|
| 
|
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
142,740 registered members
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
ADVERTISEMENT | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
Global warming and your health
The issue of global warming is hugely topical at this time with the release of the doomsday film ‘The day after tomorrow’. The film is based on the premise that the infusion of freshwater into the North Atlantic from melting glaciers in Greenland halts the circulation of water via the Gulf Stream.
Such a doomsday scenario is not new, indeed a leaked report from the Pentagon earlier this year warned of a similar global nightmare. It warned of rioting and nuclear war; suggested that Britain and Ireland would be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years and that the threat to the world from climate change is greater than terrorism.
The impact of extreme weather on people’s health has become a ‘hot’ topic, if you will pardon the pun. Indeed, the latest ‘British Medical Journal’ has made it the cover story with a series of disturbing observations on the subject.
The film ‘The day after tomorrow’ shows New York under water, Global warming is causing disasters with New Delhi snow covered and Britain in the grip of an ice age. The question is – is this the worst-case scenario?
Of course it is not all a product of Hollywood imagination. Last year, around 15,000 people died in France as a result of a devastating heat wave. Extreme weather conditions have provoked storms, floods and drought and have killed thousands of people this century alone. So what is different now?
According to the BMJ, the health impacts of global warming may be abrupt as well as long term. Climatologists say that global warming will not simply manifest itself by a gradual rise in average temperatures, but it is the frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events – such as heat waves, droughts, floods and storms – that are likely to occur. The impact on health services could be huge.
The focus on the US in this latest doomsday movie is relevant. American leadership is vital for a serious response to global warming. The US produces around one quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. Despite this, the US President George Bush pulled away from the Kyoto agreement. As the editor of the BMJ says, the result is that our grandchildren will find themselves in an increasingly degraded world.
The medical publishers of the BMJ were prompted to examine the issue after one of the publication’s correspondents suggested a theme on ‘America as a global threat to health’. There is not a little irony, the BMJ notes, that the American creativity and flair, which many admire, has produced not a solution to global warming but a film to scare people witless.
On average, the number of people killed each year by weather disasters is put at around 123,000. Many more are affected physically or through loss of property or livelihood. Hurricane Mitch, the most deadly hurricane to hit the western hemisphere in the last 200 years killed 11,000 people.
Extreme weather causes injuries, fatalities, and increases the incidence of diseases such as malaria. Ozone air pollution is speeded up by warmer weather. According to Professor Jonathan Patz, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University in the US, excessive rainfall and runoff can lead to large numbers of micro-organisms entering drinking water and outbreaks of waterborne diseases have been associated with heavy rainfall events in the US and elsewhere.
Global warming is likely to increase the number of hungry people by 90 million this century. Climate change on food production results in lower yields of cereal grains in the tropics, areas already under water stress. Droughts lead to forest fires which are associated with more respiratory disease, eye problems, injuries and fatalities.
While the doomsday scenarios may be far from reality, Patz argues that the slower march of climate change still presents a formidable challenge for the health sector and society as a whole. The many health effects posed by climate change are likely to arrive through numerous convoluted pathways, rather than perhaps a tidal wave.
But that is far from any consolation. We have been warned.
