Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Going green: How to take part

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 January 2008
ANYONE wanting to take part in the Go Green campaign can do so simply by trying to meet as many of the pledges as they can.
But The Scotsman and the Scottish Government are both asking people to sign up online.

This gives an idea how many people are taking part and which of the ten pledges prove popular and which attract less interest.

Those taking part can also explain why they want to join the fight against climate change.

This should help the government change policies to make it easier to go green and the newspaper to highlight issues of concern.

How to take part

Here are the pledges. Which ones will you perform?

1. Recycle household waste using facilities provided locally

2. Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth

3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs

4. Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often

5. Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones

6. Reuse carrier bags when you shop

7. Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food

8. Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer

9. Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community

10. Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative.

For more information and to sign up to one or more of the pledges simply log on to
www.infoscotland.com/ourfuture

If you would like to sign up to one or more of the pledges on The Scotsman site, please let us know on the comment section below.

Put your name, the place where you come from and why you want to take part.

Which pledges are you already doing? Which are you going to have a go at and are there any you don't think you can do? What do you think about climate change generally.

The Scotsman wants to turn this into a mass movement, so let us know if you want to join the campaign by adding your comment and details below.

Please note: This comment thread is specifically to allow readers to tell us why - and how - they are taking part in our campaign. Any posts not directly related to this shall be deleted.

Let's go green together.

The full article contains 400 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 January 2008 5:01 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Greener Scotland
 
1

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 11/01/2008 12:08:35
Good Idea, hope it helps.
2

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 11/01/2008 14:17:14
1. Recycle household waste using facilities provided locally, would if there were

2. Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth, I will if th ewater boards make more effort to replace leaking pipes

3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs, I will as soon as some are found that do not set off my partners epilepsy

4. Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often, Agread

5. Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones, agread

6. Reuse carrier bags when you shop

7. Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food and local i.e. British

8. Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer, not practical most of the time they took away oor green

9. Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community, ........ no chance

10. Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative. .......... No I pay enough already to fly
3

PJ,

Edinburgh 11/01/2008 15:22:53
11. Stop flying off to places like Bali for climate change conferences, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!
4

Upbeat,

11/01/2008 18:18:16
Yesterday some of us volunteered our personal "take" on the way the Scotsman is hammering the message of individual responsibility for "greener lifestyle" through a number of comment headers. .

A number of Scotsman regulars,in good faith, entered a lot of comment, much of which was removed.

Today I defy anyone to find any trace of the thread "Going Green how to take part " that was interfered with by editorial staff in such a massive way, yesterdayafternoon between 15.30 and 16.10 hrs.

It is quite reprehensible that the Scotsman editors have thought it right to revise the historical record, to remove evidence of what occured yesterday.( Thursday)

It is also very disappointing that the valuable input from a number of genuine Scots,regular readers, who made valid contributions, has , since this |Friday morning , been deleted from the record for all time.

Mr Editor ( ? Alan, from the Scotsman ? ) you should be ashamed that you have considered it correct to revise the content of the online newspaper by re-editing it the next day. Would you have stopped to this conduct with printed back editions had something you found disagreeable occured there by accident in print. ?
5

lush,

11/01/2008 18:39:58
#6 -- totally agree
6

Kipling,

11/01/2008 18:55:32
Perhaps someone who saved the page might be able to reproduce the comments in comment boxes for today?
7

langtonian,

scotus 11/01/2008 20:06:08
If David Attenborough says it's seriouse, then it's seriouse.
Defy anyone to question his hands on experience and expertise.
Listen to the man.
8

langtonian,

11/01/2008 21:41:35
#11
Ah-so! yet another moan -not good for the blood pressure .

As to David Attenborough,me-tinks his c/v on these matters is about as good as it gets, unless of course your goodself can convince that your "best guessing"/rule of thumb matches his proven knowledge
9

The Strategist,

12/01/2008 01:39:25
If you really care about this then write a letter to your MP to complain about the carbon trading business.

