THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Robin (7488)
toxic mercury
Don’t get me started! Mercury that is still used (in the UK) for dental fillings but that is not allowed in a mercury barometer, one of the few genuinely benign uses for the stuff!
I think we may be seeing the first crack in the CO2 concentration measurement monopoly produced by Mauna Loa. At the very least this may smash some of the myths about CO2 being evenly mixed and where the major emitters are.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/13/some-results-from-gosat-co2-hot-spots-in-interesting-places/
The discussion on the merits or not of the current Mauna Loa CO2 measurements has started and quickly lost traction on a number of blog sites. I with my engineer’s hat on have been sceptical of the data from Mauna Loa for these reasons.
It can not be representative of the entire earth as this has not been tested.
We don’t get regular chemical backups to verify the infrared adsorption method. Lucy Skywalker had a discussion going earlier this year about this subject and these instruments are very difficult and individualistic to set up, hence so few of them.
We all know that human produced emissions are but a fraction of natural emissions, but no money is put into research to verify this properly for fear that it uncovers the lie.
Just as the satellite temperature record, for all its weakness and need for interpretation has cast doubt on the surface temperature record, we may now have another stick with which to poke the hornets nest. Even though this is stated as being uncalibrated data, I think it has let a cat out of the bag. And may be deliberately?
Peter Geany
Don’t get me started on the mauna loa readings…
We are meant to believe that 130 years of co2 measurements by famous scientits -prior to 1957- were all proven incorrect when someone straight out of university with no expertise in climate whatsoever -called Charles Keeling- invemted his own machine and suddenly got it right first time.
My belief is that either co2 is not a substantial driver -as it had no effect on earlier warm and cool periods- or there are co2 measurements missing that contradict modern (post 1957) readings
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
The chart shows Hadley CET to 1660 and modern co2 concentrations, and the gold spots are some of the 100,000 readings unearthed by Ernst Beck. The measurements were made by well known scientists and the first reasonably reliable ones date back to 1830. They became increaasingly reliable as the century progresed.
The worlds first co2 law was passed by the UK in 1880 (the factories Act)and was intended to ensure levels did not rise too high in cotton factories. If you are British you will know we don’t tend to pass laws unless they can be enforced (and fines extracted)
Tonyb
Peter Geany
Over the last few days myself and others have been batting on behalf of Beck on another WUWT thread. His is a theory much detested by warmists, as the illustration that co2 historically rises and falls to heights as great as todays, completely negates the AGW theory.
Interestingly Richard Courtney has weighed in, and as his his post neatly excapsulates a lot of the science, I have repeated it here in case you haven’t been following the Svensmark thread. It is very long but worth following to the end.
“Richard S Courtney (04:34:48) :
I write to support your comments concerning the attempts to dispute Beck’s data merely because it does not fit a paradigm.
Please see one of our 2005 papers for a much more complete assessment of what is and what is not known about the causes of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration:
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Concerning the specific question of whether or not Beck’s data could be correct. Yes, it could.
There is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the fact is that the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
And the only dispute of this is by comparison with ice core data which purport to show little variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide at levels all below ~280 ppmv over many recent millenia. But that ice core data does not agree with stomata data which indicate much greater variability and much higher levels (up to 400 ppmv) over the same time periods.
During each year the oceans release much, much more carbon dioxide than human activity. They release it in the summer and take it back during the winter. So, an increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would result from lowered oceanic emission and/or sequestration. And altered oceanic emission and sequestration would occur when the temperature and especially the pH of the ocean surface layer varies. Indeed, the temperature effect as a result ocean upwelling is an observed effect of ENSO.
Hence, it is not strictly true that there needs to be additional oceanic emission to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration because reduced oceanic sequestration would do it, too. And the cold water that upwells has a pH affected by the history of its travel around the globe (that has taken centuries).
Quirk’s analysis of the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes agrees with this interpretation.
Furthermore, this interpretation provides an explanation of Beck’s data which indicates large, rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide that were simultaneous at several localities in the nineteenth century.
