Groups raising bar to tackle climate change

The Oxford Times: TIMELY: A flash mob raises concerns about climate change with a demonstration at flooded Abingdon Road, Oxford, last month Buy this photo TIMELY: A flash mob raises concerns about climate change with a demonstration at flooded Abingdon Road, Oxford, last month

EXPERTS and green groups in Oxfordshire hope this will be the time when the world finally stands up and takes notice of their predictions before disaster strikes.

Award-winning author and Green Party member Mark Lynas, pictured below, from Wolvercote, is campaigning for environmentalists to be more open-minded about nuclear power because he believes it is the largest potential source of low carbon energy available to tackle climate change.

He said: “If we abandon nuclear power we will see catastrophic levels of global warming, but if we combine sustainable energies like solar and wind with nuclear power we can keep climate change at safe levels.

“The arguments against are mostly designed to play on people’s fears of radiation but aren’t scientifically valid.

“I think people are concerned about the potential expense of renewable investment but we do have to spend money to ensure that our descendants have a habitable land.

“Solar power is of limited use in northern European countries, which have cold winters, and wind has the drawback of intermittency.

“Only nuclear energy can keep the lights on for 24 hours a day and 365 days of the year without emitting carbon dioxide.”

Related links

Mr Lynas, 40, believes Oxfordshire is leading the way in climate change initiatives.

He said: “We’re in the frontline in some ways with our low-lying location and the Thames coming through the city.

“We have the challenge of adapting to the increasing effect of climate change, so there’s a lot of activity.

“The flooding shows us that we weren’t immune from the climate change impact.

“It’s not something which is going to happen just in tropical countries.

“There’s a clear relationship between a warmer atmosphere and holding more water vapour.

“As local people we all have to do our bit to become part of the clean energy revolution.

“That’s from the bottom-up in small-scale renewables as well as top-down with nuclear power stations.”

Mr Lynas believes there could even be a nuclear power plant based in the former Didcot A station, which closed in March last year.

He said: “It would be wonderful because you could have clean power where the dirty power in coal was for decades. There are still reactors in Harwell so it wouldn’t be the first in Oxfordshire.”

THE LOWDOWN

  • LOW Carbon Oxford Week will be held from June 14 to 22.
  • It will include a variety of pop-up events across the city promoting sustainability, including film showings, food fairs and music.
  • The event is being organised by Low Carbon Oxford, which was set up by the Oxford Strategic Partnership in 2010.
  • Anyone who wants to get involved, make a donation or provide a venue should contact Jennifer Carr by visiting lowcarbonoxford.wordpress.com

 

Volunteers spread the green message

LOIS Muddiman co-founded Low Carbon West Oxford in 2007 in response to concerns over flooding. It aims to cut community carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Current and future initiatives include providing thermal imagery for homeowners so they can see where energy is being leaked and encouraging green residents to invite neighbours to their home as an example of energy efficiency.

The Oxford Times:

  • HELP AT HAND: Lois Muddiman, on the bike, with Jennifer Carr

Mrs Muddiman said: “There are a lot of community groups under the low carbon banner run by volunteers in their own locality trying to encourage people to lead more sustainable lifestyles.

“They are very successful in engaging a lot of communities because it’s on the ground.

“Climate change is going to be an issue which needs to be tackled by local and national government.

“We’ve found that these groups are very well trusted because they are run by volunteers known in the area and people can turn to them for advice on what they can do to make their homes cheaper and reduce their carbon footprint.”

The Rose Hill and Iffley Low Carbon group was established last year and has already taken 95 thermal photographs and set up a meeting attended by 80 residents about how to improve energy efficiency.

It also collects unwanted electrical items to be reused and recycled and followed Low Carbon Oxford North’s footsteps in setting up an electric car share club.

Member Jennifer Carr, who is also Oxford City Council’s sustainable energy officer, said: “Oxfordshire as a county has got more active community groups of low carbon than anywhere else in the UK.

“It’s enormously important. A lot of the time people don’t necessarily know where to go for resources and having people who understand what local people’s needs are.

“Starting at grassroots level with one-to-one relationship building is the first step in people getting wider support and talking about the bigger issues in climate change.”

 

Keeping an eye on the sky could reap benefits

SUSTAINABLE Charlbury recently unveiled plans to build a community-owned solar farm.

Chairwoman Liz Reason said: “Tell people we are to have a community solar farm and the reaction is one of real pleasure — at last here is something real that will make a contribution to tackling climate change.

The Oxford Times:

  • PROMOTING RENEWABLES: Liz Reason

“This is their chance to do something about a horrible problem of which they are acutely aware and generally feel powerless.

“On top of that, having your own renewable energy generation makes people look at the weather and judge its impact on how much electricity it will mean.

“It also makes them very conscious about their own energy use. This sense of empowerment helps people realise that changing their behaviour to help mitigate the impact of climate change is not so difficult after all.”

Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute is involved in several aspects of climate change at local, national and international level.

It runs the world’s biggest climate prediction experiment, researches the impact of humans in climate change and assesses how carbon moves around the Amazon rainforest’s eco-system.

