Scientists are reported to be puzzled by the oceans failure to warm.

Polish President says human race will disappear if homosexuality is promoted during visit to Ireland.

link

So maybe it's not cows after all!

I'm so glad to be vegetarian and heterosexual.

"Polish President says human race will disappear if homosexuality is promoted during visit to Ireland."

What if it's promoted when not visiting Ireland?

The sad part is that the people who think that methane is harmless will be the same ones who think the guy has a point about homosexuality.

Deviant sexual behaviour and methane gas has someone been poking around in parliament?

I'm starting to wonder if all this 'human caused global warming' is all just a lot of old flatulence. Anyone remember the gigantic hysteria about the millenium bug?

HA,

Large amounts of money were spent fixing systems that were susceptible to Y2K problems. That doesn't mean that Y2K would't have been an issue if it wasn't addressed.

You may as well ask does anyone remember the hysteria about Cholera in London, and use the fact that there's not been a major epidemic since to cast doubt on germ theory.

Frank

Companies, countries and individuals who did nothing about Y2K didn't have any problems either.

The worldwide scare over the Y2K bug’ resulted in the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars on Y2K compliance and conversion policies. Most of this expenditure can be seen, in retrospect, to have been unproductive or, at least, misdirected

You might as well credit people changing their light bulbs with the fact that 2007 was the coldest year of the century so far.

Human Animals,

"Anyone remember the gigantic hysteria about the millenium bug?"

I do! It's the one no one could spell proper :0)

Frank

For the most part, Y2K was absolute, astonishing bullshit. And it is superb to bring that into the Global Warming conversation.

Many of us had an instinctual feeling that Y2K was nothing, and that the scientists/experts who ballyhooed Y2K were full of it. Y2K scaremongering never passed any test of rationality--you recall some of these guys were saying that automobiles would not work, etc

I have a similar feeling now as respects Global Warming. I think a lot of it is hype. And a similar array of "experts" are in lockstep as was the case with Y2K.

Can't prove it--but viscerally, does not compute.

Farting Cows, global warming, Polish presidents the great gay threat, and that good old piece of late 1990's nostalgia the Y2K bug - this thread has it all.... well almost. No-ones mentioned the M word yet ?

Colm,

Did you mean the MM word?

Jihad cattle anyone?

Henry,

I'll concede the point about Y2K, however a cherry picked example doesn't mean that we shouldn't be scared of anything. It's also a poor analogy in any case since GW is already having detected impacts.

As for 2007, your use of of 'the century so far' is just sleight of hand. There hasn't been much century so far. And actually according to GISS, 2007 was statistically tied with 1998 as the second warmest year in a century. The hottest on record was 2005. 2002 and 2003 were also in the top 5.

Alan

So I guess there must have been a few cows under that famous street air vent.

David

A farting cow with an explosive belt. Is that what they call double jeopardy ?

Frank

Of course Y2K does not disprove AGW. We may yet have to cull the herd. Time will tell. If a few years either the cows or the bull will have to go.

Henry,

Funny, but those are just delaying tactics. Why should we wait a few years more? There is already a huge amount of evidence, both of AGW itself, and of bull from the opposing faction (who resemble the tobacco lobby far more than they resemble any voice of reason at any time, never mind Y2K).

We also know already, and independently of any considerations of AGW, that CO2 emissions are a problem. They raise the acidity of the ocean, they depend on fossil fuels which are finite, and the proceeds fund undesirable regimes. BAU also means energy security problems for the west as it does not have much local reserves of oil etc.

If the 'sceptics' were even 1/10th of sceptical of their own talking points as they pretend to be about AGW, the discussion would have been over long ago.

Frank

Why should we wait a few years more?

Before doing what? What are required are proposals now that will have enough electoral support to be implemented now. Nuclear power for one.

It would also help if Green parties were no so ideologically hidebound by socialism. In Ireland we have the Greens in government and they won't let private operators run bus routes. They support a state monopoly which has always been a poor Trade union dominated service.

One can't help thinking that things can't be that bad if protecting the unions is more important than getting cars off the road.

Why do the Green movement never address their own political assumptions in order to win public support?

Henry,

"Before doing what? What are required are proposals now that will have enough electoral support to be implemented now. Nuclear power for one."

Nuclear power could be part of it yes. But there are also cap and trade proposals and others. These are not socialist by any stretch of the imagination. For example if cap and trade worked for acid rain (which was attributed to SO2 emissions from power stations) then why can't it work for CO2 emissions from power stations?

"It would also help if Green parties were no so ideologically hidebound by socialism."

This is a strawman because I never said we should listen to the Green parties. Recognition of the need to act on CO2 emissions is not some fringe idea supported only by the greens.

Henry, some data about cap and trade for SO2 emissions is here.

Frank

This is a strawman because I never said we should listen to the Green parties.

I didn't mean to suggest that you did. But while I have access to your wisdom here most people experience green politics through the normal media channels. And they are not impressed.

The major parties seen green issue as an excuse to raise revenue. 74% of people in a British survey believed that's what green taxes were about. And they were right.

Cap and trade has potential once it is recognised that the objective is to encourage innovation and not to hamper industry. It's not quite a market system to begin with because an authority would have to set the cap.

Encouraging reports that version of Moore's Law could apply to solar energy mean cap and trade would see investment directed into that area.

“A solar cell is just a big specialized chip, so everything we’ve learned about making chips applies,” says Paul Saffo, an associate engineering professor at Stanford and a longtime observer of Silicon Valley.

in the coming years Global Warming and Energy supply shortages are going to converge and its going to take more than cap and trade or solar cells to resolve the issues. its going to take a paradigm shift in the way we live.

Daytripper

Give us an example. Are you advocating a zero growth solution? What specific measures do you think will be required?

Henry,

"The major parties seen green issue as an excuse to raise revenue. 74% of people in a British survey believed that's what green taxes were about. And they were right"

What polls show is that the people think there is a problem and they want action to encourage environmentally friendly behavior. It's just that they didn't believe that the recent UK budget has this motive. Of course that doesn't mean it won't help at all, but it won't help much.

"Cap and trade has potential once it is recognised that the objective is to encourage innovation and not to hamper industry"

The objective is to cut emissions in the cheapest manner possible. There is a lot of low hanging fruit which means that some cuts will pay for themselves. Others are going to cost and we probably need to make them too.

"It's not quite a market system to begin with because an authority would have to set the cap."

The situation we have now is that the market does not reflect the true (or at least likely) cost of emissions. We need mechanisms that put a price on CO2 and then the market can figure it out.

The bottom line is what level of CO2 emissions are we trying to get to. People who say we carry on as we are, or who want to wait a while, are essentially advocating that we let the level rise to 1000ppm. That is the same as doubling CO2 twice compared to pre-industrial levels. Unless the current understanding is way out, the consequences of that may be almost unimaginable, disaster movie stuff.

We also need to invest in technologies to adapt, because some of the warming is likely on its way no matter what we do.

Are you advocating a zero growth solution? What specific measures do you think will be required?

Zero growth may well happen in the near future regardless. Mainly because we live in a hydrocarbon based economy. Therefore, i would suggest a 'Manhattan Project' for shifting most transport off oil.

That way you kill two birds with one stone. Cut emmissions and oil consumption in one swoop. The cost may be massive, but the potential alternative of doing nothing could be catasrophic. Economically and environmentally.