This is from DEFRA's website:

"Participating companies are allocated allowances, each allowance representing a tonne of the relevant emission, in this case carbon dioxide equivalent. Emissions trading allows companies to emit in excess of their allocation of allowances by purchasing allowances from the market . Similarly, a company that emits less than its allocation of allowances can sell its surplus allowances. In contrast to regulation which imposes emission limit values on particular facilities, emissions trading gives companies the flexibility to meet emission reduction targets according to their own strategy; for example by reducing emissions on site or by buying allowances from other companies who have excess allowances. The environmental outcome is not affected because the amount of allowances allocated is fixed."

So, according to the last para the only real beneficiaries are the Carbon Brokers in the City.. The scheme doesn't reduce overall carbon emissions by one gramme.

Lunacy!
10

mad cyclist,

Stevenston 12/01/2008 01:40:52
Absolute rubbish! "Go Green" hahaha its magically laughable!

I cycle regularly and regularly I am behind a bus/taxi reeking of diesel fumes - many of these times I've seen traffic cops behind me or even behind the stinking vehicl, not once have I witnessed these manky pollutants being pulled over.....So what am I asked to do:

turn the tap off when brushing my teeth hahahahaha NO CHANCE!
Give up my car and cycle or share with a friend? hahahahaha NO CHANCE!
Carrier Bags, reuse them? hahahahaha NO CHANCE! I actaully delight in throwing them in the wheelie bin!

All of these tips is for nutcases, pure and simple, the pretentious snobs among us!

I'll keep Britain Green alright.


11

Vigilant Watcher,

Bo'ness 12/01/2008 11:03:58
David Attenborough may be right but right about what?

Climate change is taking place but what is the cause? Man made Co2 emmisions or naturally occuring and cyclical process which man has very little affect on.

What real evidence is there to support the former ascertion? Very little if you study the literature.

There is much more evidence to support natural and cyclical processes occuring with a periodicity of approx 1500 years as the temp record clearly shows since before the 'Roman' warming until the present day.

But the 'concensus', not a scientifically recognised measure, seems to have grabbed the imagination of the media, politicians and self-seeking 'climate' scientists.

For those who will be abhored by the very idea just check the historical temp record.

As far as being 'green' is concerned it is a term that means very little. If it means, has a concern for our environment, then I am as green as the next doing all the above listed suggestions because in the main they save me money by reducing my energy costs or help to enhance the area I live in.

Be honest enough and do them for the right reasons and not some government sponsored and over-hyped concept of man-made 'global warming'.

Without some fear to help control our behaviour they might have to address the real problems confronting society which in the main are far more serious and much more difficult.

Silly me! That's the reason in the first place.
12

Evan Owen,

Dyffryn Ardudwy 12/01/2008 11:33:54
Why have a place to comment when your contribution is deleted by the 'editor'?
13

FairLady,

Fair Isle 12/01/2008 11:35:48
Living on an island where the very lifestyle of such a remote place is green it goes without saying that we will take part.
14

Porty School Merge,

Edinburgh 12/01/2008 12:10:41
Lets all do something green and save a little piece of Edinburgh's green space.
Visit

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

and sign the petition to save our common good lands from local government who want to sell it off and build on it.
15

Unimpressed one,

12/01/2008 12:16:33
Strangely Attenborough is on record only about 5-6 years ago, saying that as far as he was concerned, the natural environment was in pretty good shape. Given that's he's probably seen more of it than any other human, that must have counted for something. He seems to have changed his tune recently. Can't help that think though that unless he subscribes to the prevailing BBC/pc attitutes, he would be ostracized just like David Bellamy was for sticking to his principles.
16

grafiger,

12/01/2008 15:17:06
If I were to tell you that the total C02 emmisions from our planet were made up of:

57% Given off by the oceans
38% Breathed out by animals, including humans
3.3% From human activity, fosil fuels, cars, aircraft etc. Read this again - 3.3%
Also, if these emmisions did not take place, we would all (humans, animals, plants etc.) die.

Would you believe me? If not, read "Scared To Death" by Booker and North, Continuum Press.
17

Big Nige,

Arizona,USA 12/01/2008 16:48:02
#24,grafiger: Booker C, North R. "Scared to Death".

