Fox, your funding supposition is flatly not the case.
From the data and opinions I've seen Username--and no, I won't look it up again as I've posted it in the past here or on other threads--I think the evidence will show that all or most scientists who are putting forth the human-caused global warming theory are receiving funding that would become shaky or nonxistent if they should agree that there is no evidence of global warming or that there is nothing that humans can do to stop what global warming exists.
Quote:It could easily be said that most or all of the 'scientists' supporting the people-causd global warming theory receive their funding depending on how much evidence exists for such.
It could, if you don't mind lying.
Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre wrote:From the data and opinions I've seen Username--and no, I won't look it up again as I've posted it in the past here or on other threads--I think the evidence will show that all or most scientists who are putting forth the human-caused global warming theory are receiving funding that would become shaky or nonxistent if they should agree that there is no evidence of global warming or that there is nothing that humans can do to stop what global warming exists.
A deeply silly proposition, even if the motive for speaking it or formulating it are transparent.
Let's take the recent case of Jim Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whom Bush appointees have tried to silence.
Let's take Bush's own science council scientists, who concur that global warming is real, that it is influenced by human activity, and that the overwhelming scientific consensus holds precisely those same conclusions.
These scientists work in government positions to do precisely what we count on scientists in those positions to do...research and publish findings on matters of critical importance to scientific knowledge and the health and well-being of citizens. Their jobs are not dependent on special interests nor are their research projects. And, as the Hansen and other cases demonstrate, it is when their research points in opposition to energy industry interests, that is when that research and that job become at risk.
Jim Hanson would have a lot more credibility if his calculations in the past hadn't been shown to be so wrong. He should not be the last word on this by any means, but he seems to be the poster boy for those who so desperately WANT there to be global warming and who WANT the government to impose all manner of restrictions on human activity.
There is way more than one agenda in play here.
can we learn about energy conservation from the japanese ?
this article appeared in the 'guardian' newspaper .
certainly something to chew on !
anyone ready to 'bundle up' when going to the office ?
btw something that really bugs me is entering a shopping centre in the winter and having 'to strip' because of the heat and 'having to bundle up' in the summer because the air-conditioning is going full blast - i guess energy is still cheap in north-america.
hbg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Turn off the heat - how Japan made energy saving an art form
A nation with few fossil fuels is finding a pioneering way to secure its future
Anthony Faiola in Kamiita
Friday February 17, 2006
The Guardian
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday February 18 2006
The article below stated that Japan's oil consumption has remained steady since 1975 while the accompanying graph showed an increase of 21% between then and 2004, with US consumption rising by 26%. However both of the 2004 figures were wrong, with US consumption in fact being 20.73m barrels and Japan using 5.53m. The US increase was therefore 27% compared with Japan's 16%, but still too much to justify the claim that consumption in Japan has remained steady.
When the Japanese government issued a national battle cry against soaring global energy prices this winter, no one heeded the call more than Kamiita, a farming town in the misty mountains of western Japan.
To save energy, officials shut off the heating system in the town hall, leaving themselves and 100 workers no respite from near-freezing temperatures. On a recent frosty morning, rows of desks were full of employees bundled in coats and blankets, nursing flasks of hot tea. To cut petrol use, officials say, most of the town's 13,000 citizens are strictly obeying a nationwide call to turn off car engines while idling, particularly at traffic lights.
Japan, the world's second-largest economy, has no domestic sources of fossil fuel and, facing rising oil prices, has turned energy efficiency into an art form. Japan's oil consumption has remained steady since 1975, while world consumption has risen steadily. It has dramatically diversified its power sources over the years, becoming far less dependent on oil and cultivating a culture of conservation.
Kamiita's decision to turn off the heat, which brought it national media attention, came after a nationwide "warm biz" campaign led thousands of businesses and government offices to set their thermostats no higher than 20C (68F) this winter while encouraging employees to wear warm clothes at work. If it sounds like a gimmick, consider the figures from the "cool biz" campaign launched by the prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, last summer. Companies including Toyota, Hitachi, Isuzu and Sharp asked everyone, from the chief executive down, to strip off their much-loved ties and jackets as office air conditioners were set no cooler than 28C (82.4F). In metropolitan Tokyo alone, the campaign saved 70m kilowatts of power between June and August - enough to power a city of a quarter of a million people for one month, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company.
