AGW namby-pambyism and all that associated clap-trap BLASTED !

[Eeyore]

Sorry if I'm repeat posting, but this is really good news.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into
the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several
things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness
to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas
put forward would actually stack up.

Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of
Physics holds a PhD in computation from Cal Tech and a starred first in
Physics, so we can take it that he knows his numbers. And, as he points
out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon
emissions and energy use.

MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the
constant suggestion — from the Beeb, parts of the government etc — that
we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such
things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone
chargers.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is
madness. Skipping one bath saves as much energy as leaving your TV off
standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean
clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind
and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use
to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other
things.

Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as
sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This
means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to
consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon
fashion. He’s coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint,
but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty
becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil — as the North Sea
starts to play out — will also find his analysis interesting.
Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg
this week. “But it’s got to add up.”


Graham

 

[z]

Sorry if  I'm repeat posting, but this is really good news.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

 A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into
the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several
things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness
to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas
put forward would actually stack up.

Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of
Physics holds a PhD in computation from Cal Tech and a starred first in
Physics, so we can take it that he knows his numbers. And, as he points
out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon
emissions and energy use.

MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the
constant suggestion — from the Beeb, parts of the government etc — that
we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such
things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone
chargers.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is
madness. Skipping one bath saves as much energy as leaving your TV off
standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean
clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind
and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use
to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other
things.

Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as
sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This
means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to
consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon
fashion. He’s coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint,
but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty
becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil — as the North Sea
starts to play out — will also find his analysis interesting.
Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg
this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

Graham

but there are tons of "hard numbers" and concrete actions being
discussed, just not in the mass media.
http://astore.amazon.com/gristmagazine/detail/006117212X/102-2845933-8500152
or
http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacala-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf
or
http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/30/mckinsey-fighting-climate-change-is-affordable/
or
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/etp/index.asp
or
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indep...nomics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
or a fun educational game for the whole family
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Wedge_Game_Jan_2007.pdf

He/you are right of course; once you remove heating and cooling
(including refrigeration and A/C), the rest of the energy use of a
typical house could be supplied by a hamster running a treadmill, even
if you do commit the cardinal sin of leaving your cell phone charger
plugged in all day; there is a lot of silliness being bandied about,
which in the end wastes people's money and effort which could be
better used by just bribing a politician to vote for something that
would really make a difference (or, as we refer to it, campaign
contributions).

 

[Martin Griffith]

Sorry if I'm repeat posting, but this is really good news.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into
the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several
things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness
to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas
put forward would actually stack up. snip
Graham

It's getting so bad here, that the farmers can't afford to eat the
crops they grow, too expensive


martin

 

[[email protected]]

---
Funny!

True story:  My lovely wife went to the farmers' market the other week
to get some sweet corn and nobody had any.

Are we to infer that you have several wives, and that all the others
are no more than plain?

We can understand that the plain wives would have had trouble getting
sweet corn if it were merely in short supply, but if the lovely wife
couldn't charm it out of any of the stall-holders then there really
can't be any to be had.

 

[[email protected]]

Sorry if  I'm repeat posting, but this is really good news.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/

 A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into
the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several
things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness
to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas
put forward would actually stack up.

Professor David J C MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of
Physics holds a PhD in computation from Cal Tech and a starred first in
Physics, so we can take it that he knows his numbers. And, as he points
out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon
emissions and energy use.

MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the
constant suggestion — from the Beeb, parts of the government etc — that
we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such
things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone
chargers.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is
madness. Skipping one bath saves as much energy as leaving your TV off
standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean
clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind
and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use
to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other
things.

Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as
sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This
means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to
consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon
fashion. He’s coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint,
but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty
becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil — as the North Sea
starts to play out — will also find his analysis interesting.
Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg
this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

Amazing. Eeyore has posted something moderately sensible on AWG for
once. Professor MacKay has conveniently ignored his own point in
castigating the Beeb for encouraging people to turn off power
consumption that isn't doing them any good while ignoring power
consumption that isn't optional, but the takeaway message that we need
energy sources that don't depend on burning fossil fuel is entirely
unexceptionable.

