Weather
Campaign groups unite in St Albans (From St Albans & Harpenden Review)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting st albans to 80360, or email us
Campaign groups unite in St Albans
3:54pm Saturday 7th November 2009
CAMPAIGNERS marched through the busy centre of St Albans this afternoon to demand an international deal to battle climate change when world leaders meet in Copenhagen next month.
Dressed in blue and carrying banners and placards, a group of about 50 representatives of various local environmental groups marched from the Alban Arena through the nearby farmers' market.
They included members of Greenpeace, the Green Party, Friends Of The Earth, Oxfam, the World Development Movement and the St Albans Churches Environmental Group.
Hilary Tyrell of Oxfam said: “Climate change is already happening, if we do not do something about it now, it will be too late.
“We are flirting with disaster.
“We must have an international agreement to reduce emmissions.”
Jeff Heine of the World Development Movement said: “We in the rich countries owe a huge debt to the Third World for all the damage we have done to them through climate change.
“Domestic animals kept by farmers are dying because of the droughts.
“Climate change is killing more than 300,000 people a year and it is set to get much worse.
“Countries like the UK have filled the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
“It's time to do the decent thing and pay the world's poorest people back for all the damage we have caused.”
The groups are planning to join a major national demonstration in Westminster on December 5, two days before leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss how they will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases which are warming the Earth.
The emission reductions agreed by 184 nations in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012, and campaigners hope for a new deal covering future years.
Louise Neicho of the Woodland Trust said: "Deforestation accounts for nearly 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emmissions.
"We need a treaty from Copenhagen that secures absolute protection for the world's forests."
More News stories
- Budding businessmen raise more than £2,000 for charity
- Four stuck in lift in St Abans
- Music marathon at Park Street church
- St Albans firefighters' charity effort
- Sporticus comes to Harpenden
- Parking fine misery over in Welwyn Hatfield car park
- Discover Welwyn Hatfield's history
- St Albans hotel plan in choppy waters
- St Albans firefighters to wash cars for charity tomorrow
- 39-year-old man from St Albans still missing
Your Say YourSt Albans
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
9:36am Mon 9 Nov 09
By the way, deforestation has a great many causes, direct and indirect. Pressure from local population is only one of them. More significant are unsustainable agricultural practices, logging, and demand from wealthy countries for meat and animal feed.
BillyBatford, Harpenden says...
10:27pm Mon 9 Nov 09
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
9:45am Tue 10 Nov 09
Why do you have such a problem with overwhelming consensus? The human species is living way beyond its means, so to have any meaningful future we need to stop treating our world like a skip. But that's a good thing - it's not nice to live in a skip.
It's not scaremongering, it's saying we can and must change how we do things, and that change will make us happier too.
BillyBatford, Harpenden says...
10:18pm Tue 10 Nov 09
The fact that you won't address a challenge when put to you - evidenced by your rather sloppy generalisation regarding the 'human species' - suggests your arguements aren't quite a clear cut as you'd like us to believe.
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
9:12am Wed 11 Nov 09
And what exactly is the "challenge"?
Bobbio, St Albans says...
9:12am Thu 12 Nov 09
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
11:27am Thu 12 Nov 09
Whose work has only once been academically assessed, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2001), which concluded that "The results provide little evidence to dismiss the observed success rates as being attributable to mere chance or good fortune"?
Bobbio, St Albans says...
2:34pm Thu 12 Nov 09
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
3:44pm Thu 12 Nov 09
1. Corbyn is a controversial meteorologist whose work has hardly ever been peer-reviewed and is not given credence by others in his field;
2. He is an even more controversial commentator on climate theory, who disagrees with even the measured historical data on climate, let alone the causes of it or the future implications (see some data at http://bit.ly/1ZcWVc
);
3. There remains very little peer-reviewed evidence that "climate change is not caused by CO2", as Bobbio says, and certainly no "proof";
4. Scientific theories are not generally "prooved" by one-off events or experiments, or the work of lone individuals - they gain acceptance by peer-review, testing by others, and the passage of time. On that basis, the current theory of man-made climate change is the best available, and the nearest we have to "the truth";
5. North Sea storms are not uncommon in November.
Bobbio, St Albans says...