The institute also works with communities in Oxfordshire to help people save energy and advises councils on flood risk management.

For more than a century, it has been conducting research at Wytham Woods near Oxford.

Development officer Ian Curtis said: “There’s a huge amount of innovation in Oxfordshire in terms of high level enterprise initiatives but we’re also starting to mobilise people in low-tech community engagement.

“If we keep bringing these things together and sharing lots of ideas then there’s an exciting future for Oxfordshire. There’s so much going on, whether it’s church or school groups or hi-tech companies.”

 

A NEW SOURCE OF POWER

A COMMUNITY-owned hydro scheme in Oxford could be generating electricity by the spring.

The Osney Lock Hydro project was conceived in 2001 and last year received planning permission.

It has so far raised £500,000 in funding – with more than half coming from investment by residents.

Construction started last summer and the next steps include building a powerhouse and installing a turbine.

Director Saskya Hughes said: “As well as generating green electricity, profits from Osney Lock Hydro will be used to support local environmental projects.

“Our aim is to generate 186,000 kilowatt hours a year, equivalent to the electricity needs of about 60 homes, and to raise over £2m for local environmental projects.”

 

Floods highlighted issues

CLIMATE Change and Information Network (COIN) director Jamie Clarke, 38, pictured, hopes the flooding will get more people interested in what is happening to our weather.

The Cowley-based group holds debates in Oxford and last month staged a flotilla of rowing boats in the flooded Abingdon Road as a protest demanding discussion about climate change.

The Oxford Times:

Donnington Bridge Road resident Mr Clarke, pictured, said: “We’re really focused on harnessing the horrible instance of the flooding to help people connect with the problems in Oxfordshire. We want them to be able to talk about it so they can take action.

“The flooding in Oxford of 2007 was supposed to be a once-in-a-100 years incident.

“Since then Abingdon Road has been closed three or four times due to flooding.

“The pattern very much suggests it’s to do with climate change. We need to adapt to these patterns to mitigate the problems of climate change.

“The flooding has led to more people talking about it.”

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

I asked this question a number of times before and wish to ask again and hope that someone will enlighten me. The Met Office has told us that we are going to get milder and dryer winters in the coming years because of climate change. So if we tackle climate change, will we get colder and wetter winters and is this what we really want ?
I asked this question a number of times before and wish to ask again and hope that someone will enlighten me. The Met Office has told us that we are going to get milder and dryer winters in the coming years because of climate change. So if we tackle climate change, will we get colder and wetter winters and is this what we really want ? Bicester retired
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rowdy says...

The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............
.............!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............ .............!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! rowdy
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

museli says...

rowdy wrote:
The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............

.............!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No they haven't - you've just made that up. Climatic factors have long been recognised as having a major effect on the behaviour of the jet stream and I'm quite sure the Met Office are aware of that. There's lot's we don't know and always a case for further research so we understand these things better. In your case perhaps just reading this layman's introduction might help your understanding.

http://geography.abo
ut.com/od/climate/a/
jetstream.htm
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............ .............!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]No they haven't - you've just made that up. Climatic factors have long been recognised as having a major effect on the behaviour of the jet stream and I'm quite sure the Met Office are aware of that. There's lot's we don't know and always a case for further research so we understand these things better. In your case perhaps just reading this layman's introduction might help your understanding. http://geography.abo ut.com/od/climate/a/ jetstream.htm museli
  • Score: 2

6:03pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rowdy says...

Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............
.!!!!!!
Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............ .!!!!!! rowdy
  • Score: -5

6:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

museli says...

rowdy wrote:
Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............

.!!!!!!
I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue.

The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'.

The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews
.wordpress.com/2014/
02/17/met-office-in-
the-media-16-februar
y-2014-response-by-p
rofessor-mat-collins
-and-the-met-office/
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............ .!!!!!![/p][/quote]I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue. The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'. The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews .wordpress.com/2014/ 02/17/met-office-in- the-media-16-februar y-2014-response-by-p rofessor-mat-collins -and-the-met-office/ museli
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............


.!!!!!!
I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue.

The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'.

The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews

.wordpress.com/2014/

02/17/met-office-in-

the-media-16-februar

y-2014-response-by-p

rofessor-mat-collins

-and-the-met-office/
Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............ .!!!!!![/p][/quote]I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue. The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'. The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews .wordpress.com/2014/ 02/17/met-office-in- the-media-16-februar y-2014-response-by-p rofessor-mat-collins -and-the-met-office/[/p][/quote]Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance. Bicester retired
  • Score: 2

7:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rowdy says...

Don't believe in climate change - in the 70s someone said we were heading for an ice age , I bet they cant be found now - its all a jobs worth , betting in 40 yrs time it will something different . Problem being most of us will not be around to dispute this.........!!!
Don't believe in climate change - in the 70s someone said we were heading for an ice age , I bet they cant be found now - its all a jobs worth , betting in 40 yrs time it will something different . Problem being most of us will not be around to dispute this.........!!! rowdy
  • Score: -1

7:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

museli says...

