 | Saudi Arabia and that $1000 bet | The Oil Drum: Europe | A review of the underlying fundamentals of nuclear energy |  |
32 comments on UK Government: "energy security and climate change"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
32 comments on UK Government: "energy security and climate change"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I did and I was very disappointed with Channel 4 for showing it. 80% of it was a load of rubbish in my opinion.
There was some interesting bits, however it was full of half truths used to make incorrect points - how can they (quite rightly, see my article below) criticise Gore for not mention the lag (CO2 lags temperature in the paleoclimate) but then not explain how the paleoclimate really worked? See my article for explanation of paleoclimate here.
Only ignorant people or people trying to make the right point for the wrong reason (Gore) say the paleoclimate was driven by CO2 - no climate scientist worth his salt will say that.
I loved the way they described rotting leaves as a source of CO2, without mentioning the growth of leaves as a sink! There are too many stupid bits like that in this programme to take it seriously. Solar variation has been considered by the IPCC – and there simply hasn’t been the change to explain the last 30 years of warming.
Also – the tone of the programme was very cornucopian, industrial growth is good – no consideration for sustainability or resource limitations, no consideration of increased acidity of the seas due to increased CO2.
Well I thought it was good.
Finally a voice of dissent. I've pretty much given up on the BBC due to their insistance of reporting GW as a fact and not a theory. Now that's lazy tabloid journalism.
With as many experts in fields as was presented (plus no doubt many more who declined to appear on TV for fear of loss of funding/acceptance) puts significant doubt into just how much science is in this process and how much politics has interfered.
Why would I trust a bunch of individuals (IPCC) that I already do not trust to tell me whether or not I am affecting the climate when I know fine well that they're (UK government) already looking for a way to increase taxation and reduce mobility.
If I thought this was just about science then I'd be more agnostic on the whole thing.
But the politicalisation of the whole thing stinks. That and the inherantly redisributive policies that go along with such things as "carbon rationing/carbon trading" just raise my suspicions that the bandwagon has indeed been hijacked by the failed socialists of yesteryear.
Green. Its the new red. And I don't like it one bit.
Andy
andytk, I take it that you believe peak oil/gas is nigh but anthropogenic climate change is nonsense?
A very odd set of beliefs given that the mainstream now accepts AGW as fact but PO is viewed as some sort of doomsday cult.
He refuses to believe anything anybody else does.
Yup thats pretty much it. Peak oil is but a technical challenge.
Andy