----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: [canals-list] Re: Fwd: Transport in the Green Manifesto
> "Niall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Just do the arithmetic. The amount of carbon we have emitted has
> increased its proportion (there are good records of this) in the
> atmosphere enough to alter its retention of the sun's heat
> significantly. Sadly, we *are* important.
But the atmospheric CO2 lags the temperature variations by about 800 years.
The relationship is the wrong way round.
>
>> So you can't see the connection between "We're emitting loads of stuff so
>>it *must* have a bad effect", and the precautionary principle?
>
> No. But I do see the connerction between "we're emiting loads of
> stuff" and "we can now confirm the bad effect we are having by doing
> so".
Why can't we confirm it without misusing and distorting statistics?
>
> Many of these reports are actually the result of recent, independent
> studies. Although I do own a copy of Lomborg's "The Sceptical
> Environmentalist", which I commend generally.
Have you *read* it? It is full of examples of statistics being manipulated
and distorted to "prove" environmental points.
>
>>Have you seen how they "count" these populations? Ludicrously small spot
>>samples, small areas not randomly selected, statistical analysis which
>>doesn't follow the relevant rules...
>
> Now there's a nice broad generalisation. "One study was found to be
> bad, so all of them are bad". Come on!
Where did I mention one study?
>
>>I promise you I have an open mind on these things. But if they don't stand
>>scrutiny, I don't give them credece. And they *don't*.
>
> Many do.
Not seen one yet.
>
> "Open mind". Hmm. Sometimes when I open a cupboard door, everything
> inside just falls out, leaving the shelves bare.
Some sort of insult?
>
>>Point is they don't know. If they keep discovering new ones, how can they
>>know that others are becoming extinct?
>
> By no longer being able to find any member of them? In all or a major
> part of their former range?
Come on, consider the problem. It's simply not possible to do that.
>
> Do you believe that there are still passenger pigeons and dodos, and
> evil environmentalists are just hoodwinking us into believing they are
> extinct?
There quite easily could be. A few years ago you could have put the
Coeleocanth in that list, and if I had said they weren't neccesarily
extinct, you would have ridiculed me. Think about it - they find new ones
all the time. Is it so difficult to imagine they might re-find an old one?
Would they all admit it if they did?
>
> Do you believe that the Newfoundland fishers conspired to stop fishing
> the Grand Banks, just to fool us, and there is actually still a huge
> cod population out there?
>
It's possible. There's a lot of oceans out there. Populations boom and crash
all the time in nature, with no help from humans, and move their range for a
variety of reasons obvious and non obvious. We don't even know how they
navigate.
>>> "No shortage of land"? On what definition? All the land is already
>>> in use for something, not the least the habitat of other species. What
>>> more are you going to surrender to the increased human population?
>>
>>Ah, we're back to "every acre developed represents x species lost". The
>>bloke who developed that theory *made it up* because it "seemed about
>>right"
>>to him.
>
> If the current population of species A needs x ha to survive, and of
> species B y ha, and the total area is greater than x + y, then both
> populations will survive. If the population of B increases so that it
> needs z ha, and the total area is less than x + z, then the population
> of A will decline. Not hard to understand, I think.
Looks like a similar theory expressed in pseudo mathematical terms, which
certainly makes it look scientific. But it's exactly the sort of stuff I'm
talking about.
First problem: Requires that species A and species B cannot coexist in the
same area or overlap at all. Africa is not divided into Lion area,
Wildebeeste area, Zebra area etc.
Second problem: measure x,y, and z. Virtually impossible even before you
consider that the population is varying independantly of the area as well.
Third problem: this theory is only tangentially relevant to the extinction
question. Why, if the total available area reduces (forgetting for a moment
that reafforestation isn't included in the total area), should one
population increase and the other decrease to zero rather than both decrease
or reach a new equilibrium.
You've got Lomborg. Look up the bit about species extinction. There have
been plenty of habitat loss studies, but they all go back to the reference
books to get the figure for percentage of species becoming extinct per unit
area lost and there is no scientific basis for that figure.
If you assume that a number of species are approximately evenly distributed
across a large area, and you remove a small part of that area, the number of
species in the remaining area is unchanged.
>
>>> How much do *you* want to pay for
>>> steel to plate you boat?
>>
>>Not as much as it will cost when the raw materials and energy used to make
>>it and transport it are all subjected to arbitary "green" taxes and
>>surcharges "to take account of the environmental damage making it causes".
>
> Those "arbitrary" taxes are actually to cover the externalities your
> acquisition of the plate would impose on the environment, but which
> you wouldn't otherwise be paying for. All they mean is you will no
> longer be getting something for nothing. If you are paying the *real*
> cost of the plate, I don't care how much you buy. But if you want me
> to pay part of that cost, through externalities, I will object.
Fair enough, but my problem is that the supposed *real* cost is subject to
the same dodgy science and bad statistics.
>
>>Are you suggesting there's not enough *space* in Iraq for the Sunnis,
>>Shias
>>and Christians to live together?
>
> If there were fewer of them, they would come into conflict less.
I wouldn't like to bet on that.
>
> However, I (and they, I am sure) am somewhat unhappy about the method
> currently being applied to reduce their numbers.
>
>>>>Most of the earth's surface is *empty*
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. It is only (fortunately) not covered by people.
>>>
>>> For example, most of England is now a cultural landscape, i.e. used
>>> one way or another by people. In Roman times, it was almost all
>>> covered in forest.
>>
>>Where the ancient civilisations lived is now mostly desert and jungle.
>
> Much of today's desert was formerly green. A principal cause of the
> desertification has been man.
What, thousands of years ago? Nothing to do with the natural cycle of
climate variation which has been going on for millions of years. There is
evidence that the UK in Roman times was warmer than today.
>
>>People lived all over Scotland until the Clearances.
>
> Have you ever *looked* at Scotland? Where there used to be forests,
> there are now bald hillsides, kept that way by the disastrous use of
> the territory to raise sheep. I think the Herdwick (sp?) is one of
> the very few species I wouldn't mind seeing become extinct.
I think we're saying the same thing here. But in every glen there are the
ruins of houses and villages. Where I suspect we differ is that I'd like to
see the people back and you'ld like to get rid of the people who are here
and put the forests back.
>
>>> "What do you have in mind?"
>>>
>>> A global effort to reduce birth rates.
>>
>>It's that control thing again.
>
> Who said anything about control? Assumptions, assumptions! I
> actually favour persuasion, rather than coercion.
>
The result is the same, only the means differ.
But to what end? Human expansion has been the driving force which got us to
where we are today, and while you may disagree, I do think it's an
improvement over running around naked beating each other over the head with
whatever comes to hand. Where might we get in the future on the same basis?
Or we could say "this is far enough, we are all we can ever be, it is time
for the human race to quietly stagnate and die out."
Thank you by the way for a robust but civilised debate. Compare and
contrast...
Niall
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
