91Èȱ¬

I was skeptical, that is unconvinced one way or another until several years ago when I saw the satellite photographs. They are ominous. Having seen glaciers close up myself, I understand the implication of their retreat as well as melting of the polar ice caps. Melting of the permafrost in Siberia releasing vast quantities of methane is also ominous. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that climate change is a reality. There is still a minority of scientists who believe increased CO2 levels follow temperature rise, not cause it but the consequences if they are mistaken and climate change is the result of human activity is too great a risk to take by not taking whatever steps we can.

The problem is what to do about it. And in this regard, European environmentalists and their friends have blown their entire case right out of the water and probably doomed the human race to extinction. They have turned the issue from a scientific and economic problem into a political cause which has virtually guaranteed that there will be no effective action taken on it. They have already squandered fifteen years, precious time which may make the problem unsolvable. If it isn't already, it soon will be. Scientists have postulated a tipping point after which a runaway greenhouse effect will not be within the realm of human control.

How did they do this and why? The Kyoto protocol is the how. America bashing is the why. They pinned their hopes on a strategy which upon scientific analysis is admittedly ineffective, patently unfair, and would trade a looming ecological disaster for an immediate economic catastrophe. They'd love to blame it all on President Bush but the fact is that during the Clinton Administration, in a sense of the Senate vote, the US Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto. The US pulled out of the talks and just yesterday, the Bush Administration said it will not participate in follow on talks for the next round, a sort of super Kyoto. Of course not, they expect it to be exactly like the last one. Here is a morality issue for you on top of the economic one. If the United States were to enforce Kyoto, it would have to make major cutbacks to its agricultural industry. But hundreds of millions of people around the world depend on the vast surplusses of American agriculture to keep from starving to death. How do you reconcile that? The stupidity and obvious flaws in the argument that America is the number one producer of GHG and the number one per capita producer and therefore bears the lions share of responsibility and should make the greatest sacrifices flies in the face of all rational logic. America produces 6 trillion tons of CO2 per year, 24% of the world's total but it produces 13 trillion dollars of wealth, 28% of the world's total. Should it cut back on its economy, it's consumption (2/3 of the American economy is consumer consumption driven) it would affect every single other economy in the world adversely, imbecile European economists who thought 8 years ago and again say a recession in the US would not hurt Europe notwithstanding. (The short mild recession in the US starting in 2000 stagnated European economies for years after it was long over and history in the US. The old saying that when America's economy catches cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia is still true.) By contrast, China used to produce 16% of the world's GHGs but this year will surpass the US as number one. This with over four times as many people and less than one quarter of the economic output. In fact, on average, Americans are about 20 times as efficient at producing wealth per capita per unit of GHG as the average Chinese yet Kyoto would have severely and immediately affected the US economy with manditory cutbacks while allowing China, a major US trade competitor to continue unaffected. In a typically dumb report, 91Èȱ¬ did a piece recently about an impovrished rural Chinese woman boiling a pot of food on her little stove saying, see, the carbon footprint of this woman is next to nil. With equal stupidity, 91Èȱ¬ presented in the same report a British manufacturer who said that if he weren't producing his products and CO2 in China, he'd be doing it somewhere else so don't blame China. China argues that its own economic development will take priority over GHG reduction and there is no end to its increase in sight as it is slated to bring on one new coal fired power plant a week for the indefinite future. India which is rapidly catching up in GHG output contends that the west produced the current GHG crisis by emitting CO2 when it industrialized, now it has the right to do the same.

And what about Europe itself. Filled with venomous lies and hypocricy, Europe has finally toned down its rhetoric now that real facts about it have emerged. Europe will fail its Kyoto committments miserably, by over 90%. Why? Because it refused to make the same sacrifices it demanded of the US, the reason the US rejected it. Only two EU nations (Britain is one of them) will meet its Kyoto targets. How will Europe achieve a 20% reduction when it couldn't even meet an 8% target? When stiffer standards 30% were suggested and that they be made manditory, German automobile manufacturers went ballistic. Meanwhile top EU officials when questioned about their own personal gas guzzling high CO2 emitting vehicles told the press it was their own personal affair and none of anyone elses business. So typical of the EU and Europe, arrogant beyond belief. Do as we say, not as we do.

If the alternative is to save the world through research and development of new technologies and implimentation of it worldwide on an emergency basis, Europe once again showed its true colors of mendacity and hypocricy. This despite the fact that whoever does manage to develop such technology would likely realize enormous wealth very quickly. Instead Europe squandered its technological resources on monuments to ego, stupidity, and the past. Jealous of the Boeing 747 for the last 40 years, Europe spend over 14 billion dollars on a super super jumbo passenger jet, the A380, a flying cattle car capable of hauling up to 800 sardines around the world at a time but they can't even get it off the ground. Why didn't Boeing develop one too? For the same reason it didn't develop a passenger SST, nobody in the airline business wants it, it makes no sense. The US could have built a passenger version of the comparably sized C5A military transport easily any time in the last 40 years. The Russians have a comparably sized transport and one even larger but nobody wanted it as a passenger plane either. Then there is the laughable EU space program. Three years ago, British scientists bragged how they would get to Mars at 1/10 the cost to NASA. Their Beagle II disappeared off the radar screen never to be seen or heard from again while against all expectations, the two NASA mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity launched at about the same time continue to function and send back remarkable pictures. If the EU ever gets its Galileo GPS system off the ground, the US will shoot it out of he sky because it would be a threat to America's national security. It's pretty much said so. That hasn't stopped Europe from trying to develop Galileo but technical difficulties have put it in grave doubt. Europe struggles and fails to match US and Soviet space achievements of 40 years ago, what a waste of resources, time and money that could have been used for new high capacity power sources. Meanwhile, the EU continues to pour billions into a superconducting super collider atom smasher 40 miles in diameter. Lot of good that will do when the ice caps melt.

Nobody should expect America to fall on its sword to save the world. It couldn't even if it tried, not with China, India, and Europe indifferent to the real issues. European environmentalist had better come up with an entirely different strategy, one which is fair, which spreads sacrifice evenly, and which actually has a realistic chance of working. I'm betting against them.

I forgot to mention the burning down of the world's tropical rain forests. The foliage removes CO2 from the atmosphere and releases oxygen. Nations like Indonesia and Brazil are systematically burning them down and cutting them down to exploit mineral wealth, harvest lumber, and for slash and burn farming. Vast tracts of them are already gone and they continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Brazil says it wants to be paid not to do it while once a year, Indonesia all but chokes half of southeast Asia to death with the smoke. How does that kind of blackmail and indifference calculate in the immorality of global warming?

A panel with a token skeptic and a studio audience?; allow me to make a prediction.

Anything Ruth Lea says will be instantly greeted with ridicule and a wish to silence her; there will be nobody there who is willing to admit that climate change may be occurring without wishing to resort to government coercion to 'fix' it, and the overbearing majority position will be that climate change is the gravest threat to the world and humanity today, that we're quickly running out of time to solve it and that therefore anything we can do, including the loss of individual liberty, will be necessary.

William: I'd love you to prove me wrong.

John
So it would be libertarian to deny the evidence of of 99% of the world's climatologists?
And Ruth Lea hasn't an agenda to also promote the interests of her capitalist constituency?
And just to maintain our libertarian principles we deny man-made climate change? - hogwash!

In a typically moronic report on 91Èȱ¬ World TV, 91Èȱ¬ showcased a solar fired boiler driven power plant in Spain. Here's a link;

the solar collector is atop a 40 story high tower with six hundred mirrors which track the sun aiming its reflection at it. 91Èȱ¬ was impressed. I wasn't. The power generated is 11 megawatts. The photograph above in this blog shows what appears to be 4 cooling towers each serving a separate nuclear reactor in a nuclear power plant. The typical power output of the generator for each reactor is over 100 times greater than this solar boiler. That would require 100 towers, 60,000 mirrors and that is for each reactor. For the four unit plant we're talking about 400 towers, a quarter of a million mirrors. And to make a dent in Europe's electrical needs the equivalent of many dozens of nuclear power plants, hundreds of nuclear reactors equating to tens of thousands of these towers and millions upon millions of mirrors would be needed. 91Èȱ¬'s solution, place them in the Sahara desert. Then you only have the minor problem of transmitting billions of kilowatts across northern Africa and over or under the Mediterranean Sea to tie into a suitably modified European power grid...once you get by all of the warring factions who live there and who might just want to blow the whole thing up for the hell of it...or the nations which own that land in the Sahara and those along the transmission line path and may hold Europe hostage to it the way Russia is holding Europe hostage with oil and gas. Could you imagine what a tempting target the transmission line would be to Al Qaeda? How many centuries did you say we have to get this project done before global warming becomes a critical threat 91Èȱ¬?

