonably obtain from your breathtakingly* arrogant assumption is that YOU dont understand "the science" any more than an actress parroting on about nuetroceramides.

"If you reduce Earth history to 24 hours, a human lifetime becomes 1/400th of a second long. Barely a flicker in the grand scheme of things.

A flicker during which we have been responsible for the destruction of how many acres of natural habitats that were here long before our interference and the extinction of species we didnt een get time to identify let alone the ones we did itemise before we rubbed them out of exsistence.

"We are insignificant. We could pollute to our hearts content and it would not even begin to approach the output of a few active volcanoes and at various times in the past, there have been periods where hundreds of volcanoes were simultaneously spewing forth.

Spoken like someoe who never lived in a smog bound city where poor air quality contributed to many deaths and longterm illnesses or someone who is too thick to grasp the relationship between removal of polutants and the return of animal and plant life to barren habitats. Each time I read what I think will be your dumbest opinion you manage to bring forth one even more numb-skulled than your previous rubbish.




"I don't buy it."

Neither it is becoming more and more do you understand it which explains a lot, but dont assume that you being unable to grasp it means it aint real.



"And one reason I don't buy it is governments are not planning for the effects but grabbing fistfuls of taxes instead.

You dont believe the science that politicians once rubbished because nowpoliticians are using the same science to grab taxes. Where is the sense in that?


"Are there any scientists who say GW can be stopped?
There are many that think it can be slowed, in some Canute-like fashion.

Why bring him into it, he tried to hold back the tide by will alone and other people are using measured actions caomparing the two is an unfair and tenously linked way of slurring people, why am i not surprised by this pathetic insult in place of argument...oh its becuse Im responding to one of your posts.


"So why aren't governments putting schemes into place to cope? Why in fact are they doing the exact opposite?

What government schemes are doing the exact opposite? Perhaps governments arent able to do anything novel to address climate change because of a bunch of ignorant ranters running round with their fingers in their ears and are falling back on the a method they know they can get away with.

one love

* This is what is called a lie. I stopped having my breath taken away by your arrogance a long time ago.

I too am having some difficulty SWL in understanding why you seem to think humans can't change the environment No offence mate, but that seems a bit stupid to me. Of course we can change the environment- see what happens when we set off a few nukes or start a forest fire. We've had the ability to change the environment on a global scale for many decades now. I didn't really think anyone was questioning that. Perhaps i'm just misunderstanding you.

As i've already said, the concept that we are changing the balance of gasses in the atmosphere by releasing a few million years worth of fixed carbon into the air in a few decades seems blatantly obvious to me. Why would you disbelieve such a thing could have an effect

What has been the net physical result of ten years of hysterical ranting about GW?

A £10 tax on airline tickets.
A postulated tax on carrier bags.
A graduated tax on fuel.
A virtual moratorium on new road-building.
A new airport tax

Have *any* of these measures had the slightest impact on emmissions?
Have any of these measures poured billions into the treasury?

The climate is demonstrably changing and we are daily regaled with horror stories about water levels rising by metres, putting a significant proportion of the country underwater. So why does government approve building housing on flood plains? Why are all our nuclear power stations built by the water's edge?

Why does the government say one thing and do another?

The GW hysteria is exactly the same as the "War on Terror" - political manouevrings to create a climate where taxes can be raised without a murmur from the population.

If GW represented the threat we are told it does, it would behold the Government to ban all private vehicles overnight, shut down all oil and coal power stations, build massive sea defences and all but go to war with other countries that refuse to follow suit.

But they don't. They raise taxes instead.

If GW really was the clear and present danger we are led to believe it is, any prudent government would take steps to alleviate the effects. Do you see *any* government doing so?

You forgot the biggest joke of all played on the public by the government, SWL. The mineral extraction tax that they introduced after they were first elected.

All the quarries have to pay tax on the stone they extract.
They pass 100% of this tax burden on to their customers.
Their customers are the builders.
They pass 100% of the extra costs on to the public.
The public pay the cost of the tax burden not the quarries.

But, the best bit of all:
The biggest customer of the quarries?
Yep, the one customer who builds all the schools, hospitals etc.
That's right, the government.
They happily pay the tax burden passed on by the quarries.
They take the money back in tax at the end of the financial year.

So, the only ones who actually pay any money at all towards the extraction tax are the public, who are mostly under the impression that the quarries are paying it not them...brilliant!

BTW Winnoch, I have no objection to long life bulbs in principle. I just need a bulb that gives out enough light to see properly when I switch it on, not 10 seconds after I've left the room. If someone makes a bulb that solves that problem and gives out the same amount of light as a standard bulb I'll be more than happy to switch. So far for example, I've yet to find one that has the power to replace the standard 100w bulb in my outside lantern. Long lifes don't even give enough light to find the way to my front gate, even the newer, all singing, all dancing ones that claim to give 100w equivalent.

