"Kill the IPCC"

I did not call anyone on this thread a catastrophist. I used it of the viewpoint that current climate change will be catastrophic for humanity. This does seem to be a common viewpoint, even if not held by anyone taking part in this thread so I don't think I was being unreasonable. People can correct me with rational discussion and argument. So far no-one has.

However, the outrage about my use of the term catastrophist might just make people realise how bloody annoying the term denier is when there is no reason for using it. Complain about labels by all means, but then don't use them yourself.

Strong words Bags, I don't think 'outrage' was actually expressed rather a denial of 'catastrophist'..... does that make me a 'denier'?

By the way, I totally trust the findings of the IPCC as detailed in the news bulletins which coincided with the publication of the latest report.

As do I, Oldgreymare.
I do not understand the dichotomy between science and environmentalism, either. But I wouldn't,would I, as I studied environmental science at college.
Scientists think of a hypothesis, then prove the hypothesis.
Why do we need a new environmentalism? That just dismisses the thinking of environmentalists since the 60s.
Just because some of them have changed their minds does not mean they all have to. The main problem that this planet has is that there are far too many people using up scarce resources. That's what the IPCC is saying, in a round about way.

Over population is the source of our problems? Absolutely, it is however a problem that is moving towards solution as birth rates in many European countries fall below replacement rates. That has set another problem of migration of young workers from those countries whose birth rates have yet to fall to those where they have.

In the meanwhile we have to deal with existing problems. I shy a way from global warming as a phrase. I prefer climate change, it seems to be a neutral ground where nothing as to be advocated or denied. To me it makes sense to reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons to meet our growing need for energy. Hydrocarbon resources are currently being found faster than we consume them but this cannot go on for ever and an orderly development of other sources of energy generation cannot be anything but beneficial.

Our current system of unrealistic short term targets for emission reduction is leading to a distorted energy market where unjustifiably large subsidies are being thrown at short term fixes that undermine long term stability of supply. This money wold be much better spent on researching and developing more reliable sources of supply over a longer time period.

I remember going to a meeting with my MP and members of Greenpeace and FoE, etc., where they discussed carbon reduction for 2020 and 2050.
I said what was the point of us deciding about 2050 when most of us would be dead then anyway.
Deadly silence in the room, when they realised lots of them were older than me.
They are just good soundbites. We need short term targets as well as long term. We are missing most of the short-term.
Hydrocarbon resources are only being found faster than we use them providing we allow our countryside to be sacrificed to fracking.
I heard on the radio that there are over two hundred wells being drilled at the moment.
Did you know that?

Fracking doesn't worry me. It has been going on for decades onshore (Wytch Farm in Dorset is an onshore oil field that has been producing oil for decades and using fracking) and offshore without problem. Onshore oilfields take up very little space and once the field is depleted can be restored to their previous condition very quickly.

I am aware of problems in certain very limited areas in the USA but that has been because many coal and oil companies, particularly in West Virginia have both mined coal and extracted oil with a total disregard for human life and safety.

At various times wind turbines have burst into flames, broken off their pillars and spun wildly, dams have burst. Nobody would ban hydro or wind power because some installations were faulty.

Having said all that I would rather see us looking for alternative ways of providing the energy we need and conserving our hydrocarbon resources, but I do accept that they are going to provide a hopefully gradually diminishing in energy supply for sometime to come.

FlicketyB, you're right, of course. I keep writing global warming when I actually mean climate change. (Your post of 19:33:48).

A couple of days ago I went into my kitchen to get breakfast and saw the windows were steamed up. On the outside! I put that down to global warming. It's happened twice last month, so it's a definite trend.

Sadly this is a very emotive subject, argument between the environment movement, the energy companies, governments etc will rage for years.The solution is to explore all avenue's in small projects first,and if one proves successful, then add that to our energy supply. There are pro's and con's for all types of energy generation. What we can't do now at this late stage is to let the lights go out.

www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/06/energy-lobby-heat-on-labour
Whatever you believe about climate change, this is very worrying.
Change your enrgy company if you do not agree with this. Money and influence are obviously the only things the big six understand.

