Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Join us - Vote DeLargy!
Global Cooling
- Thread starter qzy
- Start date
Perhaps those who seem to think that because they take a dislike to someone, their personal views are rubbish [as follows with this silly 'Daily Mail' nonsense - no paper has a monopoly on publishing rubbish] - might like to read the following from a new feed I get by email - the actual articles are linked in at the end, and the one in The Guardian is particularly good.
Although these pieces are all on the biofuel mania, they all make the same point I do regarding the industrial and political lobbies involved here; and I'd add the point that they clearly demonstrate how little those in charge [ie politicians & planners] understand about the science involved in the whole subject - and how easily pressured they are by lobbies with financial interests WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT:
Header:
EU Development Commissioner admits that "fashion for biofuels could be a catastrophe"
Reuters notes that divisions are appearing within the EU Commission on biofuels. Development Commissioner Louis Michel reportedly told the Belgian Senate on Tuesday that "I have long said that the fashion for biofuels could be a catastrophe especially in countries which are not self-sufficient in food".
The Chairman of the EU Environment Agency told the IHT that biofuel targets were the result of a blinkered approach to EU policy-making: "the basic problem is [the Commission] thought of transport alone, without considering all these other effects. And we don't understand those very well yet."
Richard Pike, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, has a letter in the Independent, in which he argues that the EU's target for 10% use of biofuels by 2020 will do more harm than good for the environment: "Any targets for biofuel use set for 2020 is almost certainly going to increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over the period to that date."
Simon Jenkins has a comment piece in the Guardian on biofuels, arguing that "Until recently, most greenery has seemed no more than a feelgood parlour game. Now it is getting serious... Playing these games has so far made a few people very rich at the cost of the taxpayer. Now the cost is in famine and starvation."
Reuters also notes that 'EU experts' estimate that at most only 6 percent of the EU target can be met from domestic production and at least 4 percent will have to be imported. Imported biofuels raise serious concerns, according to the IHT, as rain forests and peat swamp are already being cleared to make way for biofuel plantations, a process that produces more emissions than the biofuels can save.
The Guardian
The Indy, letter
Int Herald Tribune
Reuters
Although these pieces are all on the biofuel mania, they all make the same point I do regarding the industrial and political lobbies involved here; and I'd add the point that they clearly demonstrate how little those in charge [ie politicians & planners] understand about the science involved in the whole subject - and how easily pressured they are by lobbies with financial interests WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT:
Header:
EU Development Commissioner admits that "fashion for biofuels could be a catastrophe"
Reuters notes that divisions are appearing within the EU Commission on biofuels. Development Commissioner Louis Michel reportedly told the Belgian Senate on Tuesday that "I have long said that the fashion for biofuels could be a catastrophe especially in countries which are not self-sufficient in food".
The Chairman of the EU Environment Agency told the IHT that biofuel targets were the result of a blinkered approach to EU policy-making: "the basic problem is [the Commission] thought of transport alone, without considering all these other effects. And we don't understand those very well yet."
Richard Pike, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, has a letter in the Independent, in which he argues that the EU's target for 10% use of biofuels by 2020 will do more harm than good for the environment: "Any targets for biofuel use set for 2020 is almost certainly going to increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over the period to that date."
Simon Jenkins has a comment piece in the Guardian on biofuels, arguing that "Until recently, most greenery has seemed no more than a feelgood parlour game. Now it is getting serious... Playing these games has so far made a few people very rich at the cost of the taxpayer. Now the cost is in famine and starvation."
Reuters also notes that 'EU experts' estimate that at most only 6 percent of the EU target can be met from domestic production and at least 4 percent will have to be imported. Imported biofuels raise serious concerns, according to the IHT, as rain forests and peat swamp are already being cleared to make way for biofuel plantations, a process that produces more emissions than the biofuels can save.
The Guardian
The Indy, letter
Int Herald Tribune
Reuters
Rory thank you for your - as always - well reasoned and measured contribution.
I hope I do try to present backup for my opinions; but in some cases the facts are so easy to find that I get a bit exasperated just reading a bare statement to the contrary. I have ALWAYS done a great deal of research before I wade into an argument such as this - and this subject's not only important, the decisions being made and to be made in this area affect every single one of us, in more ways too than we might imagine. Yes I do have robust views on certain things, and that's because I've done the research [which was my profession]. As I do so much reading up in certain areas, it's not always simple to post up something which sums up the total of all that I've read - it's usually years of reading in a lot of sources.
