PowerSwitch

Posted: **10 Nov 2005, 20:31**

IN THE 27 COUNTRIES OTHER THAN SCOTLAND

http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/index-en.shtml

AROUND THE UK

http://www.campaigncc.org/local.html

IN SCOTLAND:

The Edinburgh demonstration will meet in East Market Street (Next to the Waverly) at 11:00 am. We will then march at 11:30 round the Mound down the Royal Mile and finish at the Scottish parliament. Here we will stay until about 3:00pm. For more info go to

http://climatechangecampaign.blogspot.com or contact gavin_pms[at]hotmail.com

Local Campaign against Climate Change groups in Scotland, with contacts :
Edinburgh, Gavin Smith, gavin_pms[at]hotmail.com,

Glasgow - campaignccglasgow[at]yahoogroups.co.uk, Cheryl McCormick, climatescotland[at]yahoo.co.uk

Dundee - Alan Kelly alnkelly05[at]yahoo.co.uk

Aberdeen - Calvin Jones, calvin.jones[at]gmail.com,
or Almuth Ernsting, almuth[at]ernsting.wanadoo.co.uk,

Posted: **10 Nov 2005, 22:04**

Fine, fine. I'm not orthodox in any way. If you call it "controlling CO2 emissions" or "adapting to oil depletion" does really not matter that much. If someone find it easier to to think of it as an active choice rather than a fact enforced by geology, fine. The outcome is the same.

Posted: **11 Nov 2005, 09:48**

I think Peak Oil and Climate Change are inextricably linked. Both present grave risks to humanity and the 'solutions' to both are broadly the same.

In my view, Climate Change campaigners are absolutely right to exploit the immediacy of Peak Oil (i.e. the "your lifestyle will change dramatically within the next 5 years - 10 if you're lucky - and if you don't take personal action to prepare for it now, you could die as a result" message) to push their agenda. I feel that the man in the street still thinks that climate change is a problem for the future and that remedial actions can be postponed, left for someone else to deal with or just swept under the carpet.

All too often the left wing (or to use my preferred, perhaps slightly arrogant definition "the politics of rationality", as opposed to the right wing, or "politics of instinct") fails to gain traction because it becomes mired in in-fighting between rival groups concerned about different issues or squabbling over the relative extremism of their particular brand of ideology. The sad irony being that those pushing a "rational" agenda ultimately succumb to their instinct as they compete to make their particular issue/viewpoint the most important.

The net result is that those with the initiative to organise and seize power for their own gain take advantage of this weakness and we all end up with systems of government and business that exploit the majority and threaten the future of all.

It seems to me that the sooner those of us in disparate groups concerned about issues that fall into the "rational" bracket put our differences aside, learn to compromise on details for the greater good, start organising and working together as a single movement with a holistic view, the sooner we will achieve something that is both positive and of sufficient scale to be meaningful.

Posted: **11 Nov 2005, 11:10**

Occam's razor make me choose the simplest model to explain something. The gigantosauric models used to "prove" anthropogenic global warming just fail to impress on me. Guess I've been too much into modelling on other issues and have huge respect for the limits of models.

This site have some thought-provoking graphs also

Posted: **11 Nov 2005, 20:57**

Well, I started on my meteorology module on my MSc today, and the first lecture was on the earth's energy balance. Basically, if there was no greenhouse effect and the earth was still as reflective as it is now, the average temperature would be about -18C, so there's no deny the greenhouse effect exists - it keeps us alive!

The interesting thing the lecturer said is that about 90% of the radiated longwave radiation from earth is absorbed, and the other 10% goes straight through and out into space. The critical question is what happens to this 10% as we change the composition of the atmosphere? We don't need to keep much of it back to make a significant rise in temperature, and you don't need any fancy computer models to prove that - just A-level physics. It seems to me that the models are just about proving how much of a difference we've made, when it will take effect, and what will happen - as there are a lot of unknowns, particularly in the area of clouds.

Anyay, if we wait till they're proved it one way or another, it will be too late if there are problems - we're in the middle of a global atmospheric experiment, and we don't know what the outcome will be. Seems a little fooolish to me...

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 15:37**

MacG wrote:Occam's razor make me choose the simplest model to explain something. The gigantosauric models used to "prove" anthropogenic global warming just fail to impress on me. Guess I've been too much into modelling on other issues and have huge respect for the limits of models.

This site have some thought-provoking graphs also

I've read it, very very interesting. Especially the part where CO2 vs Temperature is not that correlated. So, if I understand the message behind, it is much more likely that we are heading for a new ice-age, and that its onset does not necessarily mean gradual cooling ...
that's a chilly thought

But I think the real message is that we now know that the global climate is not constant, undergoes cooling and warming and that humanity must learn to live with that ... because when one hinks about it, the modern humans only experienced a relatively warm period. Jeeze.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 14:41**

MacG wrote: This site have some thought-provoking graphs also

I wouldn't put too much trust in what you read here - it is someone's personal webpage, and is not peer-reviewed in any way. Also, the rest of their website seems to be about fossils - no indication they are climate scientists at all.