I haven't read the book you cite and nor will I. A quick search for some reviews was enough to convince me it is unfounded, sensationalist, conpsiracy theory garbage. I would say it is worthless but it is actually worse than that. It is costly because junk like this, whether deliberately or through misguided intentions, continue to mislead those who don't know any better and to delay meaningful action against AGW.

There are dozens of reviews of this junk out there but few of any substance. Take a look at the review in the Guardian (http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,,2224504,00.html)

The CO2 emissions you state, though grossly simplified and not entirely accurate, are reasonably correct in one aspect: humans are responsible for 7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions out of approx 180 billion tonnes from all sources or 3.8% - close to your 3.3%. What you fail to state is that carbon sinks remove most of that CO2 to produce a net flux of zero when the system is in equilibrium. But humans have upset the equilibrium - the sinks are only taking up around 4 billion of the 7 billion mand made tonnes of emissions, resulting in accumulation in the atmosphere to over 380ppm (parts per million) from a pre-industrial base of 280ppm.
18

ldopas,

Cheshire 12/01/2008 16:53:20
Great post Grafiger. The other arguments and science are basically banned by the media who have taken up this leftist green agenda that is being forced on us under penalty of legal actions.

Your statistics clearly show that we need to drain the oceans to stop CO2 emissions! Im sure the Green Taliban will be on it soon! ;-)

I can't recall such bias and blanketing of one side of an argument since the Falklands War. Its a disgrace.

Whateve happened to laying out both sides of an argument by the media and letting the public decide. After all the media is only there to inform, not enforce. (Though Im probably being completely naive there! ;-) )
19

Upbeat,

12/01/2008 17:12:32
~ 26 Idopas

"Whateve happened to laying out both sides of an argument by the media and letting the public decide."

Both sides of the argument are here in this paper day after day, as well as in the archive copies of most mainstream UK newspapers.

The arguments are set forth in thousands of online articles and scientific papers which the very device that borought you here today, would give you access to, had you any inclination to "surf" about and really get informed.

It is simply not good enough to 'cower in a corner' claiming that everything that you find hard to accept is some gigantic conspiracy theory.

An article in today's Telegraph shows how conspiracy theories have skewed public understanding of recent events, around the world. Even though the facts in each case described, were obvious from the outset, some of these matters were so extreme,and beyond expectation when they occured, that it is easier for the gullible, to look for motivations and excuses that have nothing to do with the facts.

What we see here, day after day, is a number of individuals who still hope that the climate is not being changed by the activities of man. These people grab any paper or article they can find which adds weight to their view of the world, however illinformed the writer of that paper may be. They seek thingsand "facts" that reassure them that they are not alone in their opinions. As a consequence All too often all evidence to the contrary is dismissied, by these people as rubbish. This type of opinion formation is not fact or science based , it is wishful thinking.
20

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 12/01/2008 17:27:49
#26 ldopas: What "other arguments and science". There are none that stand up to any scrutiny. There is no "other science". Science doesn't have sides. But it does have standards and well established procedures. Science is not left or right, it just seeks the truth.

As noted in my post above the "statistics" you talk about only tell half the story.

There is bias in the media. Bias into giving the denial campaign respectability. For years they have given huge amounts of publicity to a small number of denialist PR people alongside serious, authentic scientific debate. People who have very dubious scientific credentials but with very real connections to corporate interests and whose only aim is to make appear that the science is divided, that there is major disagreement, that it is unsound.
21

ldopas,

12/01/2008 17:40:01
To Upbeat

"What we see here, day after day, is a number of individuals who still hope that the climate is not being changed by the activities of man. These people grab any paper or article they can find which adds weight to their view of the world, however illinformed the writer of that paper may be. "

After a good fair start to your post. This paragraph show exactly who you are. Ie an eco facist.

It clearly sets out that anyone who has the temerity to point out contra science, and there is plenty, is as you put is "illinformed" by proxy.

I dont know if you live in the UK. But I can tell you that you are wrong. The main channels BBC and ITV are completely in the grasp of the eco lobby. So to the media, though at least one or two columnists try to see the other side, however its usually done in such a lightweight way its irrelevent anyway.
22

ldopas,

12/01/2008 17:43:28
Big Nige.

Where did I say anything about sides? You write that fiction if you want. Im talking balance. And there is none.

