Kitchen Garden Forum

Did anybody see the channel 4 programme on Thursday evening regarding Climate Change and Global Warming? To me it certainly settled a few things in my mind.
I have long held very similar views as those expressed in the programme.
You would have thought that the assembled host of eminent scientists would have had sufficient clout but apparently Politics has taken over against sound scientific evidence.
I have no reason to doubt anything that was said on the programme.
I have long held the view that the Sun governs the whole thing and the Greenhouse Effect has very little to do with CO2 and that the what is being done in our name is a total waste of "our" money.
It would appear that CO2 itself contributes slightly greater than half of one percent (0.528%) of greenhouse gasses so what are governments doing about the other 95%.
It would appear 'Sod All' is the answer to that one.
I feel that it is time for this subject to be discussed on this forum.
JB.

morning jb, i didnt see the prog you refer to but its been known for years that that the planet has been through hot and cold periods in the past, and that the sun's output varies year on year, lets face it a hiccup from the sun and we are all dead. there is /was another prog which i havent seen about comet impact and what could be done to avert it, its a fact that inspite of all the telescopes the last few near misses by comets were detected after theyed missed!!! the scientists arnt as clever as they would like us to believe. man's hold on life is not only quiet tenuous but its a miracle we are here in the first place.
going back to the waffle about global warming, there is no doubt that ice is melting but my gut feeling is thats more to do with natural cause than what puny man is doing, one volcano can chuck out more greenhouse gas than a year of mans efforts.. the political reduce co2 campaign is probably more a realisation that we need to reduce the increase in fosil fuel fuel consumption to give the scientists time to find viable alternatives before it finally runs out. lets face it theve been aware at least since the seventies that it will run out, electricity (nucleur)was going to be so cheap and plentiful it wouldnt be worth metering. fusion was going to be the answere but they cant make the theory work in practise.
In the short tenm all any individual can do is reduce there own enegy consumption, guess its colslaw with the roast beef instead of boiled cabbage

I agree Johnboy, this subject should be debated; unfortunately I also did not see the programme. There are many issues that can affect peoples lives that sadly can not be debated by independent qualified experts, or politicians who tell it as it is, due to upsetting the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the ‘chattering classes’ that like to control what we think and do.

Many politicians sets great store in our country meeting ‘green’ targets, what they don’t tell you is if we had not closed down most of our manufacturing industry we would not have a hope in hell of achieving these targets. It is all very well for us to bleat on about countries reducing their carbon emissions when we can rely on the financial and tourist industries for our wealth. Do people really think that we can expect the countries that now manufacture the goods for us to curtail their wealth creation?

I welcome an informed debate regarding global warming.

Barney

I agree totaly JB. I actually said a similar thing in a reply some time ago. This old world of ours has been through many changes, from warm to hot to cold and colder! The bigest problem we have is the so called "green" lot that are making a living out of frightening gullible people. The cash that has been made from "green" energy is awesom. There is no doubt that the "green" issue has become an industry. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with recycling and taking care of our planet, however unfortunately, the politicians have now grabbed hold of the issue, and see it as another way to take more money off us! The debate about the programme has been noticeable by its absence from the BBC, who are quick enough to jump on any cause that is percieved to be for the global warming theory, and that is all it is, a theory. Incidentally, there has been no one, to my knowlege, that has taken the programme to task. Does that tell you something?

I did not see the programe, so my mind is not made up one way or the other. I agree that the earth has been through hot and cold and has seen the extinction of species just as important to themselves, no doubt, as us ape-descended parasites.

On the other hand, the increasing amount of carbon dioxide released by our self-indulgent over-exploitation of finite resources must have had some effect. I would agree that the politicians are latching onto yet another money-spinner, or, more likely, vote-winner. Let's face it, how many people glibly talked of carbon footprints a year ago?

What really concerns me is the lack of honesty and understanding about the whole business. We are not going to save the planet (how cute!) It's looked after itself for long enough and will continue to do so in one way or another. Let's have, and let the politicians and scientists have the honesty to say we are in the business of saving ourselves. We can't manage without earth; earth can well do without us.

In the same way, did we invade Iraq to save the poor Iraqis from the evil Saddam, as our leaders assured us we did? Well, they seem to be doing a better job of genocide than Saddam. Of course not, we did it to ensure ourselves more oil. If you doubt this, just type Iraq oil as a google search.

To continue my cynical line, what about the Conservative's recent suggestions about taxing air-miles for more than one short-haul flight per year? Do those of us who don't fly at all get a prize - green shield stamps perhaps. Or will we be able to sell our quota like farmers trade their surplus milk quotas? Or is Dave just after votes?