OK, well, i've never had a problem with them myself. The whole house is lit with them, and i can't see any difference in output to the traditional ones If anything they give a more even, less harsh light. They also light instantly. The only difference is, as i said earlier, they're not usually at full brightness imediately (but within about 10-20 seconds). But then again, everyone's used flurencent tubes which can take ages to light, for and you don't hear many complaints about them Each to their own i suppose...

"used flurencent" = "used to flourecent" ...

We've got energy saving bulbs in most of our light fittings, and they vary widely. The ones in our bedroom and the living room build to brightness quite quickly and are very good, the ones on the stairs take a while longer to brighten fully (circa 3 minutes). The worst ones are the ones in the kitchen, which take about 5 minutes before they're usefully bright; and they weren't cheap ones, either . I've got used to it, and frankly can't be bothered to replace them, given they are saving me money.

But I digress.

I find this government's stance on climate change and cutting CO2 more than a touch hypocritical. It's rumoured that Mr Brown will be doubling road tax for "gas guzzlers" yet the government has done little to act against the increased numbers of short-haul flights, apart from the £10 passenger tax. Heck, don't they actually *aim* to increase passenger and flight numbers?

If we're to give up our cars, then at least give us a viable alternative. Our lifestyles have changed so much that travel is a necessity for most of us, and that involves a car.

We're currently a two-car household, and have been looking at going down to one car and and my husband using public transport to get to work. However, he can't - the buses and trains don't start early enough for him to get to work on time, and the journey time is 90 minutes. It takes 20 minutes by car, even at peak times, and it's cheaper. He did live within cycling distance of work, but he got moved to a different site (and then got moved again), and we can't afford to move to be closer to his work, given how often he gets moved between sites (3 times in 5 years). If we lived in the middle of nowhere, then I could understand the inefficiencies of public transport, but we live in Leamington, a reasonably big town close to a few other big towns (Coventry, Warwick, Birmingham isn't that far away).

This government's solution to climate change appears to be to tax us to the hilt, but not to actually *do* anything. Me and my husband are increasingly coming to the conclusion that in a few years time once we have kids, he'd be better off quitting his job and taking some numpty minimum wage job, as then he'll get benefits and some taxes paid, rather than being bankrupted by the state and being a responsible citizen.

I'm still not convinced humanity is 100% to blame for global warming, but I don't think it's worth taking that chance - I don't think it's an excuse not to do anything.

Regarding conspiracy theories, I wonder how much of these "green taxes" will get put into the ever more expensive Olympics?

*gets down off soapbox and stops ranting*

"I'm still not convinced humanity is 100% to blame for global warming, but I don't think it's worth taking that chance - I don't think it's an excuse not to do anything."

No serious climatologist has ever said it is, though. The concensus is that we're increasing the problem rather than the single cause of it all.

Along with the conspiracy theorists, there's another problem on the other side of the fence which is the doomongers who believe that the worst-case scenarios will happen even though climatologists have never said they will. This isn't helped by sensationalists TV shows and headlines in newspapers like "The Independent". At least one climatologist who has been trying to raise awareness about Global Warming has attacked these approaches for exaggerating the problem in the public eye and encouraging hysteria. There was quite a good BBCi article about it a while ago.

"If we're to give up our cars, then at least give us a viable alternative. Our lifestyles have changed so much that travel is a necessity for most of us, and that involves a car."

You don't have to "give up" your car, it would simply be a good idea to use it less or to switch to a more fuel-efficient car. Nobody seriously argues for the phasing out of cars or air travel except for the luddite fringe who have tried to hijack legitimate global warming concerns for their own ends.

"If GW really was the clear and present danger we are led to believe it is, any prudent government would take steps to alleviate the effects. Do you see *any* government doing so?"

Kyoto. That was all about lowering greenhouse-gas emmissions and not about raising taxes. But then, maybe that's what *they* want us to think, eh?

"The climate is demonstrably changing..."

SWL, I wish you'd declare whether you think global warming is or isn't happening. You seem to flit between "yes it is" and "no it isn't, this is just like global freezing in the '70s" depending on what piece of boilerplate you're regaling us with. Please make up your mind.

<>

I fully agree with this - which is why both mine and my husband's car both do between 50-60mpg in everyday driving. On very long runs my car gets 67mpg, and my husband got 74mpg out of his. Both our car's engines are also compatible with biodiesel, should that ever be on widespread sale (or should we ever be tempted to try and make our own).

The really annoying thing for me, is that currently we both pay £175 per year road tax as both engines are over 1549cc and were registered in 1998/1999. However, if we'd bought our cars (*exactly* the same ones) three years later, I'd pay £50 a year and he'd pay £110. The frustrating thing is we can't afford to buy newer cars yet .

Zagreb - in fairness to SWL, I don't think ther's a logical gap between 'The climate is demonstrably changing' and 'We are not the cause of it', which appears to be the thrust of his argument.

Of course, you are free to spot the credibility gap in the second bit of logic all you like...

'everyone's used flurencent tubes which can take ages to light, and you don't hear many complaints about them'

Mine don't, they're fitted with 'instant on' starters.