In fact, they make several errors which I spotted straight away. For example, they quote incorrect figures for human CO2 emissions by a factor of 4, they claim that because the concentration of CO2 is low it's not important - missing the point about absorption spectra, which is a graph they should have put in there. They also make some odd comments about CO2 not staying in the atmosphere, but being absorbed by plants and oceans. While this is true, if we are emitting it faster than they can absorb it, and we're chopping them down too, then the level in the atmopshere will increase. However, they don't comment on this...

There's more too, but in looking the authors up, I found a page debuking their claims: http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm
However, remember that this is once again just a page on someones website, and people can publish what they like, so don't trust it without thinking about it!

At the end of the day, if it's not published in a peer-reviewed forum, then it needs to be viewed very critically. The majority (95%+ ?) of scientists who know about climate, etc. think that anthropogenic global warming exists, so until someone can prove them wrong in an open reviewed forum, I'll stick with their opinion. As long as people are only prepared to publish on their own webpages where they can't be argued with or properly reviewd, then I'm always going to be wary of what they're saying, particularly if their facts are wrong as they are in this article.

Another comment on this point though - don't always believe what you read in journals either - check out the essay I've just done for my MSc report http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=1122 to see a good example of people using incorrect figures and not telling the whole truth in order to support their views.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 17:25**

mikepepler wrote:The majority (95%+ ?) of scientists who know about climate, etc. think that anthropogenic global warming exists, so until someone can prove them wrong in an open reviewed forum, I'll stick with their opinion.

This is an interesting statistic that seems to get used a lot, I used it myself a while ago but was pulled up for it. Apparently it comes from a survey by Naomi Oreskes...

Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale.

Whenever you hear people quoting a scientific consensus they are most likely directly or indirectly quoting Oreskes however there are apparently serious problems with her study.

Someone told me this:

Naomi Oreskes essay on climate change "consensus" not only contained material errors (the search she did was on a public database so anyone can do it - oh and it gives different results to what she reported), it also contained a senseless choice of search and was thoroughly discredited by Benny Peiser. Science admitted the material error but then refused to publish a correction (they like global warming, big doom mongering stories helps sell mags and make profits).

Find out more here. This link is a pretty good read and certainly suggests anything but consensus on the part of the scientists and impartiality on the part the publication.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 18:36**

clv101 wrote: This is an interesting statistic that seems to get used a lot, I used it myself a while ago but was pulled up for it. Apparently it comes from a survey by Naomi Oreskes...

Thanks for the reference CLV.

I too am in the camp that sees emmissions induced global Warming as something of a distraction from 'peak oil' and its implications, which I am persuaded is of far more immediate import to the future of humanity on this planet.

It is indeed ironic that much of the proposed action to mitigate (allegedly) global warming just happens to chime with tentative approaches to mitigating the effects of looming PO too - so the two are continually - and confusingly lumped together.

As for 'demonstrating against climate change' - a bit like farting against thunder I'd say. It certainly serves the purpose of making those involved feel good about themselves which is probably a plus point, but very little else so far as I can see - except perhaps to facilitate continued obfuscation on both issues by the powers that be, who in reality are as boned up on PO as anyone on this forum - or anywhere else.

IMHO opinion, it is not campaigning on either subject that is required, it is dogged attempts at education, plus personal preparation. The whole world (but the West in particular) is on the verge of having dramatic, fundamental and unwelcome change forced upon it. Short of wholesale adoption of something close to the 'Rimini protocol' (highly unlikely for any government that relies on popular support at the ballot box), it seems to me that there is nothing that established political systems can do to effectively address the matter.

BTW - I like your web site.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 18:53**

I wouldn't say that I see emissions induced global warming as a distraction from 'peak oil'. It's all one and the same thing, a problem associated with our over reliance on a dirty, finite resource.

There are good arguments to curb our fossil fuel use on climate/environmental grounds. There are mature and accepted amongst large sections of society and essentially call for us to choose to use less fossil fuel.

There is also a good argument to curb our fossil fuel use on scarcity grounds (the peak oil argument). This argument is still very immature (in awareness terms) and hardly accepted by anyone (present company excepted) however it essentially calls for us to choose to use less fossil fuel since being forced to use less post peak will be a real pain.

That's how the two 'movements' are related, they require exactly the same core response.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 18:57**

nimrod wrote:
clv101 wrote: It is indeed ironic that much of the proposed action to mitigate (allegedly) global warming just happens to chime with tentative approaches to mitigating the effects of looming PO too - so the two are continually - and confusingly lumped together.
People keep saying this , but I cant see it. Its seems to me that a major response to Peak Oil (and gas) will be an increased use of coal, burnt as solid to replace oil and gas fired electricity production, and converted to liquid hydorcarbons by liquifaction and Fischer-Tropf.

