The so called consensus on carbon and climate change has one major implication for us in this country that perhaps most people are loathe to accept yet but I'm sure it's all being planned for, the groundwork has mostly been done. Just look at this forum, for instance. Be aware when you nail the link to carbon you pave the way for NUCLEAR. It's coming, you personally made it inevitable

'Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry'
'To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.'
Oscar W.

quote:

Originally posted by shine600:
The so called consensus on carbon and climate change has one major implication for us in this country that perhaps most people are loathe to accept yet but I'm sure it's all being planned for, the groundwork has mostly been done. Just look at this forum, for instance. Be aware when you nail the link to carbon you pave the way for NUCLEAR. It's coming, you personally made it inevitable

Are you saying you purely disbelieve in the consensus science because you don't like nuclear energy?

That is a bit weak IMO, you should at least have the conviction of accepting the facts and then choosing to be anti-nuclear.

I'm a nuclear greenie...

Dear Editor C4, what a SAD and CRAZY WORLD we live in, when someone like me put a post on this forum, which was all about a programme called DUMPED at first.
But is now called GREEN, which now covers lots of other things to do with the ENVIRONMENT we all live in.

The first SAD and CRAZY part is as a designer and inventor in my spare time I have found the forum to be a waste of my time posting, even though every one is TALKING about RUBBISH on it. WHY, because in my posting I have said that I know how to RE-USE and RECYCLE millions of waste plastic containers of all shape and sizes, and unwanted wooden pallets too, to help reduce them going into landfill sites in the UK, and in the rest of the world, but no one is really interested in my ideas, which is a very SAD thing to know when I thought I was talking to like minded people, and also SAD when you only get 30 people bothering to read my post as well, after it being on this forum for over a week now, and having no replies to my topic either, and no e-mails being sent to me for some reason, even though you and others are all talking about rubbish, and the environment, and doing our bit in our own ways.

The second SAD and CRAZY thing is I've told every one on here in my post that I'm trying to save millions of lives in my own way, for example done by trying to help FEED the POOR for next to nothing, who really do live off LANDFILL SITES, or in a DROUGHT or FLOOD SITUATION. Simply done by using my very simple to make water recycling system to GROW THINGS to EAT. Which I believe there's no other system in the world can match, made FOR FREE, which I'm also offering to the world for free, to help reduce some of our waste going into landfill sites in the UK, and in the rest of the world.
All I'm trying to do is SAVE LIVES in my own way, BUT I NEED HELP FROM OTHERS who really are interested in Saving Lives, Reusing waste, and Gardening too, which is the reason why I posted on here in the first place.

The main Sad and CRAZY bit is I'm having to write to you, so that you or someone else will I hope help me in some way, after reading this.
Thank you for taking the time to read my important message. May you and yours and what you grow live long and happy. John. J.R.P.

THe programme was very disappointing with all panellists accepting AGW as a fact. IT IS NOT.. IT IS A THEORY, with admittedly some resonable scientific foundation. However, climate is chaotic, with many known, and probably many unknown factors probably involved intereacting with each other in ways we do not understand. I doubt whether there are many suitably qualified scientists around the world who would be prepared to commit unequivocally to AGW. Like most good science the evidence is looked at and weighed in terms of probability/ possibility. I suspect if asked on a scale of 1-10 (1 = impossible through to 10, absolutely certain) the liklihood of climate change being influenced by man, the majority of scientists would score between 3 -8. Unfortunately the whole debate has been skewed by the politicians who are always looking for ways to raise more taxes and the media who love armageddon stories. I also suspect that those who yell most shrilly are driven less by any real concern for our planet and more by the politics of envy. PLEASE C4 lets have more real science behind these programmes..lets have a programme with a debate by properly qualified scientists with prepared evidence based arguments on both sides and hear what they have to say rather than sensationalised and trivialised hysteria!

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyK:
I doubt whether there are many suitably qualified scientists around the world who would be prepared to commit unequivocally to AGW.

