John you haven't just took joe on and won have you.? 
The Stern Report (aka Global Warming)
- Thread starter tigger
- Start date
Sponsored Links
JohnD said:
Yeah, I agree. I think that in most situations (not just relating to global warning) someone can prove something correct/exists and someone can prove it incorrect/doesn't exist.
I haven't made my mind up about the idea of global warming yet. I tend to believe that the earth will go through cycles of climate change anyway. Since human's have been on this earth they have already experienced severe changes in climate - long before the use of fridges
Whether human's have caused a change in the dramatic way it is reported, hmmm - I am not convinced.If anything, I would place more emphasis on solar changes having direct effects on the earth's climate - in particular, the effects of the magnetic changes due to solar behaviour.
I am quite cynical when politicians try to 'blame' someone for something. I usually think it means there is a hidden agenda - e.g. it is fact that fossil fuels are not going to last forever, so if they say that global warning is due to the over-use of these, then they have a greater chance of convincing people to use less.
A bit off track, but I would be interesting to see if Eastern countries (particularly Russia) start to get heavily promoted in this country. They have a vast amount of fossil fuels, so my prediction is that all of a sudden our government will begin to make Russia the 'place to visit' for a holiday, etc - in an attempt to gain a stronger ally - WATCH THIS SPACE (remember, you heard it here first)
Gary_M said:A bit off track, but I would be interesting to see if Eastern countries (particularly Russia) start to get heavily promoted in this country. They have a vast amount of fossil fuels, so my prediction is that all of a sudden our government will begin to make Russia the 'place to visit' for a holiday, etc - in an attempt to gain a stronger ally - WATCH THIS SPACE (remember, you heard it here first)
Da, comrade. Nastrovya
Can just see those Winter Siberian breaks really taking off
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
Better 'sledged' than 'screeeeewed' by a Jock chance(ll0)r .... We are of course responsible for all the world's problems, therefore we must not look at our 0.534 m tonnes of skybound crap - about 8th in the world, but the Eurozone as a whole which is about 3rd or 4th ... Knew it would end in tears (not the wet sort, the type one gets in one's hip pocket).
Hi,
I think that the report on global warming can be condensed from 575 pages to three words, Pay More Tax. Today's paper publishes a guide to reducing usage of this darned CO2. There's the usual cut-away house, and the exhortations to fit a condensing boiler, cavity wall insulation, double-glazed windows, all new A-rated appliances, and energy-saving lightbulbs. Well that will set us back by anything up to twenty grand, and a fair amount of CO2 to produce and fit this stuff.
Anyway, there's loft insulation (a rather posh word, loft, we only have a roof space, or at a push an attic). Insulate that and you can save 1 tonne of CO2 a year. Now just how big is a tonne of CO2? I know CO2 is light (it's a gas after all) so a tonne of it must be enormous. To try to get a grasp of this one tonne a year is 2.75 kg a day. That's still a lot of gas. How do you measure a tonne of gas? And I can save this just by insulating my loft?
Going back to the cut-away house, I can add all the other savings.
Loft insulation - 1 tonne
Hot water cyl insulation - 150 kg
Condensing boiler - 1 tonne
Fridge freezer upgrade - 190 kg
Energy saving lightbulbs - 40 kg
Cavity wall insulation - 1 tonne
Draught proofing windows - 140 kg
Draught proofing floors - 120 kg
Turn down heating 1 deg - 300 kg
Double glaze windows - 500 kg
That's a huge 4.75 tonnes of CO2 saved in a year, 13 kg a day, and not counting the other unspecified savings of reducing washing temperatures, turning off TV's etc.
Does every household really produce this much CO2, let alone be capable of reducing usage by this much? I know it's not all produced by the house, most of it is produced in the process of generating and transporting energy. But it's a huge amount.
I'm going to try breathing a little slower. That must save a bit.
Rgds.
I think that the report on global warming can be condensed from 575 pages to three words, Pay More Tax. Today's paper publishes a guide to reducing usage of this darned CO2. There's the usual cut-away house, and the exhortations to fit a condensing boiler, cavity wall insulation, double-glazed windows, all new A-rated appliances, and energy-saving lightbulbs. Well that will set us back by anything up to twenty grand, and a fair amount of CO2 to produce and fit this stuff.
Anyway, there's loft insulation (a rather posh word, loft, we only have a roof space, or at a push an attic). Insulate that and you can save 1 tonne of CO2 a year. Now just how big is a tonne of CO2? I know CO2 is light (it's a gas after all) so a tonne of it must be enormous. To try to get a grasp of this one tonne a year is 2.75 kg a day. That's still a lot of gas. How do you measure a tonne of gas? And I can save this just by insulating my loft?
Going back to the cut-away house, I can add all the other savings.
Loft insulation - 1 tonne
Hot water cyl insulation - 150 kg
Condensing boiler - 1 tonne
Fridge freezer upgrade - 190 kg
Energy saving lightbulbs - 40 kg
Cavity wall insulation - 1 tonne
Draught proofing windows - 140 kg
Draught proofing floors - 120 kg
Turn down heating 1 deg - 300 kg
Double glaze windows - 500 kg
That's a huge 4.75 tonnes of CO2 saved in a year, 13 kg a day, and not counting the other unspecified savings of reducing washing temperatures, turning off TV's etc.
Does every household really produce this much CO2, let alone be capable of reducing usage by this much? I know it's not all produced by the house, most of it is produced in the process of generating and transporting energy. But it's a huge amount.
I'm going to try breathing a little slower. That must save a bit.
Rgds.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Almost every scientist of note is convinced that global warming is a reality. The few that don't are on the payroll of the oil giants. There are still scientists that say that smoking doesn't cause cancer - but they work in the tobacco industry.
The only way to get emmision back to the level of the 60's is to live like we did in the 60's.
On our entire street there were three cars.
I never met anyone that had flown in an aircraft.
No-one had central heating.
Everything was repaired or passed down as a 'hand-me-down'.
Now show me a government willing to offer that lot to its voters.
The only way to get emmision back to the level of the 60's is to live like we did in the 60's.
On our entire street there were three cars.
I never met anyone that had flown in an aircraft.
No-one had central heating.
Everything was repaired or passed down as a 'hand-me-down'.
Now show me a government willing to offer that lot to its voters.
With no emission controls, everyone with coal fires, thousands dying of respiratory diseases, pea-soupers, no clean-air acts..joe-90 said:
Governments? Quite a few were playing with above-ground nuclear testing, I believe. Still, didn't do me any harm.
There was possibly less CO2 around, but there was an awful amount of soot particles. Not that I can substantiate any of this.
Rgds.
Sponsored Links