Vehicles with low emissions account for almost 11m, or 21%, of cars on Japan's roads. Across greater Tokyo, the world's largest metropolis, "intelligent machines", from subway ticket machines to building escalators, automatically switch off when not in use.
The government has set strict new energy-saving targets for 18 types of consumer and business electronics. Home and office air conditioners, for instance, must be redesigned to use 63% less power by 2008. The targets have sparked a gold rush among electronics makers, who are churning out record numbers of energy-saving - but more expensive - consumer products.
Canon's $225 (£130) Pixus MP500 printer, which uses 60% less electricity than the company's other models, has become the number-one seller in Japan despite cheaper options on the market. Matsushita, maker of the Panasonic and National brands, is selling a $600 energy-efficient ceiling lamp that tells users "You are saving 10% on electricity" each time it is switched on. Last year, the company entered the housing business and is now building suburban "eco-homes" equipped with energy-saving gadgets and solar panels that can cut the average power bill of about £105 a month by 65% .
Kyoto protocol
It can take years for savings on energy bills to offset initial investment in some products. Thus, experts say, Japan's boom is not likely to spread abroad until product prices come down. But with opinion polls showing that more than three-quarters of Japanese people view energy conservation as a personal responsibility, many are willing to pay.
That has helped make Japan's energy consumption per person almost half that of the US. Conservation fever swept the nation after the Kyoto protocol, the 1997 treaty written in Japan that aims to reduce greenhouse gases. The US has not ratified the treaty. But experts say Japan's transformation dates from before Kyoto - and is rooted more in economics than environmentalism.
After the 1970s oil crisis, Japan "went into a panic. We have no oil of our own, and are completely dependent on imports," said Takako Nakamura, an official at the global environment bureau of the environment ministry. "That weakness changed the way we looked at energy."
The country embarked on a major effort to wean itself off oil. Japan imports 16% less oil than it did in 1973, although the economy has more than doubled. Billions of dollars were invested in converting oil-reliant electricity-generation systems into those powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear energy or alternative fuels. For instance, Japan now accounts for 48% of the world's solar power generation.
At the same time, Japanese industries have dramatically reduced oil consumption. Nippon Steel, the country's largest steelmaker, has cut its dependency on oil by 85% since 1974; oil now accounts for 10% of fuel used to heat its factory furnaces.
Oil was replaced in part by coal, a cheaper and more abundant fossil fuel. Yet critics say reliance on coal or natural gas remains a temporary solution, particularly as prices have risen along with those for oil.
Alternative energy
So Japanese companies are focusing increasingly on efficiency and alternative energy. Five of Nippon Steel's 10 factories are burning used tyres and recyclable plastics such as discarded shopping bags and bottles as well as coal. Spurred by the Kyoto protocol, Japan's steel industry has made significant upgrades at its plants. Factories can produce one tonne of steel using 20% less fuel than American steelmakers - and 50% less than those in China, according to the Japan Steel Association.
Some industries have done even better. The paper industry is using waste-based or alternative energies for 38% of its power.
"We recognise that there is an important environmental issue at stake, but economically it has also worked out for us," said Hiroshi Nakashima, a manager at Nippon Steel. "Improved energy efficiency means we need to buy less fuel, and that saves money. Otherwise, we never would have done it."
But energy conservation can have its drawbacks. Back in the cold town hall in Kamiita more workers are coming to the office wearing masks and taking preventive medicines to ward off colds.
The vast majority of the town's workers had agreed in a survey that the heat should be switched off to save on energy.
"I think we're doing the right thing," said Masaki Iuchi, 34, a dog catcher. "But it's not always comfortable."
· Additional reporting by Akiko Yamamoto and Robert Thomason, Washington Post
The Japanese also have Godzilla...