 

[Eeyore]

Are we to infer that you have several wives, and that all the others
are no more than plain?

We can understand that the plain wives would have had trouble getting
sweet corn if it were merely in short supply, but if the lovely wife
couldn't charm it out of any of the stall-holders then there really
can't be any to be had.

Are we to infer that you're a hopeless idiot with no probable future
likelihood of employment for the rest of your life ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Amazing. Eeyore has posted something moderately sensible on AWG for
once.

Why did you EVER think otherwise ?

Over 30 years ago I 'invented' the heat recovery ventilation fan so that homes
could stay warm without danger of condensation or mold. Somewhere I still have
the sketches,

I was in no position to patent it and likely the patent would have expired
ever before such devices became common, yet you can buy them on ebay now.

From age 18 or so I KNEW that energy efficiency was the key to a pleasant
future for us humans.

Whilst I slightly 'treat' myself to an old Saab Turbo, it is without doubt
(even now) one of the most fuel efficient and least polluting cars in its
class. I do NOT feel bad about it.

I do NOT heat rooms in my house that I am not actively using and I have a plan
for a mass-product design that will enable everyone to achieve similar
results. Technology is a great thing. And it would not be difficult to do.

For various reasons I will not disclose details of this scheme unless someone
wants to pay me megabucks. I think it's easily worth that for a heuristic
heating system.

Professor MacKay has conveniently ignored his own point in
castigating the Beeb for encouraging people to turn off power
consumption that isn't doing them any good

He says it's a ridiculous drop in the Ocean.

I tend to agree. I have a STB that has a 'standby' switch yet all it does it
change the colour of the power LED. The power consumption stays the same
(Samsung 2110C IIRC btw)

while ignoring power consumption that isn't optional, but the takeaway
message that we need energy sources that don't depend on burning fossil fuel
is entirely
unexceptionable.

Now you're getting boring.

BTW, what's wrong with growing your own trees and using them for fuel ?

Graham

 

[Richard Henry]

Amazing. Eeyore has posted something moderately sensible on AWG for
once. Professor MacKay has conveniently ignored his own point in
castigating the Beeb for encouraging people to turn off power
consumption that isn't doing them any good while ignoring power
consumption that isn't optional, but the takeaway message that we need
energy sources that don't depend on burning fossil fuel is entirely
unexceptionable.

I was wondering if he had actually read the article he was linking.

 

[Richard Henry]

---
Funny!

True story:  My lovely wife went to the farmers' market the other week
to get some sweet corn and nobody had any.

They said everybody's planting corn for ethanol now.

Great.  Reductio ad absurdum, soon we'll all be able to drive to the
grocery store on the cheap but there won't be any food there.

That ethanol better not be denatured...

Like the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers used to say:

"Times of dope will get you through times of no money better than
times of money will get you through times of no dope."

Or: "Dope will get you through times of no money better than money
will get you through times of no dope."

 

[Eeyore]

I was wondering if he had actually read the article he was linking.

Were you ?

Graham

 

[[email protected]]

Are we to infer that you're a hopeless idiot with no probable future
likelihood of employment for the rest of your life ?

Only if your a sense of humour has atrophied, along with all the
neurones that once used to ace IQ tests.

 

[Richard Henry]

Were you ?

Graham

Yes, since I couldn't see the connection of the thread title to the
content of the article.

 

[Rich Grise]

Or: "Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will
get you through times of no dope."

I once heard a guy paraphrase that like this: "Dope will get you through
times of no pussy better than money will!" ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

BTW, what's wrong with growing your own trees and using them for fuel ?

They take too long to grow to useful size?

We should legalize pot - then hempseeds (for biofuel) would be free! ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

 

[JosephKK]

Yes, since I couldn't see the connection of the thread title to the
content of the article.

Did you learn anything?

 

[JosephKK]

You do realise that Prof MacKay thinks that AGW is real and that we
should do something *effective* about it - don't you ?

His gripe it with some of the nonsense in the popular press. Although I
can't see that much wrong with unplugging kit when not in use.

