I've been up to my eyeballs in so many things for the last couple of moths so sorry for the lack of postings. It's not because I haven't been doing anything, it's the opposite, I've been doing so much I haven't had time to blog about it!
Anyway, there will be posts on Wi-Fi, Copenhagen and various other important topics soon but, in the mean time, this is a letter I've just sent to the Adver regarding the recent deluge of "it's not happening" or "it's not us" letters they have printed about climate change. Enjoy.
Given the recent spate of letters about climate change, I would like to add some factual answers to the questions posed.
Firstly, the "It's the sun" argument, solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began. Various independent measurements of solar activity all confirm the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1978. As for "It’s cosmic rays", while the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. I can’t remember who said “it’s the moon moving nearer to /further from the earth”. This is a new one to me and some what odd as the moon as been slowing, but steadily, moving away from the earth since we landed on it 1969 and started taking daily measurements. The moon has many huge effects on the earth, such as the tides, but doesn’t affect sea temperate.
Secondly, the "Climate's changed before", "It's just a natural cycle". "Greenland was green" and "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low” or "Animals and plants can adapt to global warming" arguments. A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly. Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2. The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occurring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance. The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon. Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect..
As for questioning the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming or reliability of climate models, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position and while there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat.
The "Human CO2 is a only a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions and so we are too insignificant to affect the global climate” argument holds no weight. There is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. Humans are emitting 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans are dramatically altering the composition of our climate.
Finally, the claim that "Global warming is good". The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Friday, 17 July 2009
The Xander never forgets...
Yesterday on the way home a little girl said "Hello Alexander" to Xander. He waved back and said hello. I asked him how he knew her, was she in his class? He said no and claimed he had never seen her before. I asked him how she knew his name, he suggested that she must had guessed it. I said "that would be unlikely it would have been a very good guess" he said "then she must be very clever". I suggested that maybe they had in fact met and she had remembered him but he had forgotten her. He stated this was impossible as he remembers everything as he is "The Xander". I suggested that this was not true, he got cross and ignored me.
Today, I got his class photo back. He is standing right next to the little girl!
Today, I got his class photo back. He is standing right next to the little girl!
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
P Meeting: 27th July 2008, Agenda
Our next meeting will be 27th July 2008 at Central Community Centre, Emlyn Square from 7:30pm.
Agenda:
1) Welcome and refreshments, apologies and minutes (5 Minutes)
2) Stalls and events: Peace festival, Pride, Social event, Forest festival (5 Minutes)
3) Tresurers Report: Fundraising (15 Minutes)
4) Membership Secretary’s Report: Recruitment (15 Minutes)
5) Vision (local manifesto) (15 Minutes)
6) AOB (5 Minutes)
Agenda:
1) Welcome and refreshments, apologies and minutes (5 Minutes)
2) Stalls and events: Peace festival, Pride, Social event, Forest festival (5 Minutes)
3) Tresurers Report: Fundraising (15 Minutes)
4) Membership Secretary’s Report: Recruitment (15 Minutes)
5) Vision (local manifesto) (15 Minutes)
6) AOB (5 Minutes)
Friday, 19 June 2009
GREEN ACTION TO PROTECT IRANIAN BLOGGERS
From the Green Group of Councillors, Brighton & Hove City Council
Green Cllr Ben Duncan has called on all UK bloggers to change the
location and time zone details of their blog and twitter accounts to
say they are based in Iran.
His action comes after an Iranian blogger contacted him asking for
help, stating that Iranian secret police are rounding up people
blogging and twittering about events in the country, using a list
detailing which accounts are registered in Iran and with this unique
time zone.
Ben, the Green Group of Cllrs Human Rights Spokesperson and Green
Parliamentary candidate for Brighton Kemptown said:
“If thousands of us around the world make these settings our own, the
hope is that the secret police will be overwhelmed and free blogging
and twittering will continue in Iran a while longer.
