and maybe the earth is flat?
global warming oes happen and some of it is definetly man-made!

and maybe the earth is flat?

I would consider that a better example of a consensus being wrong than proof of anthropogenic global warming.

Perfectly right. The powers that be have to come up with some scare story to make us cut back on our use of the worlds resources and the old “the end of the world is nigh” message is always a sure way to grab peoples attention.

Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “Readers Blogs” link on the menu on the left.

So now its the "when all else fails, fall back on persecution and conspiracy" argument.

I'm not going to get into arguments about history. I just make the following observations.

mmgw sceptics are not being burned at the stake, hounded by the church or government, rounded up in cattle trucks or anything like to. This comparison is disingenuous at best and downright insulting to the many millions of have been the victims of religious and political persecution over the years.

mmgw sceptics have a free platform here and in many other places to express their views. No-one is trying to stop them - only point out where they may be wrong.

You can draw your own conclusions from the fact that Mr Weedon now feels he has to claim he is being persecuted for his ideas.

The worst that will happen to him is that our grand-children and great-grand-children
, when they are struggling to survive in a comprehensively damaged environment, is that they will look back and say "what an idiot".

The worst that will happen to him is that our grand-children and great-grand-children

, when they are struggling to survive in a comprehensively damaged environment, is that they will look back and say "what an idiot".

Indeed. Well said Tom.

Personally I'd include 'children' too in that sentence. It won't just be grand-children. And it's started already in many other countries. The evidence of climate destabilisation is all around us, and sufficiently alarming for no one to resort to being 'alarmist'.

Don't bother me, life will prevail.

Whether life will include humans is another story. We live on a sphere, it's a limited eco-system, draw whatever conclusions from that that you will.

I didn't read Mr Weeden's letter as claiming any persecution, I think he was more intent on pointing out how a consensus does not necessarily correlate to being correct. But that is my interpretation.

If Tom is correct in his opinion that Mr Weeden considers himself to be persecuted to the point of being "burned at the stake" than I would have to agree that that is simply not true.

There seems to be a common misconception that anyone who is sceptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is somehow an anti-environment, energy wasting oil company lobbyist.

I don't honestly believe that any sane person could be anti-environment or, considering the increasing cost, willing to conciously waste energy.

The problem comes when the paniced "do anything and do it now!" becomes the main stay of thinking. That is when the real damage is done.

We have already had suggestions of shooting thousands of tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere to simulate a volcanic eruption and reflect more solar radiation back into space (that was from a Nobel Prize winner) and Chris Rapley, head of the science museum, suggested sinking huge tubes into the ocean to bring cooler water to the surface.

This is somewhat alarming, as these people are willing to seriously tamper with something we have a very limited knowledge of, based on the theory of AGW.

Not as worrying, but just as confusing, is the continual cry from some to move our energy supply to completely renewable sources as quickly as possible. The problem here is that there seems to be no discussion of contingency plans (what happens when there is less wind/sunlight?). Further to that, the basic efficiency of photovoltaic solar cells (terrestrial cells are at best 3% efficient) means they are useless for supplying large amounts of energy. If you covered the entire UK with solar cells, with the weather our islands endure, it would not meet our energy requirements.

Even in countries where there is a sufficient level of sunlight (such as the US) there are problems. Al Gore's suggestion of covering most of Arizona with solar cells is priced somewhere between $22-25 trillion. That's half the global economy. And before we've considered maintenance, cleaning and security.

For some reason, the public seem to have a n aversion to nuclear power which would completely remove all need for fossil fuels in our energy generation. I find it
strange that the same people who protest against CO2 emissions, protest against nuclear power stations being built. I see it as a cake have/eat scenario, and many just don't want to make the decision.

I personally don't trust the IPCC, Gore or Hansen predictions of an apocalyptic future. Primarily because of how poorly the climate models have performed when predicting the future. What does worry me is the damage that has already been done from our panic stricken flailing.

100 million worldwide have already been forced into poverty through the use of bio-fuels that the IPCC advocated.

Our government jerked it's knee and forced us to use CFL's without any comprehension of energy required to manufacture, UV risks or the energy required to dismantle and extract the mercury, radon (not to mention dispose of said chemicals) and recycle the bulbs. There wasn't even any consideration for migraine sufferers, lupus sufferers or people with sight problems. It was just a "we have to do something!" reaction.

I completely agree with being energy efficient, if not for the conservation of decreasing fossil fuels, then for your bank balance.

I become wary when politicians who stand to make billions from cap-and-trade bills, make seriously flawed "documentaries" telling me we need cap-and-trade bills or the world will end.