Freethinker-

You seem to have misunderstood my position.

So it would be libertarian to deny the evidence of of 99% of the world's climatologists?

Well all climatologists have the same 'evidence'. They just disagree about what it points to and what it means. Where did you get that percentage from? Not all climatologists agree about the specifics of climate change, and if you were familiar with the debate you'd be aware of that. It's a general consensus, certainly, that the earth is getting warmer, and that there are certain consequences of warming. It's also virtually positive that humankind has contributed to warming in the greenhouse effect. Libertarians stand to learn as much as everyone else about the rest, about which there is much disagreement and speculation. I'm not trying to 'deny' anything.

And Ruth Lea hasn't an agenda to also promote the interests of her capitalist constituency?"

Why is it that as soon as someone begs to differ on this issue, it's automatically assumed that they're just keen to profit from Big Oil or they're in cahoots with some kind of cartel? What have I, for example, to gain from begging to differ on the issue? I have no relationship to any oil company, no interest in seeing any one corporation remain in business particularly, and nothing to benefit from skepticism except to be harassed by a vast orgy of climate change alarmists and shouted down by leftist cretins. In any case I'm sure Ruth Lea can be debated on the merits or faults of her arguments alone rather than ad hominem.

And just to maintain our libertarian principles we deny man-made climate change? - hogwash!

Of course such a position would be hogwash. I never advocated it. My libertarian principles could not deny the truth in the atmosphere any more than my SUV could. One's politics has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not human-caused climate change is occurring. Again you appear to have misunderstood my position. But neither do libertarian principles go away simply because we may be presented, if we believe the doomsayers, with humanity's biggest and gravest threat to date. If libertarian principles work, and I believe they do, then they work with regard to the challenge of climate change just as they work with regard to all other facets of political practice. What I'm opposing is the abandonment of human rights in the face of such a challenge: government coercion is synonymous with solving this problem in the minds of seemingly all who believe climate change to be a threat; I'm simply arguing that such need not be the case and is the wrong answer to the problem.

I do hope I made myself clearer.

Mark,
Yours seems to be a council of despair. Perhaps you are right but does that absolve America or anyone else doing something about it? I personally do not want to go to my grave knowing I did nothing either.

John,
It was a waste of time to invite David Vance onto the prog. Vance added nothing because simply he knows nothing. He just hates anything that is supported by the Left. He certainly didn't earn his fee (even if he did for free). The debate is, repeat, is over. There is no longer any point in listening to the spluttering of rightwing nuts anymore.

As regards your statement on the loss of individual liberty. I think you are being a tad paranoid. It might become more expensive and socially unacceptable to use your SUV but even libertarians I hope do not believe in the greed is good anymore. There are sometimes when we need to curb personal consumption so we can live in a safer and more just society.

Mick;
The human race's epitaph if it becomes extinct as a result of global warming and its artifacts are dug up by some future alien race who study it could be that we had excellent mathematical models which predicted exactly what was happening to us. They'll probably wonder why we didn't do anything about it.

One thing to do about it would be to get rid of all the politicians and ecologists who are working on it, they don't have a clue as to what to do and they have just gotten in the way, made a lot of noise, generated a lot of anger and acrimony and little else. What would I suggest? Scientists and engineers should assemble from around the world to start a crash program to find alternate energy sources. As someone who worked in the power industry myself for several years having worked for a large consulting firm which designed and built power plants, (I worked on both fossil and nuclear plants during my stint), my candidate for the most promising large scale source of clean power is geothermal. It is available everywhere in the world if you dig deep enough and it is available in human terms in limitless quantity. It's main problem so far is that the open systems in use require that contaminants be removed before the steam generated is suitable for putting it through a turbine and much of the energy is lost in the process. What's needed are closed systems (a lot easier said than done.) Then what? The scientists and engineers should send the politicians the bill for a crash research program and building new plants and they should start building soon and quickly so that they can shut down the fossil plants while there is still time. My estimate for the chances that something like this will happen is zero. Marginal savings by trying to cut back and conserve energy or utilizing lots of small local alternative energy sources like solar power, especially with population still growing out of control is that it is a complete waste of effort. It won't work so the sacrifice is pointless and when you get past the lies, most nations including those in Europe will not really make any substantial sacrifices even in the face of eventual extinction.

Jim Wright;
You might consider that when many of the world's best scientists start to worry, it would be a good idea to worry with them about what is troubling them. They may not be 100% certain, science never is but they have a strong enough hunch that they feel something should be done whether the cause is entirely man made or not before the process goes past a point of no return. Frankly, I am personally not too concerned. I live on very high ground and by my calculations, if every bit of ice in the world melted, I wouldn't be close to getting my feet wet. I had no desire to visit Holland anyway. As for low lying islands like Tuvalu or the Maldives, let them find someplace else to live, there aren't all that many of them anyway. Global warming is not the biggest threat of extinction the human race ever faced. There were and are many others as bad or worse. Nuclear war could have wiped out the entire species in a matter of months, most of it within the first few hours. It's still possible and given what's happening in the middle east, probably likely. An epidemic caused by a genetic engineering experiment gone haywire or a genetically engineered bioweapon could do it. So could other natural pandemics in the past and even today like some monstrous mutation of bird flu. See, global warming is not the be all end all of doomsday fans so just be glad the left wingers haven't grabbed onto those others yet, we can still enjoy the possibility of those too. Gotta love those W88s.

William
I was interested that David Vance was typically scathing about global warming and asked vacuously that scientists apply "proper scientific method," whatever that is. What a noncontribution the man makes.

Could I ask why he was asked was asked to appear on this programme as his blog indicates a singar ignorance on almost every political issue and as far as I know is not himself a scientist?

His attitude to the audience was nothing short of contemptuous, judging by the nasty way he handled one of the questioners. His manners are appalling and all of his fellow contributors the last time he appeard on Seven Days complained of his arrogant empty sneering attitudes.

I can only presume he is well disposed to you as sooposed to almost all other RU presenters as you give him airtime out of all proportion to the constituency he reprsents and the reaosnableness of his view. That'll change in time. Meantime please try and maintain the previous high standard of civilised debate that typifies Sunday Sequence.

I thought it was a great programme. Loved the joke at the end Will about the tip of an iceberg! There was a lot of ground to cover but what really impressed me was how far behind churches are in stepping up to this challenge.

I thought you through down the gauntlet today by asking the 4 church leaders to meet paisley and arleen foster. Let's see if they do. unlikely I'd say to be honest.

We need curches to admit they've lost the plot on this and do something.

Could I ask if Jonathan Porritt will indeed be meeting the FM and DFM?

Iam not a climate change sceptic of any kind. I believe the world faces a problem of catastrophic proportions that needs to be addressed NOW.

But it's just a lie to say there is no scientific debate about climate change and its likely impact. There is a debate and it was right that sunday sequence included that debate on today's programme.

David Vance is not a scientist and I don't take his views seriously on any issue quite frankly. He's not the debate; the serious scientists are the debate we should consider.

There was a scientist on the programme who said he agreed with Vance but he didn't make any sense and sounded like a fundamentaalst. You can find pseudoscientists who argue that the world is 6000 years old. That doesn't make it so.

I haven't been able to listen to the programme yet. Where did David Vance come from? Was Ruth Lea not able to participate?

Post #7: "As regards your statement on the loss of individual liberty. I think you are being a tad paranoid."

The figure being banded about now by some scientists is that carbon dioxide must be cut by 80 percent by 2050 in order to avoid the worse effects of climate change. If that is true, it will require not only that I be made to feel bad for driving my SUV but that I be disallowed from flying across the Atlantic to see my family, that I be unable to conduct my business by driving my current 25,000 miles per year, that I give up most of my recreational activities involving the use of fossil fuels and many other such changes - perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to live in the low desert in the first place since it requires air conditioning most of the year long to sustain that lifestyle. If the 80 percent by 2050 figures are correct, we're not simply talking about installing energy-efficient light bulbs, as listening to many of those who believe that global warming is an imminent threat will illustrate. We're either talking about one of two things: (a) disassembling large portions of our current lifestyles and becoming preindustrial to some extent, or (b) allowing the technology that gave us this problem to solve it as it always has.

My opinion is that the challenges of climate change will not be best met by government coercion but by upholding the rights of individuals and companies who are the answer themselves: it was a free market that gave us carbon emissions and it is a free market that is already innovating its way out of them. Free them to do that rather than sheckle them with coercion.

