Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

craggy_steve

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

craggy_steve last won the day on March 8

craggy_steve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,170 Excellent

About craggy_steve

  • Rank
    -

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,705 profile views
  1. They're not directly proportional, because carbon consumption per human has increased significantly over the past century (industrialisation) as well as the number of humans. Meaning that we have exponential growth in carbon emissions. It is actually in the IPCC reports, and it is recognised therein that the two key drivers to Climate Change are Economic Growth and Population Growth; however none of the mitigation strategies are designed to impact Population Growth, they all focus on reducing CO2 and other "Greenhouse Gas" emissions, and improving sinking of these, and changing land use to support the same. The models used for the Paris Agreement have been shown to be inadequate, but the basic principles are there even if the numbers and calculations are broken (MIT demonstrated this). But it all comes down to this: We reduce our individual carbon footprints by 30%, we increase the population by 30%, no progress. Either the population gets stabilised (fat chance) and we all significantly reduce our carbon back to a "sustainable" level, or the population gets reduced, or both. Carbon emission reduction without population control will never work because we can't reduce carbon emissions to zero so we can't support significant further population growth.
  2. Craggy Steve isn't paid for his opinions, and his livelihood doesn't depend on him producing the desired answers. I may be wrong, but I am independent. And actually I'm fairly confident that human activities have warmed the planet, within the planet's acceptable limits (see past history), but that the warming contribution by man is trivial when compared to other factors beyond our control, such as the cyclical change (41,000 year) in the Earth's axial tilt, which cyclically affects the ratio of land and sea oblique to the rays of the Sun. Lots of other potential factors. Some scientists folk tried to attribute the change in axial tilt to man-made warming reducing the earth's mass of ice / changing its distribution, but of course this oscillation predates man, and it is now accepted that warming might theoretically affect the rate of change of axial tilt by reducing ice mass ..... Axial tilt is one factor, there are many others. It's complicated. Scientists try to model these factors with computers, I think we are currently at least ten years away from having the computing power needed to model the factors we know about, never mind those variables we haven't yet discovered. Right now we can't even model the weather very accurately. Might as well have a theory that if we all stood in the same place on Earth we could affect Axial Tilt and thereby exert some control over global warming. That's theoretically valid, but actually I'm not convinced that the combined mass of humanity would have a material impact, but I haven't done and won't do the maths. What we can be sure about is that we are now trying to resource / feed a significant multiple of previous human population levels with the same renewable resources, and to achieve that without people starving means achieving optimal conditions for global agriculture. That is becoming a crisis, and the crisis is caused by human reproduction not warming, because if the Earth's population were the 3 billion of the 1960s instead of the nearly 8 billion today we wouldn't have a food crisis exacerbated by a CO2 crisis.
  3. Pretty irrelevant. Clear that there is huge natural variation. That is the problem with the whole MMGW myth. This is what matters: It's clear we have a problem, doubled from a recent low to the highest levels of CO2 ever. Coincidentally following and mirroring growth in population. CO2 might impact global warming, or it might not. Logical theories exists but empirical evidence is thin to non-existent. But the simple fact that we have recent pushed CO2 levels to nearly double the average over the past million years, and to a new peak of 30%+ higher then previous records, kind of indicates that we ought to do something about CO2. MMGW is a theory, probably a myth. Man-made Atmospheric CO2 is a fact. We need to reduce it and stabilise it to within historic norms. Our food supply depends upon this. Global warming propaganda harms, not helps; most people are not stupid, no scientists are gods.