The pH of cold ocean waters may have been altered by transient volcanism at sea bottom centuries ago, their pH affected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration when those waters were returned to the surface by the thermohaline circulation.
I repeat for emphasis that there is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
This is covered in our paper that I reference above. The pertinent information is as follows.
Atmospheric CO2 rises and falls each year by much, much more than the increase to CO2 in the air over a year. Therefore, the annual increase is the residual of the rise and fall each year.
The amount of CO2 emitted from oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year. And the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year.
Hence, any small change in the behaviour of the emitting and/or sequestering parts of the carbon cycle results in a change to the CO2 in the air.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to almost half the human emission. The human emission is about 6.5 GtC/year but the accumulation rate is about 3 GtC/year (these figures are very conservative).
However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. The system does not ‘know’ where an emitted CO2 molecule originated and there are several CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere that are much larger than the human emission. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year (it is probably much more, but I am being very, very conservative) with 150 Gt of this being from natural origin and 6.5 Gt from human origin. So, on the average, about 2% of all emissions accumulate.
This is a small change to the atmosphere. And it is the observed change to a single sensitive part of the carbon cycle.
The carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between all the parts of the carbon cycle. And the recent increase to the carbon in the atmosphere is less than a third of that less than 2%. Furthermore, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.
There are many possible reasons why such small changes could be expected to any natural system. And the uncertainties (i.e. inherent errors in the estimates) of the flows between parts of the carbon cycle are much greater than the observed changes to atmospheric CO2.
Thus, there are several methods that can be used to model the system. Our paper provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of our models matches the empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, whichever of our models one chooses to champion then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.
Also, the models each give a different indication of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause.
But there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I presented a summary of that work at Heartland-1. The paper is dry as dust but I tried to present it in an entertaining way. There is an audio and a video of that presentation on the web but neither shows the PP illustrations and the video is very poor quality.
To hear the audio go to
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html
Then scroll down to
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
Track 2: Climatology
Then click on my name.”
***
The impact of mans emissions is hugely exaggerated I believe, and relies on the idea of an ‘equilibrium’ that we have somehow tampered with.
The large fluxes of natural co2 -that vary hugely each year- completely overwhelm that of man. So for example a variation of natural co2 to 90% of normal, or 110% of normal, should be reflected in the mauna loa figures as sharp rises and falls (buffered for some unknown time by air or ocean)
Yet this does not show up, and instead mans puny contributions are recorded faithfully in a relentless straight line rise which apparently overwhelms the much greater natural flux.
tonyb
Peter Geany
You brought up an interesting point that satellite temperature measurements have pointed out some problems with the surface temperature record.
IPCC prefers the surface record, however, stating (SPM 2007) that the two records are “consistent within their respective uncertainties” and that the urban heat island effects seen in the surface measurements “are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values”.
OK. So IPCC prefers the surface measurement with all its possibility for human errors, UHI distortion, etc., to the more comprehensive satellite record, which does not have these problems. [Clue: The satellite readings show considerably less warming than the surface readings (even though greenhouse theory tells us it should be the other way around, and IPCC even blatantly claims that the satellite record shows more warming than the surface record!).]
So let’s move on to sea level. Here IPCC curiously prefers satellite altimetry (measuring changes of fractions of millimeters in the entire heaving ocean (except the coast lines, where it cannot measure well) with a stated accuracy of ± 5 cm) to the long-term tide gauge record (which measures sea level at several selected shore lines, i.e. there where it has an impact on humanity). They did not make a big fuss about “splicing” the satellite readings onto the longer-term tide gauge record, thereby changing both the method and scope of measurement, except to add a tiny note to a table: “data prior to 1993 are from tide gauges and after 1993 from satellite altimetry”. [Clue: The satellite readings (which are “massaged” to give the desired result) give values for sea level rise that are considerably higher than the tide gauge readings.]