Will, thanks for the programme. I listened all the way through to the Sunday papers! A comment about Friends of the Earth ... or two!

1 ... I was so glad you pulled Tony up on his science language. He was way too complicated in dealing with the simple question of explaining climate change. I am fascinated by this subject and have read quite a bit and he was losing me!

2 ... I was REALLY impressed by the audience. The lady who took on the politician was wonderful. Im not a member of friends of the earth but i will seriously think about it after this.

3 ... David Vance. Why bother responding to him? He's lost the plot. When you pressed him to answer "what if you are wrong" he was finished.

4 ... DUP environment minister. Arleen Foster was quite impressive I thought. It's still early days but she made an excellent start. I wish she'd been on the programme but what she said was very good.

It's brilliant that the 91Èȱ¬ is doing this kind of programme. It sets the agenda in Northern Ireland. Keep it up!!

For some reason, as an opponent of global warming, we had one of the 12,000 who is opposed to the peace process in Northern Ireland - Opposing 600,000 supporters of catholic/Protestant power-sharing, we had someone who thinks Nelson Mandela should be hung as "a terrorist" who advocates bombing Iran, who advocated bombing "Lebanon to the Stone Age" and who thought Jean Charles de Menezes deserved "six in the head."

Can we not find someone less offensive to make this case?

Post 15:

It's an absolute disgrace that Vance is given the floor on any issue. Do the 91Èȱ¬ do any research at all?
I URGE people to protest very strongly against Vance on the 91Èȱ¬.

Hey - since my name has been used in vain. I guess I'm allowed a right of reply?

On the plus side - lots of comments. On the negative side, a lot of heat but little light!

First, I entirely agree with the last poster Ian - please protest about me to the 91Èȱ¬. It is indeed an outrage that someone who seeks to argue global warming on a plain-speaking science based platform is permitted the space provided. The Henry Ford school of political debate - any shade you want so long as it is black, right?

Next, asking me "What if I am wrong" is not really science-based debate folks. As I pointed out to Will, only arrogant leftists believe they are all knowing.I COULD be wrong, Gore IS factually wrong on a host of points made in his fictional movie. (Those crazy snows of Kilimanjaro, the rising seas that even the IPCC dispute, the Hurricane factor that he got entirely wrong...etc) You choose your corner, I fight mine.

Finally - it is, shall we say at least interesting, that the only trained SCIENTIST on the programme agreed with me. And there was I thinking there was a "consensus" in favout of eco-wackism. To zealots, facts appear not to matter

Trying to cover this topic against a topography of global warming alarmism was tricky but as ever, one tries.
I was amused when one other panellist put it, debating the science is "immoral" apparently. I would suggest that the immorality lies with those who swallow junk science as unsubstantiated fact, and who are spectacularly uninformed on the nature of anthropogenic emissions in 2007, and who dress up their ignorance of science in the faux moral superiority of the new religion of environmentalism.

If any (apart from those whose bad behavior has led to their ban, Jo) seek to hear the OTHER side of this climate change argument - I would suggest you tune in to the most recent recorded TANGLED TALKRADIO show over on A Tangled Web. The beauty of it is that a plain speaking American caller to my show last week demonstrated more common sense and acumen than - dare I say it - an apocalypse of global alarmists. (I assume that is the best collective noun?) Now then, you have been told! ;-)

Ian,

Are you so opposed to an open debate? I certainly do not support the views od David Vance but he represents a point of view. He is a regular guest on Heart and Minds and Talk Back. He can be seen on Hearts and Minds as a contributor in the little cartoon columnist segment. Why shouldn't he be included in this programme?

What are you afraid of?

I agree with Will's decision to invite David Vance (if it was Will who invited him). I dont agree with Vance but he is a strong voice in a debate. I think he came off worse than anyone else on the show.

Free speech! Ian pull your head in.

#13 "My opinion is that the challenges of climate change will not be best met by government coercion but by upholding the rights of individuals and companies who are the answer themselves: it was a free market that gave us carbon emissions and it is a free market that is already innovating its way out of them. Free them to do that rather than sheckle them with coercion."

Any solution as long as it's not a change in your standard of living. I can't see how the free market is going to solve this - the innovations aren't coming quickly enough. Allow the free market to come up with the solutions and people will do anything but curb their own emissions.
Rather than fearing a pre industrial society - it's a post industrial society that we should be looking towards, millions will die and it is only by individually taking responsibility will anything happen. The least we could do is learn to live on less. Sticking your tins in the recycling isn't doing your bit.
You may claim that the individuals' rights are paramount but when your right to drive a 4x4 competes with my right not to fry we have a problem.
The problem with the left and the right is that they are both systems predicated on consumption and there lies the problem. To quote Ghandi again - "We have enough to satisfy every man's need but not every man's greed."

As someone who bans all dissenting opinion from his blog, Vance is hardly a believer in free speech. His heinous comments on Ms Corrigan, Palestinians, Muslims, Gays, etc etc have to be seen to be believed so give him a visit on his blog and see for yourself- before you get banned.
The comments on his blog about the tragic death of a SF councillor in Tyrone are the most mind-boggling item of all.
The 91Èȱ¬ should know just who their guests are! Sure give him a platform- but be aware of what he really is.

#21-

" I can't see how the free market is going to solve this..."

Look around. The advancements in technology are coming hard and fast now including vast leaps in hydrogen fuel cell, nuclear energy, renewable sources and much more. Fifty years is a long time in technology: ask your grandparents.

"...the innovations aren't coming quickly enough."

Quick enough for who? Scientists are not agreed over how quickly we need to act on climate change, but the worst-case scenarios offered by our most gloomy models give us at least fifty years, which, as I said above, is a long time in technology. We'll not be driving petrol-based cars fifteen years from now, let alone fifty.

"Allow the free market to come up with the solutions and people will do anything but curb their own emissions. "

People will act in their own self-interest. Of course you'll immediately see this is an awful thing. I, on the other hand, see a future wherein the availability of fossil fuel will continue to decrease, causing the prices to increase, causing consumers to look for cheaper options. The discipline of economics, more predictable than the science of climatology, tells us that the free market fills that need and people will curb their own emissions for the sake of their own pocket. That's not speculative; it's economic fact, and it's happening already.

I listened to the program and it was amusing. I'm reminded of the debates in the House of Commons about macro economics and how pointless it all seems when viewed from a worldwide perspective. Those debates seemed like arguments over which style rowboat will best survive a tsunami, an attempt to deal with forces far larger than the UK. In global warming, the UK is not the problem and it is not the solution, at least in sofar as cutting back on energy consumption. If the entire UK were to do nothing or if it were to shut itself down completely, it would not affect the ultimate outcome one jot but the small scale projects feel good and give people the illusion that they have some control over their future themselves so I guess it has its psychological value. The real players are the US, China, India, Europe as a whole, Brazil, Indonesia, maybe Japan. None of these players has demonstrated yet any real interest in solving the problem although some have talked about it a lot. But where I come from we have a saying, talk is cheap and another which says actions speak louder than words. It was said in the program that Tony Blair did more about climate change than any other European leader. Well frankly, he talked about it, he may have turned the thermostats down in government buildings in the winter and up in the summer but beyond these infinitesmally meaningless tokens, what did he really do? Did he say to Jacques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder we can't afford tens of billions to build new passenger airplanes and a space program, we need to put the scientists and engineers and money to work finding alternate energy sources besides fossil fuel and nuclear power? No he didn't. And what about Al Gore who was the Vice President of the United States (not the President William), a heartbeat away from the most powerful man on earth for eight years. What large scale alternate energy programs did he institute, promote, work on either in government or in partnership with the private sector while he was in office and in a position to direct the American technological engine, the most inventive in the world to work on the problem as though all our lives depended on it? None but he did subsequently come out with a movie Hollywood gave him an Oscar award for. Maybe I'll watch it one day when it's 120 degrees outside...in January. It's all a bunch of baloney, these people are standing around screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling and maybe it is but they did nothing themselves to help hold it up when they had the chance.

I didn't hear one word about population control. There are shiboleths, taboos which cannot be mentioned even when they are at the heart of the problem. This is one of them. And on a program about religion. If it came down to a choice between extinction due to limitless population growth and survival if population is brought under control, which would these religions choose? Too bad that real moral dilemma wasn't explored.