Bicester retired wrote:
museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............



.!!!!!!
I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue.

The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'.

The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews


.wordpress.com/2014/


02/17/met-office-in-


the-media-16-februar


y-2014-response-by-p


rofessor-mat-collins


-and-the-met-office/
Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance.
http://www.ipcc.ch/r
eport/ar5/wg1/mindex
.shtml

Last years report from the IPCC linked above is a good place to start Bicester - as for what we can do, very little unless we can force vested interests the world over to put climate before short term profit.
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............ .!!!!!![/p][/quote]I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue. The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'. The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews .wordpress.com/2014/ 02/17/met-office-in- the-media-16-februar y-2014-response-by-p rofessor-mat-collins -and-the-met-office/[/p][/quote]Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance.[/p][/quote]http://www.ipcc.ch/r eport/ar5/wg1/mindex .shtml Last years report from the IPCC linked above is a good place to start Bicester - as for what we can do, very little unless we can force vested interests the world over to put climate before short term profit. museli
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

Thanks for your reply. In fact, someone has pointed me to the IPCC AR5 before and from reading of it, it says that there is low confidence or insignificant trend about weather extremes globally.

I agree with you that there is very little we can do about climate and that is why I am confused when politicians and environmentalists keep telling us to tackle climate change. We need to know what to do in order to tackle climate change. I have been trying to do things as environmentally friendly as possible but it seems tackling climate change is completely beyond my ability.



.
Thanks for your reply. In fact, someone has pointed me to the IPCC AR5 before and from reading of it, it says that there is low confidence or insignificant trend about weather extremes globally. I agree with you that there is very little we can do about climate and that is why I am confused when politicians and environmentalists keep telling us to tackle climate change. We need to know what to do in order to tackle climate change. I have been trying to do things as environmentally friendly as possible but it seems tackling climate change is completely beyond my ability. . Bicester retired
  • Score: 1

9:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

museli says...

Well we know what to do the reduce the impact and that is to stop pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the environment. On a personal level, like you, I do what I can but to even start addressing the problem we must tell the politicians to tackle climate change not the other way round. Against the pressure of vested interests with their money and denial machine it's not going to be easy!
Well we know what to do the reduce the impact and that is to stop pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the environment. On a personal level, like you, I do what I can but to even start addressing the problem we must tell the politicians to tackle climate change not the other way round. Against the pressure of vested interests with their money and denial machine it's not going to be easy! museli
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Leslie Graham says...

"Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure.
It doesn't mean it's not happening.
"Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure. It doesn't mean it's not happening. Leslie Graham
  • Score: 2

10:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Leslie Graham says...

In the 70's the overwhelming majority of climate scientists were already warning of rapid warming.
In fact during the entire period from 1965 to 1979 there was a grand total of precisely SIX papers suggesting that our then levels of particulate pollution if sustained would eventualy tip us back into an ice age over the next 15,000 years.
'Newsweek' and 'Time' and then a few other gutter rags had a 'slow news day' with the story and then it was completely forgotten about as it became obvious the Earth was warming rapidly.
However, the Denial Industry resurrected the stories in the mid 90's as part of their campaing of disinformation and have tried to con gullible people ever since into thinking that scientists have done an about turn.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is well know to anyone who is at all familar withthe history of climate science.
For example; it was first shown that CO2 was a powerfull heat -trapping gas by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Arrhenius projected even back then that a dobling of C02 to 560ppm would eventualy cause a global temperature rise of 5C.
By the time Gilber Plass published his seminal "The Theory of Carbon Dioxide and climate Change" in 1956 it was already solid mainstream science. Despite another 60 years of research by thousands of scientiists the theory is solid and very robust. (in laymans terms it's a 'scientific fact' up there with Gravity and evolution).
In the 70's the overwhelming majority of climate scientists were already warning of rapid warming. In fact during the entire period from 1965 to 1979 there was a grand total of precisely SIX papers suggesting that our then levels of particulate pollution if sustained would eventualy tip us back into an ice age over the next 15,000 years. 'Newsweek' and 'Time' and then a few other gutter rags had a 'slow news day' with the story and then it was completely forgotten about as it became obvious the Earth was warming rapidly. However, the Denial Industry resurrected the stories in the mid 90's as part of their campaing of disinformation and have tried to con gullible people ever since into thinking that scientists have done an about turn. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is well know to anyone who is at all familar withthe history of climate science. For example; it was first shown that CO2 was a powerfull heat -trapping gas by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Arrhenius projected even back then that a dobling of C02 to 560ppm would eventualy cause a global temperature rise of 5C. By the time Gilber Plass published his seminal "The Theory of Carbon Dioxide and climate Change" in 1956 it was already solid mainstream science. Despite another 60 years of research by thousands of scientiists the theory is solid and very robust. (in laymans terms it's a 'scientific fact' up there with Gravity and evolution). Leslie Graham
  • Score: 2

10:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Leslie Graham says...

rowdy wrote:
The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............