Now let’s go to the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets. Here IPCC prefers spot data taken from airplanes, computer simulations, etc. to continuous satellite altimetry readings (of a non-moving surface, unlike the ocean) taken over a 10+ year period. [Clue: The satellite readings show that GIS and AIS gained mass over these 10 years due to more snowfall in the interior than loss at the edges, while the spot data, which concentrates on the coastal areas, indicates mass loss, i.e. net glacial outflow plus melting.]
So you see that IPCC has a strange “hate/love” relationship with satellite readings. Those that support the AGW premise are eagerly embraced and accepted while those that do not are rejected.
This could be called “selective” data measurement backing “agenda driven science”.
But no matter what you call it, it is basically junk science, as is a good portion of the latest IPCC report.
Max
Max,
You say “Re ur question 7493.
Read Brute’s 7494 for the answer.”
Are you the same Max who doesn’t like waffle?
Brute’s link is to several thousand words of waffle. Can you explain in your own words just exactly how Al Gore’s money making scheme works? If he’s into trading carbon credits with what the article calls a ‘non-profit’ organisation, maybe you could explain how he actually makes more money from that than trading other more conventional financial securities, such as stocks and bonds?
It seems that the best example you guys can up with is low energy light bulbs. But these are useful money saving devices in their own right, leaving aside any environmental considerations.
I’m beginning to think that you don’t really understand just what you are accusing Al Gore of. You thoughts haven’t really got past the stage of thinking that he’s a bad guy so he must be up to no good. Right?
Peter Martin 7506
Please tell me how low energy light bulbs save money. I have done the practical comparison and they do not. And please don’t just consider running costs in your comparison. My local hardware shop has a supply of the old bulbs and I have bought up a stock. I figure by the time I have run out it will be DDT time again and stupid rules will have been overturned or more probably we will be ignoring them.
This is another instance where I insisted my wife only buy these stupid energy saving bulbs as they would save us money. Not only could we not get any light out of them until they warmed up, but if you turned them on and off often, as we do, they don’t last. So you either leave them on all day and night and yes they use less power per hour, or you use ordinary bulbs and only use them when needed. But it cost us big time for no return. I give this one a fail. And all this before we consider other environmental issues.
Again this demonstrates that the entire AGW exercise along with the demonising of CO2 has nothing what so ever to do with protecting our environment, or in saving fuel or harbouring our supposedly diminishing natural resources. Its all about control and money.
And one more thing, due to the reduced heat given off by these bulbs some organisations are having to turn heating up in their buildings, negating any savings made.
tonyb 7504
Thanks for the additional information. I often think to myself what possess supposedly intelligent people to become so blinded by this one dimensional when it comes to the subject of what controls the climate. Anyone who has been insulated from this subject (doubt there are any left now) and presented with all the facts as we know them would immediately say well it’s obvious; it can only be the Sun. Everything is influenced by the sun.
When it came to looking at smog in cities it was obvious that our activities where the cause and we looked at these activities and decided to change our habits and use technology to improve our environment. Some of the issues we had to solve were obvious even to the “blind” and no one has really complained at there introduction. But in all cases we could measure before and after, and knew when we were making a difference.
With AGW we don’t know the temperature, don’t really know if it’s going up or down and by how much, we don’t know at all the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how it is distributed and where the largest emitters are and how much they emit. We think we know what absorbs most CO2 but not really where and when and how much at any given time. So from a political perspective I suppose it’s the perfect candidate to be taxed as no one will be able to prove anything.
If the energy that has been expended on disproving Beck’s data was turned to trying to emulate it, and some further chemical analysis done we would have our answer. Its so simple but I guess they the proponents of AGW are afraid that the results won’t fit the paradigm
Peter G (7507)
please don’t just consider running costs in your comparison
Indeed not. There are also the manufacturing costs, both human (cheap labour using toxic substances in unregulated conditions) and material (electronic components in every bulb), transport costs and associated emissions (incandescent bulbs made locally, nearly all CFL’s made in China), and the disposal costs, either environmental (mercury in landfill) or actual (controlled dismantling and recycling).