The notion of "environmental equity" which was expressed during the religious discussion is particularly absurd. If all of the resources of the earth were to be spread evenly and presumably everyone would have the same carbon footprint, the per capita GDP of everyone would be around $5000. The major economies of the world, especially the American economy would collapse long before this because it is the concentration of wealth which allows the global economy to exist as large as it is in the first place. This is because it is surplus wealth in the industrialized nations which is invested to drive those and consequently all other economies. As a consequence, there is a concentration of GHG emissions at the same time. What's more, people who live in particularly harsh climates and/or must travel great distances due to the nature of their land such as in North America will of necessity have to consume much greater energy per capita to survive and be productive than those living in milder climates in geographically more constricted areas such as much of Europe.

It occurred to me that the particular mode in the preoccupation of the extinction of the human species may depend on culture. In Europe it is climate change. In the US I think we are far more worried about earth being hit by an asteroid or a comet. Perhaps this is due to a sudden fascination children have had with dinosaurs in the last couple of decades. But the really ominous threats to human survival are still nuclear war and biological catastrophe. Few Europeans seem very concerned about either. Build your windmills...and then go tilt at them if that what makes you feel happy.

20. At 11:34 PM on 20 May 2007, Hillbillery wrote:
Free speech! Ian pull your head in.

If their is one thing that David Vance does not believe in it is free speech. go to his blog and A Tangled Web and see as he tries to justify his banning of those that disagree with him as supporting free speech. He is a rediculous person who while well spoken knows about as much about global warming as he does about free speech.

To clarify: I'm agnostic on human-caused climate change. My contribution to the debate centres on the human response to climate change (eg. my comments above).

Why am I agnostic? I geniunely can see huge problems with drawing conclusions at this stage based only on scientific consensus. We simply don't have enough data yet, and climatological models vary erratically. I will say this: since carbon dioxide is responsible for only 0.12 percent of the greenhouse effect, and human beings are contributing only a tiny fraction of that figure, it does seem a tad unsuitable to say things like "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" as I read recently in one Green publication.

It also seems rather convenient for those who are predisposed to infringe on individual rights regardless of the climate that the fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases that are human-caused is the fraction our future climate hinges upon, despite the existence of natural cycles which we know change our climate periodically without any help from us. To my mind there simply hasn't been enough data to convince me that this wouldn't be occurring without our contribution. On the other hand, a scientific consensus (even one which is politically influenced) is somewhat compelling at the same time. Thus I'm agnostic.

But whether you believe that this is a grave crisis or a political agenda, or you are undecided like me, I believe that no government has the right to force upon you coercion of the kind being widely proposed. A free market has a much better chance of solving any crisis than all the governments of the world given communist power over their citizens ever would.

Honestly John I do not share your trust in the free market alone to solve the problem of global warming. In fact, I would contend that it is the free market that has played a major role in getting us into the problem. The only answer that the free market has is "consume" more - certainly a long way to go in addressing global warming has to do with us consuming less. The one thing that the free market cannot deliver. We need legislation on this and some people will be inconvenienced but I think that those who cannot rise above their own self-interest will just have to live with it. They are like teenagers who when asked to show consideration by turning the stereo throw a sulk. We will have to change our lives. Get used to it.

As regards David Vance on the show. it was interesting that the 91Èȱ¬ could not get a reasonable person to speak against climate change. I suspect that this is because no self-respecting thinking person can put forward a reasoned argument against the evidence anymore. Climate change denial appears now to be the sole preserve of incoherent rightwing ranters. Vance is a professional polemicist - he's good for saying outrageous things. I fear that is why he was brought onto the show.

I think he brought down the general high level of informed debate that is the main reason I listen to SS. I'd hate to see the prog reduced to level of argument you get on the Nolan Show (ugh!). Free speech is important but that doesn't mean we have to listen to the rude and uninformed just because they have an opinion.

Mick,

Would that be the "ugh" Nolan Show which enjoys the higest ratings of any 91Èȱ¬ radio programme? I guess all those people who tune in and listen to Stephen lack your sophistication?

Final point - I note you reveal your true colours when you attack the "free market" and demand legislation, control from the State. Many from your viewpoint share this intolerance of liberty and freedom.

The bottom line is that global warming alarmists prefer their dour diet of junk science and pious rhetoric rather than deal with hard science. I can provide the names of 17,000 scientists who take my view - as their attachment to the Oregon Petition indicates- if the 91Èȱ¬ cannot locate them, then how about Professor David Bellamy who also describes global warming as a scam? Again, I repeat the only scientist on the panel agreed with me. Tough one that, eh? There are none so blind as those who do not want to see - and too many (not all) environmentalists are lost in their own little hothouse world.

My thanks to those kind posters who may not agree with me, but who defend my right to say it. It is this refreshing point of view which encourages me.

#27 "The only answer that the free market has is to consume more"

you've hit the nail on the head there Mick. We may not know the full extent or the consequences of global warming. But putting all our hope in a vague notion that the free market will sort it all out may not be enough.
The uk may not be the biggest contributor to global warming but we should lead by example - better to be safe than sorry.
Even if we find a solution to global warming - we can not maintain the level of consumption that has existed over the past century. Sustainable solutions to manage with what we already have is the answer, not a continued emphasis on development.

#21 -anonymous was me by the way - forgot to fill in my details.

Some people seem more preoccupied with the personalities in the debate than the issues in the debate. Strange?

Speaking about issues and morality, nobody mentioned carbon credits. In this system, those who create the most CO2, nations, private companies could buy their way out of mandated reductions by purchasing carbon credits from others who will meet their obligation for them, the theory being that its the overall reduction which matters, not who makes the sacrifices. But we know what will happen, those who can least afford to make cuts will sell their credits and when they can't meet the targets nobody will hold them to account beause they are far too poor to begin with. You can't get blood out of a turnip. So the real producers will not have to do anything. I'm surprised nobody brought this up. To make matters worse, it was recently revealed I think by the EU that the baseline output of CO2 for many producers established for Kyoto was deliberately greatly exaggerated so that they could work the system to sell or not have to buy carbon credits calling the entire scheme into question as a fraud. Surprise, surprise.

Jim Wright, the point was made early on in the broadcast that CO2 is only a small percentage of the atmosphere and the changes that have occurred seem small. Scientists of course are only guessing, that's all they ever do, that's all they can do, and that is all they have a legitimate claim to. Unlike theologians, they can never claim to know absolute truth with any certainty. And if we had forever to act because the process would always be reversible, we could wait to find out if they were right or wrong before we acted and it would only matter marginally. So a few tens of millions die in the meanwhile, they die off in wars, famines, pandemics, and other disasters anyway what difference does it make. Two million are about to die in Darfur soon and the world sits around wringing its hands pretending it cares and can't do anything about it. The problem with your theory is at least twofold. First of all, the world our civilization has grown up in exists in a very precariously balanced state which can be easily upset by small changes. The evidence presented is that small changes have an even larger effect than previously thought as recently as five years ago, in fact about double. The other is more ominous and that is this so called tipping point, this point of no return. Scientists fear that once the process reaches a certain point, it will be self sustaining and beyond any possibility of human control to reverse. There are at least two examples. As the polar ice caps melt, the world becomes darker abosorbing more solar radiation and reflecting less back into space, the solar heating effect becoming greater. The other is the melting of the permafrost in polar regions like Siberia alluded to in the broadcast. This is releasing enormous quantities of methane trapped under the ice for eons. Methane is about 20 times as efficient as CO2 in trapping solar radiation from re-radiating into space. You'll hear terms like positive feedback and runaway greenhouse effect. We don't know if or when such a point will be reached. In the broadcast it was suggested it is 10 or 15 years away. It may be 50 years away or we may have already passed it, nobody knows. The scientists could be wrong in their fears and their guesses...but what if they aren't? As someone who isn't convinced the human species is worthy of survival anyway, I feel like more of an observer than a participant and I do have an enormous CO2 footprint which I have no intention of reducing. Frankly, I'm far more worried about a terrorist nuclear attack on New York City which I don't live too far from. I have only a hunch of what the US government response will be but it could be world shattering and it won't take decades. We've already made plans to spend our last days in the cellar drinking up the best bottles of wine before we go.

David,

Would that be the "ugh" Nolan Show which enjoys the higest ratings of any 91Èȱ¬ radio programme? I guess all those people who tune in and listen to Stephen lack your sophistication?

Not all radio has to be reduced to the tabloid dim-witticisms and bluster that seem to be your stock-in-trade. I do wish to hear here informed opinion against climate change - you only provided cynicism and gross generalisations. You do not want to confront the reality of climate change because it might mean you have to change how you think. You are trapped in an ideological cage. I regret making ad hominem remarks but you added nothing informative or constructive to y'day's debate.