* Fergal Bowers is the editor of irishhealth.com
|
Last Reviewed: 28th May 2004
Anonymous
Posted:
02/06/2004 10:06 |
| The weather on this planet has always gone in cycles, since its creation. There were ice ages millions of years ago long before human influence, CS gases or CFS sprays. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/06/2004 11:34 |
| I think we exaggerate our own importance and our power on this planet. Earth has experienced climate change many hundreds of times in it's history. We have some effect, however, it's small and I'm not sure that important. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/06/2004 14:43 |
| I wouldn't mind a bit of global warming for Ireland. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/06/2004 03:42 |
| Fergal, me lad! You've been had! The folks at IPCC want us to all believe that bad things come from burning fossil fuels and we need to cede power to them, so they may make intelligent decisions about who gets to be warm, drive autos, etc. No more capitalist stuff, it's state planning all the way! Their climate models are jokes, their credentials are liberal scrip and their goal is pure, raw power. Please look at CO2 Science to see what real scientists have to say about global warming. (You might also notice that BMJ is given to politicized rhetoric, too!) The URL: www.co2science.org/ |
|
liam(lcollins) Posted:
04/06/2004 01:15 |
| hi all, well the way it seems to be going , i will have to sell up and get a home in iceland. then i can go to my summer home in costa del cork.during the summer months, brill, |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/06/2004 10:08 |
| Too bad none of the comedians who have so far contributed to this debate appear to have read up on the subject. Had they taken the trouble, they'd know that, thanks to relentless human activity/exploitation over the last 100+ years, the biosphere is buckling, from the ocean floors to the upper atmosphere. Species are dying off at a rate last seen during the Fifth Mass Extinction (remember the dinosaurs - who'll remember us?). Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, from their typical level of 300 parts per million, have now risen to almost 400, and climbing. The delicate balance that makes Earth such a uniquely friendly place for life is being upset in ways we barely understand and haven't really bothered researching. Greed, stupidity and obsession with 'growth' at all costs (just listen to Mary Harney some time) will damn us all to hell on Earth - literally. And no, in case you're wondering, I don't mean some time in 100 years' time or later, we're talking about the here-and-now, coming to a planet very near you, in the immediate future... |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/06/2004 10:13 |
| If what you are referring to happened in the time of the dinosuars (and there was no one around to do empirical research at the time, would would presume) it would only go to prove that these things always go in cycles - like ice-ages and probably always will. |
|
Jim(seawolf36) Posted:
09/06/2004 14:29 |
| Please notice that he said "Fifth" mass extinction. Seems that a lot of things are cyclical in nature! Higher levels of CO2 are hugely beneficial to plant life & aid in moisture use/conservation by trees, shrubs, grasses, mosses, etc. Increased plant mass means that more carbon and nitrogen are sequestered. This is all beneficial to the planet, which is still not as warm as during several previous warm periods and indeed, seems to be beginning a cooling cycle. Having a centuries-long view of climate helps one avoid "Chicken Little Syndrome". |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
10/06/2004 08:43 |
| Yes, an increase from 300 parts per million, to almost 400 parts per million is a percentage increase of less than .01%. Ah if only inflation, disease, poverty and unemployment rose by so little in such a length of time. |
|
Jim(seawolf36) Posted:
10/06/2004 13:07 |
| In the view of many climate scientists the Incoming SOlar radiaTION [INSOLATION] is the overwhelming forcing engine at work on earth's climate. We have tantalizing clues from history that this is just so. Ancient records of sunspot activity is just one clue. See Dr. Theodor Landscheidt's inclusive brief on this subject at mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html. Fear not! All is not lost! |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
18/06/2004 13:48 |
| I wish I could share the optimism of some of the posters to this discussion. Yes, you may be right; on the other hand you MAY be wrong. Problem is, this is the only planet for a trillion miles in any direction able to support our version of life, so if we're wrong and the pessimists are right, then we're royally screwed. A bit like gravity; you don't have to believe in it to be hit on the head by a piano dropped from an upstairs window. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/07/2004 20:40 |
| It's perfectly true that there have been cycles, warm periods and cool periods. Unfortunately, there were quite a lot of extinctions when these happened. That the earth will survive is probable (though there is a view that runaway warming could go into a spiral). But if there are substantial extinctions due to global warming, maybe one of them will be Homo sapiens. Even if the species survives, there are likely to be millions, maybe billions, of deaths from famine as agricultural land is inundated or desertified. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 08:25 |
| Ah well, some coreners of the globe are vastly overpopulated anyway. |
|
Jim(seawolf36) Posted:
22/07/2004 13:23 |
| Well, now, there could be a case made for reducing the number of [fill in the blank with whatever tribe/clan/culture you don't like]. However, it appears that we'll have to do it the old fashioned way with clubs, knives, guns, bombs or ?? There has been no global warmming in the 20th century. In fact, there has been a statiscally significant bit of cooling! An optimist looks at facts and generates a rosy picture. A pessimist looks at facts and generates a gloomy picture. A fool looks at propaganda, non-facts and myths, but refuses to look at the facts. So, it is not a case of optimism or pessimism, but foolishness that generates all of the climate alarums. I suggest that you look to see who is pushing the idea that mankind is changing the climate and must immediately [if not sooner] change its ways. They are the same people who still spout the disguised theories of Malthus and wring their hands over the fact that first-world nations are using more than their fair share of goods and resources. In other words: Good old-fashioned Marxist-Leninist Communist philosophy is guiding the m. They want to be the state planners who allocate resources. They want to tell nations how many children to bear. They want to level the field so that everyone has the same things. Never mid that some work hard and others never work at all. Equality in goods is the goal! Except of course for the planners! Since they are the ones who make government work, they must be superior beings who deserve a greater share. The upshot of this all is best described by Edwin Markham's poem "The Man with a Hoe". See it here: http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~wyllys/manwhoe.html |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 15:11 |
| From each according to his means to each according to his needs. Not all of us can inherit m,onet of possessions and not all of us are born with the same opportunities or inate intelligence. |
|
Shannon(TXB16172) Posted:
27/07/2004 02:28 |
| While it may not be certain (with all of the confusing and often conflicting information out there) what is causing Global Warming or whether or not it is even happening, some things we do know for a fact. For example in the instance of flooding, we have seen that devastating floods are occurring more frequently all over the globe than in the past centuries. This could be from global warming but it is certainly compounded by deforestation. Deforestation is real and devastating. We are cutting down the trees at an unsustainable rate. We are causing mass extinctions of species through deforestation and development. These are known problems for which we can choose to be responsible and try to find solutions. And even if our fossil fuel emissions are not causing a global climate change they ARE polluting our air and water. When we talk about money and power and who may be pushing which ideas on the public let's not forget one of the most powerful and wealthy businesses in the world (for which wars are currently waging); the oil industry. Isn't it possible then that this industry could be behind research denying the threat (and our responsibility) of global warming? If it comes down to worrying that the Marxists/Communists are trying to gain power and thereby deceiving us or the Oil corporations doing the same, which one is the more feasible scenario? Besides most of the advice and protocol for minimizing fossil fuel emissions seems to be more about empowering countries and communities on a local level (using solar and wind power) rather than gaining global control over an un-renewable and therefore expensive resource. We could stand to hear some constructive criticism on our current capitalist system (which I think hardly rewards the hard worker over the lazy one, look around and see how much the wealthy work compared to the poor, especially in the US where I live- we don't have ‘the dole’ here!) and be prompted to reduce our over-consumption of resources. Let's start valuing giving over greed, then we might have some kind of future to look forward to. |
|
Jim(seawolf36) Posted:
27/07/2004 14:47 |
| It is hardly deniable that capitalism has caused many problems, although one should be careful to add that it is not capitalism itself [only an idea - an economic formula], but human greed that causes the problems. ENRON and TYCO are two fine examples of good ideas corrupted by greed. That said, one must survey the world as it is and ask which system does the most to improve the lot of all of the citizens who live under it. Socialism? Communism? Capitalism? Some other economic theory/system? The answer is that capitalism has proven to do the most good for the most people. The task before us as caring citizens is to reach down to the people who haven't been able to benefit and aid them enough to allow them to participate. As to who is backing the opposing theories re global warming: The IPCC bureaucrats choose to ignore facts or to distort them in order to reach conclusions that favor their views on how the economic system should respond. They have left science behind and ridden into the economic arena on a horse that was dead before they mounted it! When one attempts civil discourse with them, their response is always an ad hominem attack on those who point to the fallacies in their science. I have good cause to be suspicious of such people! They are not looking for truth or solutions, but simply desire control. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
28/07/2004 08:24 |