“Freedom of speech on the 'net - and for journalists in general - must
be preserved: it's only if people know what's going on that they can
make an informed decision, and no-one will know what's going on if the
police are arresting everyone who's trying to tell us!
“So please change these details, even if just for a day or two: it
takes less than a minute, costs nothing, and could prevent an innocent
'blogger from a night (or more...) in the cells, and help preserve the
free flow of information about political events both inside, and
beyond, Iran.”
ENDS
Notes for editors:
Tehran time is GMT + 3.30
For more information please contact Ben Duncan on 07824 266 953, or
see his blog at:
http://greenkemptownben.blogspot.com/2009/06/act-now-to-protect-iranian-political.html
Green Cllr Ben Duncan has called on all UK bloggers to change the
location and time zone details of their blog and twitter accounts to
say they are based in Iran.
His action comes after an Iranian blogger contacted him asking for
help, stating that Iranian secret police are rounding up people
blogging and twittering about events in the country, using a list
detailing which accounts are registered in Iran and with this unique
time zone.
Ben, the Green Group of Cllrs Human Rights Spokesperson and Green
Parliamentary candidate for Brighton Kemptown said:
“If thousands of us around the world make these settings our own, the
hope is that the secret police will be overwhelmed and free blogging
and twittering will continue in Iran a while longer.
“Freedom of speech on the 'net - and for journalists in general - must
be preserved: it's only if people know what's going on that they can
make an informed decision, and no-one will know what's going on if the
police are arresting everyone who's trying to tell us!
“So please change these details, even if just for a day or two: it
takes less than a minute, costs nothing, and could prevent an innocent
'blogger from a night (or more...) in the cells, and help preserve the
free flow of information about political events both inside, and
beyond, Iran.”
ENDS
Notes for editors:
Tehran time is GMT + 3.30
For more information please contact Ben Duncan on 07824 266 953, or
see his blog at:
http://greenkemptownben.blogspot.com/2009/06/act-now-to-protect-iranian-political.html
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Jenny Jones's Article on guardian.co.uk,
There are many shades of Green.
The media should be talking about the Green party's range of interconnected policies, not accusing us of single-issue politics
It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning – that "the clue's in the name" – doesn't entirely stack up.
Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus. It would have no policy on crime, because crime isn't work. It could have no policy on defence, health or public transport, except insofar as wages and contracts were concerned. Is that what we would assume about a party called Labour?
Possibly the Greens are asking for trouble because they have a flower as their logo. But then, so does Labour. And the Lib Dems have a startled chicken, but would anyone say this aptly symbolised the Liberal Democrats? (Ok, I concede that particular point).
It always was strange that people would describe the Greens as "single issue". You only ever had to look at our manifesto to see policies on everything that everyone else had policies on.
It's also a fundamental misrepresentation. The Green party – formerly the Ecology party – formerly People – has an ecological perspective. Ecology is about everything and how it all interconnects. How could anyone ever see everything and how it all interconnects as a single issue?
This is what's distinctive about the Green party: it is the original party of joined-up thinking. The other parties have traditionally seen issues as though they were separate things in separate boxes. So, for example, transport policy was only about moving people and goods from A to B. But ask a Green to invent a transport policy for you, and they wouldn't know how to be so narrow. A Green or ecological perspective will, by its very nature, think of the thing itself and how it interconnects with everything else. Hence transport and climate change; transport and social inclusion; transport and congestion and the resulting costs to businesses; transport and disruption of communities; the impacts of transport's noise and air pollution on health; transport and external costs; and so on. That's how you end up with a Green transport policy, as opposed to endless roadbuilding, airport expansions and the highest rail fares in Europe.
That the party that blazed new trails and pioneered joined-up thinking was caricatured as single issue, against all logic, against all evidence, is one of the big ironies of modern British politics.
