Glidd, I am really Steve Jobs, I didn't die, I just wanted to spend more time with my toys. I am offering you a senior VP position with Apple, you can have a whole department with staff to yourself, all you have to do is tell people how wonderful we are, I know you like our products all you have to do now is like us, do you think you could do that ? You will get all of the prestige such a position will allow and we will take care of everything for you. What do you say ?
Not quite sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion, but for the record: I don't work for Apple. I work in an independent dealership which sells Apple products (mainly). I think Apple products are excellent. I dislike Apple as a company - certainly in its way of conducting its business - considerably. I meet and deal with plenty of Apple people. Some are decent enough folks, but having worked in a large multinational, I understand how they operate. Would I take a job with Apple if they offered me one? No. I don't think I would. Hope that may clear up any misconceptions.
The point I was making Glidd was that if offered a top job, such as running the IPCC, it would be difficult to say no. But having said yes, then there would be certain expectations placed upon ones self. If it had been real, and clearly it wasn't, then might you have been tempted ? We are all human at the end of the day.
Take a job in ANY organisation and you will find yourself doing a few things you'd probably rather not. I had to order containers of fruit from apartheid South Africa in a job once, whereas normally I wouldn't have touched an Outspan orange in a supermarket. But if the position conflicts too much with your values on a daily basis, normally you wouldn't take it. The subtext to your posts is that the Chairperson of the IPCC is under political pressure to talk up climate change. That doesn't seem to be the case. It would be hugely simpler for all if the thing didn't exist. It would appear (from the Wiki article) that the previous chairman of the IPCC was replaced, thanks to oil company lobbying, by the present incumbent as he was too virulent in his pressing for change and the urgency of the problem. You are implying the exact opposite - that the present incumbent is there to talk up climate change. I'd be interested to know your evidence for that view.
Who owns the oil companies and what vested interest could they have? Push the price up for whats left? Increase demand falsely on the 'its running out' old sales ploy? I dont think anyone denies climate is changing, just simply the pace and level of responsibility we take. After all, we can cover ourselves in cow shit for warmth and burn quick growing trees for light, grow our own up the allotment but it wont make a jot while the biggest countries in the world continue to burn things like a permanent bonfire night
Oil companies are in the business of selling oil - surprise surprise. If everyone switches to something else - what do you think that will do to the price and their profits? Don't be naïve. As for permanent bonfires - yes, that's why avoiding palm oil products is a good plan, that's why buying FSC wood is a good plan. Consumer power is often the only power we have - and is the only one that companies listen to, when it hits their bottom line. If no one eats Cadbury's chocolate because it has palm oil in it (just an example - I don't know whether it does or doesn't, though I have my suspicions), they will switch out of palm oil. If it gets hard to shift palm oil, they will stop cutting down forest for oil palms. If the Chinese stop buying powdered rhino horn - hey presto, no more endangered rhinos.
What lobbying? What emotive language? Examples and sources please. In what way are they not scientists? That's pretty much all they are supposed to be. Unless studying climate change isn't science in your view. Does that rule out meteorology, climatology, geology, ecology etc etc?
Sceince to me is some nutty bloke, with probably white hair, who sits in his own-made lab doing stuff without thought to commercial gain or reward, merely because it betters him, his peers or he just 'gets it' From wiki The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[4] It is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri. anything which has govt's at the centre is political. It is related to control and power. Its a bit like witch-finders of the dark ages...funny thing is they found loads of em. Who knew?!
I was referring to the amount of fossil stuff being consumed by China etc rather than trees being burned or cleared...but that adds to my argument. Its like reverse nimby syndrome. No in our yard but we'll happily pay for loads of others to keep it in theirs And every report I've seen is full of emotive language..potential catosptrphic...could be end of the world...probablte starvation of half he world...signs of caps melting which may flood the lower plains and make half current lands unihabitable. That not sound emotive language? Game me and my son have played since he was about 3....spot the 'upto 50% off' or 'may bla bla bla'
From what I can see wave generation has moved from surface devices to sea bed fixed devices. Must make a difference. there has been testing going on in Orkney for a few years now with several manufacturers testing there. I suspect that in 10 years time there could well by substantial progress. In the same time frame, a nuclear plant which applies for planning permission tomorrow should be producing power in about 20 years.
And from the oil companies Now let’s look specifically at how each company plans to adapt to climate change: Royal Dutch Shell The company known commonly as Shell acknowledges that carbon emissions “must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.” Specifically, the company believes that as it “increases its gas and oil production to help meet growing demand” it must focus on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency in its operations.” However, Shell also says that global population growth and economic development “may double energy demand by 2050” so “all energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of people’s needs.” Chevron Chevron admits that fossil fuels are a “contributor to increase in greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.” The company acknowledges that “there is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.” Two things caught my attention: Chevron is working at U.S. federal and state levels and internationally “to contribute to climate change policy discussions,” and it is investing in research and development (R&D) of technologies “that may reduce emissions or improve efficiency.” BP BP supports “policies that we believe can address climate change,” including a carbon price that “applies economy-wide and treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of an industrial smokestack or a car tailpipe.” The company believes that carbon pricing will do two things: make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive, and make what it calls lower-carbon fuels (it lists natural gas, nuclear and renewables) more cost competitive. In addition to regional and national carbon pricing schemes, BP supports the creation and implementation of a global cap-and-trade system. None of the three companies really admit that in order to truly avoid the worst impacts of climate change globally, the use of fossil fuels must be phased out. However, the fact that the companies acknowledge climate change at all is a big leap from funding climate change denial. Source Oil Companies are Actually Planning for Climate Change
You suspect ? I know that the nuclear plant will be producing large quantities of electricity round the clock, you can't say that about wave.
well to be specific, the Pentland Firth is 1) tidal, and therefore regular as clockwork 2) could provide 50% of Scotlands electricity with enough devices deployed 3) its just one tiny wee bit of water way and we have loads of them 4) the thing about tides, is they appen at different times in different places so slack water can be accommodated. 5) not an area where you will need to be wearing a radioactive suite when it does to decommissioning time. Blog: Max Carcas clarifies Pentland Firth power potential : EMEC: European Marine Energy Centre
What environmental impact is there in restricting or altering the waves and tides? Will this affect the migrating fish and mammal stocks across the globe? What impact will it have on how corals migrate from sea bed to sea bed in search of extended life? Etc etc
Two arguments for the sceptics- why wouldnt 150 year old physics cause the problems the theory assumes ( nobel prize 1). And what unknown to science physical mechanism is causing it? ( nobel prize 2). Dozens of sceptical arguments deployed- all refuted. E.g. Its not happening Its not us It cant be stopped Its not that bad It stopped some time ago Its natural cycles Its the sun ALL absolute crap and all refuted by extensive evidence... As for the tax issue. Since when did a government need an excuse to tax. There are dozens of taxes, and if a gvt needs more money its easy to raise a few Income tax Corporation tax Capital gains Death duty Stamp duty National insurance Insurance Airport tax Domestic fuel Fuel Alcohol Council tax The list is near on endless
So are you denying that The vast majority of the manmade CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for quite some time, so it will continue to exert it's influence (whatever that may be) for some time to come whatever we do ? Some areas of the earth will benefit form climate change in the same way that some areas will suffer ? The last decade has seen no significant change in average global temperature ? Natural cycles have always occurred and are still occurring today ? The sun, which is known to vary in activity, doesn't affect global climate ? You are saying all of the above is 'crap' ? And you suggest that there are no taxes justified because they are 'green'. Remind me which planet you are living on ?
