what are your biggest electricity costs ?

[Richard]

moonjiver, you are absolutely right.
Whilst it is patently true that, on a geological timescale, the earth has experienced enormous temperature ranges and condition in which no life could even exist, this does not mean that man's effect on his relatively small time-frame existence on earth has no relevance, on his rather delicate requirements, inside quite limited and specific variables.
And that of other life-forms of course.
We have to be careful because we can only live in a narrow range of conditions which, if altered, can mean we have upset the balance in the weather patterns etcetera.
The hole in the Ozone layer is a good example of how the CFC's released by human activities can allow radiation through to strike us (causing cancers) and now, hopefully, this has been addressed.
Whether people like it or not, cleaner power is becoming much more important, although it is clear there is still no ideal solution available beyond relying on fossil hydrocarbons as well as renewable resources like wind turbine and solar power.
Actually I think it would be better to press on with 'solar' and require all new houses to incorporate it, not in ugly panels on the roof, but by building it into the actual roof tiles which is possible with modern technology, and would not even be visible.

I think the 'Green party' are basically just a protest vote and they have no workable policies and so are now suggesting that all property should be nationalised - and just how well would that go down with home-owners in Brighton ?
They should stick to their main beliefs that they started with and not stray into daft ideas.

[cbe]

I too have no wish to offend and I must admit my earlier post came when I was in a grumpy mood....but.......there is plenty of scientific evidence 'against' too(man being the main cause), but you have to dig to find it. Why? because the 'green' lobby have completely captured the audience and all naysayers are drowned out. Indeed people have lost their jobs for having 'the wrong views'. It is almost impossible for experts with an alternative view to get space in the print media and as for the BBC...'nuff sed' .
There is very clear evidence that the earth has NOT warmed up over the past dozen years or so but that is explained away as a blip and in no way connected with the
overwhelming evidence blah, blah, blah'.
May I just give one throw-away remark rather than to try to compete with your no-doubt sincerely held views,which are diametrically-opposed to mine - We are told that the temperature is rising on Mars......not too many 4-wheel drives up there ?

[moonjiver]

Thank you for that endorsement! I agree with all you say. The Green party have never "held sway" politically and do not at all set the agenda. They are a vociferous group but remain a small protest party whom politicians for long largely ignored. Indeed, politicians in many countries have been very slow to react to the looming threat from climate change (vested interests, taking actions which were expensive or politically unpopular etc.). The main thrust of the argument for climate-warming (and the need for action) has come from the scientific institutions, respected researchers who have studied patterns of the earth's geology over many years and have no political affiliations or vested commercial interests.

I think a lot of the arguments for the unsightliness of wind turbines, solar panels etc. will become less critical in time - yes, there are some severe aesthetic issues at present but it is likely that research and further development will produce improved technology - smaller and much more efficient systems, look at the vast progress with batteries for storing electrical power for all manner of devices, even now small practicable ones for cars.

But it may also become rather irrelevant anyway. In a few decades the pressure to change our living habits may be so great that a few ugly panels in the roof may seem infinitely preferable to our civilisation being challenged by extreme weather patterns across the world - because of the damage caused by man's voracious demand for energy!

[moonjiver]

I can't really add much to my earlier remarks. It is simply nonsense that the other side of the argument is drowned out by some kind of "conspiracy" amongst the authorities, the conventional consensus about climate change, even the poor old BBC!

There are plenty of outlets like "Nature" and other scientific journals where varying arguments can be presented , many of the major papers published are reproduced or at least reported in the main newspapers and other media. I have read these counter-arguments about climate change numerous times in different sources. The reason that the anti-climate change argument is so little heard lately is because it is completely unconvincing -unsupported by real evidence.

As for the argument FOR climate change, there is no need to go into all the facts and figures, the research results are all in the public domain and available to anybody to study. Yes, the scientific community does have a record of closing ranks at times against new or challenging or non-mainstream theories. In the age of the internet (if anything, too free and open to all), it is probably less easy to do this than ever before in history. The opportunity is always there for the anti-climate change lobby to put forward a reasoned argument.

