BLUEMOMENT

Hi,

Okay, I don’t normally wade into to climate change debate and have deliberately kept a healthy scepticism (with a lower case ‘s’) over the past few years. Many may say that this has lead to apathy, but as a scientist I was uncomfortable with the assumptions being made and the conclusions being drawn from data.

I still maintain that scepticism when it comes to vested interests of governments, business and pressure groups and the question in my mind when I hear from one of these is, “What’s in it for you?â€Â

The possible consequences of climate change are too great to be ignored imho. I'm not a scientist, but do believe that laypersons and policy-makers have to take serious account of the IPCC findings et al.

Just one point though, perhaps I am am misunderstanding you, but when you refer to the "bumps" in recent years, do you mean the bumps on your linked graph? I've just assumed, wrongly no doubt, that the graph data are seasonally affected (perhaps northern hemisphere increases in CO2 output over winter?). I suppose the critical measurement is the increase apparent CO2 on a smoothed out out graph, ie the long term residual amount of carbon in the atmosphere (or troposphere in this case).

Any teak or mahogany on your boat?

more rainforests needed to convert co2 into o2

Well I'm no scientist either, and it's over 40 years since I did physics at school. Even so, you hardly need a black belt in origami to understand that if you take loads of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and gas, that have been locked away underground for thousands of years and set fire to them, then you will end up with a load of CO2, amongst other things!

Recently I was reading an article on power generation. It seems that, if this article was to be believed, we are going to be short of about 60% of our electricity needs by 2050 (I think that was the date). This is due to quite a few coal fired & nuclear power stations reaching the end of their life. The article also stated that in order to meet the government targets, we need to build 2 wind turbines a day, including sarurday & sunday, for the next 15 years. It aint going to happen. It also needs an area about the size of greater London to site them all.

In my view, we humans are victims of our own success, the population growth figures are startling. What we need is a bl00dy good war or pestilence, to thin out the people quite a bit, then we won't need any more CO2 producing power stations etc. SORTED!

At least on TOP (as you so quaintly call it) they have a special forum for disemminating global warming scaremongering rubbish like this. That way those interested in discussing sailing related topics don't have to wade through this kind of socialist propaganda.

JackJ wrote: those interested in discussing sailing related topics don't have to wade through this kind of socialist propaganda.

To which particular bit of "socialist propaganda" are you referring? I can't see any.

Or is discussion of a topic "socialist propaganda"?

JackJ wrote: That way those interested in discussing sailing related topics don't have to wade through this kind of socialist propaganda.

Dunno about socialist propaganda my main problem with Tops is that the main contributors seem to be a bunch of right wing reactionary bigots.

.

those interested in discussing sailing related topics don't have to wade through this kind of socialist propaganda

What a fabulous contributor of sailing related topics you are turning out to be though Jack . . . first post six weeks ago to warn us about our friend Trouville and now this spiteful little outburst.

Lets hope it is third time lucky and your next post has something useful, entertaining or informative to contribute

JackJ wrote:At least on TOP (as you so quaintly call it) they have a special forum for disemminating global warming scaremongering rubbish like this. That way those interested in discussing sailing related topics don't have to wade through this kind of socialist propaganda.

Aye, nothin beats a closely reasoned, rational and coherent viewpoint...

I saw a horizon programme about this some years back:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075457.htm

It completely and utterly shocked me. As a scientist myself, I could not believe the effect that aircraft were having on the world, and that the temperature rose over a degree in 2 days without them.

I never doubted what we were doing to the Earth, but that drove it home so much more.

Point taken Nick.
I run a Fairline Squadron 52 out of Cowes. She has Med specification with a passarelle and reverse cycle air conditioning so I worry little about the vagaries of warming and cooling climate cycles....leads me to be sceptical towards global warming alarmists.

.
Not quite with you on this one Jack - you say you are sceptical about global warming because you have climate control on your boat? You will have to explain that one further. (I assnme some sort of smiley beside the statement might have been appropriate?)

I tend to be sceptical about the sceptics - by and large they adopt an entrenched position, cherry-picking little bits of flawed or misinterpreted data that seem superficially to support their position but . . . by some strange coincidence they nearly all seem to have a larger than average carbon footprint and high-emissions lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take away your Fairline or put you in the stocks because you have a gas guzzling boat - how you spend your money and your leisure time is entirely your choice, and lets face it if I could afford it I would be raising my carbon footprint right now with a first class seat on a flight to Madeira or the Caribbean to get away from the utterly disgusting weather up here.

Neither should you feel that you are one of the villains of the piece. When you became interested in power boats GW was probably largely unheard of and there was no obvious reason not to buy a large power boat if you could afford it.

However, I do think it is somewhat naive to arrive at the conclusion that the whole climate change scenario is just an attempt by corrupt politicians to tax you or take away your boat. Don't take it personally. If you can't afford higher taxed fuel for a 52 footer then trade down to a 45 footer with a good grace and have the sense to realise that your sacrifices are insignificant compared to the very real suffering that climate change is already causing in other places - among poor rural families in this country for example.

Hope this doesn't sound too patronising - it wasn't meant to be. If it raises your blood pressure go sit on your boat and crank up the AC until you chill out a bit!

I wondered about the relevance of a passarelle in this context until I realised how much rainforest it takes to make one.

JackJ wrote:Point taken Nick.
I run a Fairline Squadron 52 out of Cowes. She has Med specification with a passarelle and reverse cycle air conditioning so I worry little about the vagaries of warming and cooling climate cycles....leads me to be sceptical towards global warming alarmists.

well, that certainly scotched nick`s hope of of your third post being
" useful, entertaining and informative "

it`s been a while since the bm pipe band played - i think you`ve earned a wee tune - specially composed for you -
" the green hills of cowes " ( a retreat in 3/4 time )

"" wondered about the relevance of a passarelle in this context until I realised how much rainforest it takes to make one.""

Im not sure if a wooden boat is more or less environmentally correct?

My current boat now being renovated has a laid teak deck(which leaks)mahogany hull (11.50m)oak frames & copper fastnings.She was built in the late 50’s.I rather thought i was recycling?

Now for lunch of Fish baked with slices of bacon, tomatoes, sprinkled with basilic & pepper served with runner beans and jacket potatoes.The wine is Italian white (est est est) and very good!!

Most new passarelles dont have any wood in there construction all plastic & metal?