contrails

Tom Gardner wrote:


Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? Didn't think so. You don't know, I don't know.
All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? Do you want
electricity? How will it get generated?

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just know human nature...once we
have something (luxuries, etc. like easy travel, electricity) nobody
wants to give it up.

So, give me a list of what you will do to reduce your carbon
contributions...maybe it will give me some ideas.

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable
and regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate
because it is a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t.
energy futures.

On Jan 10, 12:32*am, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. *Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? *

Your argument is silly and unhelpful.

Can you prove the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning?
Can you prove that 1+1=2?

No, you can't.

In this life on this planet (as opposed to any other life on any
other planet) we have to make best guesses to the future,
and bet our health and lives on those guesses.

All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
* Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? *

Carbon credits are, IMNSHO, a scam in multiple dimensions:
- they are a fig leaf to allow us to continue unchanged
- simple criminal fraud, as is beginning to become apparent

Do you want
electricity? *How will it get generated?

Ah, now that one I can answer, by reference...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

"For anyone with influence on energy policy, whether in
government, business or a campaign group, this book
should be compulsory reading." Tony Juniper
Former Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

"At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true
facts about sustainable energy in a form that is both
highly readable and entertaining." Robert Sansom
EDF Energy

"The Freakonomics of conservation, climate and energy."
Cory Doctorow,

"...a tour de force..." The Economist
"... a cold blast of reality ... a must-read analysis..." Science
magazine
"...this year's must-read book..." The Guardian

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:

Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

..../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/ or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out that www.withoutair.com is hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/or its backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comis hosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
- he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.

On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:





On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/orits backup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comishosted on a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:25*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:



On Jan 10, 1:45*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:25:00 -0800, Tom Gardner wrote:
Please do read the reference I've given below. It is readable and
regarded as authoritative by *all* "sides" in this debate because it is
a disinterested analysis of our options w.r.t. energy futures.

.../snippage/...

A book that has won plaudits from *all* sides (i.e. big oil, big
electricity, politicians, multiple environmental organisations) is
http://www.withouthotair.com/oritsbackup site
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/

A quick comment: this is a *great* reference site. However I've just
found out thatwww.withoutair.comishostedon a bandwidth-limited server
that forbids access once the monthly limit is exceeded. If you get a
'bandwidth exceeded' error when trying to access it, use the backup site.

I mouthed words when I saw the "bandwidth exceeded"; presumably
that's an indirect indication of the high regard in which the book is
held.

I particularly like Mackay's attitude:
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge problems" and
* - he's sick of hearing "there are huge opportunities" and
He wants to know which "huge" is huger, and he does that by
generating
numbers from theoretical physics and chemistry, and then cross-
checking
them against measurements.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

Very true.

MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
"normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
- work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
- for each use to which that area could be put, how
much can we extract
- what are our current needs, and how could they be
realistically changed
Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
or aircraft etc.

On 10 Jan, 20:39, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:




MacKay has interesting, simple and plainly valid
"normalisation techniques", *one* of which is:
* - work out the land area we each occupy (in the UK)
* * i.e. area/population, which has to be sufficient for
* * all our needs if we are to be self-sufficient
* - for each use to which that area could be put, how
* * much can we extract
* - what are our current needs, and how could they be
* * realistically changed
Examples are energy from wind, energy from crops,
energy for food, energy for cars or busses or trains
or aircraft etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The UK Government was very keen on carbon neutral biofuels from crops,
until it was pointed out to them that the land area required would
leave very little for growing food!

Derek Copeland

On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:
Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

As MacKay says ...

In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.

We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
sible, comparable, and memorable.

With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
such as these:
1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
en-
ergy sources?
2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
outside
temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
“an enemy of the people”?
6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
govern-
ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
“advocating acts of consumption”?
7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

On Jan 10, 1:47*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

As MacKay says ...

In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.

We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
sible, comparable, and memorable.

With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
such as these:
1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
en-
ergy sources?
2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
outside
temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
“an enemy of the people”?
6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
govern-
ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
“advocating acts of consumption”?
7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

I sort of liked the "tongue in cheek" idea expressed in (I think) the
San Jose, CA Mercury News that gasoline taxes should escalate with the
amount purchased. For example, 5 gallons would cost $5 while 50
gallons would cost $500. Of course a Hummer could be driven station
to station buying 5 gallons at each but that would get tiresome in a
hurry. Meanwhile, the owner of a super-efficient vehicle would be
rewarded with $1/Gal gas.

On 10 Jan, 20:47, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:24*pm, Gary Evans wrote:

Quote from the book of Gore, chapter 7, verse 3.

Numbers can be our friend if we use them correctly.

As MacKay says ...

In a climate where people don’t understand the numbers, newspapers,
campaigners, companies, and politicians can get away with murder.

We need simple numbers, and we need the numbers to be comprehen-
sible, comparable, and memorable.

With numbers in place, we will be better placed to answer questions
such as these:
1) Can a country like Britain conceivably live on its own renewable
en-
ergy sources?
2) If everyone turns their thermostats one degree closer to the
outside
temperature, drives a smaller car, and switches off phone chargers
when not in use, will an energy crisis be averted?
3) Should the tax on transportation fuels be signi?cantly increased?
4) Should speed-limits on roads be halved?
5) Is someone who advocates windmills over nuclear power stations
“an enemy of the people”?
6) If climate change is “a greater threat than terrorism,” should
govern-
ments criminalize “the glori?cation of travel” and pass laws against
“advocating acts of consumption”?
7) Will a switch to “advanced technologies” allow us to eliminate car-
bon dioxide pollution without changing our lifestyle?
8) Should people be encouraged to eat more vegetarian food?
9) Is the population of the earth six times too big?

Hopefully yes to question 1 and possibly question 7, and no to the
rest.

If AGW is shown to be a scientific myth, I trust that the UK
Government will withdraw Airport Passenger Duty (tax) and other
'green' taxes.

Derek Copeland