According to the radio tonight global warming might reduce the thickness of the ice at the South Pole thus making it easier to extract fossil fuels from the region.

chris

Result!

They are also incredibly passionate about their chosen field... and I for one am always wary about passionate people in this respect.

It is rare for a scientist to search for the pure truth of a matter - by the very nature of their research they are seeking to prove (or disprove) something they believe. It breeds narrow mindedness and a blinkered vision.

Combine passion with belief, regardless of level of intelligence, and you do not get truth; you get a strong desire to find proof for what they believe to be true.

I'm not saying they are either right or wrong, just advocating an open mind I guess. :?

Tell me about it. Here in Southampton, we followed neighbour eastleigh's policy of collecting normal waste and recyclables alternate weeks. People complained that they filled more than a wheely-bin with non-recyclable rubbish every 2 weeks, and that food waste was attracting rodents when left for 2 weeks, so now the collect rubbish every week, and alternate weeks a second dustcart follows the first one round, and takes recyclables. I make that a 50% increase in emmisions from dustcarts, just because people are too damn lazy to wrap food waste and sort the recyclables from the rest. (we dont even have to sort it, card, plastic bottles, tins, paper, can all go in the same bin.) ](*,)

My local council has a good record on recycling, they collect compostable waste in a brown wheely bin, glass bottles, plastic bottles of all types, cardboard, newspaper, food & drink cans and now clothing and shoes on one week and non recycleable waste the next. They listened when 1000s complained that open canvas bags for collecting bottles/cans in blew away and emptied in the road and replaced them with sacks that were weighted and had velcro closure. They eventually supplied lids for the waste paper boxes to stop that blowing away. The only part they won't listen to is the demand for a return to a weekly refuse service. They will not empty over flowing bins and I have twice demanded a visit from their recycling adviser in order to tell me how to reduce my fortnighly waste. The response was eventually to supply a large wheely bin as they accepted 6 adults and a baby would generate more than the average ammount of non recyclable waste. one comment that was totally unhelpful was to suggest we did not use disposable nappies. Now if we could also recycle tetrapack cartons.

I think suggested increased taxation of non green transport, energy use etc is unfair on those who cannot afford to replace existing vehicles heating systems etc. Road pricing is un fair on those of us who do not have access to usable public transport. Why unfairly penalise the population of the uk and force us to be further uneconomic against the far east and US

Relax guy, when things look dark and mankind's future is threatened.
I go to the wisest man I know of... George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kOCv-yfhTc

If their attitude was 100% environmental then perhaps they would view these new taxes as a potential to provide grants to convert old inefficient systems with more modern efficient technologies, and not another income for the government. In a few years I'm looking at doing a barn conversion on my brothers farm and installing geo-thermic heating but the grants available are pathetic covering about 5% of the cost. Hardly worth bothering

Some interesting reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

A rare dose of sanity =D>

Lyn's article was written by a scientist, rather than a journo. He seems measured in his tone and careful about what he says, and has issues with the way that the media are using hyperbole when they talk about climate.

He does say that "Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change."
He doesnt like the use of words like catastrophic, chaos to describe the climate. because, "scenarios of climate change are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos".

So he is saying that humans changed the climate, and that the results of this change are probably going to be serious. He is saying that Humans must do something to try to deal with these very real issues. And that d!ckhead journos should shut up, and report the facts.
He is not saying that everything is going to work out, or be ok. Nor does he say that the outcomes of the change are not going to be catastrophic for some people.

You have to be careful to not confuse his calm tone with the seriousness of what he is actually saying.