  4. Done too much business travel to get any pleasure from flying abroad for leisure, so it's not that I've given up, more that I can't be arsed. Have however, for example: Replaced all c. 60 lights in the house with LEDs - saving c. 30% on the electricity bill (and largely stopped getting the step-ladder out weekly to change bulbs) Put in a smart heating control system which regulates each radiator by temp and time to avoid waste (and saved money) Stopped buying expensive gas guzzler 4x4s and replaced with old but fun cars doing more than twice the MPG (and saved money) And some other bits (and generally stopped buying much new stuff anyway because I've already bought what I want) Haven't however: Covered the roof in Solar Replaced the heating system with air / ground source Which I know I _ought_ to do but it would be expensive and disruptive (or gone to live in a little hut in the woods) And I think I'm far from alone in making these small adjustments. No virtue signalling, I live a comfortable life. I'm no puritan eco-warrior, but I do think we can and probably should all make more intelligent choices which minimise both our cost and carbon footprints without hardship. Too many people on this planet nowadays, so we have to share it a bit more responsibly. However if we all do this then the only industry left will be green, there will be mass yoof unemployment and global strife if we all stop buying useless stuff.
  5. Indeed I have. Some of it worked, some of it didn't. And the wonderful world-leading folk who told me I would die in the 1980's were imprecise. As for t'wonders of microcomputers and digital communications and t'interweb etc., I am one of the many, many folk who contributed to the development of those. I know how crap they are, and that others will / have improved upon my feeble contributions. I wouldn't pretend otherwise. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us by correcting their mistakes and improving upon their imprecisions. The whole basis of science is that what we knew yesterday was limited, and we should accept that will remain true for the scientists of tomorrow.
  6. If you haven't had the email https://survey.islandglobalresearch.com/s3/Steam-Packet-Company-Ferry-Survey
  7. I don't claim to understand climate science, but I do understand scientific method and its inherent fallibility. Almost everything we have ever been told by scientists throughout the history of mankind has been subsequently proven to be well-intentioned but incorrect or imprecise. We need to deal with the causes of elevated CO2, period. If we do then that will also satisfy the arguments of the scientific global warming lobby - until they realise it is more complicated than that. Don't place exaggerated faith in scientists, they're not going to save the world. If anything we can argue that scientific advances are the primary cause of our current challenges.
  8. 2013/14 data. And the claims of X,000 scientists do not discriminate between scientific disciplines. The "scientists agree" camp need to get their propaganda in order, being a scientist does not convey intellectual superpowers or authority. That's at the core of the sceptics basis of scepticism; there was a time when the majority of scientists believed the world was flat, and another time when scientists believed that the smallest sub-atomic particles were electrons. CO2 has risen dramatically. It's risen in line with population growth. These things we can all see. It might exacerbate warming trends - that's hypothesis, underwritten by logical but unproven models based on our limited understanding of how Earth works. Previous climate emergencies were not preceded or caused by elevated CO2 levels of the scale we see today. Don't put scientists on pedestals, they're no more infallible than billionaires. Yes we need to do something, about the CO2 increase. We can hope that doing so might also help mitigate the "Climate Change problem", but then again it might not. We still need to deal with the causes of excessive CO2 irrespective. The CO2 excess is man-made, so let's tell the truth and deal with it.
  9. So, as there are now around 8,000,000 scientists in the world (according to UNESCO), 10,000 scientists is what proportion? Oh yeah, 0.125%. Climate Change is real. Always has been. See my post above, I believe in Climate Change, I'm not a denier. Might even be an emergency. But the voice of science is neither united nor authoritative, the problem is simply too complex for our feeble minds and modern science to give us authoritative answers. Never mind what the scientists say. Read the data for yourself and go with your gut. If there is a man-made problem it's due to a condom shortage.
  10. Man Made Emissions & Climate Change are not necessarily related, they might be, but the Earth has been much warmer in the past, before man. The recent rise in CO2 is absolutely measurable, its contribution to Climate Change is hypothesis. All the hypothetical bullshit apart, would it be a good idea to reduce emissions and fossil fuel use? Obviously yes. Wouldn't it be fantastic if mankind could largely use renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels? Obviously yes. Put all that money into converting our houses to collect solar power for electricity, use solar water heating, air / ground source heating etc. - wonderful. I'd pay a tarif for that. Would even absorb some of the supposed excess warmth and reduce CO2 emissions. Wouldn't necessarily stop climate change and the current phase of climate change might wipe us all out irrespective of man-made emissions, but at least it