If you don't really believe politicians offer bribes, consider this. In May we have Assembly elections in Wales, which Labour are likely to lose - so are all the other parties, for that matter. So what's on offer? Plaid Cymru are offering all secondary school children a free lap-top, Lib-Dems are promising mobile dentistry, Labour will plant a tree for every baby born, and the Conservatives will give everyone two energy-efficient light bulbs.

I've said enough, so I won't say more.

Alan

There is a very scary article about global warming in the S Times colour supplement today.

I joined FoE in the mid-eighties because of my worries over global warming, so the apprehension about this is not a new phenomenon. It's just that recent events have caused far more people to take it seriously as a real threat, partly because of the undoubted changes in our weather patterns and the way in which the past few years have been the warmest on record.

I agree that the earth has been through hot and cold patches before. However, scientists have generally been able to chart these, through analysis of ice-cores etc, and these have shown that in the past such catastrophic changes have generally not happened so quickly. But where they have happened quickly, species have not been able to adapt and have died out on a massive scale.

The Stern report and the S Times article make it clear that if the climate heats up by, say, just a couple of degrees, that would make many areas of the planet virtually uninhabitable. Hotter than that, and vast swathes will be unliveable-in. What does Africa do? India? China? Where do all these people go?

The Stern report talked about this happening by the end of this century. The S Times article talks of it possibly happening within the next 40 years, since the author (a scientist) thinks that a substantial increase in CO2 emissions will lead to "positive feedback" from plants, causing even more CO2 emissions and intensifying the effect.

40 years - that might just be in my lifetime, certainly in my children's, and undoubtedly any grandchildren I may have. I agree with Alan that the planet does not need humans. However, it is very difficult to accept this unquestioningly, when it is my children and their babies that will be going through the physical pain of becoming extinct.

It is terribly scary, and absolutely NOT worth accepting the risk that so many scientists are wrong. I wish politicians could get together and try to come to a world agreement, but in default of that (and it's impossible without the US and would China and India agree?) I personally will feel better if I do everything I can to try to cut emissions and make my personal living more sustainable.

Alison.

there was a lot of press chatter about last summer about england having highest temp on record. what wasnt made clear was that the record temp was 0.2 of a degree hotter than that recorded by a vicar in his garden some hundred years previously. i would like to know how accurate was the vicar's themometer and how many sites in england were recording temperatures 100 (and 200) years ago compared with the present day . as allways we get sensational headlines without the information to confirm (or otherwise) the headline writers opinions.

whatever happens to englands co2 emmissions it is a drop in a teacup compared to those of the US, china, india etc , unless we all act worldwide 10% of the english doing something just aint going to make any difference at all, guess its time for a drink, home made blackberry wine has pretty well near zero food miles and co2 footprint

i dont know what to belive,you get told one thing and then another,although i do try like alison to be as green as possible,but now l.pool city council are charging adult fairs for children,and as this will cost me around £13 a day for me and my children too and from school,and only £15 a week if i use my car,you can all guess what option i will be taking.

I believe all right thinking people will try and minimise what they use and try and recycle as much as possible. However, that is not to "save the Earth" it is common sense, because we are running out of space.
If the FOE are so worried about CO2 emissions, why are they against Nuclear Power Stations. Don'tgive me the danger it might cause. France provides 80% of it's power this way, and if there were a disaster, we would get it anyway. Trouble is, people like the FOE try and frighten people into their way of thinking. Having served on our first nuclear submarine, and knowing something about it, I can honestly say that nuclear power is safe as long as it is treated properly, and we in Britain have a safety record second to none.
Incidentally, the Stern report was made by a civil servant who knows nothing about the problem, except what the gobal warming lobby and scientists have told him.

Yay Grock you're BACK!
That's ridiculous of your city council to charge children adult's fares on the bus! Just another example of the mixed messages we get from government about environmentally friendly living. Like the £10 per person tax on flying. Not enough to actually reduce the number of flights made, but will still make government a healthy sum of money - what will this be spent on?
I don't think there's much doubt there has been a marked and persistent increase in average temperature. On the Food Programme on Radio 4 they interviewed some rhubarb growers who have found it more difficult to ensure the required amount of chilling for the plants over the past few years.
What's causing it? Does it matter? It strikes me as somehow just plain morally wrong to pollute the atmosphere, waste limited fossil fuels and generate huge amounts of sometimes toxic waste on the unprecedented scale we are now doing. Careless and wasteful use of resources is something children do because they have no understanding of consideration for others nor any concern for how in the future their actions may come back to haunt them.

I'm not sure why I am not allowed to "give you the danger" nuclear power stations might cause - if there wasn't any danger, I and many others would doubtless support them!