9:38am Fri 13 Nov 09
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
4:41pm Fri 13 Nov 09
There have of course been other periods of global warming, caused by a number of different factors. The scientific consensus is that the current period of relatively rapid warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of man-made CO2.
Uniquely, we have the opportunity to reduce our emissions and give ourselves a better chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change by the end of the century.
Derek R., St Albans says...
5:59pm Fri 13 Nov 09
Let's start with those two previous 'warm' periods - what is your reason for they're being?
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
6:13pm Fri 13 Nov 09
.gov.uk/corporate/pr
essoffice/myths/3.ht
ml and http://bit.ly/3EdN62 if you want some easily digestible info on that.
Bobbio, St Albans says...
7:05pm Fri 13 Nov 09
Either temperature drives changes in CO2 - which is what I have always believed and which many charts show- or CO2 drives changes in temperature - the Met Office can't have it both ways.
Derek R., St Albans says...
7:28pm Fri 13 Nov 09
BillyBatford commented to which you replied quote:-
""climate change is not caused by CO2" is not a challenge, it's just nonsense. "
Are you claiming that CO2 drives the climate warmer - or not? If not, what does drive the climate? If you claim it does, what drove the climate to create the warm periods as previously asked - or, are you attempting to avoid answering by creating riddles?
Bobbio, St Albans says...
8:47pm Fri 13 Nov 09
k/news/2009/6649.htm
l
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
Derek R., St Albans says...
8:22am Sat 14 Nov 09
CO2 specifically has a greater effect over temperature at 20ppmv. As the volume increases so too does its overall effect decrease, so that huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere up to 3,000ppmv and beyond produce little more in addition to any temperature change, than say 600ppmv. The current levels around 388ppmv are historically low, and plant life would thrive more - with more. The 'greenhouse' analogy does not stand up in real science, but if we are to speak of atmospheric gas as having a 'greenhouse' effect, then 99.999% of that gas is water vapour – the natural water cycle. Of that remaining .001%, the remainder is made up of trace gases.
If we include natural water vapour over which we have no effect, the long story cut short, is that mankind has contributed to greenhouse gas quantities by 0.28%. The effects upon climate change are insignificant to the point of barely being measurable. If the entire industrial world shut down tomorrow, in 100 years from now those still alive would be back in the Stone Age, and with all other things being equal, the planet would have carried on unchanged.
As has been indicated, the oceans, the soil itself, and all growing things harbour huge amounts of CO2, and periodically expel - and absorb same, in accordance with varying temperatures governed by Solar and Cosmic activities which are way beyond mankind’s power, though the whole story of climatology is far from understood in full, let alone ‘settled’ with any ‘consensus’ on any one item of it.
If there is anything that wants campaigning against it is the powers that governments hold over the population at large, and apart from scare propaganda - one item specifically that has the capability of devastating our atmosphere and environment – H.A.A.R.P. The misuse of that government controlled device could devastate us all.
The belief that man made emissions are responsible for changing our planets climate are a side show, intended to distract and divert attention from the real threats that face us, and keep resources available to those who can afford it. Misdirected campaigning could cost us the earth. It is vital people research their subjects deeply, and do not take the headlines as truth. Only by digging deeper, is greater knowledge gained.
BillyBatford, Harpenden says...
9:31am Sat 14 Nov 09
Simon Grover wrote:What's sloppy are comments which are based on massive generalisations and assumptions from vested interests, and are made to get headlines to back up the 'consensus' as you put it.
What's sloppy about saying the human species is living beyond its means? When you add all the people up, we are consuming more of the world's resources than it or we are able to replace. And what exactly is the "challenge"?
Example: a question is put about providing clean drinking water in the 3rd world but you, our would-be MP, responds with some rubbish about 'Gravity Zelots'. Very inteligent.
So here's a real world issue for you: I've just started a (low-paid) job which requires me to travel 13 miles a day, 5 days a week.