.............!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Met Office said no such thing
Stop making stuff up.

And in any case The Jet Stream has been affected by climate change. Specificaly the loss of 75% of summer Arctic ice volume in less than 40 years.
A new record low extent for the time of year was set just a couple of weeks ago as it happens. Not that a single data point like that is significant but it does show what a load of absolute nonsense the Denial Industry talks when it claims the Arctic has 'stabilsed'. Just ridiculous tosh.
But if you are interested in learning how the Jet Stream and therefore UK weather has been affected by global warming and Arctic melt this is a good five minute video by the world's leading expert on the Arctic. and the Jet Stream.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=_nzwJg4Eb
zo
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: The Met office have already said its nothing to do with climate change but the JET STREAM so take notice everyone............ .............!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]The Met Office said no such thing Stop making stuff up. And in any case The Jet Stream has been affected by climate change. Specificaly the loss of 75% of summer Arctic ice volume in less than 40 years. A new record low extent for the time of year was set just a couple of weeks ago as it happens. Not that a single data point like that is significant but it does show what a load of absolute nonsense the Denial Industry talks when it claims the Arctic has 'stabilsed'. Just ridiculous tosh. But if you are interested in learning how the Jet Stream and therefore UK weather has been affected by global warming and Arctic melt this is a good five minute video by the world's leading expert on the Arctic. and the Jet Stream. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=_nzwJg4Eb zo Leslie Graham
  • Score: 2

10:43pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Leslie Graham says...

Bicester retired wrote:
I asked this question a number of times before and wish to ask again and hope that someone will enlighten me. The Met Office has told us that we are going to get milder and dryer winters in the coming years because of climate change. So if we tackle climate change, will we get colder and wetter winters and is this what we really want ?
No - we will not get colder winters - the best we can hope for is that things won't get so bad as to ruin our standard of living completely.
We will still get a disrupted climate for at least a thousand years now due to the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere. But if we stop now we still have a chance.
If we don't stop and just carry on as we are we are talking about a complete breakdown of global civilisation within two centuries.
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: I asked this question a number of times before and wish to ask again and hope that someone will enlighten me. The Met Office has told us that we are going to get milder and dryer winters in the coming years because of climate change. So if we tackle climate change, will we get colder and wetter winters and is this what we really want ?[/p][/quote]No - we will not get colder winters - the best we can hope for is that things won't get so bad as to ruin our standard of living completely. We will still get a disrupted climate for at least a thousand years now due to the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere. But if we stop now we still have a chance. If we don't stop and just carry on as we are we are talking about a complete breakdown of global civilisation within two centuries. Leslie Graham
  • Score: -1

10:55pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Leslie Graham says...

Bicester retired wrote:
museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............



.!!!!!!
I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue.

The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'.

The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews


.wordpress.com/2014/


02/17/met-office-in-


the-media-16-februar


y-2014-response-by-p


rofessor-mat-collins


-and-the-met-office/
Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance.
".....Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change..."

Firstly, It's not 'so-called' man-made climate change. It's called man-made climate change.
There is No 'debate' about his in the scientific community and there hasn't been for decades now.
The basics are very very simple. We have increased the volume of a known powerfull heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere by 41% in a century.
Therefore it is trapping more heat.

In the past CO2 levels have risen for a variety of natural reasons.
For example, due to the slight variations in the Earths orbitt and axis which regularly occurr. Look up Milankovitch Cycles. These variations change the angle of tilt towards the sun and trigger a slight warming. This warming then triggered and outgassing of CO2 from some shallow prehistoric oceans which raised the temperature further. This took thousands of years.
The only difference now is that it is humans who are putting the CO2 into the atmosphere and not a prehistoric ocean.
And we are doing over 100 times faster.
The laws of physics don't give a **** WHERE the CO2 is coming from.
They just do their thing anyway.
When CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms.
Always has - always will.
The rest is just detail.
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: Your wrong they have mentioned it twice on the TV in the last week so perhaps you need to watch instead of making ill informed comments............ .!!!!!![/p][/quote]I don't watch TV but I don't for a moment believe anyone in the Met Office has said the recent flooding is 'nothing to do with climate change' - I suspect you are doing the denier clown thing of asserting a lack of conclusive evidence proves something to be untrue. The Daily Mail's pet climate science denier David Rose recently tried to cash in on what he misinterpreted as a break in the ranks of the Met Office by exaggerating comments made by Prof Mat Collins that there was not enough proof yet that the wet weather and different behaviour of the jet stream were caused by man made climate change. Collins DID NOT say it was 'nothing to do with climate change'. The Met Office addressed this at the time in their blog: http://metofficenews .wordpress.com/2014/ 02/17/met-office-in- the-media-16-februar y-2014-response-by-p rofessor-mat-collins -and-the-met-office/[/p][/quote]Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change ? Wet weather has been occurring for millions of years and is a natural occurrence in my mind. You seem to be familiar with climate science. Can you point me to any scientific studies linking extreme weathers to climate change, other than newspaper articles or tv interviews? Also, I wish to know what we can do to prevent or reduce the occurrence of extreme weathers. Thanks in advance.[/p][/quote]".....Can you enlighten me about the difference between your so-called man made climate change and natural climate change..." Firstly, It's not 'so-called' man-made climate change. It's called man-made climate change. There is No 'debate' about his in the scientific community and there hasn't been for decades now. The basics are very very simple. We have increased the volume of a known powerfull heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere by 41% in a century. Therefore it is trapping more heat. In the past CO2 levels have risen for a variety of natural reasons. For example, due to the slight variations in the Earths orbitt and axis which regularly occurr. Look up Milankovitch Cycles. These variations change the angle of tilt towards the sun and trigger a slight warming. This warming then triggered and outgassing of CO2 from some shallow prehistoric oceans which raised the temperature further. This took thousands of years. The only difference now is that it is humans who are putting the CO2 into the atmosphere and not a prehistoric ocean. And we are doing over 100 times faster. The laws of physics don't give a **** WHERE the CO2 is coming from. They just do their thing anyway. When CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms. Always has - always will. The rest is just detail. Leslie Graham
  • Score: 1