The Japanese also have Godzilla...
of course that's merely MY opinion...
I've got an interesting announcement for a call for papers today:
The German Historical Institute in Washington is pleased to announce a
conference on Environmental History and the Cold War, to be held in
Washington, 22-25 March 2007.
The Cold War era coincided with decades of dramatic changes both in the
natural environment and in the ways in which people, societies, and
cultures understood nature, the environment, and ecology. What were the
links between events and structures in geopolitical history and those in
environmental history? The conference will explore answers to this
question.
To be honest: I've never thaught to combine those two topics.
Hanmurger,
The 'correction' added to the quoted article was most illuminasting. If you keep it in mind as you reread the article, it becomes evident that this was more than simply the correction of a numerical detail. Indeed it cuts the heard out of two of the principal propositions offered in the article itself. Overall a very interesting example of the attractive falsehoods that can be propogated by perhaps well-meaning, articulate reporters whose interest in their conclusions and the dramatic impaact of their material exceeds their attention to the facts.
Quote:Most Indians Say India Should Limit Its Greenhouse Gases
See Global Warming as Important Threat
Reject Indian Government Position That Developing Countries Are Not Obliged to Limit Emissions
Source and full report (includes link to Questionnaire/Methodology)
From the wolrd of business:
Quote:Shell linked to £2bn takeover of wind turbine firm
· Shares in Vestas rise 6% on rumours of symbolic step
· Move comes amid rising interest in green energy
Terry Macalister
Friday February 24, 2006
The Guardian
The oil major Shell was linked yesterday to a possible $3.5bn (£2bn) takeover of a leading wind turbine manufacturer, adding to the excitement around the alternative energy sector.
The value of Vestas rose 6% on the Copenhagen stock market amid mounting expectation that a major oil group could make a symbolically important move into "green" technology. Shell declined to comment.
There has been a massive surge of City interest in what has been seen until recently as a fringe part of global stock markets, helped by the high profile given to the government's energy review.
The latest green company admitted to the London market yesterday, Econergy, saw its shares rise 11% within hours. A day earlier, another company, Ceramic Fuel Cells, announced plans to list its shares and raise cash for new factories, probably in the north of England.
Shell, which made £13bn of profits last year, is already involved in some alternative energy projects but has so far only spent a relatively paltry $1bn in a range of small projects in areas such as wind, biofuels and solar.
The Anglo-Dutch group is using Vestas to provide turbines for an offshore wind scheme in the Netherlands as part of plans to increase its wind energy capacity from 350 megawatts to 500MW by 2007.
Shell is also planning to construct a £1.5bn wind farm in the south-east of England and has hopes of building others as far afield as China. But a move to buy Vestas would underline its green energy credentials and show a determination to be at the heart of the wind business, seen by British politicians as the most promising of the new energy sources.
A Shell spokesman refused to give any guidance on whether it was interested or not in the Danish wind firm. "We don't comment on market rumours," he said.
Analysts said it would be a good time to buy Vestas, given that its share price was hit by a profit warning before Christmas. There has been previous speculation that industrial predators such as Siemens or GE might be tempted to make a takeover move.
Mainstream energy analysts such as Bruce Evers at Investec Securities would not rule out a move by Shell but believed the returns from alternative energy schemes would be unsatisfactory for traditional shareholders.
"Shell is having trouble replenishing its oil reserves without getting involved in a sideshow such as this. Wind farms, fuel cells and the like is pretty tiny stuff when you look at Shell's quarterly profits from oil and gas, but I would not put a takeover past it," he said.
The oil industry is awash with money from historically high crude prices, which has attracted criticism. A bigger move into the wind sector would barely dent cash reserves and would improve its image with environmentalists who have been screaming for big oil majors to do more.
In November its rival BP launched its own alternative energy division and said it would invest up to $8bn over the next 10 years creating a low-carbon power business. BP intends to produce annual revenues of $6bn from this new business and is planning hydrogen plants in Scotland and California.
