Carbon footprint question

[The Natural Philosopher]

They are in fact fairly correct.

Ships seldom get stuck in wasteful traffic jams or have to wait with their engines idling at traffic lights.

[The Natural Philosopher]

More rubbish.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Depends on whether it refuses to import anything from China and India.

WE don;t directly emit..we buy the stuff made by the emissions of others. A fact conveniently neglected.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Shit stirring.

Yes.

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Good grief, how have you managed to avoid it?

What was it some American sain on radio 4 yesterday

"Your child has a slight fever: Do you

(a) go to the doctor who says 'this may well be and probably is the start of something VERY serious, we should take immediate action inorder to preventy it getting worse"

(b) Go to an astrologer who says 'no one can prove that this means anything at all. Ignore it'"

[Mary Fisher]

Just sit here?

No, they should be free to put their feet on the accelerator.

Mary

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:13:37 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Those who simply sling mud at FoE may be believed by some, but most people are intelligent enough to dismiss such mud-slinging.

FoE research can be challenged in the usual way. I note that you have not done so.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I wasn't aware they did any research *to* challenge.

[Andy Hall]

Poor analogy

All of this presupposes that

a) the bus is rolling over the cliff

b) that there are any brakes

c) that they actually do anything

[Andy Hall]

Nope. Serious question.

I remain to be convinced.

[Andy Hall]

Not reasonable analogies.

[John Stumbles]

How many mpg?

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:37:23 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Yawn. Perhaps this tells us more about you than it tells us about FoE.

[Mary Fisher]

Without evidence the comment (which I didn't see) is worthless.

Mary

[Huge]

Dunno about container ships, but I once worked it out for the Royal Navy's landing ship HMS Fearless, and it was about 3 feet per gallon...

I expect container ships are a lot more efficient; fuel efficiency is not one of the armed forces' priorities.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not to an unreasonable person, no.

[The Natural Philosopher]

probably about 1.. or less.

The great saving is the staff they don;t have and therefore the consumption they don't generate :-)

[The Medway Handyman]

It was well referenced and the opinions were from leading scientists. Because it contradicted your beliefs doesn't mean any deciet was involved at all.

Which seems to be exactly what you are doing.

[Roger]

The message from "nightjar" contains these words:

Of all the various points of the skeptic's case I think this is about the only one that merits serious consideration and it is luckily a very simple point to test. All that is required is to review the Earth from outside the atmosphere and see whether or not there is the expected complete lack of radiation at the absorption frequency for CO2. It doesn't really matter if the requirement is for 15% or 50%. If the limit has passed any additional CO2 should have an extremely limited impact outside the absorption band (if the graph I came across can be relied on).

AFAICR the Channel 4 program made no mention of CO2 being surplus to requirements. ISTM much the reverse as it claimed that CO2 did nothing as there was so little of it in the atmosphere.

[nightjar]

...

Probably because none has been presented. Chapter 1 of the IPCC report, hailed as the definitive view, clearly states that its assessments are based on expert judgement rather than on formal studies. Even then, in many areas, those experts only think it 'more likely than not' that anthopogenic activity contributed in some, unquantified way to the changes.

Colin Bignell