8:06am Thu 6 Mar 14

Andy of jericho says...

Nothing we do will affect climate change because it is a global process and the UK accounts for a small % of emissions of the gases responsible while China India and other big developing countries are hugely increasing their output which dwarfs ours. We could send £bns on being as clean as you like and the effect would not be detectable

We need to focus our policies and money on two things:

-having enough energy as oil and gas supplies dwindle and become too pricey
-preparing ourselves to deal with climate change = flooding, drought and food supplies
Nothing we do will affect climate change because it is a global process and the UK accounts for a small % of emissions of the gases responsible while China India and other big developing countries are hugely increasing their output which dwarfs ours. We could send £bns on being as clean as you like and the effect would not be detectable We need to focus our policies and money on two things: -having enough energy as oil and gas supplies dwindle and become too pricey -preparing ourselves to deal with climate change = flooding, drought and food supplies Andy of jericho
  • Score: 4

9:31am Thu 6 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

Leslie Graham wrote:
"Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure.
It doesn't mean it's not happening.
'Low confidence' means 'don't know' and 'insignificant trend' means 'no noticeable direction'. Further research may be necessary but at least our present knowledge is that climate change and weather extremes are not linked. If the earth is ill, at least we will have to know the real cause before applying the appropriate cure, otherwise, we may give the wrong medication and harm or kill the earth inadvertently.

As regards the global warming issue with the rise of Co2 level, I have 2 questions:
1) Recent satellite data show that there has been no warming for more than 17 years and the Met Office has admitted that it is true. This means that something does not add up in the hypothesis of Co2 increasing global warming. Further research is required to ascertain the problem and find the real cause and cure.
2) Warming of 1 to 2 degrees in a century could be beneficial at least for the UK. Some countries located near the equator may have problems. Is it wise to sacrifice the benefit of the UK for the sake of these equator countries ? I have thought about the sea level rise at the UK but actual measurements have shown that sea level has been rising at the same pace for hundreds of years, regardless of the rapid rise of Co2 level in recent decades. As you said, further research is required.

I wish my children and grand children can live in a healthy world but I don't want to do things in a rush without good knowledge of the consequences as it may turn out to do more harm than good.
[quote][p][bold]Leslie Graham[/bold] wrote: "Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure. It doesn't mean it's not happening.[/p][/quote]'Low confidence' means 'don't know' and 'insignificant trend' means 'no noticeable direction'. Further research may be necessary but at least our present knowledge is that climate change and weather extremes are not linked. If the earth is ill, at least we will have to know the real cause before applying the appropriate cure, otherwise, we may give the wrong medication and harm or kill the earth inadvertently. As regards the global warming issue with the rise of Co2 level, I have 2 questions: 1) Recent satellite data show that there has been no warming for more than 17 years and the Met Office has admitted that it is true. This means that something does not add up in the hypothesis of Co2 increasing global warming. Further research is required to ascertain the problem and find the real cause and cure. 2) Warming of 1 to 2 degrees in a century could be beneficial at least for the UK. Some countries located near the equator may have problems. Is it wise to sacrifice the benefit of the UK for the sake of these equator countries ? I have thought about the sea level rise at the UK but actual measurements have shown that sea level has been rising at the same pace for hundreds of years, regardless of the rapid rise of Co2 level in recent decades. As you said, further research is required. I wish my children and grand children can live in a healthy world but I don't want to do things in a rush without good knowledge of the consequences as it may turn out to do more harm than good. Bicester retired
  • Score: 0

9:51am Thu 6 Mar 14

museli says...

Bicester retired wrote:
Leslie Graham wrote:
"Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure.
It doesn't mean it's not happening.
'Low confidence' means 'don't know' and 'insignificant trend' means 'no noticeable direction'. Further research may be necessary but at least our present knowledge is that climate change and weather extremes are not linked. If the earth is ill, at least we will have to know the real cause before applying the appropriate cure, otherwise, we may give the wrong medication and harm or kill the earth inadvertently.