Possible diversification moves by Shell brought back bad memories for some oil industry experts. They remembered another time of very high oil prices in the past when Mobil - now ExxonMobil - bought the retail chain Montgomery Ward and BP had a meat business in the US.
But the purchase of Vestas by Shell or another mainstream industrial group would give further credibility to those alternative energy companies who have been beating their way to the stock market in Britain.
Econergy and Ceramic Fuel Cells join about 20 others in a growing alternative energy sector, which is estimated to be worth, in total, £1bn by the end of last year. Their value is estimated to have risen a further 30%, partly on the back of renewed interest in alternative technology following the government's energy review into the future of Britain's power needs.
But there are many uncertainties surrounding the sector, not least whether Tony Blair will, as expected, opt for a new generation of nuclear power stations. That could suck money away from alternative energy projects and companies, green supporters fear.
Source
why are you surprised Oralloy?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:why are you surprised Oralloy?
I picked the icon to indicate alarm more than surprise.
ok
I thought you were sceptical about the anthopogenic causes of climate change.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:ok
I thought you were sceptical about the anthopogenic causes of climate change.
I just follow the lead of the IPCC. Before this, their position was that it was "more likely than not" that humans were the cause, but they did not have a high level of confidence.
I think most people are sleep walking into disaster. They have no understanding of what sustains their standard of living or what's in store for their grandchildren, or what is the root cause of terrorism. They should understand, because its not difficult, oil is only a little word.
David Adam wrote:A draft of the next influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report
It is interesting that Adams can tell a publication is "influential" before it's even published. Obviously he is clairvoyant.
David Adam wrote:will tell politicians that scientists are now unable to place a reliable upper limit on how quickly the atmosphere will warm as carbon dioxide levels increase.
... just as Donald Rumsfeld couldn't place a reliable upper limit on how many weapons of mass destruction were hidden in Iraq. It appears that in both cases,
lack of information is used as an affirmative basis for scaremongering.
And I still find scientific opinions that cast a skeptical eye on the green house emissions global warming group.
This information, for instance, does not in any way rule out humankind's contribution to the global warming puzzle, but it definitely suggests that we may not be getting the whole picture.
Quote:In sum, atmospheric warming -- the warming for which we currently have the clearest evidence -- is a local and regional phenomenon more than a global one, and it appears to be due more to human-caused energy production and water emissions than to carbon dioxide emissions.
This is not to take a position for or against global warming as such. Nor is it to downplay the potentially grave significance of any large- scale alteration of the natural environment. Nor again is it to dismiss the global significance of local and regional warming. When a NASA study of the metropolitan Atlanta area finds that the rainfall in rural areas southeast of the city, was the result of Atlanta's "heat-island" effect, we can no longer deny mankind's effect on the greater environment. The possibilities of even larger regional effects continue to be studied by various researchers.
Even if the globally averaged temperature fluctuations reflect improper measurements or natural periodic variations, it seems impossible to attribute local and possibly regional temperature fluctuations to anything other than man-made influences. We have yet to see a report that denies the existence of the "heat-island" effect. There is also sufficient evidence to suggest that the atmospheric levels of water vapor are rising and may be responsible for local and regional changes in temperature and in weather patterns.
If there is a moral to the story, it is that prolonged scientific debate and confusion can sometimes result from a failure to step back and look at all aspects of a problem. And a second moral is that out-of-context technological fixes aimed at a single aspect of a complex whole may prove destructive. Much of the research on alternative fuels today is premised on the belief that water vapor is a benign emission. But if we have learned anything over the past decade, it is that a life-giving element can become destructive if it is removed from a balanced context. The faith being placed in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies (which emit nothing but water) may need more thorough study.
The only solutions that will truly decrease the destabilization of the environment are those that work in conjunction with the entire natural process found in any given ecosystem. A greater study and understanding of the complex interactions found within natural ecosystems may indeed yield important details in this regard and point to real solutions to these problems.
Whole article
HERE
Again I don't know what to think about it all. But I want us to get it right before we go off chasing shadows and require alterations of lifestyles that will not correct whatever problem exists.
