Jump to content

craggy_steve

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

craggy_steve last won the day on March 8 2019

craggy_steve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,173 Excellent

About craggy_steve

  • Rank
    -

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,988 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
  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
  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
  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 o
  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
  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
  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 war
  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 s
  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
  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 timet
  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-tim
  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...