would be responsible stewardship. Put a single penny into the bad science propaganda industry which is attempting to persuade us that man made emissions are responsible for the current climate change trends just because CO2 has risen recently, instead of finding provable facts which explain both historic climate change (provably not driven by CO2) and current climate change, and I'll resent it. We need to reduce fossil fuel usage. We probably need to curb population growth. Because we each use the earth's resources and some of them are very finite and using them less / more slowly is common sense. I'll extend your idea beyond fuels. Do you need a new snazzy sports car. which needs lots of finite resources to make? Or could you get by with the simpler driving pleasure of a well maintained 25 year old MX5? Or a new HiFi, or a new ..... Man made emissions are a by-product of human waste & greed. The recent rise in CO2 levels mirrors the recent rise in human population. Politically unacceptable truth, the graphs look the same. A hypothesis that the recent rise in CO2 is proportional to, and caused by, the recent growth in human population cannot be challenged - there might be other reasons but the correlation between the two phenomena is compelling. So we need to stop growing the population, or reduce the amount of Earth's finite resources consumed by each human, or both. Climate change might still kill off mankind whatever we do, climate change and global warming have happened before, before man, without elevated levels of CO2, but at least if we were responsible stewards of out planet we would not have brought it upon ourselves. /rant over/
  11. Never. Compulsory voting only serves to give false endorsement and false credibility to politicians who would otherwise have neither credibility nor public endorsement. Not voting or submitting a spoilt ballot are currently the only ways a member of the electorate can say "none of the above". Sadly, the last time I voted it was on the basis of choosing the least worst candidates, in order to attempt to keep the worst out (even more sadly, he still got elected).
  12. It's local, DoI, using software, which produces an export version of the timetable data which is supplied to Ticketer. Don't believe that anyone in IoM / DoI has anything to gain financially, but there was an expressed justification from DoI post implementation of Ticketer / ZipTrip that the IoM bus app should be something that UK residents use. I don't pretend to understand their thinking - if I want to use UK public transport I use a UK app, Ireland I use and Irish app, Germany I use a German app etc. etc. Who is going to think "Oh, I'll get the UK bus app so I can see the IoM bus timetables?" - I guess only those intellectually challenged folk who confuse the IoM with the IoW. To me it's simply another case of UK comeovers into the IoM PS who are still thinking "UK". Personally as a comeover I came to escape the UK......
  13. The purpose of the competition was to demonstrate the utility of the new real-time data feeds from the buses. Didn't hear of any commercial providers attempting to participate, and the commercial ZipTrip which DoI went on to use didn't actually utilise the real-time feeds at the time so they didn't know where the buses actually were. No jobs for the boys - but there could have been further development to make a commercial product, and whilst you might not have liked Bus Man there were lots of user complaints that ZipTrip was a big step backwards. Dunno if ZipTrip does actually use the real-time feeds now, I deleted it from my phone, but when I tried it could not even give me buses from Ballafesson to Douglas. Just reinstalled ZipTrip, and it seems it still cant give me that live data reliably - just errored on me. Horses for courses, you didn't like Bus Man. I don't like DoI using UK services without tendering and I don't like typing "Douglas" into ZipTrip etc. only to be offered Douglas in Scotland, or Castle Douglas, or some other totally irrelevant suggestion. I will admit that ZipTrip has improved since the original version, but then perhaps Bus Man would have improved similarly given the same support and I wouldn't have to give my location data to some UK supplier in order to use it. As you observed above, ZipTrip (a fully commercial product) was equally as useless as a homebrew prototype lashed up by a single individual in his spare time for a local competition. So I guess if you want better you'll have to persuade DoI to give you access to the data feeds which they have removed from the public domain, and start programming.
  14. The Bus-Man app was the product of a competition run by MICTA to utilise a data feed. It was developed for free on the island, and won the competition. It wasn't perfect, it was an alpha test prototype - what do you expect of something developed speculatively by a single developer for free? It did useful stuff which ZipTrip and others did not. Longworth didn't really have much to do with it, if anything DoI appears to have resisted it in preference for UK sourced apps.
×
×
  • Create New...