As regards the global warming issue with the rise of Co2 level, I have 2 questions:
1) Recent satellite data show that there has been no warming for more than 17 years and the Met Office has admitted that it is true. This means that something does not add up in the hypothesis of Co2 increasing global warming. Further research is required to ascertain the problem and find the real cause and cure.
2) Warming of 1 to 2 degrees in a century could be beneficial at least for the UK. Some countries located near the equator may have problems. Is it wise to sacrifice the benefit of the UK for the sake of these equator countries ? I have thought about the sea level rise at the UK but actual measurements have shown that sea level has been rising at the same pace for hundreds of years, regardless of the rapid rise of Co2 level in recent decades. As you said, further research is required.

I wish my children and grand children can live in a healthy world but I don't want to do things in a rush without good knowledge of the consequences as it may turn out to do more harm than good.
You ask to be pointed to some science - I do that for you. Then you come out with a load of total twaddle that in no way reflects the current science. Instead you repeat the pathetic beatings of the deniers based on cherry picked data. All the stuff you post here has been debunked many times and is simply not true. Sea levels have risen, the earth has continued to warm, the science connecting CO2 to global warming and the resulting climate change still remains unchallenged, the deniers continue to lie.

If you can't cope with reading the science then try this metaphor - we may well need more data to know whether this car crash is going to end up with us crushed or burnt to death but that is no excuse for delaying using to the brake.
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leslie Graham[/bold] wrote: "Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure. It doesn't mean it's not happening.[/p][/quote]'Low confidence' means 'don't know' and 'insignificant trend' means 'no noticeable direction'. Further research may be necessary but at least our present knowledge is that climate change and weather extremes are not linked. If the earth is ill, at least we will have to know the real cause before applying the appropriate cure, otherwise, we may give the wrong medication and harm or kill the earth inadvertently. As regards the global warming issue with the rise of Co2 level, I have 2 questions: 1) Recent satellite data show that there has been no warming for more than 17 years and the Met Office has admitted that it is true. This means that something does not add up in the hypothesis of Co2 increasing global warming. Further research is required to ascertain the problem and find the real cause and cure. 2) Warming of 1 to 2 degrees in a century could be beneficial at least for the UK. Some countries located near the equator may have problems. Is it wise to sacrifice the benefit of the UK for the sake of these equator countries ? I have thought about the sea level rise at the UK but actual measurements have shown that sea level has been rising at the same pace for hundreds of years, regardless of the rapid rise of Co2 level in recent decades. As you said, further research is required. I wish my children and grand children can live in a healthy world but I don't want to do things in a rush without good knowledge of the consequences as it may turn out to do more harm than good.[/p][/quote]You ask to be pointed to some science - I do that for you. Then you come out with a load of total twaddle that in no way reflects the current science. Instead you repeat the pathetic beatings of the deniers based on cherry picked data. All the stuff you post here has been debunked many times and is simply not true. Sea levels have risen, the earth has continued to warm, the science connecting CO2 to global warming and the resulting climate change still remains unchallenged, the deniers continue to lie. If you can't cope with reading the science then try this metaphor - we may well need more data to know whether this car crash is going to end up with us crushed or burnt to death but that is no excuse for delaying using to the brake. museli
  • Score: 1

10:07am Thu 6 Mar 14

rowdy says...

All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............
..!!!!!!!!
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!! rowdy
  • Score: -2

10:39am Thu 6 Mar 14

museli says...

rowdy wrote:
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............

..!!!!!!!!
... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work.

Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out?

China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work. Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out? China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act. museli
  • Score: 3

11:18am Thu 6 Mar 14

locodogz says...

Leslie Graham wrote:
"Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure.
It doesn't mean it's not happening.
Presumably doesn't mean it is either?
[quote][p][bold]Leslie Graham[/bold] wrote: "Low confidence" means there is not yet enough research to be sure. It doesn't mean it's not happening.[/p][/quote]Presumably doesn't mean it is either? locodogz
  • Score: -2

11:54am Thu 6 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

in reply to museli says... at 9:51am

I looked at the science you had pointed me to and quoted exactly what it said. I hold no position in the debate but need to be convinced about the truth and what we should do.

I am old enough to take what the politicians told us with a grain of salt. Scientists could be very wrong too as shown by the previous scare about the mini ice age in the 70s, the Y2K problem, ozone hole at the poles etc.

My position is always about the truth and what we actually know and can do. I am open minded but up to now I can only see that we have been told repeatedly that disasters would be unavoidable if we don't tackle climate change. The question is why and how ? The answer given so far is 'we don't know but it doesn't mean it is not happening' and nobody seems to know what to do to tackle climate change other than empty slogans.