I note you reveal your true colours when you attack the "free market" and demand legislation

I make no apologies for not considering the free market sacred. This is an occasion when we all need to be protected from the stupid and the greedy and, much as I do not like it either, we need to consider legislation - time is running out.

I cannot see how letting the very corporations who got is into this mess are ever going to get us out.

Mick,

1% of atmospheric co2 emissions are of anthropogenic origin. There are some 750bn tons in the atmosphere - mankind's contribution appears statistically and environmentally insignificant. Since you constantly suggest I do not do science, please address the point at debate. Why does 99% of co2 not matter - and not impact - and why does 1% cause it all? Why does the co2 trend FOLLOW the earth warming, not precede it? Why does the primary source of heat in this planetary system - the Sun - not have an impact in your mind?

I try to argue this by discussing observable science - the rabble rousing is for others, I'm afraid. I have noticed that many of the global warming doomsters shy away once challeneged on the science - and you are no exception.

Final point - if Kyoto were FULLY IMPLEMENTED - care to wager what the total reduction in global temperature would be? Even as a climatically modelled extrapolation....go on..

I await a justifcation for David Vance appearing on this programme, apart from the fact that, like anyone else, he could Google "global warming" and come up with a series of ad hominem attacks on those that believe it might actually be a reality.

I could do that myself.

The difference is that I have some modicum of respect for people I debate with. David Vance dismisses those who argue with him as having some sort of psychiatric disorder.

Have a look at his blog. I can't because he banned me from it for arguing with him. It might be satisfactory radio polemic, but its a shitty attitude to have to fellow human beings, especially when it comes from a self-proclaimed "Christian" evangelical. Ask any member of the Sunday Sequence audience if they disagree with me.

I think readers should beadvised that David Vanceis indeed a fundamentialist *Christian* whose violent views, if acted upon, would precipitate Armageddon.

His attitude to Iran is "Send in the planes"

Nothing would satisfy him more than a nuclear attack on Israel, which all right thinking people would realise could cause a nuclear confrontation, ending the world as e know it.

That David as *a born again* would welcome that catastrophe is something that all respondents to his posts should consider.

David and Mick,

Nolan's show isn't even close in ratings to Terry Wogan, or even gardeners question time, so don't believe his hype.

There are 2 mark's writing here and it's confusing ... can one of them change his name!?!?

Mick #27- Thanks for your reply.

"In fact, I would contend that it is the free market that has played a major role in getting us into the problem."

That's what I said. It got us in, and it alone can get us out. Either we go preindustrial, or we rely on the free market (our greatest asset) to do as it's always done: fill needs. The only third option is to try to force the market somehow, and we've seen how well that works (think Kyoto).

"The only answer that the free market has is "consume" more - certainly a long way to go in addressing global warming has to do with us consuming less."

Here we fundamentally disagree. You think the only way to address climate change is for society to 'reverse' its direction so we are consuming less; I would like to ask, 'What's wrong with consuming, in principle?' If new technology will allow us to consume as much or more without contributing to the greenhouse effect, what's the problem? When I've asked this question of environmentalists they get annoyed, because the fact is that they're predisposed to see human beings at odds with the natural world even if no science existed to contradict it, and I believe there is a significant portion of the population in the same boat. If climate change was not happening they would still be complaining about consumption - they disagree with it in principle. So climate change, rather than being an 'inconvenient truth' as Gore posits, is a rather convenient truth for their worldview and their position. Are you sure you aren't in that category Mick? Is that where you're coming from?

"it was interesting that the 91Èȱ¬ could not get a reasonable person to speak against climate change. I suspect that this is because no self-respecting thinking person can put forward a reasoned argument against the evidence anymore."

You haven't participated much in this debate, have you? Ruth Lea was slated to appear; I'm not sure what happened there, but she certainly is a 'thinking person'. (I suggest you read some more; maybe subscribe to a journal for a short time where you'll see not only a debate on the fundamental nature of climate change but a reasoned debate on the issue by highly respected experts.) Again I think you're projecting your prehashed worldview onto the topic; it suits you to believe that there are no intelligent people who disagree with the IPCC on climate change, but it's simply not the case.

By the way, I have no opinion on David Vance, as I'm not familiar with him or what he's known for.

dp #29- "...putting all our hope in a vague notion that the free market will sort it all out may not be enough."

Economics isn't a "vague notion"; ask an economist. Why is it that you place more faith in climatology to predict disaster than you do economics to predict its solutions? (Answer: because you're a leftwing zealot who, climate change or no, oppose basic rights and freedoms in favour of seeing human beings as diametrically opposed to everything good and 'natural' and right. The free market is evil, self-interest is evil, and people like me are obviously stupid or incapable of being a rational, 'thinking' person with your degree of refinement.)

Anyway dp I don't have much faith in you to deal with this topic with any more competence than you did the last one on which we disagreed, quote: "The American dream is a load of balls." I'm sure that's a well-considered, rational argument of academic ilk.

dp #29- "...putting all our hope in a vague notion that the free market will sort it all out may not be enough."

Economics isn't a "vague notion"; ask an economist. Why is it that you place more faith in climatology to predict disaster than you do economics to predict its solutions? (Answer: because you're a leftwing zealot who, climate change or no, oppose basic rights and freedoms in favour of seeing human beings as diametrically opposed to everything good and 'natural' and right. The free market is evil, self-interest is evil, and people like me are obviously stupid or incapable of being a rational, 'thinking' person with your degree of refinement.)

Anyway dp I don't have much faith in you to deal with this topic with any more competence than you did the last one on which we disagreed, quote: "The American dream is a load of balls." I'm sure that's a well-considered, rational argument of academic ilk.

The 91Èȱ¬ does not need to justify inviting guests to this guy ian, whoever he is. I don't want to listen to a programme with everyone saying the same things the whol time. Vance whatever you think of him stirs it up a bit. wise up guys, you'll leave us with boring radio if you're not careful!

Jo

Why don't you refrain from your hysterical peronal vendetta against David Vance and comment on the issues at hand?

OK...the world is screwed. OK...man is to blame...

Why should I care?

Pete.

Jo #40 says: "I don't think it coincidence that the unthinking brain-dead global warming sceptics (to give them a socially acceptable title) are co-incident with those who believe that this Earth is but a thing to be used on the way to the Next Life."

You don't think it's a coincidence that it is a coincidence? O-kay.

I should explain, since some have asked, what happened to Ruth Lea. I had recorded a short interview with Ruth in which she challenged some of the science and economics underlying the current climate change debate. In the cut and thrust of our live programme, we took the decision not to run the interview simply because we felt that we'd touched already on some of those contentious issues and wanted to move the debate on. We dropped a few other inserts as well in order to create more space for the audience to take part in the live debate. I was very impressed with the Friends of the Earth audience and, with hindsight, I with we'd more opportunity in the programme to hear from them. I hope that explains our decision.

William- Any chance of hearing the Ruth Lea piece on this blog by mp3 or something? Maybe the tech-whizzes over there can throw it into the pit of lions so we can fight over it mercilessly? :-)

Hi John,

The point you make about fossil fules running out is only valid if we are around to watch it happen.

The technology is only going to help if it developes fast enough and well enough.

Please could explain to us "leftwing zealots" how a capitalist economy can help?

Climate is increadibly hard to predict, we can only get a five day weather forcast and even then it is crap.

The way I see it the task is risk management. We have to act before it is to late, but when is that.

Is big bussiness prepared to take on board these unpredictabilities? Mabey they are really crying out for the goverment to step in and control the market?

Anyone keen on chipping in for a Microsoft Ark, it's got windows?

sorry...

David,
Are the intergovernmental committee reports on climate change and the Stern report not good enough science for you?

John,
You are, like David, and many on the right turning the Climate Change debate into an ideological struggle. Let me assure you it is not some vast leftist conspiracy to undermine free-market economics.
I do not, however, think free market economics will get us out of this one - as Porritt put it on the programme we have only 20 yrs max to get this sorted and the Business community ( that should really read "transnational corporations") is far and away the most resistant to taking on the evidence which it does not want to hear. I am, to tell the truth, fairly pessimistic that we will avoid serious and irrevocable consequences. I think Govts will not face up to Big Business and consumers will continue to consume what they are told to until we are forced by circumstances to do otherwise. Porritt again in the prog seemed to be of the same opinion that it will really have to hurt before we seriously do anything about it.

You are right that I am 'one of those' (a term we used to reserve only for heretics and sexual deviants) who calls into the question the doctrine of infinitely expanding patterns of consumption. Everyone on the planet cannot live like you and me. As the Chinese and Indians and others grab more of their share we will inevitably have do with less (it's already happening with some commodities - try getting hold of some copper as I did recently and you'll see what I mean).