Bill williams reflect the other approach you can take when you cant win the arguments on evidence - Try to rubbish the people who are trying to do something and the things they are trying to do.

Sure there are plenty of ideas that won't work. are too risky, are too expensive. I'd much rather have them out in the open, available for exploration and debate, than not at all.

I'm not sure where you get your 3% efficiency for photovoltaics from. A quick google on the subject suggest 5-15% in the field and more in the laboratory.

The bulk of Mr Weedon's letter was rambling on about persecution and conspiracy, hence I concluded he felt persecuted and conspired against.

It wasn't my intention to take another approach, I was merely commenting on the letter in question and the other comments. I have already made attempts to discuss evidence, but my evidence was ignored and I was, instead, told I was a "professional obfuscator" and a "scoundrel".

The 15% efficiency cells you are referring to are actually more like the ones used for space applications and are therefore very, very expensive. Since I was discussing photovoltaic cells in the context of home energy efficiency, I doubt many families are going to see spending around $300 per square inch as cost effective.


As for me trying to "rubbish" Al Gore, it doesn't take much trying. "An Inconvenient Truth" is so full of errors I'm amazed people refer to it in seriousness.

With regard to his personal gain from the propagation of the catastrophic AGW theory, you will have to forgive me for being a little sceptical of someone who uses 20 times more energy than the average American, before touring the world in a private jet telling people (for $100,000 a pop) to use less energy.

Or who uses prize money to fund his not-for-profit lobby group to lobby congress to pass cap-and-trade bills that will make his very-much-for-profit carbon trading investment company, Generation Investment (incidentally also where Mr Gore buys his carbon credits) incredibly rich.

N.B. Slight error. There should be a after "professional obfuscator" in the first paragraph.

N.B. Another html error. Apologies. There should be a (sic) after "professional obfuscator" in the first paragraph.

So, "Williams" is all for energy efficiency - but then procedes to trot out the tired old (fossil industry promoted) myths about compact flourescent bulbs. (Worth remembering this is the same technology we have used for decades - flourescent tubes.) Also remembering a quality new EE bulb, £3 from John Lewis, will save you around £30-£40 off your elec bills - and an accompanying trimming of elec company profits.


The clip below is from the Every Action Counts Community Champions newsletter (a useful souce of knowledge!)
....................
....................
.
Old-fashioned tungsten light bulbs are due to be phased out in Australia, the UK, and the US over the next five years, and the spotlight has fallen on their low-energy replacements. The new light bulbs contain mercury, which has triggered a rash of concerned media stories - but is there any fact behind the fear?

Chemistry World investigates.

Why do low-energy light bulbs contain mercury?
It's essential to the way they work. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) are tubes containing mercury and noble gases (typically argon). When the bulb is switched on, electrons stream from a tungsten-coated coil. They collide with mercury atoms, exciting their electrons and creating flashes of ultraviolet light. A phosphor coating (typically composed of metal oxides or phosphates) on the inside of the tube absorbs this light and re-emits it at visible wavelengths. This is also how fluorescent strip lights work.

How much mercury do CFLs contain?
Up to 5 milligrams - a tiny amount when compared to the 3 grams in a mercury thermometer, says Adrian Westwood, from the UK Environment Agency. Fluorescent strip lights contain similarly tiny amounts, reduced from the 100 milligrams present in first-generation CFL bulbs.

Couldn't we do without mercury in household lighting?
Not in a fluorescent light. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) don't contain mercury, but they're still costly, and researchers have only just begun working out how to diffuse their focused light to suit household lamps. Old-fashioned incandescent tungsten filament bulbs don't contain mercury either. But more mercury is emitted by fossil-fuel fired power plants when producing electricity for the incandescent lights, than for the energy-saving CFLs.

What danger is there if a CFL breaks?
'No amount of mercury is good for you, but the very small amount contained in a single modern CFL is unlikely to cause any harm, even if the lamp should be broken,' says the UK Department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra).

Why didn't we know about this before?
The presence of mercury in fluorescent lights, though well known, seems not to have been well communicated to the public in the UK. But as Steve Poole, laboratory manager for the UK trade body The Lighting Association, points out, 'fluorescent technology has been around for years without this being worthy of comment before.' Now that CFLs are seeing widespread use in households, the mercury issue has been rediscovered, leading to calls for advice on light bulb disposal to be printed on CFL packaging. The disposal advice itself has not changed. According to the Environment Agency's Adrian Westwood, a more important issue that people should be focusing on is how to recycle CFLs.