I take your point about 'the media' ..... BUT the fact is that politicians, for the reasons you cite, DO take notice of the media, just because a lot of voters are easily swayed - so if a panic is generated right across the media they feel they have to act to appease it. And this Global Warming panic HAS been pushed in all the news media, TV and radio as well as written.
Being a lot older than some on here, I've seen this kind of 'run' many times! And what I've seen is that, as in the case of AIDS, BSE/CJD, the impending "Ice Age" in the 70s, and now Global Warming, the media-induced panic grossly distorts the terms of the debate, often/usually because it has a faulty grasp of the science. In this sense, my point in mentioning 'the media' as a blanket term is exactly that it's the NEWS which drives these panics, and politicians respond. Often like headless chickens. My original point was that politicians are now so much at the mercy of parliamentary lobbies - something few people seem to be aware of - that a powerful lobby allied to a media panic overrides rational law-making.
Gareth for the last time: All news media during the 80s panic over Aids, were predicting an imminent crossover of the virus from the homosexual to the heterosexual, in the Western world and everywhere: they'd been predicting millions of HETEROSEXUAL deaths in the West. There was no rational reason *on the available science* to predict this transfer, and it DIDN'T occour. The media didn't prevent that - it was a nonstarter anyway!
Agreed the Govt - and the media - did a great and very necessary job halting the epidemic in the gay community - but that wasn't my original point.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I don't agree with this at all, Headstrong.
Your use of the word "crossover" in terms of AIDS moving from the homosexual to heterosexual community is out of context at best. No such "crossover" was ever predicted, and it was quite clear that heterosexual HIV contraction would most likely come from blood tranfusions, or unhygenic intravenous injections. Sexual transmission between heterosexual partners was always considered a secondary mechanism.
The reason that there haven't been many more deaths from AIDS in both communities in the West, is due in large part to the development of drugs which keep the HIV virus in check.
The epidemic in Africa is predominately among the heterosexual community, but because African states tend not to have the funding available for the drugs, or the infrastructure required to rollout treatment, the HIV virus kills many more than it does in the developed world.
If it hadn't been for the panic (as you call it) in the 1980's, it is likely that some of the drugs now used for HIV treatment would never have been developed - or at least, not developed until we were dealing with an epidemic of our own.
AIDS does not descriminate between homosexual or heterosexual. If you want your arguments on this subject to be taken seriously, you might consider adopting the same stance yourself.
Edited to correct the spelling of "unhygenic" (it seems so obvious now).
Back to GW: try this one for another angle:
Investors' Business Daily:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
In addition to sun cycles, the earth's temperature is also massively influenced by undersea volcanic activity which has been greater than usual recently.
Added to that, methane is a far more dangerous gas than CO2 and is increasing quickly due to the newly affluent in Asia converting to meat diet.
The balance of oxygen/ CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact currently heavily under threat due to the razing of forest areas esp in S America - to plant biofuels.
Investors' Business Daily:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
In addition to sun cycles, the earth's temperature is also massively influenced by undersea volcanic activity which has been greater than usual recently.
Added to that, methane is a far more dangerous gas than CO2 and is increasing quickly due to the newly affluent in Asia converting to meat diet.
The balance of oxygen/ CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact currently heavily under threat due to the razing of forest areas esp in S America - to plant biofuels.
A paper on sun spot activity was given to the International Conference for Climate Change this year.
You can get the whole paper by clicking on 'here' between the title and the 'highlighted excerpts'.
It comes as a download and it's 30 pages long and very detailed. This is up to the minute research - I've not read it all yet but I've downloaded it and skimmed
Solar Cycles and Climate change
[I've found one problem in trying to keep tabs on this topic is that so much is a year or two out of date - and the research is moving very fast].
You can get the whole paper by clicking on 'here' between the title and the 'highlighted excerpts'.
It comes as a download and it's 30 pages long and very detailed. This is up to the minute research - I've not read it all yet but I've downloaded it and skimmed
Solar Cycles and Climate change
[I've found one problem in trying to keep tabs on this topic is that so much is a year or two out of date - and the research is moving very fast].