| It is interesting that you say "The answer is that capitalism has proven to do the most good for the most people". Wheras, in fact between the two wars, whenmany people in europe under communism has barely enough to eat, those in communist russia / USSR were well fed, mostly self sufficent, with jobs, schools for their children anf free medical care for all families. |
|
Jim(seawolf36) Posted:
18/08/2004 03:28 |
| Let's see now...How many died in the Ukraine of famine during that time? If I remember correctly it was estimated at between 6 and 7 million and was artificially caused by the USSR government. That was during the 1932-33 period. Those people didn't have barely enough to eat, they had nothing and died. During the same period at least 3.5 million more were arrested and sent to labor camps where they rarely lived a full year. Yes, glorious communism really fed well! The aparatchik were the only ones who did at all well. Just like the IPCC! |
|
blaggarde Posted:
18/08/2004 19:20 |
| Even David Bellamy (remember him?) says the carbon catastrophic global warming stuff is a load of oul Bx and if a talking fossil says so...... |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/07/2005 11:44 |
| Having personally been concerned with global warming since my teens (about 15 years ago...), I've come to understand much more about the prblem recently. First of all, is not as easy as avoiding freon omissins (which was recommended in the 90's), or even carbon dioxide emossions... The latest news, which a lot of people haven't heard of yet, is called 'global dimming'. It explains some of the contradictions in other theories about 'global warming' versus 'global cooling'. In one sense, they're both taking place at the same time. Read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html). To contribute a bit more, if anyone is interested in reading on about our energy options, there is a lot of new energy research out there, most of which are fought off by the established energy providers (even the ones we'd consider being the 'good energy' providers). I personally met Dr Brian O'Leary at a recent seminar, and what he had to tell gave a whole new perspective on things. The New Energy Movement is the fruit of his work and I'd recommend anyone who has an interest to have a look at this: http://www.newenergymovement.org Finally, although I do feel concerned about the globe, I've got no fear that earth will not survive. It might just have to wsh away whatever it is that is causing all this imbalance... mainly caused by us - the homo sapiens, the most intelligent and the only greedy animal on the planet. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/07/2005 12:16 |
| Jim, the aparatchik and the IPCC? What are you talking about? |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/07/2005 12:28 |
| I have a few points to make: 1.there is very little point whatsoever of Ireland agreeing to the Kioto protocol when the two nations resposible for producing the highest amounts of waste and consuming the most energy has excluded themselves from it - The U.S. and India. 2. Does this Protocol take into a account the increase in the Irish population. Over the last 5 years there have been increasing amount of immigrants coming inot the country and more people, from any source means more energy consumption and more waste. 3. Isn't it ironic that the govt. speak on the one hand about reducting conssumption and on the other hand talk about increasing Development and inductry. You CANNNOT have and increasein Development and industry without a increase in consumption and thus an increase in waste. |
|
Jaime(seaotter) Posted:
07/07/2005 21:32 |
| Hi, Jim here! New alias due to reregistration! The IPCC and the apparatchiks: The reference was to the fact that the IPCC is a quasi-governmental body of the UN. As such it is not subject to the controls that reasonable forms of government customarily deal with. We can't turn them out for being rascals or storm the parliament and demand changes. These folks are petit kings of the realm! Their realm is climate "science" and they are the arbiters of TRUTH! Put another way, I would say that they are a cluster of gasbags and have only passing acquaintance with truth and science. Despite what they claim, there has been no net global warming during the 20th century. Some areas warmed and some cooled. That's not new! They posit that warming will cause glaciers and sea ice to melt and charge ahead about the disastrous results before they have proven either a warming trend or an actual warming result. In a nutshell: There has been no net global warming in our lifetimes and there is no proof that mankind has the power to initiate it. The UN simply wants more control of our lives. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
11/07/2005 13:18 |
| Jaime (seaotter) complains that the IPCC is under no-one's control. Like most international organisations it's under the control of the governments who decide who sits on it. Even President Bush agrees that there is global warming and it is influenced by human activity. Anonymous (06/07/2005) says that the two nations which use the most energy, the U.S. and India, are excluded from the Kyoto protocol. The most relevant figures I can find are those for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel, cement production and gas flares. The figures for 1996 are U.S. 5.5 billion tonnes, China 3.3 b., Russia 1.5 b., Japan 1.2 b., India 1.0 b. Even though that's some time ago and not all sources are included, it doesn't look possible that India be in 2nd position. Yes, the Government is not facing up to the contradictions in its policies, but if it devoted a lot of attention to energy conservation (which produces jobs itself) we could have development without increasing energy use. |
