Thursday, January 25, 2007
For once when I asked the government a written question I received an answer.So despite some incoherent grammer we have official confirmation that man made CO2 is only 3% of the total. Since CO2 in total is accepted as not being the only cause of warming the phrase & that CO2 increase in total comes to only 1/10.000th of theatmosphere "storm in a teacup" seems appropriate. The catastrophic warming theory cannot be sustained on such a small base.
I asked “How much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere each day ,and what proportion is from human sources”
The answer stated “The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from human sources is small in comparison to natural flows:at around 3% emitted from the land and oceans to the atmosphere”
The Minister also told me “In 2004 the UK emitted approximately 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per day “(I think from human sources). This compares with the “25 billion tonnes emitted each year globally” from human sources and the total emissions of 800 billion tonnes from all sources.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute theirIf this is what thoughtful supporters say it is obvious howmuch pressure is being felt by opponents. It has been noted before who many of the prominent skeptics are emeritus professors (ie retired) & thus not in need of approval for grants let alnoe being subject to loss of tenure.
findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts
the climate change consensus?
"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community
pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague
of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist
angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor
asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail
skeptics and business interests.
"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and
adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the
science, our credibility is at stake."
Monday, January 22, 2007
All of them repay reading, even though, I am a bit suspicious that their results seem to show a large majority fot the rightist policies they push.
Nonetheless the particular point about this one is that it shows Scotland to be more receptive than the rest of the UK:
If taxes are cut the economy will grow faster, which will mean higher living standards AND more money available for public services
Also 57% of scots against 53% across the UK agree with this statement a lot. Which makes Scotland, if only marginally, more likely to support corporation tax cuts, than the average while on most other Left/Right issues we are about 2% to the Left (at the last election Blair got 36% of the UK vote & 39% of Scotland's). There goes the myth that Scots are inherently all socialists. I regret to note that, of all the parties the Lib Dems are least likely to agree with this statement which is classic liberalism. As an anecdote I once got told in a pub by a strong Labour supporter who was annoyed that in the coalition the Lib Dems had been able to take credit for the Executive cutting business rates - clearly, like many, his party allegiance was more tribal than fully understood ideology.
This poll took place in 2003 (later Reform polls have an unfortunate tendency not to show separate results for Scotland) & it is very likely that the, with more discussion & the SNP endorsement, such cuts are considerably more popular than they were then.