Some times people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The complaint has often been made that industry and government do not understand each other and that there should be more movement of staff between industry and the civil service. When that is done the companies are accused of infiltrating people into government to influence them! Yes, that was the idea, on both sides. You cannot have it both ways. This exchange is not limited to energy companies, most industries work hard to put their views to government committees and meetings and job exchange.

In the past many MPs came to politics after a careers in industry and commerce so knew and understood how the economy works on a practical basis. We now have a MPs who are political apparatchiks, who have worked n and around politics since they left university. They are clueless about industry and commerce. It was this lack of knowledge of reality that led to the very lax regulation of banking under the previous government - and we know where that led. It has also led to some of the volte face that George Osborne has made, hurriedly withdrawing budget announcements a few days after they were announced because they hadn't properly realised what effect it would have on individual industries and employment.

click.e-mail.christian-aid.org/?qs=314be059eb413bb9a907b94ac9d49d827c1d94a181085336b4f1ee3c9bdb6f2ad524f8fa2a6dd1fd

Even Christian Aid is against fracking.

Flickety, Cameron said that lobbying was the next thing to look into. He hasn't. Here's an interesting article about the fact that the government, which said it was going to be the greenest ever, never mentioned climate change at its conference, yet there are more people working in green energy than there are teachers in this country.
uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7x9QXtVNFVSkmEAyqNLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB1bWoxZmFkBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1VLQzAwMl83Mg--/SIG=16iq8d6d1/EXP=1381344469/**http%3a//feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663865/s/31e1687b/sc/7/l/0L0Stheguardian0N0Cenvironment0Cdamian0Ecarrington0Eblog0C20A130Csep0C30A0Cgeorge0Eosborne0Egreen0Eeconomy0Estupid/story01.htm
Sorry about the length of the link

liberalconspiracy.org/2013/10/07/labour-to-ambush-tories-on-their-links-to-energy-lobbyists/
Interesting article about lobbying, Flickety, with regard to damned if they do, damned if they don't. There needs to be a level playing field.

I wasn't talking about lobbying. I was talking about exchange of staff and individuals working across both sides of the divide.

Lobbying is something else and that most emphatically needs to be open and transparent.

I have read the Christian Aid site. It is against further development of hydrocarbon resources, a quite reasonable position, which it equates with fracking, although I am not sure why. Most new hydrocarbon resources can be exploited without recourse to fracking, which is a technique which has been around, and used in this country and abroad, onshore and off for decades. I am not sure why everybody has lived with it quite happily for so long and only recently decided they do not like it.

I am thinking of starting a campaign to stop the internet because some people watch vile pornography on it.

Where do you live, Flickety, in an area where they are not going to Frack? Maybe people have not lived quite happily with fracking, because they were not told about it and therefore did not know it was happening. It's only lately that we have been informed. I knew that in the north east they mined coal under the sea, but did not know if it was by fracking.
Anyway, the reason the Tory government want to push fracking is because they do not have any other ideas, and fracking is quick and easy for their friends to make money out of.
click.mail.theguardian.com/?qs=3463d19732a7ceeb5375cdb5bf8e70f01dcebe74c28ae8ff9f066b00296afbc3
Here's another interesting article for you to read about government energy policies.

Isn't natural gas a hydrocarbon mix, Flickety?
That's probably why Christian Aid is against fracking as a further development of hydrocarbon resources.

Jen, check to see if your cavities, between panes, are filled with argon?
A sign that your windows are working well, and internal heat is not being reflected out causing outside fogging, under certain conditions.
Once again a misconception regarding global warming, I wonder how many scientists make similar mistakes? You need all the facts to make a decision, very difficult when the parameters are in constant flux, often for unknown reasons. Lets put it down to global warming, or the devil perhaps.
By the way you didn't say if you "looked up" the grave robbing story, on the green piece thread.