|
reign Posted:
20/10/2005 17:55 |
| You know, if Mars wasn't experiencing it's own global warming, I might still consider believing this stuff. But Mars is warming, so I think that for now, I'll lend more credence to the sun warming explanation. |
|
Rob Posted:
18/12/2005 10:09 |
| We can only use fossil fuels as an emergency battery, while we get the main renewable energy system working. Neuclear is not an option as the waste product cannot be disposed of and Chernoble could be repeated at any of the instalations due to natural, terrorist or accidental disasters. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/12/2005 11:13 |
| Rob, other than solar or wind generated energy, I don't really see any other option than fossil fuel |
|
Rob Posted:
19/12/2005 11:36 |
| As I say (anon-- who ever you are) We can only use fossil fuels as an emergency battery when it is gone it is gone. What about bio-mass and diesel made from seed & nut oil, higher effieciency insulation and use of energy the fossil fuel emergency battery will run out some day even in the distant or not so distant future, we must be ready (we being the human race) or perish. |
|
Nippy(WDX43014) Posted:
04/03/2006 13:43 |
| ROB. At this latitude it takes 1 hectare to produce 1 ton of vegetable oil per annum. Average oil consumption in Ireland is 4.5 tons per head per year (7th in the world). So each person would need 200m x 200m of land. Solar and bio fuels are mutually exclusive as you cannot grow plants in the shade. It would take all of Leinster to provide wind derived electrical energy for Dublin. The non critical Thorium nuclear cycle produces 1/1000 to 1/10000 less radioactivity than the current critical reactors. Since they are not critical they cannot explode. There is no global warming trend in the rural temperature record (check Valentia or Malin head temperature records). |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/03/2006 22:33 |
| Nippi suggests the "thorium nuclear cycle". Considering that a Google search on this brings up only four references, only two of which are readable, (s)he really needs to say more about it. |
|
sea otter Posted:
06/03/2006 23:40 |
| The problem with many of the alternative fuels is that the energy cost to produce liquid fuels is greater than the energy in the fuels! Ethanol requires 1.5X, bio-diesel about 1.25X and etc. Solar, of course, isn't liquid and presupposes stationary systems. I fear that there is no easy answer. Non-critical reactors are possible, but have not been commercialy scaled yet. The huge investment in buildings that are woefully inefficient is probably the best place to look for savings. Careful energy retrofits will pay for themselves in >10 years and continue to save for a long while. Electric trolleys vs. private autos would help and even the hybrid autos will be a big help. We seem frozen with anguish, but not disposed to individual action. Sigh! |
|
Nippy(WDX43014) Posted:
07/03/2006 11:55 |
| Thanks for reading. Where to start.The current Power reactors are all based on thermal neutron *(~1000 mph or less) provided by natural decay of U235. The U235 is surrounded by U238 which either falls apart creating energy or is converted to Plutonium (Pu 2XX's, there are 15 of them) also creating energy. The U235 also falls apart creating energy. Pu 239 can also be used as a fuel just like U235 or U238. Different type of nuclear fuels require different reactors types. Its a bit like saying you cant burn coal in a gas burner, you need a fire place and you cant burn gas in an oil burner. Different fuels need different burners and this applies to nuclear fuels as well. The current reserves of U235 are similar to the total proven oil reserves. However it is only 0.7% of the total natural occuring uranium. So there is 100/.7% (140 times) more energy in the U 238 and the same again in the Pu 239. So where does the Thorium cycle come in. There are 4 times more Thorium reserves than U 238 which is also fissile. But all this creates a waste problem and all the reactors have to be operated with critcal mass of fissile product making the possibilty of loss of control a concern. So the proposed techniques to produce the breeder and next generation nuclear reactors is to use fast neutrons. Fast neutrons are made using a process called spallation and starts with a device similar to the electron gun in the back of a television set.These neutrons travel at 90% the speed of light (60 million mph) and virtually incinerate the Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium fuels producing minimal radioactive residue.The amount of Uranium and Thorium in nature is enough, at current prices, to provide energy at current consumption rates for 10,000 years as distinct from the 50 years for oil. The residue of the reactions are benign enough to be processed on the reactor site. * There are breeder reactors (Sellafield?) in the UK and in other counties producing weapons grade plutonium. Im sure you know who they are, they certainly do. This is a beermat description of the process but is I believe generally correct. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/03/2006 20:05 |
| In reply to Nippy (WDX43014) Posted: 07/03/2006, I see that the techniques are “proposed”, and there have been a lot of nuclear proposals over the years which have not worked out; such as energy too cheap to meter. They seem to rely on fast-breeder reactors, which are notoriously more dangerous than orthodox nuclear reactors. And you have to create plutonium along the way, which can be diverted for military use. |
|
realistic Posted:
26/05/2007 12:09 |