Add to that the revolting light quality (try taking photos under them), the reduction of light output with age and, as I’m being pedantic, the odd power factor (V x A greater than wattage) and you have to wonder what the advantage is…
Tonyb:
Is this talk about selling off the Met Office new or did I miss something?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/09/15/labour-vows-to-protect-front-line-public-services-91466-24688491/
The BBC mentioned it last night too.
Peter Geany
You are right-the information is out there but the jigsaw puzzle has been put together with a sledge hammer, rather than joined up properly piece by piece.
There are two historic elements that are of particular interest in this context, temperatures and co2. Here is a recent post of mine that covers both, made in response to one of the regular warmists over on WUWT. The last comment in particular never seems to get taken up.
“Firstly, the .7C warming since 1880 is reliant on James Hansens calculations which commence from a period immediately following the end of the LIA. This gives us the unsurprising news that temperatures have risen since the end of the LIA.
You will have read Hansens paper and know the paucity of data points and the unreliabilty of many of them back to 1880, as observed by G S Callendar when he was looking at the same information prior to his thesis on co2 back in 1938.
Let’s not even get into a debate on the value of a Global temperature in the first place :)
Of course, if the data line could be extrapolated back to the Roman optimum the current temperatures could be seen in their proper context as being nothing out of the ordinary.
However, my main point is to challenge the assumption that the ice cores are right and the pre 1957 co2 measurements are wrong.
Charles Keeling was a complete amateur at climate science when he formulated his readings in 1957, yet we blithely overturn and ignore the some 130 years of increasingly accurate co2 measurements prior to that date, many made by famous scientists, starting with Saussure in 1830.
Keeling had been greatly influenced by G S Callendar and his theory, and as a novice acepted at the time that the start point of 280ppm was correct. However, in later life he acknowedged that the old readings were more accurate than he had at first believed. (incidentally GS Callendar backpedalled on his beliefs late in life)
The following link from WUWT is worth reading for its own sake ( the comment from ‘Tony Edwards’; is particularly good) it links to a talk by Keeling in 1993, reproduced in small part here (the full link is at the bottom of Mr Edwards post). There is also reference elsewhere in the blog to a Victorian book in which CO2 measurements were recorded. (also below) They knew about the means to take measurements and specifically referred to such things as avoiding gas flames or lack of mixing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
From Charles Keeling;
“In 1804, Theodore de Saussure showed that water was also an essential chemical in photosynthesis, combining with carbon to make actual living matter. He also demonstrated more clearly than Ingen-Housz that the carbon involved in plant growth came from the air. Curious about the carbon dioxide in the air, he made the first detailed measurements of its concentration there, measuring it near Geneva, Switzerland, under different wind conditions, different hours of the day and different months of the year. The mean value that he found was roughly 0.04% by volume,which I will put in modern units as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This value was much less than von Humboldt had found, but still in considerable error.
De Saussure’s Memories, published in 1830, nevertheless ushered in a period of increasingly precise measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide culminating in some nearly correct measurements in the 1880s by a Belgian named Jules Reiset.”
Saussure used accurate equipment, correct methodology, was aware of the need for mixing and the effects of time, height and location, so why does Keeling illogically conclude that the measurements he took were inaccurate?
The answer is probably that by 1993 Keeling had invested a lot of time and effort at the Scripps institute and it is very difficult to recant a lifetimes belief. His autoibiography is interesting as the influences in his early life can be seen and his increasing respect for the pioneers in co2 measurement can also be followed.”
No doubt you will be fully aware of Becks work in highlighting pre 1957 measurements? I posted extensively on it here last year. CO2 measurement was a fact of everyday life during the 19th century, yet we conveniently seem to have forgotten that. Instead we now believe that one complete amateur managed to get it right from 1957, whilst all his illustrious precessors failed.
tonyb
Peter M (7506)
these are useful money saving devices in their own right, leaving aside any environmental considerations
..speechless..!
Peter Martin
I am not going to get into a long-winded debate with you on Al Gore’s “wheelings and dealings”. He is definitely profiting personally from the AGW scare, and hoping to do so even more through his carbon trading company, Generation Investment Management, and other deals.