So how should I recycle a CFL?
CFLs are classified as Waste Electrical or Electronic Equipment (WEEE); meaning that their manufacturers and importers are required to pay for CFL treatment and recycling (for more on the WEEE Directive, see Chemistry World, June 2007, p44). Defra says that any retailer selling a CFL bulb either has to take back a waste one, or advise on how to take it to a 'Designated Collection Facilities' set up for the purpose. There are over 1400 DCFs in the UK.
Can this fledgling recycling system cope with vastly increased numbers of CFLs, though? According to Defra, 'appropriate handling and disposal is not difficult, and what is now a relatively new disposal system will become more fully developed.'

A graph below (may not come up on your email) shows just how much more mercury is released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power generation (c. 400 mg in the life of an incandescent - compare with the 5mg in the CFL (and the 56mg released as a result of buring the smaller amount of coal required to power it over the longer period). These bulbs cut mercury polution!

(By Richard Van Noorden)

Incidentally, I do agree with Williams that some very stupid things have been and are being done in the name of carbon reduction.

Many of these are being done by those 'bodies' whose future is most heavily intertwined with the old fossil industry - those 'in power' and those fully vested in the fossil past.

That is what this is all about.

Some people are clinging onto the past, and the vain hope we can keep on and on with wasteful business-as-usual.. for a few years more.

Others are trying to awaken to the need for a radical rethink. There can be a bright prospect, if we act now, to save money, carbon, and the kids future.

The first step to tackling any addiction is to acknowledge it.

It is also the hardest.

The problem with comparing the additional mercury in CFL's with the mercury emitted from coal power stations in powering incandescent bulbs is that no-one has accounted for time-to-efficiency.

A CFL has a time-to-efficiency of almost double an incandescent bulb which makes that calculation a little misleading.
I find it worrying that DEFRA are so blasé about mercury exposure. I would, presonally, like to keep my exposure to none, yet DEFRA see no problem with me having a "minimal" one from time to time.

It is also worth mentioning the growing problem in India, due to CFL's, and something I have been voicing for the past few years. The Indian government's banning of incandescent bulbs has caused a huge problem with mercury pollution. Since they have very poor regulations on the production and reclamation (there is no real rubbish collection system in India) they are heading for a huge catastrophe with mercury contamination.

The truly stupid part of the whole debacle is that there are energy efficient incandescent bulbs that have the same efficiency as CFLs, only with the time-to-efficiency of an incandescent and none of the clear up costs. If there wasn't such a hysteria of "do something!" we might have had the forethought to put some money into the R&D and eventual mass production of these bulbs, and all of this could have been avoided.


N.B. Please don't feel you need to put my name in quotation marks. It's beginning to give me a bit of an existential complex.

In the meantime, reader, High Performance Energy Efficient (EE) compact flourescent light bulbs can be taken as a proven GOOD IDEA, good for the environment and the pocket.

They come in all shapes and delightful sizes, even old bulb shaped, soft-tone, instant-start, even dimmer-able, and have no downside.

(Unlike the museum piece hot wire tungsten filament bulb, that was a good invention in Thomas Edisons day, but not any more, being an incredibly inefficient way to create light. Their output is mainly heat. But the old bulb was a good way to generate power company profits, and pollution.)

Try the EE bulbs for yourself. John Lewis have a good range.

Then ask yourself why so many people wanted to plant the seed of doubt that they were any good.

People I know, who have changed their bulbs recently, are delighted. They took a while to "see the light", having partially believed some of the many pervasive negative myths about the bulbs) but they are amazed at the scale of the elec savings.

An investment of around £20 five years ago (they are hardly a new technology!) will have repaid itself more than ten times over by now, (ie £200 savings in the bank) and saved 1000kg of CO2 from leaving the power station, and large quantities of other pollutants. Plus they conserve fossil fuel - ah - we don't want that now do we!

If I had been put off buying the new EE bulbs by the comments of a sceptic, I would go round and demand reimbursement for the cash savings their myths cost me.

No doubt Williams will tell you there's more to it than that.

I see we are back to ignoring the discussion and appealing to the politics. Excellent.

I will take my leave at this juncture.

Thank you for your time.

No politics, just sticking to truth, facts, real world, and to the prime task in hand: rapid carbon reduction so that we may give the children their future back.

If you want to call that politics - more fool you.

I've tried to avoid being dragged down the many tired old blind alleys of obfuscation that I have seen repeated so many times, by you and other truth contortionists.

I have to say I find your 'last' comment a bit rich (not for the first time, and no doubt not for the last).

It is undeniably you, Bill Williams, that has "ignored the discussion."

You have side-stepped every question of a general nature that anyone has asked you, preferring to hide away in anonymity, pseudo science, myth and jargon.

Thank you for all your contributions.

Big Oil will have been proud of your performance.

But I doubt many readers will have been so easily fuelled.