Unless and until scientific research can tell us what really cause climate change and how exactly we can cope with it for the better, I am at a loss to understand why and how we should act now.
in reply to museli says... at 9:51am I looked at the science you had pointed me to and quoted exactly what it said. I hold no position in the debate but need to be convinced about the truth and what we should do. I am old enough to take what the politicians told us with a grain of salt. Scientists could be very wrong too as shown by the previous scare about the mini ice age in the 70s, the Y2K problem, ozone hole at the poles etc. My position is always about the truth and what we actually know and can do. I am open minded but up to now I can only see that we have been told repeatedly that disasters would be unavoidable if we don't tackle climate change. The question is why and how ? The answer given so far is 'we don't know but it doesn't mean it is not happening' and nobody seems to know what to do to tackle climate change other than empty slogans. Unless and until scientific research can tell us what really cause climate change and how exactly we can cope with it for the better, I am at a loss to understand why and how we should act now. Bicester retired
  • Score: -4

12:13pm Thu 6 Mar 14

museli says...

Bicester retired wrote:
in reply to museli says... at 9:51am

I looked at the science you had pointed me to and quoted exactly what it said. I hold no position in the debate but need to be convinced about the truth and what we should do.

I am old enough to take what the politicians told us with a grain of salt. Scientists could be very wrong too as shown by the previous scare about the mini ice age in the 70s, the Y2K problem, ozone hole at the poles etc.

My position is always about the truth and what we actually know and can do. I am open minded but up to now I can only see that we have been told repeatedly that disasters would be unavoidable if we don't tackle climate change. The question is why and how ? The answer given so far is 'we don't know but it doesn't mean it is not happening' and nobody seems to know what to do to tackle climate change other than empty slogans.

Unless and until scientific research can tell us what really cause climate change and how exactly we can cope with it for the better, I am at a loss to understand why and how we should act now.
The report I pointed you to leaves no real doubt that man made climate change has been happening for a while now - perhaps you think by pretending it doesn't you somehow change the truth!

Here's a link to the simple summary so people can have a look for themselves rather than fall for you bull - many of the points are highlighted in red so it only takes a few minutes to get the idea.

http://www.climatech
ange2013.org/images/
report/WG1AR5_SPM_FI
NAL.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: in reply to museli says... at 9:51am I looked at the science you had pointed me to and quoted exactly what it said. I hold no position in the debate but need to be convinced about the truth and what we should do. I am old enough to take what the politicians told us with a grain of salt. Scientists could be very wrong too as shown by the previous scare about the mini ice age in the 70s, the Y2K problem, ozone hole at the poles etc. My position is always about the truth and what we actually know and can do. I am open minded but up to now I can only see that we have been told repeatedly that disasters would be unavoidable if we don't tackle climate change. The question is why and how ? The answer given so far is 'we don't know but it doesn't mean it is not happening' and nobody seems to know what to do to tackle climate change other than empty slogans. Unless and until scientific research can tell us what really cause climate change and how exactly we can cope with it for the better, I am at a loss to understand why and how we should act now.[/p][/quote]The report I pointed you to leaves no real doubt that man made climate change has been happening for a while now - perhaps you think by pretending it doesn't you somehow change the truth! Here's a link to the simple summary so people can have a look for themselves rather than fall for you bull - many of the points are highlighted in red so it only takes a few minutes to get the idea. http://www.climatech ange2013.org/images/ report/WG1AR5_SPM_FI NAL.pdf museli
  • Score: 4

12:55pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Bicester retired says...

in reply to museli says... at 12.13pm

I quoted directly from the IPCC AR5 report which is authoritative. Others can have different interpretations or views about the statement but in the end, it is what is said in the report.

I don't doubt about humans' contribution to climate change, take for example, deforestation, urbanisation, use of fossil fuels etc. The question is how much contribution are humans making (in other words, how significant is our contribution, comparing to natural forces) and whether it is good or bad for the society (in other words, what sacrifice is need to reduce or eliminate our contribution). Is a warmer world better or worse ? What can we do to contribute to climate change for the better ? Are we making a good choice for actions or are there better alternatives? There are many questions unanswered. I am more than willing to tackle climate change when I am convinced that I am doing the right things.
in reply to museli says... at 12.13pm I quoted directly from the IPCC AR5 report which is authoritative. Others can have different interpretations or views about the statement but in the end, it is what is said in the report. I don't doubt about humans' contribution to climate change, take for example, deforestation, urbanisation, use of fossil fuels etc. The question is how much contribution are humans making (in other words, how significant is our contribution, comparing to natural forces) and whether it is good or bad for the society (in other words, what sacrifice is need to reduce or eliminate our contribution). Is a warmer world better or worse ? What can we do to contribute to climate change for the better ? Are we making a good choice for actions or are there better alternatives? There are many questions unanswered. I am more than willing to tackle climate change when I am convinced that I am doing the right things. Bicester retired
  • Score: -4

1:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

museli says...

Bicester retired wrote:
in reply to museli says... at 12.13pm

I quoted directly from the IPCC AR5 report which is authoritative. Others can have different interpretations or views about the statement but in the end, it is what is said in the report.