Read the article posted by Brute carefully. Then read it again. Then consider this fact, as reported in the article cited below:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200905204832/editorial/al-gore-rakes-in-the-green.html
“Al Gore – the former vice president, Nobel Prize recipient and Academy Award winner for “An Inconvenient Truth” – has made tremendous money off the global warming hoax. Since leaving office in 2001, Gore’s personal net worth exploded from $2 million to $100 million in 2007, as reported by Investor’s Business Daily.”
So this self appointed savior of the planet is definitely “doing well by doing good” (and hoping to do even better if the USA goes with a “cap ‘n trade” boondoggle).
If you are naïve enough to think that Gore is doing all this only to save mankind, rather than to make a big bunch of bucks, then there are some guys in NYC that have a bridge you might wish to purchase.
Max
TonyN (and TonyB)
What’s this?
From your article I read:
I’d say that this is definitely “distressed merchandise” right now, with all the astoundingly wrong forecasts of “catastrophic warming” the Met Office has cranked out.
This despite Vicky Pope’s PR campaign to try to cover up the obvious fact that the Met Office can’t even get it right one decade (or one year) in advance, and therefore that any longer range projections are totally meaningless.
But maybe a “sell-off” wouldn’t be a bad deal, after all.
As a “due diligence” measure, the potential buyer would, of course, want to look into all the manipulations, variance adjustments and other ex post facto corrections made to the temperature record published by the Met Office (which are now top secret and not available to the tax-paying public, who is paying for them).
Hey, I’d put up 100 pounds for a small piece of the action. Any other takers?
Max
Max:
I seem to remember the Met Office boasting about being one of the main contributors to AR4. What would its status in the IPCC process be if it becomes a private company?
Max
I’ll have £100 of the action too. However if this organisation was private I think it would make them even more prone to government manipulation. They have had their MOD funding removed already, so I assume they are now reliant on Government funding plus what they get for supplying accurate information to industry. If this link is anything to go by they are failing here as well.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/386235-met-office-not-fit-purpose.html
I’m not saying this is in anyway related to their manipulation of Climate data for the AGW crowd, but it is another indicator of an organisation that has lost its way. This always happens with technically based organisations that allow politics to drive their agenda.
Vicky Pope needs to have a meeting with the Royal Society, give them fair warning so that they can co-ordinate matters and come clean on CO2 by issuing a disclaimer in the name of additional information and increasing uncertainty. There would be no disgrace attached to this, on the contrary, it would demonstrate a degree of bravery and fullness of thought that has been sadly lacking from Government (funded) employee’s in the last 20 years.
She also needs to release the data that has been used to produce the temperature record for public scrutiny, or say out-right that government ministers are preventing its release. One or the other. This data will come out eventually, and it’s better out before the election than after. An another point; being a woman we are told makes a difference, so lets see a difference and perhaps she can act in the countries interest and not her own, which seems if you believe everything you are told is the male trait.
Peter Geany and JamesP,
They aren’t ideal, I would agree, but can you back up your experiences of CFL light bulbs with any references?
My experience would tend to agree with this assessment in Wiki:
“CFLs generally use less power, have a longer rated life, but a higher purchase price. In the United States, a CFL can save over 30 US$ in electricity costs over the lamp’s life time compared to an incandescent lamp”
CFL’s will be displaced in the next decade by LED lightbulbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp
You probably won’t like these either. If you’d been living 100 years ago, you’d have been complaining about electric lights replacing gas lamps which everyone knows give out a much warmer glow. If you’d been living 100 years before that you’d be bemoaning the change over from oil lamps and candles.
TonyN et al
Whilst there are always local rumours about nearly everything, there hadn’t been a current one circulating about the Met Office sell off.
I think this was all part of Mandelson laying the ground work for Gordon Brown to admit cuts are needed. The Met office have been grooming themselves for a private sale for the last five years with their considerable investment in their ‘forecasting’ services.
I even bought the local Exeter daily paper today (you owe me 37p) and there is nothing in that about a sell off, nor on the local news so watch this space. The govt is desperate to generate money and selling off the Met office seems a logical step.