To go Green (return walk/train/bus) would take me 3 hours (15 hours a week)and cost me £15 a day (£75 a week). To travel by Car takes me 80 minutes (6hrs 40mins a week) and costs me £30 a week in petrol (saving £45 a week).
Now can you tell me and others like me you propose to make going Green attractive? This is the sort of real issue that the Greens need to address rather than assumptions and consensus.
Derek R., St Albans says...
12:36pm Sat 14 Nov 09
Water vapour as a greenhouse gas makes up 95% of all such greenhouse gases and is by far the most powerful.
Of that 95%, 99.999% is of natural origin. (Some argue 100%).
Of the remaining 5% of greenhouse gases, Carbon Dioxide makes up 3.618% (the remainder is made up of Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFC’s and other miscellaneous gases).
Of that 3.618% CO2, 3.5% is natural. All man made CO2 contributions account for 0.117%. It must be recognised that Carbon Dioxide is no pollutant – it is the gas of life, and without it all biological species would die. Commercial growers keep their greenhouses up around 1200ppmv for optimum plant growth, there is nothing harmful in CO2.
Adding up all the anthropological greenhouse gases and factoring in water vapour, mankind is contributing 0.28%. Nature makes the other 99.72% - over which we have no control or effect.
If the Kyoto Protocol had been fully carried out by all nations, we would be using 30% less energy than we currently do, pay 20 – 50% more for everything from cars to a box of matches, and would have reduced our CO2 output by 0.035% at massive social and economical cost. This is an infinitesimally small amount compared to nature’s own variable output.
The likes of Rio, Kyoto, Bali, and Copenhagen, are little more that bandwagons for those who wish to cadge a ride in ‘saving the World’ – excessively expensive ‘Jollies’ at tax payers expense – and heaven knows governments know how to waste our money!
All the above figures can be referenced, and hundreds of scientific documents if not thousands have been written on these subjects, and more, that most of the general public will not know exist. The sound bites of sinking Islands and dying animals is media fodder – they make, and sell News.
It sounds like a worthy campaign, but do not be fooled. It is a cardboard castle, built on the quicksands of truth.
Peter S, St Albans says...
9:11pm Sat 14 Nov 09
There are also a number of misunderstandings which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact.
As one of the world’s leading centres on climate change the Met Office believe it is important to address all the issues and they have published a short guide looking at the facts and impacts and history of climate change.
The short guide can be viewed on-line or can be downloaded as a 9-page PDF and is available at http://www.metoffice
.gov.uk/climatechang
e/
Peter S, St Albans says...
9:45pm Sat 14 Nov 09
.gov.uk/corporate/pr
essoffice/myths/
The link in my previous post takes you to a longer publication (20 pages) but well worth reading.
Derek R., St Albans says...
8:44am Sun 15 Nov 09
When the facts don’t fit the Policy – create ‘Mythology’! I refer to;
1. The time span which has been shown leaves out a great deal of previous data that would show nature has a greater hand than man. There has been indisputable evidence that the Earth has been warmed in the past, and there is indisputable evidence that the Earth has cooled in the last nine years – see fact 2. Concentrations of CO2 – see my previous post.
2. The met Office anomaly graph shows that temperatures have fallen since 1998, as do the majority of other data available. See http://tinyurl.com/q
872l8 The Hadley Centres data is the data the Met Office uses.
3. First paragraph – true. Second paragraph – true. Third, true - until the last two sentences. There is no evidence to show that the link between CO2 and temperature is working in the opposite direction. The time lag between CO2 rise or fall after temperature rise or fall is in the region of 800 years (some say much more). Clearly in the current time spans spoken of, this projection is faulty (tomorrow, I will win the lottery). CO2 content from ice cores has been found to be not as accurate as previously thought due to degradation. It can be as much as 10-15% greater.
4. This makes little sense.
5. The Earth is not currently warming, and ice sheets are thickening.
6. Computer models for projecting any climate change are subject to entered data. None have been proven to date, and so far they have only been used to bolster intergovernmental policies. Rubbish In – Rubbish Out.