[Richard]

In any case if we can reduce our energy costs in the house we benefit financially (in our pockets) - and that is surely the major concern for any sensible person.
Whether we believe in global warming or not or whether we buy from 'green energy' companies or not, it makes good sense to reduce our running costs by being aware at least of which household appliances are the greatest users of energy and which companies supply the best tariffs.

[cbe]

I am not sure what 'endorsement' I gave, however I will only make one final post on this point as neither of us will ever convince the other on this topic.
As regards 'no vested interests'.....academics with the 'correct views' not only get their chairs but also the funding to do their continued research. This funding will be on an unspoken condition that the research continues to prove the 'facts'.
As regards manufacturers of and investors in solar panels and wind turbines. they will obviously be vociferous in lobbying government and indeed supporting said academics.
Finally although IPPC climate models incorporate the theory of anthropogenic global warming, satellite and independent balloon data have shown a zero trend (in warming)
between 1979 and 1997. There was a spike in 1998 which has been universally attributed to a super el-Nino but the trend has been down again since then....
Moonjiver/Richard I will leave you the floor on this now otherwise we will all be tempted to listed dates/temperatures ad nauseum and as I said at the start - I think our minds are made up

[Richard]

My mind is not 'made up' I change it all the time.
The hole in the Polar ozone layer (discovered in the late 1970's) was an indisputable demonstration of the need to keep a sensible check on possible human damage to the lower stratosphere.
In middle latitudes, it is more accurate to speak of ozone depletion rather than holes.
In the troposphere ozone is a pollutant. In the stratosphere it absorbs hazardous ultraviolet radiation.
One molecule of CFC has about 20,000 times the heat trapping power on a molecule of CO2.

[Richard]

It took around 3600 million years of photosynthesis by blue-green algae to gradually release oxygen molecules into the atmosphere working to strengthen the ozone layer and change the Earth's chemically reducing atmosphere into a chemically oxidizing one.
And we nearly destroyed it, in polar regions, in less than 100 years.

[cbe]

I realise that I said that my last post on this topic would be just that, but if I may be permitted just this one last bite -
(a)The rise and fall of the earth's temperature is related directly to solar activity. You will be able to read material about increased sun-spot activity correlating to increased Earth temperatures and reduced sun-spot activity (like now) having the opposite effect.
(b) Total global polar sea ice has been largely unchanged for the past 35 years. Arctic ice has grown 60% in the last 3 years. Antarctic sea ice was at an all time record for size in late 2014.
(c)Polar bear populations are at record size
(d) Sea levels have been rising for the past 20000 years - the rate is not increasing
(e) I believe it was just last year that the Met Office reported that global warming stopped 16 years ago.
(f) you might not have seen the report - not surprising - the new data, collected from 3000 sites on land and at sea, was released quietly on the internet without ANY media reporting - strange that !

Sorry for putting this stuff in this bullet-point fashion but I thought it would be a little more palatable without mountains of numbers and scientific jargon

[Richard]

(a) Changes in solar energy continue to affect climate. However, solar activity has been relatively constant, aside from the 11-year cycle, since the mid-20th century and therefore does not explain the recent warming of Earth. Similarly, changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit as well as the tilt and position of Earth’s axis affect temperature on relatively long timescales (tens of thousands of years), and therefore cannot explain the recent warming.

(b) The Daily Mail's claim that Arctic sea ice had increased by 60 percent not only pushed a misleading narrative about the clear long-term decline in Arctic ice, but also got the figures wrong -- the real increase was less than half that amount.

(c) The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear and vary from region to region.

(d) There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

(e) The Mail on Sunday (writer David Rose) is notorious for publishing misleading articles about 'global warming' and the Met Office denies they ever issued a report that global warming stopped 16 years ago and said that Mr. Rose was focusing on short-term variations that do not show the bigger picture of definite global warming.

(f) The 'report' was journalistic fabrication and misleading.