We have been literally been sold a lie that the more stuff we possess, the more choice we have, the happier we will be. Clearly this is errant nonsense, yet we still somehow go on trying to make it true. I am not a return to the middle ages sort but we need to change our society to value things like health, family, community and social justice more and value things like style, celebrity, conspicuous consumption etc. less. The world would not collapse around out ears. Whether you dislike the thought of having to do with less or not I suspect our grandchildren will have to do with less than you and I but hopefully they will be no less content.

David Vance;
Why does a 1% change in CO2 matter? Actually it's more than that, it's an increase from about 350 ppm to about 450ppm so that is about a 30% increase but here is why even a small amount of additional CO2 makes a big difference. The temperature of the surface of the earth exists in a state of thermodynamic equalibrium which is determined by internal heat reaching the surface (most of the earth's mass is believed to be molten rock at least 5000 degrees hot, the crust being only about 70 miles thick) and solar radiation reaching the surface which is not reflected back into space. Even were the processes all reversible, a small shift in the percentage of energy absorbed and not reradiated could have a relatively radical change in the average temperature of the surface and its distribution. At the freezing point of water 0C, the temperature is actualy 273 K. A 2 degree C change is only a 0.67% change. The consequences of this change will make human life on the surface at some times during the year impossible in some places. It will also tax the engineered systems, the machinery we depend on to operate our industrial society and maintain liveable conditions in many buildings such as high rise offices without openable windows beyond their design capacity. Changes in distribution of water will affect the ability of many regions to grow food and it has already in places like Australia and parts of Africa, China, and the United States. The equilibrium point will shift. The so called tipping point means that once it shifts past a certain point, there will be no way within human power to get it to shift back again, it will continue to drift to some new unknown equilibrium point. Where is this point? Nobody knows.

I have seen Dr. Harm J. de Blij's presentation on C-span and written to him. Dr. de Blij is a professor of geography at Michigan State University and an expert on climate change. He says that we are in the midst of a 200,000 year warming trend during a 2 million year pleistocene ice age, part of a 35 million year ice age. One risk he worries about is that global warming could precipitate a rapid return to former ice age conditions, within a matter a decade. Others such as the US Army's climate model show a slight probability of global warming precipitating weakening or shut down of the jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere and consequential ice age conditions in nothern Europe as far south as the British Isles.

Too bad his entire presentation on climate change and the implications for continued warming are not yet on YouTube but there is a DVD available for purchase.

(William, unrelated but I think you'll enjoy this part on continental drift in light of your own program)

The free market is the only proven effective method for generating wealth in an industrial society which has been proven to work and it will work tirelessly at innovation. But it works on one factor alone the profit motive. Unless there are incentives to make profits or disinsentives to avoid fines and prison, the market doesn't act. Therefore, waiting for the market to react to the continuing evidence of global warming whether it is all or in part or not the result of human activity risks having it respond after the tipping point has been passed. The only remedy is for governments to provide incentives and disinsentives to get the market to react sooner. So far none of them seem inclined to, at least not on any meaningful scale.

By the way, were the Kyoto protocol followed by all nations, the projected reduction in the rate of rise (not cooling) would be only two thirds of a degree in sixty years. when this was pointed out to advocates of Kyoto, its proponents said Kyoto would be just the beginning, far more would have to come. In the beginning of the broadcast, it was said that it would take an 80% reduction in CO2 output by 2050 to limit climate change to 2 degrees C. This may be realistic. I'd like to explore what such a reduction would imply for living conditions at that time if there is no breakthrough in energy production between now and then. I think it will be staggering, the little projects to shut off lights, engines, when not in use, economize on heating and cooling, improvements in gas mileage of cars, install windmill generators etc. laughably inadequate compared to what will actually be required.

I'm a little disappointed that so many people want to debate the debate and the debators rather than the issues. Is this how it is about everything in NI? Does it always boil down to personalities?

Jim Wright, climate change is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue with strong economic implications. I suggest you take a cruise which includes Western Alaska around Seward/Anchorage and Valdiz and see it for yourself first hand. Also take a trip to Denali Park while you're there and visit Glacier Bay north of Juneau. It's an exhillerating experience you will never forget. Locals will point out the differences between how it is now and how it was not long ago. I did it myself in 1988 and I'd do it again if I had the opportunity.

Hope this dosent go twice

Hi John,

The point you make about fossil fules running out is only valid if we are around to watch it happen.

The technology is only going to help if it developes fast enough and well enough.

Please could explain to us "leftwing zealots" how a capitalist economy can help?

Climate is increadibly hard to predict, we can only get a five day weather forcast and even then it is crap.

The way I see it the task is risk management. We have to act before it is to late, but when is that.

Is big bussiness prepared to take on board these unpredictabilities? Mabey they are really crying out for the goverment to step in and control the market?

Anyone keen on chipping in for a Microsoft Ark, it's got windows?

sorry...

Might I add that I too was impressed with the audience and wished I had a little more time to answer the questions they asked me. The lady who opened up the issue of the "bungalow blitz" which all the politicians have lined up to support had my full support since I too oppose this free for all, which will destroy our countryside but make some farmers very rich.

am #46- "The point you make about fossil fules running out is only valid if we are around to watch it happen. Please could explain to us 'leftwing zealots' how a capitalist economy can help?"[sic]

I'd never have pegged you as a 'leftwing zealot' given your views on homosexuality - perhaps you are both kinds of awful? ;-) And it happens to be leftwing zealots who have been most keen to persuade us of the decreasing availability of fossil fuel: by most estimates you are an optimist if you think oil will still be affordably available in fifty years. You really think we'll still be driving cars running on petrol in 2050?

------------------------

Anonymous #47- Are you not able to give a name? Even a fake one? Anonymous is so.... anonymous. You say:

"You are ... turning the Climate Change debate into an ideological struggle." Mark #48 echoes you here addressing me for the third time as "Jim Wright" and saying: "Climate change is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue with strong economic implications."

I agree. Climate change is occurring without regard to politics of any kind. Of course it's science. But the human response to it is governed by politics insofar as people are calling for governments to act in legislation. Thus not climate change itself but the human response to it is a debate within the political arena.

"I do not, however, think free market economics will get us out of this one..."

Let's say you're right. What's your alternative? Do you really believe that government will do a better job than private individuals and organisations at tackling this issue? On what other issue has the government done so? Specifics please. As I said above, though, in any case it is my contention that the discipline of economics disagrees with you on this point.

"...as Porritt put it on the programme we have only 20 yrs max to get this sorted..."

That's one of many figures being banded around, and one of the major points of debate among those who agree that climate change is occurring. It represents the worst among worst-case scenarios. So why is it the only scenario you mention? That's called alarmism.

"You are right that I am 'one of those' (a term we used to reserve only for heretics and sexual deviants) who calls into the question the doctrine of infinitely expanding patterns of consumption."

I meant nothing derogatory by saying "one of those", just so you know! I entirely respect your opinion and your right to hold it. Nevertheless we disagree. I don't want to get sidetracked onto another topic, but you say consumption cannot expand infinitely. You've incorrectly inserted a false dichotomy, since I never mentioned the word 'infinite' (consumption is naturally restricted by economic factors and therefore wouldn't be infinitely expandable in any case). But I'd be interested to hear what harm you think consumption does and why? You seem to hold to some incarnation of the 'money pot fallacy', which relies on the incorrect assumption that there is only a certain amount of wealth in a big pot that all humanity must share. In reality, of course, wealth is created; it always has been. Tell me, what is the greatest difference between America and Africa, in your opinion? And where did the wealth of America come from?

"We have been literally been sold a lie that the more stuff we possess, the more choice we have, the happier we will be. Clearly this is errant nonsense, yet we still somehow go on trying to make it true."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander? I suggest it's fairly arrogant to tell other people how they should live. That holds true for both religious evangelists and the evangelists of the political Left. You may not like or appreciate choice; I certainly do. I haven't been sold any such lie; I am rational and intelligent enough to decide for myself what makes me happy and what does not.

"I am not a return to the middle ages sort but we need to change our society to value things like health, family, community and social justice more and value things like style, celebrity, conspicuous consumption etc. less."

I agree, but for me only. I'm not going to tell anyone else what to value; I don't own them and they don't own me. But you seem to be furthering another false dichotomy, that somehow appreciating 'consumerism' means valuing health and family and community less. They are not opposed in any sense, and certainly not diametrically.

"I suspect our grandchildren will have to do with less than you and I..."