Well you have just defined every scientist, no human being can be certain of anything.
Despite the fact we can't be sure Newtons laws are real and are absolutely accurate, we use them for every single aspect of our daily lives.
So where does that leave your statement on consensus climate change science?
Your statement just tells us what we already know about science in general. However we still conduct our lives based on the consensus view, eg. we assume Newton was correct, even though there may be alternative explanations.

What do you personally lose if you go along with the consensus on climate change and make changes to your life?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyK:
Like most good science the evidence is looked at and weighed in terms of probability/ possibility. I suspect if asked on a scale of 1-10 (1 = impossible through to 10, absolutely certain) the liklihood of climate change being influenced by man, the majority of scientists would score between 3 -8.

You are imposing your own belief system on scientists you do not know, something that no one can take seriously. This week America's chief scientist stated a 90% certainty of human causes of climate change. One more scientist to add to the very long list.
Since you decide to use probability, then that leads to risk analysis. Many people, businesses, governments etc. have assessed the risk and the conclusion is that it is safer to take action and to cut emissions.

Again i ask, what do you personally lose by accepting the consensus on climate change science?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyK:
Unfortunately the whole debate has been skewed by the politicians who are always looking for ways to raise more taxes and the media who love armageddon stories.

I'm not a politician and in my opinion the media often present the issues in a very poor way, even when they do present Armageddon stories.
However the reality is we have a very serious climate change problem caused by people.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyK:
I also suspect that those who yell most shrilly are driven less by any real concern for our planet and more by the politics of envy.

Or those that oppose it are concerned that they might actually have to change.
My concern is the long term future, generally speaking no political party, business etc. thinks about the long term future. So in some respect you are correct, it is political, but not anything like the politics we have today, which is having difficulty in coming to terms with what is happening.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyK:
PLEASE C4 lets have more real science behind these programmes..lets have a programme with a debate by properly qualified scientists with prepared evidence based arguments on both sides and hear what they have to say rather than sensationalised and trivialised hysteria!

And what scientists would those be?
I would be interested to know.

Valid point above about doomsayers. We all love to be scared stiff. Whether it be CJD, Avian Flu, the Millenium bug and back in the early 90's we were assured there'd millions dead from AIDS in this country by now. All these events are tragic and people suffer but it's almost like the doomsayers are secretly disappointed when each particular armageddon fails to materialise. It's hard to tell what they keep their fingers crossed for.

Back in the 70's the consensus was that we were heading for an ice age. LOL.

C4 at least have given a voice to scientists who question the carbon link - thank god someone does.

Over on Newsnight last week - I think it was during the piece on the carbon footprint of a packet of cheese and onion crips - someone pointed out that if people are serious about carbon they'd not eat meat. (And he was on the carbon link side!) AT LAST someone came out and said it. I do wonder how many of the doomsayers (with cars?) will make the effort to become veggie? Hm. (Personally I am a veggie for moral reasons not cos of the massive carbon impact. Anyone who stuffs their face with pig, cow, lamb, chicken etc etc ain't got nothing much in the way of profound moral authority as far as I can see.)

As for cycling, I can understand why people won't switch, every day I'm amazed I actually make it to work - it's totally mad on the roads out there - us cyclists must be invisible or something.

The only anti-carbon peeps who have any kudos would be non-car users, vegetarian and campaigning for nuclear power.


Oh and to finish my waffly rant post - Mark Pennington on that debate did alright with the anti-carbon link case. I keep meaning to try and track him down and email him to see if he's still got a job.

Cheers, mucky pups

quote:

Originally posted by shine600:


Back in the 70's the consensus was that we were heading for an ice age. LOL.

Incorrect.
It was a very small minority of scientists that proposed we were heading for an ice age, not a large consensus. It appeared to be a major thing because the media made a big thing of it.

With climate change a large consensus of scientists agree humans are causing the problem

quote:

Originally posted by shine600:
C4 at least have given a voice to scientists who question the carbon link - thank god someone does.