But again your last paragraph gives you aay also. The summary of which is that anyone publishing contra evidence has dubious scientific qualifications and corporate links.

Gosh, even Stalin would be proud of your smear skills.

23

Upbeat,

12/01/2008 18:13:59
No Idopas # 29 I am no eco fascist

Call me an 'informed eco realist' if you wish.

The truth is there. A balanced assessment can be made. The scientific figures, on all the contentious theories about climate, can be studied.

It is simply not good enough for you to come here complaining that somehow the whole debate is being skewed and biassed by the media.

It IS up to each individual to look into the evidence and draw their own conclusions. However if anyone does this with the preconceived attitude that everything they read .....(about Global climate change), that actually confirms that it is occuring,.... is false and simple a mischievous product of "vested interest" scaremongering, it is very unlikely that they will reach any informed or objective understanding.

This appears to be where you are in this matter. You cannot believe that mankind could have any adverse influence on Global climate. You do not wish to believe the science that has begiun to suggest that human activities are responsible for damage to the atmosphere, and the oceans. You are quite unwilling to moderate your personal lifestyle and behaviour at all, and seekl any justification you can find for continuing to live the way you already do.

To point out your mistake is not Eco fascism. All I have done is told you that rather than condemning those who have done enough research to understand the issue properly , you should be advised to take the time to do your own independent research. It is important for all of us not simply to depend on the newspaper of our choice as being the fount of all knowledge.

24

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/01/2008 18:39:27
It's good to see Upbeat and Big Nige trying to bring some evidence and rationality into this debate: by jings, it's hard going.

I'll just pick up on a couple of points.

Firstly, Carbon Dioxide emissions (brought up by #24 Grafiger and answered by #25 Big Nige).

Big Nige's account is correct, except that the figures you give are for carbon, not carbon dioxide (it doesn't alter the argument). This is a common source of confusion: sometimes figures are given in carbon and sometimes carbon dioxide (for good reasons). To convert a mass of carbon to carbon dioxide multiply by 44 and divide by 12. Another answer to Grafiger's
is this:

The figure of about 3% (whether accurate of not) as the human contribution to total annual CO2 emissions is irrelevant. It is constantly repeated by deniers, either because they do not understand what they are saying, or because they wish to mislead others.

If the above seems difficult to accept, then simply ask yourself the question, "what is it that that 3% figure is supposed to illustrate?" Can there be any other answer to that question other than, "To determine what effect human actions have had on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere." I'm sure you will accept that that is the case.

If we wish to know "what effect human actions have had on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere", then there is a simple, obvious and undeniable way of finding out. We simply measure it!!! That has been done. It is not controversial: no-one contests the figures, and the answer is as follows:
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere:
In 1750 = 280 parts per millions by volume
in 2007 = 383 ppmv
That is an increase of 36% due to human actions.

Further, ice-cores from Antarctica and Greenland show that carbon dioxide was always between 180ppmv and 300 ppm during the previous 800,000 years.

Also, the present rate of change is even more dramatic. During those 800,000 years carbon dioxide NEVER increased by as much as 30ppmv in 1,000 years
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/01/2008 18:40:18
Contd.

Also, the present rate of change is even more dramatic. During those 800,000 years carbon dioxide NEVER increased by as much as 30ppmv in 1,000 years. Yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years and the rate of increase is increasing.

That is all you need to know if you are asking the question, "What have humans done to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?"

The 3% figure is irrelevant: it is churned out endlessly by deniers because it avoids the real question and confuses people. That is the aim of the denial industry. It confuses and misinforms people like Grafiger: they believe this rubbish because it tells them what they want to hear. But it is false, and worse it is deliberately false and misleading. But it keeps the shareholders of the fossil fuel industries happy: it is they who are pulling your strings, Grafiger, not the eco-freaks or the loony lefties (or however you wish to characterise your imaginary assailants).
26

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/01/2008 18:51:10
#33 Dave from Barra

I don't normally respond to those sort of questions, Dave 'cos I'm not very keen on talking about my personal activities. But since you ask: I took a bus for about twenty miles and walked back over the hills to home (it being such a lovely frosty day). Now I'm sitting by the stove, which is fired by wood, some of which I've grown myself, all of which I've collected locally by hand. It's cooking a few home grown potatoes, which I'll eat with some (Arrgh!) French cheese and home made pickles.
27

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/01/2008 19:15:03
The other point I was going to mention from the earlier discussion is about Christopher Booker (co-author of the book mentioned). He introduced is book some time ago in the UK Daily Telegraph (see "The Deceit Behind Global Warming, 4th Novemeber 2007) .

