Economic downturn...

[Flyfisher]

Well, if that's their intention then it doesn't work, with me at least, because if I've had to chase them two or three times for a quote and they can't be bothered then they are off my list forever. In fact, it works against them because if they simply said they didn't want the work then I would probably still pass on their details to anyone looking for similar work. But I'd never pass on details of anyone who couldn't be bothered to reply at all.

 

[biffvernon]

I am sure it is just a little blip

The financial crisis will be "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s", cabinet minister Ed Balls has predicted.

source

In 1930 we still had 75 years of expansion of oil production to grow with.

Now we don't.

 

[Flyfisher]

Don't worry, there's loads of coal left.

 

[biffvernon]

There's enough coal to ensure that most of the Earth will become uninhabitable if we burn it, but not enough that can be extracted at a fast enough rate to revive economic growth. Either way, it can't easily substitute for much of the oil usage.

 

[Flyfisher]

I guess we'll never know.

 

[biffvernon]

We can know, though the elderly amongst us may not experience directly.

 

[Wren]

6.7 billion hungry mouths to feed and rising. Sustainable local food production is the only way?

 

[Jon Maine]

6.7 billion hungry mouths to feed and rising. Sustainable local food production is the only way?

Localisation of everything rather than globalisation leaves some hope maybe

Oh and scrap the robots give everyone a rake and a hoe..........

Shall I stop now? I know its the reality of how things should revert but peoples greed for more for doing less is counter productive.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Time for a reprint of "News from Nowhere" by the patron saint of conservationists, William Morris

 

[biffvernon]

Absolutely. If only the world had listened to William Morris...

Here is an online version of News from Nowhere.

 

[Pford75]

Wondered if you'd also seen this interesting article from the US Senate Cmtee on the environment

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Including this rather damning extract

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications

 

[dragonfly]

I must admit to healthy skecpticism over the whole climate change debate. On a planet millions of years old, how can predictions be made on the basis of what has happened over the last 100 or so years. I do however hate the throw away culture that has been prevalent over the last few years and the energy wastage that has gone with it; although as energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changed to another form according to Newton, where did it all go?.....b****r just argued myself back into the climate change debate .

 

[biffvernon]

Wondered if you'd also seen...

Oh yes. Old stuff from Senator Inhofe, chief of the denialists. It is a collection of lies, glued together with drivel. Every bit of it has been thoroughly picked over and debunked, starting with the top line about "James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic ". The guy in question, John S. Theon, never was Jim Hansen's supervisor. You need to understand that there are people, even American Senators, who tell lies and go on telling lies even after they have been exposed and held up to public ridicule. Inhofe is a seriously bad man. He probably thinks injected damp courses and plastic windows and OPC for pointing are good ideas, but I can't prove that.

My personal opinion of anybody who supports the ideas of Inhofe and his friends could not be published on this forum without my getting banned.

Your question, Dragonfly, "On a planet millions of years old, how can predictions be made on the basis of what has happened over the last 100 or so years." is a fair question. The fact is that reliable predictions can be made based on our understanding of the Earth system. There's a lot more to it than just what has happened over the last 100 or so years of course, and I really couldn't answer your question in a few lines.

If you want to learn about climate science then read what climate scientists write. http://www.realclimate.org/

If you don't want to learn about climate science, that's fines, but you'll just have to trust those who do. It's like brain surgeons - if you can't be bothered to become one it's best to trust those who have.

 

[Flyfisher]

What's Lovelock's current standing among environmentalists these days? Is he a trustworthy 'brain surgeon'? His reported view that it's too late to do anything substantive about climate change would seem to be a bit 'inconvenient' for such an eminent figure within the environmental movement. Is it worse to deny climate change or deny that it can be prevented?

Presumably he takes a broader view than a few hundred years? As Dragonfly rightly says, the planet has existed for millions of years and life on it has survived far greater climate changes than anything we're predicting over the next 200 years or so, even with a complete 'flip' within existing systems. Imagine the 'catastrophe' that led to highly reactive oxygen becoming a significant constituent of the atmosphere - er, and made it possible for us to exist in the first place.

I suspect it's our own unique (allegedly) intelligence and self-awareness that gives us an undeserved sense of independence from the natural order of things and the idea that the planet should either be, or be made to be, suitably accommodating for our particular needs. Unfortunately, given that more species have become extinct than currently exist today, this would be an amazing bucking of a 4 billion year trend.

Not that amazing things can't happen, and we do have the advantage of being the most intelligent and adaptable species on the planet, but whatever happens I suspect 'life on earth' will carry on regardless of whatever tiny upset (in a relative sense) we might cause to the climate.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

In the world of conservation, economic clouds can, sometimes, have silver linings:

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Caltongate-on-the-brink-of.4963189.jp

 

[biffvernon]

What's Lovelock's current standing among environmentalists these days? Is he a trustworthy 'brain surgeon'? His reported view that it's too late to do anything substantive about climate change would seem to be a bit 'inconvenient' for such an eminent figure within the environmental movement. Is it worse to deny climate change or deny that it can be prevented?

Presumably he takes a broader view than a few hundred years? As Dragonfly rightly says, the planet has existed for millions of years and life on it has survived far greater climate changes than anything we're predicting over the next 200 years or so,

The end Permian event saw the extinction of some 90% of fossil forming creatures. Life survived, but not much of it.

