How Should Mhks React To The Ipcc?

[Albert Tatlock]

However, there is no real proof that cutting carbon emmissions will reverse the problem. It may not even slow it down. I guess we will see.

 

Watch the film - no scientists studying this agree with you. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is established, it seems.

 

I continue to try to adopt sensible measures to reduce my impact at least. I think everyone should be encouraged to do the same - it might even catch on, you never know.

I think "An Inconevenient Truth" actually misses out quite a few inconvenient facts. We are witnessing the birth of yet another religion of stupidity.

 

Try reading this article first, before using this film to brainwash our kids. But of course - analysing - instead of religiously following some of the complete bollocks in this film will be too inconvenient for many.

 

Stookie - you're a virus mate.

[stookie]

However, there is no real proof that cutting carbon emmissions will reverse the problem. It may not even slow it down. I guess we will see.

 

Watch the film - no scientists studying this agree with you. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is established, it seems.

 

I continue to try to adopt sensible measures to reduce my impact at least. I think everyone should be encouraged to do the same - it might even catch on, you never know.

I think "An Inconevenient Truth" actually misses out quite a few inconvenient facts. We are witnessing the birth of yet another religion of stupidity.

 

Try reading this article first, before using this film to brainwash our kids. But of course - analysing - instead of religiously following some of the complete bollocks in this film will be too inconvenient for many.

 

Stookie - you're a virus mate.

Took you a few days to find that, eh? Actually that article does support claims made by Gore, an inconvenient truth for you , I think. The commentary also ignores the effect of the American oil industry's huge vested (current) interests in being allowed to fuel (pun intended) demand and their favourable treatment from an ex-Texan governor, now president.

 

Gore's film it has to be said is directed at a largely apathetic, selfish and unaware US public that has become so used to gorging itself on cheap energy it needs the smelling salts to come around a bit - it's no surprise that extreme predictions may be used to achieve that, even if to us in a more enlightened environment that may not be seen as the most helpful aspect of the message.

 

Of course, you can be just like them if you wish, apathetic, selfish and unaware.

 

BTW, don't "mate" me - not that I care, but if you're going to throw insults, at least do it properly.

[Albert Tatlock]

However, there is no real proof that cutting carbon emmissions will reverse the problem. It may not even slow it down. I guess we will see.

 

Watch the film - no scientists studying this agree with you. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is established, it seems.

 

I continue to try to adopt sensible measures to reduce my impact at least. I think everyone should be encouraged to do the same - it might even catch on, you never know.

I think "An Inconevenient Truth" actually misses out quite a few inconvenient facts. We are witnessing the birth of yet another religion of stupidity.

 

Try reading this article first, before using this film to brainwash our kids. But of course - analysing - instead of religiously following some of the complete bollocks in this film will be too inconvenient for many.

 

Stookie - you're a virus mate.

Took you a few days to find that, eh? Actually that article does support claims made by Gore, an inconvenient truth for you , I think. The commentary also ignores the effect of the American oil industry's huge vested (current) interests in being allowed to fuel (pun intended) demand and their favourable treatment from an ex-Texan governor, now president.

 

Gore's film it has to be said is directed at a largely apathetic, selfish and unaware US public that has become so used to gorging itself on cheap energy it needs the smelling salts to come around a bit - it's no surprise that extreme predictions may be used to achieve that, even if to us in a more enlightened environment that may not be seen as the most helpful aspect of the message.

 

Of course, you can be just like them if you wish, apathetic, selfish and unaware.

 

BTW, don't "mate" me - not that I care, but if you're going to throw insults, at least do it properly.

Nobody's denying that there is climate change going on - but the facts should be told as they are - and "An Inconvenient Truth" is simply full of holes and untruths - and SHOULD NOT be used in schools. Make a new documentary based on recent science by all means, but don't try to argue that this film is some kind of educational standard. All it teaches kids is that people can get away with bullshitting each other and that "consensus" is the new science - when the science in this film, even compared to IPCC data, doesn't match much of the real science.

 

I am far from apathetic, selfish and unaware. There is much to be done on climate change - and much yet to be discovered, better models to be built - and the research continues. But let's keep to the facts as we know them, not the political pseudo-science you are pedaling.

[stookie]

"An Inconvenient Truth" is simply full of holes and untruths - and SHOULD NOT be used in schools.

 

A bit like the Bible then?

[grant]

Welcome cambon, no central heating, bet your'e cold tonight, wait for Alberts response to stookie, now the bibles been introduced!!

[Albert Tatlock]

"An Inconvenient Truth" is simply full of holes and untruths - and SHOULD NOT be used in schools.

 

A bit like the Bible then?

Exactly.

 

Let's keep to the facts, and keep the politicians out of it until all of the facts are in and sensible recommendations can be made - rather than these knee-jerk political reactions for a frightened electorate that end up solving nothing (e.g. the recent air tax increase). My main worry is that we are going to throw an awful lot of money at all of the wrong things otherwise, and still end up with no working solution.

 

e.g. all of that money raised from air tax (and more) could have gone straight into subsidising rail fares and improving infrastructure, to get car drivers and some air travellers back onto the trains - thus lowering overall pollution - an instant result. Motoring costs have apparently dropped in real terms since 1990, and rail fares have gone up by 37%, so it's not rocket science to work out why there are more car drivers than ever - the railways in the UK are a disgrace. Money also needs to be invested in investigating the science of climate change too.

 

I'm perfectly happy for kids to be taught about climate change, but from the science perspective and not a pseudo-scientific political perspective.

[Cambon]

However, there is no real proof that cutting carbon emmissions will reverse the problem. It may not even slow it down. I guess we will see.

 

Watch the film - no scientists studying this agree with you. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is established, it seems.

 

I continue to try to adopt sensible measures to reduce my impact at least. I think everyone should be encouraged to do the same - it might even catch on, you never know.

 

So we all stop driving and flying right now world wide. The CO2 is already there, it has not gone away. The rain forest (lungs of the earth) are virtually gone and what is left can hardly cope with the CO2 output of animals and insects simply breathing.

 

Yes, cut back on emmissions, but it will not reverse what has already been done.

[Charles Flynn]

I find myself agreeing with much of these comments. Climate change is continuous and we can predict reasonably well what is going to happen over the next 50 or so years far better than for instance we can predict interest rates.

 

I accept Albert's comments that pseudo-science should be kept out of the debate and substituted at all times with sound science. However this is a matter for all of us, not only the scientific experts, but the politicians and all sectors of society worldwide.

 

There is of course a case for doing what we can as a small island in helping today's people to cope with hunger, malnutrition, drought rather than ploughing all our resources in terms of talent, finance into climate change over which we have little control compared to USA, China, India. We are small players and so we shouldn't be fooled into believing that anything we do will have a major impact. We must do our share in terms of adaptation and mitigation and trust future generations have a future, but also we have a duty to look at the things we can do in terms of overseas aid for people who are currently suffering. Their needs must not be neglected.

[Moghrey Mie]

The International Panel on Climate Change reported on Friday.

 

Their report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers is available here.

 

A web cast of the news conference is here

 

Anyone know if MHKs have been given a copy?

 

Stern using slightly older, and quite pessimistic models (but still in the IPCC ranges) said upto 5% of world GDP could destroyed by Climate change per year. That burden will be disproportionately borne by those who live in low lying areas likely to experience significant storms. That sounds too close to us for my comfort.

 

 

Maybe at the next sitting the President of Tynwald should ask the members whether they have done their homework and read the report. Then we would know if they are basing their policies on fact or fancy.