I don't support nuclear power for many reasons, including that we haven't sorted the waste problem; that they would be a prime target for terrorists, which looks to be the way in which warfare is increasing; that I do have some worries about the safety of plants which have been built to the lowest tender and which are being operated under competitive conditions! The latest railtrack lack of maintenance (Cumbria accident) shows that when profits / funds are running low, corners do get cut. Then there's the mining of uranium; the fact that if uranium is being used for peaceful purposes it is easier for terrorists and others to get their hands on it to make nuclear weapons; the fact that you have a lot of energy eggs in one basket; the expense of construction, not just in money terms but also in emission terms - lots of other reasons.

I don't think, though, that reduction in emissions should stand or fall on nuclear power. I would prefer to see other initiatives to encourage more sustainable use, e.g.:

(a) energy conservation, since it is flagrantly wasted e.g. lighting up most of the sky in order to benefit traffic on the motorway; office blocks lit overnight. All houses should also be subsidised to be massively insulated, and public buildings e.g. new schools should all incorporate the technology to re-use the energy given off by lots of energetic small children! (And if all schools were as good as the best ones, that would hugely cut the number of car journeys to transport kids to further away schools, as they could all walk, not to mention making school lotteries unnecessary...)

(b) small-scale generation: for example, couldn't we have an energy policy that could include subsidies to provide solar panels and/or small wind turbines on every house (we could use the billions of pounds that nuclear power stations would cost); this energy to be fed into the grid when in surplus and taken back when not. And couldn't we have a sort of rumble-strips built into the busiest roads and motorways, preferably on a downgrade, so that cars going downhill could create energy that could be stored?

(c) better energy storage facilities. Perhaps some of the scientists putting lots of thought (and money) into making more and more effective weapons to sell to war-torn African countries could be diverted into environmental science inventions instead.

And of course let's encourage as many people as poss to grow their own food and have all allotments constructively busy, to reduce energy spent in food-miles.

Alison.

Hi Alison et all,
It seems a great pity that you didn't see the programme because I feel it may have saved you quite a lot of writing.
We have been advised by so many Pseudo-scientists as to global warming and the climate changes due to greenhouse gasses and the programme deals with these subjects very fully.
Alison you mention Ice Cores taken and the analysis samples. It seems strange but according to Professor Syun-Ictu Akasassofu Director of the Institute of Arctic Research Centre complains that the findings from his ice-core studies have been totally ignored and the figures that appear in the IPCC report are the exact reverse to what he has recorded.
There was a period between 1940 and 1975 when the carbon levels reduced and it was thought through those years that there was the onset of another Ice Age and that period is now called the Mini Ice Age.
CO2 plays so little part of greenhouse gasses that the parts have to be measured in parts per million and that CO2 is actually 0.54% of the atmosphere and as such plays a very very small part in the whole effect.
What we are being told is that global warming follows
a strict pattern from carbon emissions and Al Gore made a film about it and even received an Oscar for it.
According to the scientists who say he has made a total prat of himself because in order to convince everybody he shows a graph with two bands with almost identical patterns and asks his audience does anybody not any similarities? Great roar from his audience but he had pulled a typical political trick on them because the two bands are almost identical but they are 800 years apart so should not be presented as they are. It's called trickery!
CO2 emissions lag 800 years behind global warming because it is the oceans, that when heated, giving off their stored CO2 which causes the increase. Conversely when the oceans cool they become Carbon stores.
We have been continually told that Peat stores about 75% of stored CO2 which again is patently a pack of porkies.
I have the programme recorded and it has been offered to one person and in time anybody interested is welcome to view it. I have no way to take from Video and Make a few DVD's and am open to suggestions.
In fact any suggestion regarding getting it transferred would be gratefully received.
JB.

SUMARINER SAID
Incidentally, the Stern report was made by a civil servant who knows nothing about the problem, except what the gobal warming lobby and scientists have told him.
STERN is actually an economist, someone who knows the cost of everything and the worth of nothing.
It is said if the history of the Earth was in a book the size of the Bible, man would appear half way down the last page just makes you think how small we are in the overall picture of things.

from The Observer yesterday:

A Leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.
He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.
The film, shown on Thursday, was made by Martin Durkin. In 1997, he produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which attacked many of the claims of the environmental movement.
Durkin said: 'Carl Wunsch was most certainly not "duped" into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said.'

Channel 4 said: 'We feel it is important that all sides of the debate are aired. If one of the scientists featured now has concerns about his contribution, we will look into it in the normal way.'

Hi,
I did not see the program, but would like to offer as an answer to the problems arising from the exploitation of a reducing and potentially lethal resource.
Simply a massive reduction of our (world wide) population. Although too draconian for mine, and other tastes, this is THE way Mother Nature solves these sort of problems.
Relatively simple equations will give maximum sustainable human populations per world part, and then let the political/religious/racial wars begin.
In a cynical moment it would seem our world leaders are already busy solving the problem the way mother nature does.
I think the problems are not technical but cultural. We can solve all technical problems if we have the time, but we can not solve our blindness to our over-population problem, and that is a cultural thing.