If the article is anything to go by, the book is full of the sort of misleading garbage that I mentioned in #34 and #35 above. Booker is one of those who makes money by deceiving people with apparently plausible arguments which are, like the 3% CO2 argument above, wholly fallacious.
28

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 12/01/2008 19:46:44
ldopas: "Where did I say anything about sides?" You mentioned sides twice in your earlier post. You also implied sides when you talked about "other arguments and science" - i.e. other 'sides' to the story. It's very difficult to have a rational debate with someone like you (and the denial campaign in general) who just throw so much mud that some of it sticks. I'm not smearing anyone and I'm not a fascist as I'm sure Upbeat isn't either. Fascism comes from authoritarian top down control by corporate backed government - a definition that Exxonmobil / Bush fit quite well. concern over global warming comes from broad, open, peer based scientific consensus.

I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech but that's not the issue. We are talking about balanced argument and the fact is, there is not much left to argue about - the scales have come down heavily on the side of science.

If your idea of balanced argument of the most serious scientific issue that mankind has ever faced is, for example, John Hansen, senior NASA scientist with long and distinguished record debating with Michael Crichton, author of fictional novels then you reject science as a foundation of the society we live in.
29

HappyWomanOz,

Australia 12/01/2008 21:38:22
I already do nine of the ten things listed. I don't do the energy-saving lightbulbs: tried them, but the quality of the light is unpleasant, like neon, and gives me a headache. So shoot me. But then I don't use a dishwasher or a microwave - does that balance out?

These ten points are a bit feeble, dontcha think? They are, in any event, the absolute bottom-line basics for any household where economies have to be made.

I'm totally entranced by Slioch and, were it not for the unfortunately pollutant effects of travelling the 12,000 miles to reach him, would seriously consider rolling myself up in a Persian carpet and having myself delivered to his door. *sigh* My Hero.

30

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/01/2008 21:51:59
#39 HappyWomanOz

Arrh, shucks honey!!
31

McIntyre Household,

Polmont 12/01/2008 22:00:45
. Recycle household waste using facilities provided locally......absolutely

2. Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth.....yup

3. Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs....Will do as our stock of existing light bulbs run out

4. Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often......I shoud manage this one, wife can't as timetable running after kids wont allow it.

5. Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones....do this to an extent...always seem to run out of batteries for some reason !

6. Reuse carrier bags when you shop....yep and use the bags as bin bags if not re-useable

7. Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food....I've no idea what the natural seasons are

8. Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer....mostly do this (tumble drying shirts for 15 minutes helps take out the wrinkles without ironing!)

9. Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community....unlikely

10. Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative....no way, public land transport is awful and expensive....also I feel that these carbon neutral projects are mostly a waste of time and a sop to guilty consciences

OK thats my piece.


32

quarrybanksurfer,

Perthshire 12/01/2008 22:34:47
Yes I would be willing to try and go green as we do not have a car that is one point, but without a car how do we recycle. I buy all the heavy glass etc shopping at the local store but there is no recycling facilities. Tried to go to the local tip once but it is risk your life dodging the cars. The flickering of the low energy bulbs causes my son to have a seizure. How do you dry clothes without a tumble dryer in winter!! leaving them drapped over the radiators cause condensation and damp walls!! We cannot afford to take holidays abroad. Cannot recuse carrier bags as have to tie them on my sons wheelchair. Can try a couple but not all!!
33

grafiger,

12/01/2008 23:01:43
How about reading the book before you burn it?
34

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 12/01/2008 23:10:21
The greenest thing you can do is to have no children.
Any other act pales by comparison. Having even one child creates a legacy of consumption that will obliterate any and all green efforts that you can make in your own lifetime.
35

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta... captured Mexican territory 1845 13/01/2008 06:27:32
If you want to go GREEN

WEAR a SPRIG of SHAMROCK.........u dudes.