Unless there is deliberate sequestration of CO2, this will increase the ammount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere not reduce it.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/ne ... show=75768
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/ne ... show=75809

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 19:19**

skeptik wrote:People keep saying this , but I cant see it. Its seems to me that a major response to Peak Oil (and gas) will be an increased use of coal, burnt as solid to replace oil and gas fired electricity production, and converted to liquid hydorcarbons by liquifaction and Fischer-Tropf.

Oh yeah, I think that's likely to happen. What I'm talking about is the similarity of the positive actions being proposed regarding climate change and peak oil, basically to use less. Not that peak oil will result in less CO2.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 19:21**

skeptik wrote: People keep saying this , but I cant see it. Its seems to me that a major response to Peak Oil (and gas) will be an increased use of coal, burnt as solid to replace oil and gas fired electricity production, and converted to liquid hydorcarbons by liquifaction and Fischer-Tropf.

Unless there is deliberate sequestration of CO2, this will increase the ammount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere not reduce it.

And this is exactly the problem. If you only give people the peak oil message, they will think we can just shift over to coal. On the other hand, if you only give them the climate change message, they won't see the urgency of the matter, as people in general seem to believe climate change will be a long way off and not affect them directly.

So what do people think? How do we approach the matter? I have several points to make on this, and would be interested to hear what people think:

1. For people who are already concerned about climate change, tell them how peak oil will push people towards coal if there is no other alternative prepared (i.e. demand reduction). This will scare them enough to take action on the peak oil issue.

2. For people who think climate change is not anthropogenic, peak oil is simply an economic issue - but they may be less receptive to the message, otherwise they'd probably have been willing to believe the climate change message too. (I think this might be the case because they seem to be the type of people who always but business first, and have a blind faith in technology)

3. For the governments, which explanation is easier to use as the reason for carbon quotas, renewable energy, and other things that will help us get over peak oil? For example, which will cause least panic? Which will be least likely to get you voted out? Which will cause people to take action in time (or too late by a smaller amount...

)?

At the end of the day, all I'm really concerned about is that people in general change their way of living to something that can be sustained and will not damage/pollute the Earth any faster than it can heal itself. I'd also like us to get there with the minimum of suffering, war, etc. So, if those actions are taken because of awareness peak oil, then good. If they're taken because of awareness of anthropogenic climate change, then good. Peak oil is the most important issue, but people don't need to know that in order to change the way they live - it might help, but if they change in the right way for a wrong reason, we shouldn't complain.

What do you think?

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 19:44**

mikepepler wrote:The majority (95%+ ?) of scientists who know about climate, etc. think that anthropogenic global warming exists, so until someone can prove them wrong in an open reviewed forum, I'll stick with their opinion.

This is the nasty bit! I dont know what it's like in the UK, but here in Sweden you cant get a research grant for questioning anthropogenic global warming. Such an application would ruin your career. Got it from the horse's mouth. Met a guy in meteorology who got that message in clear from a professor when he aired the idea.

To me, thats really crappy science. More like politics or religion actually...

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 19:50**

clv101 wrote:I wouldn't say that I see emissions induced global warming as a distraction from 'peak oil'.

Then I was mistaken and we should probably agree to differ.

I do not accept that

It's all one and the same thing, a problem associated with our over reliance on a dirty, finite resource.

So far as PO is concerned its gravity would be unaffected even if buring oil were the cleanest and most environmentally friendy energy source available. The point is that, for 100 years, it has been (and remains) the driver of economic development, globalisation, population growth and pretty well everything that defines 'the good life' that much of humanity aspires to. Those are the facts that people need to ponder. Whether it is clean or dirty doesn't enter into those equations at all.

There may be good arguments to curb fossil fuel use on environmental grounds, but on 'climate grounds'? - as your reference demonstrates, scientific opinion is fuzzy at best. As for the scale of their acceptance by the public at large; that is surely irrelevant - other than in the context of politics and the manipulation of public opinion. (It may have served the Greens well politically, but that's about all it has done - and frankly I find them as dishonest as the next political party)

The position is different with PO. The only scientific dispute concerns the timing of its onset.

Your post also completely ignores our reliance on Crude oil/natural gas for plastics and agricultural fertilisers. Feeding 6+ billion souls is about to become more problematical in other words - and in spite of Western hand-wringing about 'lets make poverty history' it seems to me that it (poverty) is likely to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better.

I'm afraid that the two issues are very different and to sytematically conflate them makes it more likely that neither will be addressed effectively.

PowerSwitch

Huge International Protests On Climate Change

Huge International Protests On Climate Change