As ‘distressed’ goods it is anyones guess how much it is worth, although they do have very nice offices.
This link has appeared whereby the Met office is earnestly stressing AGW hasn’t stopped-its just ‘resting’. Sounds increaasingly desperate if you read it in conjunction with the links at the foot of that page.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090914.html
Incidentally, I frequently write to the Exeter Express on climate change-taking the battle into enemy teritory as it were. I was pleased to see in todays edition two highly sceptcal letters plus the results of a local poll. In this 77% of people (who voted) beleved the policies of cutting carbon emissions were just a convenient way of raising tax.
tonyb
Max,
I’m not asking you “to get into a long-winded debate with you on Al Gore’s ‘wheelings and dealings'”.
I’m just asking you to explain, in your own words, just how you think he’s “profiting personally”. OK I’m prepared, to accept, as I’ve said before that his film did OK financially. But is that it? Is that all you’ve got on him?
Incidentally I notice that you’ve given yet another waffley link which doesn’t really explain it any better either.
Incidentally, isn’t “rightsidenews” yet another example of the sort of right wing politics behind this denialist argument that you are always so keen to play down?
Peter 7517
This is a pretty even handed summary of the pros and cons of energy saving light bulbs.
http://www.energysavingcommunity.co.uk/facts-about-light-bulbs.html
I have been using them for five years but there is very much a time and place for them, the light quality is poor and takes some time to gain full power-useless if you want to go downstairs immediately after switching it on.
What the aricle doesn’t mention is that frequent turning on and off reduces their brightness over time-which is one of the reasons you should let them gain full power.
Brightness is certainly not an energy saving bulbs strongest suit-brightness is essential during the long northern winter.
So they have their uses but are not always a direct replacement by any means, and to be told by EU diktat that we ‘HAVE’ to change without listing the drawbacks does not endear us to this organisation.
LED bulbs are very expensive here at present-the one I bought lasted three days-although I treated that as the luck of the draw and will give them another go when the price reduces-as yet I don;t know their pros and cons.
To get back to the AGW connection, the co2 they save is trivial in the great scheme of things and does not negate the problems they cause in some circumstances.
tonyb
Peter M (7517)
“CFLs generally use less power, have a longer rated life, but a higher purchase price. In the United States, a CFL can save over 30 US$ in electricity costs over the lamp’s life time compared to an incandescent lamp”
But that is, in your own words, “leaving aside any environmental considerations”. Do you really not care about those?
As with AGW, I bought the CFL hype for a while, since I had no reason to disbelieve it, but experience and further reading suggested that both were being mis-sold.
If CFL’s were as wonderful as is claimed, why does the EU deem it necessary to ban standard incandescents? I don’t think anyone needed to outlaw gas lamps to encourage people to switch to the electric ones!
FWIW, I prefer halogen lights. When CFL’s and LED’s can match their brightness and colour fidelity, I’ll reconsider.
Tonyb:
Many thanks for the background on the Met Office, and perhaps you should try and sell my 37p debt on as a sub-prime loan.
Now wouldn’t it be interesting if Exxon, or one of its subsidiaries, made a bid, or even acquired a major holding after privatisation? Or a consortium of FoE, WWF and Oxfam? Might the BBC be interested? They use the Met Office’s services a lot, which must cost them, and they bought Lonely Planet with less good reason.
Perhaps Harmless Sky should start fund-raising right now with a view to making a bid. We could re-brand your Exeter neighbours as The Harmless Met Office.
Peter (and others): re light bulbs, read my 7488 (first tip). Read it carefully. I suggest that’s the practical point about “energy saving” bulbs. And, while you’re there, read the second tip. These are the issues we should be considering – not the advantages (or otherwise) to the consumer.
Peter/Max: the Monbiot/Plimer squabble about a possible debate has arisen again. See this (Guardian) and this (Spectator). Could be entertaining.
Rod Liddle’s response is fun, too…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5331666/moonbat.thtml