GC

36

japananne,

Edinburgh 13/01/2008 20:35:47
What people in the "I'm just going to carry on exactly as normal as humans aren't causing climate change anyway" camp don't seem to realise is there's another reason for conserving energy and using less fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are going to run out. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. It may not be for a while, but oil and gas are going to run out. Until we've sorted out the alternatives (wind, wave, solar etc), we need to cut down our use of these finite resources to make then last as long as possible. And part of that is using less water (water is pretty energy intensive by the time you clean it and pump it around the place), reusing carrier bags, walking when you can rather than using the car, wearing an extra jumper rather than turning up the heating etc.

Hopefully if we all do this we can have a smoother transition to a low carbon economy as we'll be able to eke out the remaining fossil fuels for as long as possible, thereby buying us extra time to develop the technologies that will replace its use.
37

Julian.,

edinburgh 14/01/2008 02:55:58
Fly Fifer,

Typical attitude which probably means we're all doomed. So, you're going to continue to waste water just because, in your opinion, someone else is as well.

Also, a helpful hint on the clothes drying; buy a clothes horse and hang them up indoors.
38

Julian.,

edinburgh 14/01/2008 03:00:22
#42 Quarrybanksurfer.

I'm just curious but how can you not use carrier bags because you have to tie them on to your son's wheelchair?

I don't get that one.
39

syntax,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 04:23:02
Sigh...... Global warming is a natural phenomena (fact)
No one is certain whether Co2 emission are caused by global warming or are the cause of global warming.

Scientists don't know the answer - neither does Greenpiece, Friends of the Earth and the rest of them - and politicians CERTAINLY have no idea.

So I don't intend to do anything green. It's politically motivated twaddle.

Thank you
40

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 06:25:23
Fact: By far the most substantial "green" contribution anyone can make is also the simplest. Simply do not have children. Any other contribution pales by comparison. Having one child creates a legacy of consumption that completely obliterates any and all "green" efforts that you could ever make in your own lifetime. Having two or more children... well I will leave it to you to work out the numbers.
41

Jim G,

Australia 14/01/2008 07:40:09
This list was drawn up either by a junior female staff member or a dark green nutter.
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/01/2008 09:23:21
#28 Unbelievable spin Nige. I think it is generally accepted that the media have given the "deniers" virtually zero air-time, partly because they wouldn't dare to. So for you to try to stand this fact on its head is really dishonest of you. In fact, if it weren't for the internet most of the sceptics (as I prefer to be known) would have hardly any data on the alternative view.
43

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 15:43:16
56 and 57:

Please provide a reference to any peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal that indicates that anthropogenic global warming is not real.
44

Richard Lionheart,

14/01/2008 15:47:22
Ask yourself the question, how many housing developments in Scotland are being built close too or under sea level? How many of these have been approved in the last 3 -5 years?

If the Government in Scotland is so convinced that Global warming is real then why are we still building at sea level and why are there no plans in place to move/ re-site residences/offices/shopping centres/industrial estates which will be engulfed when sea levels rise by 20 feet?

Then maybe the answer can be found here: - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 14/01/2008 16:05:53
56. It is indicative of your ignorance that as a denier you are unaware of the extent of the denial industry of which you are unwittingly a part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
46

mark jacobs,

edinburgh 14/01/2008 19:59:21
cc is a natural process and its not caused by pollution etc there will be a new ice age sooner or later ,but its a good way of fooling lots of people into beleiving all the lies and make us all feel so guilty about how we live our very short humble lives.
47

W Smith,

Middle East 16/01/2008 03:12:41
What about methane then,eh?

Worse than CO2 as its lighter and reaches the ozone layer faster.

Cows produce around 10 litres a day.

Is this what The Scotsman means by mass 'movement'?
48

Alan Reid,

NZ 16/01/2008 04:15:49
Dave from Barra, why don't you give it a rest. You know nothing about climate change, or any other environmental crisis, your just a dick spouting crap, shut it.
49

Jim Jimminy,

Edinburgh 16/01/2008 09:07:30
You anti-greens people are really sad.

