ADUK Archive

Gareth wrote:Well, that might be possible but first we'd need to work out whether we're having a significant effect, and then to work out a reasonable balance between having an effect and having the benefits that we currently enjoy.

That's a great thought - imagine if we could get a huge majority of the people who've devoted their lives to researching and thinking about these matters to agree, and if they could offer evidence based on everything from polar ice samples that show the composition of the atmosphere over tens of thousands of years, to the latest computer modelling. Imagine if the conclusion of all that research and thinking were that we are capable of causing a change in climate as great as those seen between the warmest and coolest periods of our planet's history, but in a tiny fraction of the time over which previous changes occurred. And imagine that the evidence showed that we've already made changes that will continue to manifest themselves in the next 100 years whatever we do tomorrow, but that it's not too late to change the future if we do something today. Would we act then?

David

kfae8959 wrote:Would we act then?

We might, if they behaved like scientists.

As it is some pretend to be scientists but are not, others who are scientists have behaved with dishonour, and many appear to believe that the model is the world. Around it all there has been a combination of the political spin and the trappings of religion, with at least some downright lying and falsification.

What's a lay-person to do? In my mind, truthfulness in the process, independent peer review and a distinct lack of sensationalism are the keys to presenting a convincing story.

Wessex wrote:When you look at the destruction in Japan today, I don't think we have come close to matching the destructive force of nature.

No, but nature puts on the occasional spectacular event, whereas we keep contributing a vast number of inputs on a daily basis, which can still add up to being a problem.

At this stage I'm still very much a climate change sceptic, but I'm trying not to have my head in the sand all the time.

What I am totally opposed to is having our government (or the EU for that matter ) penalising road users on this little island by means of new or increased taxes or other measures, when the damage we cause (if any) is insignificant when compared with what is being done by other nations. That is not reasonable or acceptable in my view.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Sadly, from a brief look at the BBC News web site, it seems that mankind's mastery of science has compounded the natural disaster - ironically with the power source which is, according to many, the best 'green' option . . .

The difference between reality and the model seems to me to be a bit absent in the public discussion. We are always hearing predictions for the future. I think we've been predicting the climate for long enough now that we could go back and compare our predictions from 30, 20, 10, 5 years ago and compare them to what really happened, to find out how good we are at predicting the climate and our affect on it, and whether we're getting any better at it. I've no doubt that's happening but I think it deserves more prominence than it gets.

I'll be interested to see what comes out of the Berkeley Earth project. There's an illuminating video of a talk given by the lead scientist in the project, in which he illustrates my concerns about much which has gone before.

Separately, I'm not sure how anthropogenic can be separated from natural causes.

Horse wrote:with the power source which is, according to many, the best 'green' option . . .

While nuclear seems to make most sense for base load generation, I'm hoping that thorium reactors will fulfill their early promise.

kfae8959 wrote:

Gareth wrote:Well, that might be possible but first we'd need to work out whether we're having a significant effect, and then to work out a reasonable balance between having an effect and having the benefits that we currently enjoy.

That's a great thought - imagine if we could get a huge majority of the people who've devoted their lives to researching and thinking about these matters to agree, and if they could offer evidence based on everything from polar ice samples that show the composition of the atmosphere over tens of thousands of years, to the latest computer modelling. Imagine if the conclusion of all that research and thinking were that we are capable of causing a change in climate as great as those seen between the warmest and coolest periods of our planet's history, but in a tiny fraction of the time over which previous changes occurred. And imagine that the evidence showed that we've already made changes that will continue to manifest themselves in the next 100 years whatever we do tomorrow, but that it's not too late to change the future if we do something today. Would we act then?

David

Love it...

Surely it is all about resale value of the cars.
Roof signs can scratch and with modern water based paints putting plastic underneath (to protect the paint) may well have it peeling off when you take the plastic off.
Even the roof rack type of sign will leave tell tale marks on seals around doors or by damaged fixings on the roof rails.
Remember the car being used by BSM etc will have to be sold on at the best price; you still see today the odd sh*t brown Dolomite about and I can pretty much guess at its history; who else would buy the thing! It was a gloriously awful piece of kit, and followed by the equally tragic Metro!
You had to be careful on frosty mornings to clear the roof before putting the cone on. If not cleared at the first braking or even mediocre acceleration (given this was a Dolomite!) the thing would slide off.

Re-rai,ing the thread!

DSN, do you ask your trainees how they heard about you? Spend the £85 on improving that!