| The Earth is currently recovering from a so called miny ice age. Climatic cycles are normal as there are records of the river Thames in London freesing over and peeple ice skating on it, During excavations of Newgrange vine pollen was found proving that three thousand years ago it was warm enough for grapes to grow in Ireland. The only practical way to significiently reduce carbon emissions is nuclear energy to produce electricity and to use bio-fuels for transport. When I was a youngster the oil companies had to add 10% ethanol to petrol by law. Four distilleries in Louth, Monaghan and Donegal were built to distill ethanol from formented potatoes, but when we joined the common market the government said they had to repeal this law. if this were reintroduced we could reduce our petrol consumption by almost 10% and use Carbon neutral ethanol. |
|
Seaotter Posted:
28/05/2007 18:08 |
| The world is now reaping the "benefits" of corn and soy based ethanol: 1)Crops that were used for human and animal food are now being changed into ethanol to feed the voracious energy appetites of damnable automobiles, lorries and other forms of transport. 2)The price of many basic foods is increasing due to the demand for ethanol feedstocks. Additionally, 3)the fermentation produces CO2, supposed by some to be harming the earth, so the ethanol is obviously not a good answer! Meanwhile, the health people are nattering endlessly about 4)obesity! Perhaps we should eat the grain and walk, thus solving at least two problems without creating others. Interestingly, a principle of physics seems to apply here: For every action, there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction! All of this proves quite succinctly that government action has never solved any problem without creating another of at least equal magnitude. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/05/2007 10:35 |
| Eat the grain and walk - 30 miles to work, 12 of those on a busy motorway, with a 5 mils detour to drop of a three and half your old and nine month old at daycare Got to be the most senseles suggestions yet. |
|
paul(UPV69897) Posted:
25/03/2008 12:21 |
| The reason why we have Global Warming is due to the fact that those in power on our planet have spent more time in generating wealth and profit from the planets resourses rather than anything else. Now we the joe soap in the street have to suffer and pick up the tab at the same time in an attempt to try and get some control over the situation. |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
28/03/2008 21:22 |
| This has been a most interesting week! Lord Monckton was kind enough to denounce antropogenic [human caused] global warming as the fraud that it is and the weather gurus finally admitted that global warming sort of stopped in 1998 and the temperature has been steady since then. The sea level hasn't risen and this past winter in N. America has been brutally cold. The forecast droughts have given way to floods, too! Now we hear from the gurus that record cold winters may even be a sign of warming! Lewis Carroll wrote about the Mad Hatter. This is a reference to the fate of the people who used mercury to make felt from furs. Today, he might have to write about the Mad Warmer. Perhaps his fate is due to the mercury from those awful coal-fired power plants that threaten our very lives! We see over and over again that governments have never solved any problem without creating a worse alternative. Since the gurus are all government wonks, perhaps we should be very cautious about believing them? |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/03/2008 22:17 |
| Just search on Google and you will see that Lord Monckton, who is not even a scientist, has been denounced as putting forward "junk science". |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2008 10:09 |
| Who the heck is Lord Monckton? And what are 'government wonks'? |
|
paul(UPV69897) Posted:
31/03/2008 15:32 |
| Just a thought? do you remember the 'milk bottle'. I wonder how much it cost to make compared to the milk carton. Remember when you went to the local grocer and purchased your meat, veg and assorted shopping and brought bags to put them in. Milk bottles were recycleable and the meat and veg fresh. Now everything in bubble packed, boxed and has several weeks/months/years expiry date on it. Nowdays when you bring your weekly shopping home at least 50% is packageing. Each week we receive enough junk mail the weight of a sunday paper which also carries its special offers/junk mail. Its very clear to me where the problem lies... our government and Brussels, yes the new directives must be adheared to or else. You must do this you must do that, money in the bank for business and taxes for the government. The taxpayer in this country has no choice but to sit in the M50 car park for several hours each day trying to get from A to B due to no proper transport system and the planning authority.. He! He! That was a joke. Then we pay for parking. Its a privilige and a luxury to own a car and in particular an SUV. The main polluters of our country and planet and the governments and their agencies ie. county coucils/local authorities. You, me and everybody else our role in life is to smile, work our asses off and hand over hard earned monies in taxes and levies. I'm prepared to speak out but why cannot we do something about it. During the elections last year I had for the very first time a green party canditate call to my door I have not seen, heard or smelt one since. Thank God for a sence of humour. I think I will take a break now and save the planet by washing my hands again....... |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