Wrong again. In the debate there was one scientist from the met office, no others.
The skeptic was an economist (which isn't unusual).

quote:

Originally posted by shine600:
Over on Newsnight last week - I think it was during the piece on the carbon footprint of a packet of cheese and onion crips - someone pointed out that if people are serious about carbon they'd not eat meat.

Certainly eating meat is less efficient than eating crops and other vegetation. However unlike burning fossil fuels, animals don't add any new carbon to our current eco-system.

quote:

Originally posted by shine600:
As for cycling, I can understand why people won't switch, every day I'm amazed I actually make it to work - it's totally mad on the roads out there - us cyclists must be invisible or something.

Well life is hard, it always was until fossil fuels began to subsidise our lives.

quote:

I thought the debate was a bit of a mess really. None of the points were fully answered in any way, and I'm not sure what was really achieved.

I would have to agree with this. I only got round to watching it last night, but felt that the half hour it was given was a total waste of time, and didn't do any sides any favours. If Channel 4 think this is a big enough issue to commission a programme like "Dumped", why not followit up with a proper debate, allowing enough time for all the issues to be discussed with some substance?

On a side issue, I was disappointed with Dumped - it was like BB in a tip. Why not have 100% committed greenies to show what can really be done, instead of focusing on the bickering.

Hi,
Glad you watched it.
the reason the producers picked a broad spectrum of people, rather than only commited greenies, was to allow people who might not be green, to be able to relate to the issues at hand.

the focus on the bickering is something that i'm afraid only the producers of the show can answer as to why they edited it that way.

1000 hours of footage, down into 4 hours of tv.... i can assure you that on the dump itself, and on the issues of creating stuff out of garbage, there was more than enough footage, to have made you happy.....why it wasnt shown, only the producers can tell you.

i hope this answers some of your questions.

Apart from Mark Pennington the rest of the panel were part of the Carbon consensus, so I'm not sure how that's a broad spectrum!

The debate show was poor and as far as I could tell only incidental to the series 'Dumped' which I presume dealt with waste in our materialistic society. There are plenty of people out there who have green values but who don't want the Carbon case shoving down their throat as if it's a done deal. Good to see Channel 4 have allowed room for a bit of 'heresy' on occasion. A mate at work got shot down by a government minister when he emailed back on a Carbon PR campaign (We work in the Ministry of Justice). He's studying p/t in his final year of a Geography Degree which is just as well as I'm not sure his future prospects in his job now are up to much having read the bollicking he got for expressing an alternative point of view. BTW the department was offering everybody free tickets to screenings of that American movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' - oh, at taxpayers expense. Nice.

sorry my mistake i thought you were reffering to dumped when you were talking about greenies.

i agree the "great debate" was anything but.

it turned into nothing more than a tax debate, centralized on peoples personal issues rather than the job at hand.

the "debate" was supposed to be about whether or not carbon footprints were the cause of global warming, not whether or not joe bloggs driving his car into london during the week meant he was going to have to pay more congestion charge!

i found the "Great debate" to have been a poorly staged affair. I would have loved to have presented that show, to make sure that the topic of conversation didn't stray from the issue.

and for the record i am still not certain that WE are the cause of global warming..... however, that doesnt mean we don't have to take responsibility to ensure we find a solution.

entire countries are headed for disaster and destruction in the near future unless we do something now.

And if people think it doesnt matter and "its not our problem", lets consider where all the people that are displaced will eventually end up!

we live in an enclosed ecosystem called the world, and they have to go somewhere!

Thanks, Hampant for that website link - fantastic effort that guy is putting in. I've just read the stuff on sea level trends and how the IPCC satellite data has been re-interpreted because it didn't back up the case!- '<i>back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.</i>'

Tons of interesting science on there and impressive to know that there's plenty of scientists still determined to keep plugging on with observations and challenging the distortion of data despite the risk to reputation and career.