[snip]

I was wondering if he had actually read the article he was linking.

Very hard to tell. I don't think that he has actually read the book -
which though in draft form already looks like an interesting read:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf

The preface makes it pretty clear by page seven what the author thinks
of the sceptics and denialists. And the likes of Dominic Lawson in
particular. I doubt I will find much to disagree with in this book.

Regards,
Martin Brown

It is not so much that i think he really believes in AGW, but that he
does not believe in any of the purposed "solutions"

 

[JosephKK]

And neither can he. He even states what is a pretty good rough guide.
That if a wallwort device on standby is warm to the touch you would be
better off unplugging it and saving £1-2 a year. Some digital set top
boxes seem to consume about the same power on or off!


I suggest you read his book rather than guess about what he does and
doesn't believe. The online version is free to download. Certainly he is
laying into some of the stupid utterances of politcians, in the popular
press, and the wilder flights of fancy of the green movement.

So far so good.

But he states clearly that AGW is *real* and then asks what are we as
scientists going to do about it.

And that is why i will not bother with it.

He concedes that not everything the
denialists say is total crap as I mentioned on page 7 of the preface.
That is a long way short of accepting anti-science dittohead lies.

The ditto heads are very appropriately named aren't they.

He makes it very clear what his position is if you read the book instead
of the dumbed down precis taken out of context that the Register
highlighted. The braying dumb donkey would not have chosen such a
misleading thread title if he had *bothered* to actually read the
original source material.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I disagree with the A of AGW specifically. Michael Mann committed
scientific fraud.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

So you are not prepared to read about the science if it conflicts with
your deeply held political beliefs. How typically American.

No, you dittohead. I don't disagree that the planet's getting warmer -
it's been getting warmer and cooler over and over again for billions
of years.

Human activity has a neglible effect, if any at all.

And why do the warmingists continue to deny the negative feedback effect
from clouds?

Because they're *TRUE BELIEVERS*, and can't/won't even *SEE* anything that
doesn't fit into their dogma.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[JosephKK]

So you are not prepared to read about the science if it conflicts with
your deeply held political beliefs. How typically American.

Projecting as bit, are we? I have one political belief, and that is
that "politics is dirty".

Still with oil now headed for $200 a barrel your profligacy will finally
have to end.

My main transportation vehicle gets over 30 mpg.

Sadly yes and they appear to make up more than 50% of the US population.

No, only about 15%. And make up about about 40% of the noise.

Mann may have used the data to get a nicer looking fitted line more than
was appropriate, but there is still general agreement even among the
scientific sceptics that you cannot match the observed Earths warming
over the past 4 decades *without* including GHG forcing. And that you
cannot pretend the sun got brighter - we have satellite monitoring for
the relevant period.

First problem, the co2 concentrations have followed average
temperature for 400,000 years.

Second problem, none of the guessers will reveal their models yet.

You may wish to deny this. And I am quite sure you can find plenty of
adherents of the Rush Limbaugh school of atmospheric physics (sponsored
by Exxon) to back you up. The real science says otherwise.

I have yet to see much real science from either side.

The most annoying thing is when it all goes pear shaped politicians will
blame scientists for failing to warn them of the consequences of their
wilful inaction. Please note that I am not advocating anything beyond
the "no regrets" energy efficiency measures at present.

Your post, that i am responding to, disproves much of that assertion.

 

[Don Klipstein]

No, you dittohead. I don't disagree that the planet's getting warmer -
it's been getting warmer and cooler over and over again for billions
of years.

Human activity has a neglible effect, if any at all.

And why do the warmingists continue to deny the negative feedback effect
from clouds?

I say find citation that this is indeed happening now that we have some
warming. I did notice a lot of stuff being spouted along these lines in
the 1980's, and *greatly much less* nowadays. I suspect the reason is
that percentage of the Earth's surface having air overhead with RH 100%
has not measurably increased and it looks like that won't happen the way
plenty of AGW denialists liked to spout in the 1980's.

Because they're *TRUE BELIEVERS*, and can't/won't even *SEE* anything that
doesn't fit into their dogma.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])