In an interview for New Scientist a fortnight ago, Lovelock expressed the view that the world's human population might be reduced by nine tenths by the end of the century, climate change making agriculture possible in very limited parts of the world. He said that it was not too late to do anything, but that the only thing that would stand a chance of making a sufficient difference would be to reverse the increase in atmospheric CO2 by sequestering in the form of bio-char - burning biomass in reduced oxygen to produce charcoal and returning it to the soil. He said that he thought it unlikely that we would adopt such measures and therefore was pessimistic for the future of much of humanity.

Lovelock has irritated some environmentalists because he does not like the look of wind turbines and thinks that they will not make much difference anyway. Also, he is not worried about the dangers of nuclear power and thinks it would be better to have nuclear power stations substituting for coal, which must not be burned.

On the matter of can climate change be prevented, this article Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable by David Archer is worth reading. It discusses a paper, Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions by Susan Solomon et al., last week.

I do think it important to distinguish between what is written in peer-reviewed scientific journals (go to RealClimate for that) and the opinions of retired scientists like Lovelock (or me).

 

[Flyfisher]

The end Permian event saw the extinction of some 90% of fossil forming creatures. Life survived, but not much of it.

Precisely my point. Life on Earth is amazingly resilient. Individual species, like us, may not be.

In an interview for New Scientist a fortnight ago,

I've read the article and agree that Lovelock's overall view was one of pessimism, for which he gave, I think, good reasons ( but I've not copied them here).
NS: Do we have time . . . with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?
JL: Not a hope in hell.
NS: What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?
JL: That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous.
NS: Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?
JL: It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.
NS: So are we doomed?
JL: [explains the massive burial of charcoal and burying it]. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.
NS: Do you think we'll survive?
JL:[explains that 90% of the population will die out this century due to lack of food production]. I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks where there were less than 2000 people left. It's happening again.
NS: It's a depressing outlook.
JL: Not necessarily. I don't think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which caused enormous change by releasing oxygen - a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out to be of enormous benefit.

Also, he is not worried about the dangers of nuclear power and thinks it would be better to have nuclear power stations substituting for coal, which must not be burned.

Or, he considers nuclear power the lesser of two evils. Anyone who thinks that the world's coal stocks will not be burned because of some future risk of climate
change is living in a fantasy world. Surely the only hope of stopping it is to develop alternative sources of equivalent amounts of power, or do you envisage governments using military intervention to create exclusion zones around coal reserves to prevent them being mined?

I do think it important to distinguish between what is written in peer-reviewed scientific journals (go to RealClimate for that) and the opinions of retired scientists like Lovelock (or me).

I don't agree that the opinions of scientists (or anyone else) suddenly become less worthy just because they've retired and the history of science abounds with examples of peer-reviewed papers that turned out to be wrong. Indeed, the peer-review process can make it very hard for anyone with non-establishment views to get published in the first place.

I also think that too much reliance (faith?) is being put in a scientific solution when the real problem, I think, is far more likely to be social. We've only got to consider the general view of the current economic downturn as being overwhelmingly 'a bad thing' with no apparent attempt to use it as an opportunity to cut back on our unsustainable energy-intensive lifestyles. All indications are that everyone wants to get back to continuous global economic growth as quickly as possible. No doubt when that short-term goal has been achieved then governments will, again, start paying lip-service to environmental concerns.

There are huge differences between being able to do something, being willing to do something and being capable of doing something. Lovelock seems to be saying that we're not going to be capable of doing anything. I tend to agree.

 

[middi]

My plilosophy is that we grovel in our own importance on this planet. Why don't we understand that we are nothing but atoms arranged in such configuration that we understand it as "life", which devours anything in sight to sustain our existence,

Where do we stand in cosmic terms? . Are we aspiring in outliving the end of the Universe?. The Scientific truth appears to be that we are doomed ( eventually). We are most likely to become extinct because of an earthly or cosmic disaster long before we have managed to travel beyond our solar system to save ourselves from this speeded up, and eventually species rearranging, planet.

If we are extremely carefull and considerate about our devouring habits we may prolong dooms day but only slightly.

Still, our human make up is such that we have to carry on understanding how it all works, that way we can really panic because we know what's coming.

Relax,and use more condoms. Better still, handle this stressfull situation like a dog - P""S on it and walk away :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

Yes. I wasn't suggesting that an opinion from someone who is retired is less worthy - I was just drawing the distinction between the published scientific literature and the opinions of retired scientist like Lovelock and me. Because we are not working within the constraints of the peer review process we are more free in what we write - free to write both wisdom and drivel. Reader beware.

I happen to think that current economic downturn as being overwhelmingly 'a good thing' and should be used as an opportunity to cut back on our unsustainable energy-intensive lifestyles. The deeper and more long-lasting the recession the greater our chance of avoiding disaster. There is no market for the oil from the Athabasca tar sands now, for example. It is to our great shame that economic depression affects people very unfairly with the pain being unequally distributed.

 

[worms]

I was just drawing the distinction between the published scientific literature and the opinions of retired scientists...

I think your point is well made, we can all voice opinions based on a varied level of understanding of any topic but opinion is rarely sufficient to stand up to peer review for a reputable journal. The problem is that senior figures in science (and the same happens in all walks of life, and notably with judges, clerics and retired generals) often stray from their real sphere of expertise and it is easy to forget that once they are out of their comfort zone, their opinions are not necessarily based on a proper review of the scientific literature.

This doesn't, of course, apply to Lovelock who is still within the topic that he spent most of his academic life studying.