Myth 1 (The only one it would appear). Others have determined that cosmic radiation has a most definite effect on all planets - as does Solar radiation. There is a clear indication here that cosmology is not understood by the Met Office. Can they predict the weather for the coming month? Solar activity has been measured accurately for hundreds of years, and the lack of Sun Spot activity over the past decade is primarily responsible for the current downtrend in temperatures. A lack of Solar radiation, allows more cosmic radiation through which has a cooling effect. The Little Ice Age is a prime example of this.
Climate Science Coalition http://nzclimatescie
nce.net/index.php
Greenhouse & warming http://www.junkscien
ce.com/Greenhouse/
McKintyre: Climate Audit http://www.climateau
dit.org/
Dr R. Spencer: http://www.drroyspen
cer.com/
Climate Observer: http://climateobserv
er.blogspot.com/
Thousands of articles: http://tinyurl.com/3
yop6n
I would implore people to find out more about what Climatology is all about, but more importantly, how the environmental movement is being used as a tool by government to apply leverage to a fear campaign to control the population at large, and to extract as much income as possible from them.
Bobbio, St Albans says...
7:09pm Sun 15 Nov 09
The revelation that ministers have failed in their campaign to persuade the public that the greenhouse effect is a serious threat requiring urgent action will make uncomfortable reading for the Government as it prepares for next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.'
The IPCC Report was described by Seitz as the worst abuse of the peer review process he has seen. No wonder Piers Corbyn does not bother with the peer review system
Simon Grover, St Albans says...
7:39pm Sun 15 Nov 09
And climate change should absolutely not be used as an excuse to control the population or, specifically, increase taxes.
Green taxes should be revenue neutral, REPLACING others, such as VAT and NI, which generally tax 'good' things, instead of things we want to reduce, like pollution.
The argument is well put (below) by 'Climate Cassandra's blog' at http://bit.ly/XyRwU
"The real question now is that of public policy and here a version of Pascal’s Wager applies. If the consensus is right it would be dangerous to the lives of many people to wait the years that may be needed to approach certainty more closely. If the consensus is wrong and we act as if it were true we will waste money on insulation, wind farms and carbon offsets and some of us will take fewer foreign trips.
Morally, I don’t find that a difficult decision."
Bobbio, St Albans says...
10:09am Mon 16 Nov 09
Peter S, St Albans says...
3:09pm Mon 16 Nov 09
om/watch?v=zORv8wwia
dQ
He has more in-depth info and links to other videos expanding on this approach on his website at http://www.gregcrave
n.org/
Derek R., St Albans says...
4:38pm Mon 16 Nov 09
His ideas come from his thirty odd pupils, and his experience as a school teacher. Looks like he might be a part time clown after the day job.
I'm sure he feels like he is 'doing his bit', but this is too simplistic and naive an approach to something far in excess of his coverage.
Such climatological issues will fade as more understand we are neither to 'blame' for our climate, nor able to control it. Watch for the next wave of fear mongering in 'food security'. Do a search for 'Codex Alimentarius'.
Peter S, St Albans says...
12:17am Tue 17 Nov 09
It's a version of Pascal's Wager as mentioned in Simon's post, and it is about being responsible and taking out insurance when appropriate.
The choice we have to make is not between "GW is real" and "GW is fake". The real choice we have to make is between acting now to prevent or minimise global runaway climate change in case it is true, or doing nothing.
To make that choice you ask such questions as: "What's the worst that could happen? How likely is it? What is the cost to prevent it? (wasted if not true)"
Only in the future, post facto, will we know for sure if global runaway climate change is real or not, but by that time, and if it turns out to be true, it will be too late.
In the meantime, the best we have to make our decision are probabilities, both about the likelihood and about the severity of the risks.
For these probabilities I'd rather rely on what most of the experts say than on the opinion of single individuals. Although I could be wrong, the odds are stacked in favour of the consensus expert opinion. So the only responsible choice, especially given what is at stake, is to go with the consensus opinion. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible gambling.
Derek R., St Albans says...
9:24am Thu 19 Nov 09
You may consider this link as one to 'one man's view', I can assure you it is not. http://tinyurl.com/y
gs5sp5
The demonstrators want urgent international action.
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Bobbio, St Albans says...
10:37am Sun 8 Nov 09