31/03/2008 16:14 |
| Dear Anon: The fact that Lord Moncton is not a scientist is irrelevant unless you believe that only scientists can possibly understand science. Since that is demonstrably untrue [science is a method of inquiry, not an arcane body of information], the denouncing that you refer to is probably simply ad hominem attacks. In this case you have to inquire: "Just whose ox is being gored?" 1. Criticism of AGW threatens a large number of generous grants and the livelihood of numerous "scientists". 2. Criticism of AGW impedes the transfer of power to governments and their bureaucracies. 3. Criticism of AGW has the potential to reduce the influence of key players and thus, their earnings as speakers at AGW conferences. The fact that we are attacked for criticizing a theory is counter to the understood scientific method. Theories are put forward inviting criticism that will prove or disprove or refine them. Scientific info is never set in stone so that it is beyond question. Only religion claims infallibility! |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
31/03/2008 20:48 |
| Who is Lord Monckton? Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a retired British international business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. What is a government wonk? Def:wonk (plural wonks) 1. An overly studious or hard-working person 2. A persnickety person, overly focuses on details 3. A nerd or an expert (often self-styled) |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2008 09:20 |
| Paul, while I agree with you in part - no-one's fresh meat and fresh veg has an expiry date of years or months and mine all from the Supermarket is perfectly fresh and hygenically packed - the packaging does not equate to even 10% of the shopping, and much of it can be recycled. Because quite frankly, I don't have the time that my lovely old grandmother had, to go to the butcher, greengrocer, baker and whoever else and the 'local grocer' what remains of them, is over priced and does not stock anywhere near the range of produce required and also, given the low turnover, doesnot stock the freshes tof goods. But I still bring bags to put my groceries in and I receive very little junk mail - can be recycled anyway. A car however is niether a privelige nor a luxury - but a neccessity. An SUV however is both a privilige and a luxury. |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2008 10:50 |
| Wonk, is a new one on me! Thanks. When I asked who Lord Monckton was, what I meant was Who is he in relevance to this discussion. If he is a business consultant, I take he writes and advises on same? |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
01/04/2008 17:05 |
| Dear Anon: Glad that you know what a wonk is now! The term is used a lot in the computing world, I think. Lord Monckton has a Cambridge education, was an adviser to the Thatcher govt and has dabbled in mathematics. I'm not sure of much more. I've heard him on radio from time to time and he seems to be a forthright skeptic of a lot of things that we take for granted. [Not in a curmudgeon way, but as a thoughtful opponent of what he considers nonsense.] The world is desperately short of thoughtful opposition, IMHO. |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
01/04/2008 17:36 |
| National Public Radio (USA) reports instead of warming up over the past four or five years, oceans have actually been cooling slightly. According to NPR, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments that can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the "Argo" system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans, but rather "slight cooling." |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2008 08:39 |
| Hmm, I've worked in IT for over a decade and a half and haven't heard it yet but no matter. If Christoper Mockron has a university degree / postgrad and writes for or advises businesses in a consultancy post, then it is certainly in his and their interest (and indeed the interest of the Thatcherite ideology that was) to oppose anything likely to damage that business, including perhaps the costs of having to a employ a greener modus operandi. Qui Bono, as they say. So Otter NPR U.S. would indicate that it is global cooling and the next ice age which we should be concerned about! |
|
SEA OTTER Posted:
02/04/2008 14:06 |
| I think that we have stumbled upon an oscillation, rather than an 'event'. I am a radio amateur and have had great fun when the 10 meter band allowed worldwide communications with very low power. This is always coincident with the peak of a solar sunspot cycle [which is an 11 year cycle for this aspect]. Last peak was ~2000, next one should occur in 2011-2012. Right now all I hear is white noise or someone a few miles away. The reason is that the sunspot numbers are nearly zero. At their peak there will be 120 (average) observable every day. An event known as the Maunder Minimum occurred from 1645 to 1715 when only 50 spots were observed during the entire event. This coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. We don't know where we are on the "Maunder cycle" but speculate that it will recur. |
| To join the discussion, register by clicking here |
|
QUICK LINKS: asthma | arthritis | psoriasis | crohn's | heart | epilepsy | eczema | osteoporosis | pregnancy | depression | alzheimer | cancer | sex | anxiety | overweight |
 |
About Irishhealth.com | Privacy Policy | Contact us | Why Register? | Make this your home page | Site Map |  |
| Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. We subscribe to the principles of the Health On the Net Foundation |
