Wednesday, September 26, 2007

This blog is moth-balled!

For the time being I am going to post all entries on the main focalplane blog. A sort of KISS thing which will essentially destroy my "hub and spokes" concept.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Different Points of View

I have lifted the following two letters from today's Daily Telegraph. I trust they won't mind. If they do, they'll be removed.

Meantime, consider the diversity of opinion between an expert, Philip Stott and a protester (and, to be cruel, NIMBY). They sum up the problem with the climate change debate. Cold facts versus warm fuzzy feelings.

Sir - Last week rain fell not only on the rag-bag of climate-change activists camped outside Heathrow, it also poured on the whole global-warming parade.

First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions.

When will our politicians, especially David Cameron, recognise that carbon claptrap, not global warming, is the danger for our economic future?


Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, Gravesend, Kent

Sir - Camping at the "Camp for Climate Action" over the past six days has been surreal but exhilarating. Lying in a tent at sunset, next to my daughter, and watching the planes - so beautiful, and yet so destructive - land and take off has been especially disturbing.

We know from the latest science (Hansen et al, "Climate Change and Trace Gases", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, May 18) that "recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control".

If we continue along our current path we risk triggering a situation "out of humanity's control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur". Indeed, the impact would "probably exceed" that which occurred 3.5 million years ago, when temperatures increased by no more than three degrees above today's levels, but sea levels rose by some 25 metres.

Control of greenhouse gases must, therefore, "play a critical role in preserving a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed".

By permitting a third runway at Heathrow - and the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide emissions that will inevitably accompany it - the Government is effectively committing itself to the destruction of the world as we know it.


Gabriel Carlyle, Heathrow, Middlesex

Thursday, August 16, 2007

An interesting thread

Here.

Climate Change errors "not significant"

So a climate change sceptic points out a significant error in data management and the believers dismiss his argument as "making a fuss over nothing".

That's interesting because any error in science cannot be insignificant, not only to the immediate result but also to the ongoing methodology being used.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Ten Year Models

I am sorry, but this is simply going in the wrong direction. Being pleased that they have designed a model that works over ten years instead of 100 years is missing the point. Clearly there are no geologists on the team!

Monday, August 06, 2007

Even the Greens don't want bio-fuels!

This PDF leaflet from the "Network for Climate Change Action" rather neatly jumps across the debate lines.

Too bad that most of their other downloadable pdfs are firmly rooted in the doom and gloom scenario that we will end the planet in as little as 10 years.

I look forward to meeting some of them at Heathrow in ten days time when they camp outside the airport to protest cheap flights for the masses.

Public Perception of Bio-fuels

According to the NFU, the UK public answered a survey on Bio-fuel Crops as follows:

Question: Should farmers grow crops to provide bio-fuels?

Agree Strongly: 19%
Agree: 41%
Neither Agree or Disagree: 34%
Disagree: 5%
Disagree Strongly 1%

Public opinion is clearly skewed in favor of bio-fuels. I wonder if the answers would be the same if the question had been:

Question: Should farmers grow bio-fuel crops at the expense of self-sufficiency in food production?

Saturday, August 04, 2007

The Biofuel Economy

This heart rending article from the BBC gives the side of the story the "greens" don't want to know about. Driven by nonsensical European policies, Dayak tribesmen are losing their land to avaricious palm oil plantations.

Back in Europe, biofuel plantings are reducing the land available for self-sufficient food crops, forcing more and more foreign imports.

What to do? Boycott biofuel products.

Friday, August 03, 2007

A Bumper Sticker

Bumper Stickers are rare in the UK, common in the USA. Here is my GWIG design:

The Climate is Changing: Adapt or Become Extinct.