Well, we shall see who's right. I would regard a future such as you describe as a step backward for humanity, and the loss of something fundamentally important to civilisation. To the contrary, I believe our grandchildren will occupy a world that is essentially greater than the one we have now: full of choice and with more, not less, to enjoy, yet greater because it is done so with the added quality of sustainability. What's more, I believe there is more evidence supporting my position than there is yours, so I'd be willing to place a bet. :-)

Mark #48- "Unless there are incentives to make profits or disinsentives to avoid fines and prison, the market doesn't act."

Doesn't consumer demand for technology which will reduce their escalating electricity bills, their rising costs of heating or cooling, their climbing transportation costs and more constitute an incentive to make a profit? And are any companies doing this?

Of course they are. Thousands of companies come into existence every year for the very purpose of developing new kinds of fuel (which is at the heart of the problem) and thousands more which are implementing them. You think it's an insignificant contribution? Only one of the technologies will need to be commercially successful to eradicate significant proportions of our reliance on fossil fuel. And this in 2007. Over the next twenty years, as fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive, it won't take long before the changes in this regard become transformational. And I haven't even mentioned the huge list of corporations which have pledged their help or at least their compliance with efforts to reduce their carbon footprints.

But technology alone is undisputably the means by which we can prevent catastrophic climate change, if that's even a threat at this stage. It may be nice for those who are predisposed to advocate higher levels of government coercion to wrap this up into an ideological package of anti-consumerism, but that (in addition to being highly unrealistic) isn't going to be imperative in confronting the issue.

Re #34

I don't know who this guy Vance is but I agree he added NOTHING to the discussion about global warming.

Now let's ignore him.

Regards,
Michael

#52 John Wright
You are confusing two things, global warming and the relative cost of different fuels. Let's say for example, Americans can grow, ferment, and refine so much ethanol from sedge grass, corn, and other so called renewable energy sources that it drives down the cost of fossil fuels, a proposal President Bush has recently made to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, this will do nothing to slow climate change. Burning ethanol puts about as much CO2 into the atmosphere as burning refined petroleum products and when you add the energy needed to plant, harvest and process the ethanol, it isn't clear whether the overall process even decreases CO2 emissions for a given level of energy consumption at all, in fact it may actually increase it. That is a very tough calculation with many unknown variables.

Another proposal, one likely in the US but beyond the capability of many nations is greater reliance on nuclear power plants. America produces the most electrical energy from nuclear power and France produces the greatest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclar power. France is contemplating reducing their reliance on it. It produces no GHGs and is the best available non GHG power source we have today environmentalist's objections notwithstanding. However there are problems. There is the amount of fluel available in the world although scientists have talked for years about breeder reactors which create more fuel than they consume. There is the risk of an accident as with TMI and Chernobyl (TMI was what did N power in in the US and Shoreham a billion dollar investment on Long Island was never brought on line because an acceptable evacuation plan couldn't be devised.) There is the lack of current technical expertise to design them (engineers don't just wake up one day with a job to design a nuclear power plant and bingo, it gets done, the former cadre of engineers with the skills have long ago retired, died off, or gone on to other work so it's a skill which will have to be relearned over time) but worst of all, nobody has figured out a way to safely dispose of the vast quantities of highly toxic radioactive waste of spent fuel rods and they are piling up at power plant cooling ponds.

As I said in a posting above about the solar powered boiler in Spain, the notion of scaling up such ideas as well as the notions of a vast distributed generating network of local sources such as windmills and solar panels to meet a meaningful percentage of need is laughably impractical even if they are fun to work with. So are other pie in the sky ideas like fusion power being worked on in France (a major accident at a full scale fusion plant would likely take out much of Southern Central Europe and if it's anything like other types of fuel related plants including fission plants, the waste heat would warm the entire mediteranian sea significantly.) When I was in school I took a course on alternate energy sources as far back as 1967. A postulated fusion plant of that era called a magnetohydrodynamic generator would have output measured in Hoover Dams, a typical unit equal to 100 HDs or more, a mere dozen or so all that would be required to meet the entire electical needs of the US. It wasn't practical then and the type of fusion reactors postulated now I think are different, I'm not quite sure what they were working on at Princeton.

More practical solutions usable in the real world like geothermal (solar is much too inefficient at this stage) and tidal wave power would take tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to research and develop into practical large scale technology. Only governments have the money for such an effort and time is running out. Waiting for private consorteums to form to get the job done may take much too long to matter. As for disincentives, the arbitrary setting of limits to carbon dioxide emissions given our current technologies would I think destroy the world's economy and much of our civilization with it. I'll post a message in a day or two about what I think the implications for life would be at an 80% CO2 reduction, it will be grim, not the minor inconvenience todays ecologists assert. Maybe I'll take a hard look at the Stern Report. I'll bet a lot has been left unsaid and it is all bad news.

#38 - just to make sure that people read that "balls "quote in the broader context of our discussion on Libertarianism

/blogs/ni/2007/05/duke_special_at_the_waterfront.html

Where did you get the impression that I was left wing. As I said previously, the problem with the right and the left is that they are both predicated on an ever increasing amount of consumption which ultimatley is not sustainable.
Most of the goods we enjoy today are made from finite resources, and I just believe we need to leave some stuff behind for future generations.

I never claimed you were stupid, neither did I claim to be academic, yes I do have a problem with people who put their own self interest first as I don't believe that that type of attitude can ever be a fair or ethical way of dealing with society's problems.

Hi John

"I'd never have pegged you as a 'leftwing zealot' given your views on homosexuality - perhaps you are both kinds of awful?"

I dont no where you are getting this from, you must have me mixed up with someone else? Ive never debated homosexuality on this site, far as i can remember. If you are going to make claims you cant substantiate please retract them.

Stop changing the subject, answer my questions on the economics please? See POST 49.

Mark #54- Of course I was referring to the development of those systems which do not emit CO2; the ones that do (such as ethanol) will not reduce the human impact on climate change. One solution that looks very promising is the hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles; there are R&D facilities of some of the major manufacturers around the world who have developed prototype vehicles that "run on water" since the hydrogen is produced inside the vehicle. Exciting? You bet. They're probably only 15 years from the market if everything goes well.

dp #55- You advocate leftist policies and concerns; ergo you're leftwing. See at this Wikipedia article for further clarity.

am #56- Yes, I must have you confused with someone else. Please accept my apology. My answers in #51 to Anonymous went a long way toward answering the questions you asked in #49, including "How can a capitalist economy help?" Let me know what you think.

First apologies, post #47 was mine. Incompetence rather than any attempt to hide, I'm afraid.

John,
I really do not think that the market is as free as you would have us believe. Your view that the climate change issue it is all too confused to do anything about it is, I fear, a means by which those who control the so-called free market, the few dozen giant multinationals, are biding their time so they can continue to make profits on the R&D they have paid for and which they would really be better off scrapping. The use socket puppet scientists and shills like David Vance to try and make it look like their is no consensus in the scientific community when there clearly is.

This strategy smacks of the one the tobacco companies used to protect themselves when they knew full well that smoking caused cancer. When you can't disprove your opponents case just say the jury is still out and you don't have to do anything. It really is just a delaying tactic - and one that will cost lives.

Too much money has gone into the oil and energy industries for them to suddenly stop and start planning windmills. The free market cannot see past short-term profit. That is its great weakness. If we had a hundred years to plan for this I might say let the free market develop this. But we don't and the more info we get, the faster change seems to be coming. Al Gore's movie posited no nothern icecap in the summer by 2050. Latest news is its even faster than even Gore' figured suggested.

You say that is alarmist but I wonder why on Earth more people are not alarmed?

You do not want to be told how to live - who does? - but if your lifestyle impacts on the quality of life of others then you have a duty to change your habits or, if you won't, have change forced upon you by law. Sometimes democracy, alas, is merely the tyranny of the majority. So John, let's have less complaining about your rights to drive an SUV and more thought about whether it might be your duty not to do so.

Great idea for a programme but I know one person who fell asleep trying to listen to it at that time on Sunday morning. Useful PR coup for FOE ~ maybe they'll become more realistic in challenging issues rather than whining on or is that just John Woods? William! surely you've been told not to jump in on people when they start answering - even DVance Bore - it's not good radio ~ can do for Big Boy Nolan but then he's not good radio - prove to me there's an audience out there rather than an imagined one. But well done Sequence for at least taking up the challenge of Environmental issues so poorly supported by 91Èȱ¬ in spite of McKimm and Cassidy the hardened corrs.