I don't doubt about humans' contribution to climate change, take for example, deforestation, urbanisation, use of fossil fuels etc. The question is how much contribution are humans making (in other words, how significant is our contribution, comparing to natural forces) and whether it is good or bad for the society (in other words, what sacrifice is need to reduce or eliminate our contribution). Is a warmer world better or worse ? What can we do to contribute to climate change for the better ? Are we making a good choice for actions or are there better alternatives? There are many questions unanswered. I am more than willing to tackle climate change when I am convinced that I am doing the right things.
... ah well, at least we know where Nero retired to now!
[quote][p][bold]Bicester retired[/bold] wrote: in reply to museli says... at 12.13pm I quoted directly from the IPCC AR5 report which is authoritative. Others can have different interpretations or views about the statement but in the end, it is what is said in the report. I don't doubt about humans' contribution to climate change, take for example, deforestation, urbanisation, use of fossil fuels etc. The question is how much contribution are humans making (in other words, how significant is our contribution, comparing to natural forces) and whether it is good or bad for the society (in other words, what sacrifice is need to reduce or eliminate our contribution). Is a warmer world better or worse ? What can we do to contribute to climate change for the better ? Are we making a good choice for actions or are there better alternatives? There are many questions unanswered. I am more than willing to tackle climate change when I am convinced that I am doing the right things.[/p][/quote]... ah well, at least we know where Nero retired to now! museli
  • Score: 5

1:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rowdy says...

museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............


..!!!!!!!!
... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work.

Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out?

China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.
Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work. Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out? China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.[/p][/quote]Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution rowdy
  • Score: -2

1:33pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Want to help mitigate against climate change?

Have fewer children.
Encourage euthansia.
Eat high calorie food & drink, but only to your basic calorific requirments (transporting and packaging empty calorie food and drink is so wasteful).
Downsize your home if it's bigger than you truly need.

You won't find many "activists" telling you this though...
Want to help mitigate against climate change? Have fewer children. Encourage euthansia. Eat high calorie food & drink, but only to your basic calorific requirments (transporting and packaging empty calorie food and drink is so wasteful). Downsize your home if it's bigger than you truly need. You won't find many "activists" telling you this though... Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -1

2:13pm Thu 6 Mar 14

museli says...

rowdy wrote:
museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............



..!!!!!!!!
... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work.

Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out?

China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.
Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution
That's right - man-made killer smogs such as the one of 1952 resulting from unregulated domestic and industrial coal use. We passed the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 and dealt with the problem, or at least the worse of it. UK government had a bit more guts back then .... but what's this got to do with climate change?
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work. Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out? China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.[/p][/quote]Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution[/p][/quote]That's right - man-made killer smogs such as the one of 1952 resulting from unregulated domestic and industrial coal use. We passed the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 and dealt with the problem, or at least the worse of it. UK government had a bit more guts back then .... but what's this got to do with climate change? museli
  • Score: 3

5:43pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rowdy says...

museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
museli wrote:
rowdy wrote:
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............




..!!!!!!!!
... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work.

Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out?

China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.
Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution
That's right - man-made killer smogs such as the one of 1952 resulting from unregulated domestic and industrial coal use. We passed the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 and dealt with the problem, or at least the worse of it. UK government had a bit more guts back then .... but what's this got to do with climate change?
Clever clogs...............
.......!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]... but just up the page you were saying you didn't 'believe' in climate change as if science was some sort of religion that relied on faith to make it work. Make up your mind - are you going to opt for the 'it isn't happening' or the 'we can't do anything about it' cop out? China and India both emit less CO2 per capita than the UK but are not likely to be motivated to make reductions if us rich westerners are still making sorry excuses not to act.[/p][/quote]Whatever fancy words you say , I can remember the late fifties ( probably before you were born ) when we had smog so bad that any bus had to have the conductor walking in front so in my mind things have improved. I firmly believe that weather has been changing since time began nothing to do with polution[/p][/quote]That's right - man-made killer smogs such as the one of 1952 resulting from unregulated domestic and industrial coal use. We passed the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 and dealt with the problem, or at least the worse of it. UK government had a bit more guts back then .... but what's this got to do with climate change?[/p][/quote]Clever clogs............... .......!!!!!!!!!!! rowdy
  • Score: -3

1:49pm Fri 7 Mar 14

onemorething says...

rowdy wrote:
All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues..............

..!!!!!!!!
India and China are taking enormous steps to reduce increases in their CO2 emissions: eg, masses of new wind turbines in India; investment in solar pv production in China dwarfs European efforts. Long way to go, but many people across the world (including those with power in governments and businesses) have woken up already. Are you part of the solution, too, or just a whinger?
[quote][p][bold]rowdy[/bold] wrote: All this talk amounts to nothing as regards measures we can take in Britain to ease the problems , when we have India and China belching out dangerous gases and god knows what else. I am just a ordinary person concerned but helpless in the face of these on going issues.............. ..!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]India and China are taking enormous steps to reduce increases in their CO2 emissions: eg, masses of new wind turbines in India; investment in solar pv production in China dwarfs European efforts. Long way to go, but many people across the world (including those with power in governments and businesses) have woken up already. Are you part of the solution, too, or just a whinger? onemorething
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree