Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

According to an article by Harrabin at the BBC Harrabin at the BBC says
A new study suggests that the ban on ozone depleting chemicals may have also impacted the rise in global temperatures.

CFC gases were responsible for a massive hole in the ozone layer but they also had a powerful greenhouse effect.

The authors link a ban on their use to a "pause" or slowdown in temperature increases since the mid 1990s.

So when the cooling really gets going then we can pump CFCs as well as CO2 into the atmosphere. Personally I think that it is a coincidence being exploited by researchers looking for continued employment, as being discussed below.

Nov 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommentersandyS

Further to my 5:25 Post.

The current class of Politicians (with one possible exception) have no vision, no courage and no money !

Nov 10, 2013 at 7:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

Mike Jackson
I think that people are happy to embrace change and technology if they can see a net benefit. If they think that their livelihood will be taken away then they are not going to accept the introduction of anything without putting up some kind of fight, this is just as true for 19th century hand loom weavers as it is for 21st climatologists and civil servants at the MO & DECC.

Nov 10, 2013 at 7:25 PM | Unregistered CommentersandyS

Ross Lea
You cannot really blame people for hanging onto a tried and tested technology in which they have time, money and most of their lifetime and reputation invested.
In my experience most people welcome technological advance though they are inclined to cling on where they can't see an exit strategy for themselves. Turkeys do not normally vote for Christmas.
The troubles we are experiencing are due to people attempting to force the pace on a technology that has been tried, found to be out-dated, and discarded because better things displaced it. Worse, they are now attempting to revert to it for a new purpose for which it is even less use than for its original one.
I realised when I posted that there were several possibilities in the pipeline. My main argument is that if they (or any others) need seed-corn or any other form of help to encourage them to market they should get it, either from the companies who stand to profit from the discovery or — if absolutely necessary — from the taxpayer. Not by means of a subvention on the consumer who, in this instance, has no way of avoiding it.
(Taxation, I would argue, is a different thing though some might not see it that way.)

Nov 10, 2013 at 7:06 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

tomo
If I read those three paragraphs on the back cover of a book, I’d buy it like a shot. So would lots of other people.

You should write it.

Nov 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

TinyCO2 , MJ

Shut down DECC??

The truth of the matter is that across our UK public services the abject lack of any oversight, sanctions for transgression or clear budgetary targets has resulted in a ghastly menagerie of dysfunctional organisations. Some are compromised by entryism / ideological fashion (DECC, The RS etc.) - others done down by the cult of managerialism, wholesale incompetence and greed (most of the rest) The matter - as many at BH regularly document this is compounded by the towering ignorance of our elected representatives informed by a claque of academics who seem so obsessed by cultivating their own status that they feel that their elevated position allows them to pontificate / dictate on any subject that takes their whim...

It is a sorry state of affairs and in the absence of a crisis the only way to deal with it is robust, evidence based confrontation - otherwise they'll "talk it out"...

The morbid obesity, self delusion and willful arbitrariness of our public institutions will be dealt with one way or another - I personally feel that some fairly radical action is required before even more damage is done. It's not enough to let them drift onto the rocks squabbling about who's driving or where they should be going without looking out the window or consulting reliable maps ....

Nov 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Mike Jackson

You can turn round a super tank much quicker with the right technology. With bow thrusters (the channel ferries have them) and variable pitch propeller it could " turn on a six pence ". The same applies to energy. Thorium Technology (Tried and tested at Oakridge over 60 years ago and small scale modular nuclear reactors already designed by Westinghouse in the USA ( http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/SMR/index.htm) in the short term. Hydrogen for transport produced by electrolysis using the afore mentioned Thorium nuclear technology. It's not rocket science but there are too many vested interests in the current technology. All that is needed is vision, courage and investment. !

Nov 10, 2013 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

(- To activate unclickable links try highlighting the link with the mouse & then right clicking to see "open this link" option)

To post hyperlinks as clickable use <> where I use ()

CLICKABLE LINK (a href="http://www.repealtheact.org.uk")The Clickable phrase(/a)
BOLD (b)(/b) bishop
QUOTATION BOX (blockquote)Quoted text(/blockquote)
(EMPHASISED (em)(/em) bishop
ITALICS (i)(/i) bishop
STRIKEOUT (strike) (/strike) bishop
STRONG(strong) (/strong) bishop

Nov 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

TinyCO2
I hope you're wrong (though I fear you're right). On present showing Cameron is out to lose in 2015 but taking a hard line on warming alarmism now, even to the point of admitting he was wrong about the need for the "greenest government ever", might just save him — and us since any other result will just increase the unnecessary pain.*
Trouble is it could be the Dick Turpin option: your government or your wife!

*And please nobody mention UKIP. I'm talking about the real world here.

Nov 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

you missed the full name of the link
The Curious Case of Polywater In the 1960s, scientists discovered a new form of water. How did they get it so wrong?
BTW - Yesterday "settled science" discovered there was an extra obvious knee ligament

Nov 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>