Padraig, are you always this patronising? You don't define good radio mate. You may not like Nolan but he has a massive audience so that's good radio by some standard. He's also won a bunch of sony awards. Crawley's got a different style and a massive audience too which is saying something for a sunday show. I know a lot of people who heard this show and thought it was great. and who says you can't interrupt people? Paxman made a career out of it! Nobody needs to prove anything to you. I want more forceful interviewers, not the pussycats you seem to prefer.

John Wright #57
Whether or not hydrogen fuel cells contribute to global warming and to what degree depends on how the hydrogen was obtained. If it was obtained from the electrolysis of water and the power was supplied by a fossil fuel plant, then the only savings is the difference between the efficiency of combustion of fossil fuel in the power plant and the combustion of fossil fuel required to produce the same amount of mechanical energy in an internal combustion engine. You also have to figure in the CO2 expended in the manufacture of the cell and the refining of the oil into gasoline. So the savings could be marginal or considerable. BTW, the same problem exists for battery operated electric cars. As with hydrogen obtained from electrolysis, batteries are a carrier of energy, not a source of energy, the same issues exist with the source of electric power to charge them. The cost of manufacturing hydrogen fuel cells is very high now and cars based on them are purely experimental. The only incentive to develop an industrial economy of scale would be incentives such as government contracts and rebates in the form of tax credits to consumers or disincentives such as gas guzzler tax surcharges on cars with conventional engines.

Mark- "Whether or not hydrogen fuel cells contribute to global warming and to what degree depends on how the hydrogen was obtained."

What makes you want to argue about this? I clearly said that the prototypes I'm referring to are self-generating (ie. they run on hydrogen produced onboard by the same energy they're producing). Therefore they don't contribute to global warming (there could be some very minor contributions such as a few in manufacturing). If I didn't know better (?) I'd say you just like arguing, like some kind of mental masturbation.

Mark,

Thank you for your considered and science based response, I wish others could learn to answer in a similar fashion.

Mick #7 said "The debate is, repeat, is over. There is no longer any point in listening to the spluttering of rightwing nuts anymore."

If the debate is over, why did Mr. Crawley have a debate? Why this thread? This tactic of trying to close down dissent reminds me of the line "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

Jo, Ian, Sean,

Your personal vendetta against Vance is so transparent.

I would like to point out that as a result of my arguing with Mr Vance here and on his website, he banned me from the latter and has now thereon threatened to inform my employer of my views. This behaviour indicates that freedom of speech is something that applies, in his view, only to those that agree with him.

I would like to ask, William, that you extend a similar attitude to him in future as it is a consensus here that he added nothing to your Sunday Sequence debate.

I listened to the entire program via the web and overall thaout it quite good.

John Wright #62
"I clearly said the prototypes I'm referring to are self-generating. (ie they run but the hydrogen produced onboard by the same energy they are producing.)"

?????????????????

Do I understand you to mean that they produce hydrogen by electrolysis using the energy from the hydrogen cell to do it? If that's what you mean, I'm afraid you've invented what is termed a perpetual motion machine, the only kind of device for which the US Patent Office demands a working prototype to grant a patent because it is impossible. The energy you get out of the hydrogen in the cell is less than the energy it takes to separate it out from water. This is the meaning of the second law of thermodynamics and even Andy McIntosh and I would agree on this point. There are other methods for obtaining hydrogen which do not require as much energy. If you have something else in mind and I misunderstood, please explain in greater detail. I'm reminded of a man who pestered me on a vacation insisting I help him with his idea for an electric car which ran on a windmill from the wind as the car moved. When I explained to him that the aerodynamic drag created by the windmill would more that eat up the energy it produced and it couldn't work he seemed annoyed at me. I told him to find someone else to help him. But incredible as it seems, lunacy never gives up. An architect/engineer friend of mine who works for the State of New Jersey tells me that someone has convinced the state to install experimental wind powered generators on some roads to try to capture the wind energy of cars as they go by. They weren't interested in the reduced gas mileage the added aerodynamic drag would impose on the cars more than offsetting what little electric power that's gained.

David Vance #63
The reason I wrote to Dr. Blij whose specialty is geography is that I wanted to ask him about a prediction of global warming in the northern hemisphere I'd heard around 1970 long before anyone thought about the greenhouse gas effect. Scientists of that era contended that the dams built in the 1930s by Stalin for hydroelectric power projects would dry up the Aral Sea the once fourth largest body of inland water in the world by cutting off their feeders and the resulting loss of evaporative cooling of the air stream passing over it would make the climate of New York City in the year 2000 comparable to the climate of Miami Florida of that day. I'd forgotten about it until one day in the mid 1990s I saw video footage of fishing villages in what had been the Aral sea with fishing boats sitting on the sand which had once been the seabed and I wanted to find out what he thought about this. He kind of dismissed it, I don't think he'd ever heard of it. We discussed the improvements to mathematical modeling of the world's climate in the intervening 35 years but I'm still not convinced that these dams didn't have something to do with it. Did you ever hear of it?

Mark- I apologise. A perpetual motion machine is not what I'm describing. Fuel is still required. A generator running on gasoline is not a perpetual motion machine either of course, it's merely converting the energy consuming gasoline into electricity. In this case the fuel is hydrogen produced from water, and the only waste product of the fuel cell is water (no CO2); the energy produced is electricity and it can then be used however (but the most practical application is the automobile).

For more info, check into the efforts of , , and others.

You are correct that hydrogen is only as 'clean' an energy source as the method by which it was obtained. I think, therefore, that fusion energy will be used extensively in the future in combination with a hydrogen economy; we're looking for the maximally efficient solutions.

In five to ten years time the whole global warming industry will be in ruins as more data emerges to show that the 'science' underlying many of the central tenets of this 'faith' is bogus.

Careers will be destroyed and reputations ruined - particularly those of media institutions such as the 91Èȱ¬ who have unquestioningly accepted these positions on climate change.

The same siren voices at one time warned us that:

a) there was a coming ice age

b) that all the food would run out by 2000

c) a world population explosion would lead to World War III

None. Of. That. Happened.

They. Were. Wrong.

Let's take point a)... we were told that the coming ice age was inevitable given the three decades of global cooling after World War II.

Yep, that's right folks - when mass industrialisation was in full swing, when there were no restrictions on carbon emissions whether they came from factory chimneys or car exhausts.

I'll repeat that for the slow learners: THREE DECADES of GLOBAL COOLING when CO2 production by humans was at an all time high.

THAT, is the first rock on which this nonsensical, ridiculous theory will founder. There are many more.

Pete,
I hope you are right but the warnings about global warming have been around for several decades now and despite the confusion that rightwing economists like to sow, the body of evidence is growing.

Incidentally I came across a 1989 documentary by James Buerk on google. A lot of what we hear today has been known for at least 20 years. Buerk's doc seems to think we all would get together to start solving the problem by 2000. It is quite long but still relevant (not much solace for the right in it, I fear though)

This is not a personal vendetta, it is an attempt to point up that Mr Vance someone who detests the 91Èȱ¬ yet is happy to accept fees for appearing on it - by any other description, this is hypocrisy. He also expresses extremist views in person on his website which are at odds with any reasonable persona he chooses to project on this or other places.

Should he present the same views on Hearts and Minds or Sunday Sequence which he presents on his website, he would be arrested for inciting racial hatred. Fortunately, his views are those of an unrepresentative, extremely tiny minority. I believe as a licence payer it is my right to express the opinion that his views receive airtime out of all proportion to their wider representation in the population and certainly, their intellectual content. His contempt for opposition has been manifest already on Radio Ulster's "Seven days" (2006) and has resulted in my banning from his own websie (reconcile that with freedom of speech?) and with his cowardly bullying tactics in attempting to smear me across the internet.

Hardly the actions of anything recognisable as "Christian" yet he professes to be such.

I am done here, my points have been made, if not accepted. The problem is that there is an endless supply of people acessing the internet but only limited insight into the expression of ignorance and bigotry there.

Pete- I'm sympathetic to your skepticism and (as I said above) I'm agnostic on the issue myself, but Mick is right - the body of evidence is growing and there was not nearly the wealth of scientific support or consensus for the theory of global cooling in the 70s as there is for global warming today. I still think it is alarmist to draw the worst conclusions about global warming, given the plethora of issues upon which there is disagreement at this point, but it is certain that warming is occurring at a slow pace, and almost certain that the greenhouse effect is responsible.

jw

you sound like a creationist arguing against evolution.

anyone heard of the medieval warm period?

it has been much warmer than it is now, before industrialisation.

blaming man for climte change smacks of machiavellian politics.

pb

to long man to long