Most of the time, most people get most of their information about politics from the mass media. It's a relief to see that the media have recently been giving more attention, for instance, to the Green party's economic policies. Indeed, one highly respected journalist in the Daily Telegraph last week congratulated the Green Party for being ahead of the economic curve with its Green New Deal. But the reappearance of the "one-issue Greens" myth in the Guardian, of all places, in the last few days shows that the falsehood still lives.
Whoever this falsehood serves, it doesn't serve the British voter. Democracy depends on good information. The media acknowledge their duty to tell the truth. I think there's one major task the UK media could undertake now, while British politics is in such a state of disarray that the British voter is clamouring for sweeping reforms. It's this: tell the British voter about the Green party. Not about its environment policy, but about its million-jobs manifesto. Its commitment to re-regulating the buses and doubling the number of them. Its policy for re-nationalising the railways and slashing rail fares. Its policy of rescuing the NHS from privatisation, restoring free dental care and dramatically improving maternity services.
These are good policies, and they're policies only the Green party is offering. They're popular policies, and the readers and viewers and listeners would like to hear about them. Telling the voters about all of this can only be a good thing for British democracy.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/16/green-party-policies)
The media should be talking about the Green party's range of interconnected policies, not accusing us of single-issue politics
It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning – that "the clue's in the name" – doesn't entirely stack up.
Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus. It would have no policy on crime, because crime isn't work. It could have no policy on defence, health or public transport, except insofar as wages and contracts were concerned. Is that what we would assume about a party called Labour?
Possibly the Greens are asking for trouble because they have a flower as their logo. But then, so does Labour. And the Lib Dems have a startled chicken, but would anyone say this aptly symbolised the Liberal Democrats? (Ok, I concede that particular point).
It always was strange that people would describe the Greens as "single issue". You only ever had to look at our manifesto to see policies on everything that everyone else had policies on.
It's also a fundamental misrepresentation. The Green party – formerly the Ecology party – formerly People – has an ecological perspective. Ecology is about everything and how it all interconnects. How could anyone ever see everything and how it all interconnects as a single issue?
This is what's distinctive about the Green party: it is the original party of joined-up thinking. The other parties have traditionally seen issues as though they were separate things in separate boxes. So, for example, transport policy was only about moving people and goods from A to B. But ask a Green to invent a transport policy for you, and they wouldn't know how to be so narrow. A Green or ecological perspective will, by its very nature, think of the thing itself and how it interconnects with everything else. Hence transport and climate change; transport and social inclusion; transport and congestion and the resulting costs to businesses; transport and disruption of communities; the impacts of transport's noise and air pollution on health; transport and external costs; and so on. That's how you end up with a Green transport policy, as opposed to endless roadbuilding, airport expansions and the highest rail fares in Europe.
That the party that blazed new trails and pioneered joined-up thinking was caricatured as single issue, against all logic, against all evidence, is one of the big ironies of modern British politics.
Most of the time, most people get most of their information about politics from the mass media. It's a relief to see that the media have recently been giving more attention, for instance, to the Green party's economic policies. Indeed, one highly respected journalist in the Daily Telegraph last week congratulated the Green Party for being ahead of the economic curve with its Green New Deal. But the reappearance of the "one-issue Greens" myth in the Guardian, of all places, in the last few days shows that the falsehood still lives.
Whoever this falsehood serves, it doesn't serve the British voter. Democracy depends on good information. The media acknowledge their duty to tell the truth. I think there's one major task the UK media could undertake now, while British politics is in such a state of disarray that the British voter is clamouring for sweeping reforms. It's this: tell the British voter about the Green party. Not about its environment policy, but about its million-jobs manifesto. Its commitment to re-regulating the buses and doubling the number of them. Its policy for re-nationalising the railways and slashing rail fares. Its policy of rescuing the NHS from privatisation, restoring free dental care and dramatically improving maternity services.
These are good policies, and they're policies only the Green party is offering. They're popular policies, and the readers and viewers and listeners would like to hear about them. Telling the voters about all of this can only be a good thing for British democracy.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/16/green-party-policies)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