You must spend all your time sitting by your computer scanning various newspaper websites desperately searching for any stories about the environment. Why don't you get a life instead of boring us all with your endless rubbish about how climate change is natural (well duh but that doesn't mean humans don't influence it) or that it's caused by solar flares or volcanoes or the various other excuses you can think of to excuse you from acting responsibly.

Also, isn't it funny how so many anti-greens claim we shouldn't listen to scientists 'cause they get it wrong so often then go on to produce "evidence" against man-made global warming produced by, guess who, scientists. Strange how scientists who agree with your own view are meant to be taken seriously isn't it?

Finally, even if you don't believe climate change is man-made how about you just grow up and acting like a responsible adult? Is it so hard to turn your thermostat down a degree or two or walk to the local shop instead of driving? Or are you so self-centred and selfish you can't even make a tiny sacrifice in your life?
50

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 16/01/2008 10:21:57
For all the 'Climate Change' hysterics - here is a link to a page describing successive ice ages and global warmings over the last 150,000 years in Europe. As you will see, there have been MANY - long before humans were around:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html
At times almost the entire planet was buried under ice sheets a mile thick. They melted. Guess what melted them - the Sun.


150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world

130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial

130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present,
(except for possible global glaciation at 121,000 y.a.)

110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial

105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still colder and drier than present
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another colder phase
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase,
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - most of world covered in ice sheets (the 'Lower Pleniglacial'
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally colder and drier-than-present

25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid melting of ice sheets begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. rapid onset of cold, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and wetter than today's
8,200 y.a. - sudden cold and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present (except; about 2600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas)

CONCLUSION
Climate is always 'changing' from Icea Age to Inter Glacial - due to solar change a
51

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/01/2008 13:39:56
68,69,70 and the other deluded ones, note this:

'At hearings in the US Congress in March 2007, Philip Cooney, a former aide to the White House who was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted that he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though he is not a government scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers are retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there is serious scientific doubt about global warming.'

So, are you proud to be helping the neocons in their egregious fight on behalf of big oil and coal?
52

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 16/01/2008 14:17:39
THe naysayers in this thread may wake up one day - or their children or grandchildren will wake up one day - and realise that the warnings WERE true and as they struggle with polluted oceans and rivers and lakes and unmangeable garbage mountains and food depleted of vitamins and minerals MAYBE then they will realise that they could have been more open-minded and done some MINIMAL efforts to alleviate the strain on this planet.

Since it may not affect the naysayers in their lifetimes, I suppose they think that the subsequent generations can solve they problem and clean up the mess and they go back to sinking their heads into the (polluted) sand like ostriches - IF those birds survive.
53

Upbeat,

16/01/2008 16:55:30
Ref 69 Tweedmouth.

You have assembled a lot of dates and some useful quasi-historical theories and some verifiable facts.

But I cannot see any data for the last 2 millenia, and this gap includes a complete lack of data for the entire period since mankind started largescale expolitation of the deposits of energy that had been laid down and stored away in the Carboniferous age.

To judge from your message it would appear to be an attempt to " rubbish" any suggestion that mankind's activities could have any influence on Global climate . But, carefully , you do not go so far as to claim this.

Consider for a moment the heat output from .. say.... 10,000 fossil fuel power stations. How does this equate with the heat output one volcano in your opinion ? Consider the heat output of 500,000,000 motor vehicles and 100,000 ocean going ships world wide. How many brushwood fires does this equate to. ?

To point out that there have been fluctuations in global conditions over long periods of geological time is one thing. That this truth has any relevance to mankind's influence on global atmospheric conditions and climate is simply too contrived, to be regarded as a useful way of gainsaying the effects that are now being measured and observed by science everyday.
54

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/01/2008 19:48:57
#74 Upbeat and #69 Tweedmouth

Another rather inconvenient truth not mentioned in tweedmouth's post is that during the Eemian period, 125,000 years ago, with temperatures not much more than present, sea levels were 4 - 6 metres higher than at present.

Of course, there weren't any cities in those days. But nowadays ... so how long before we sat goodbye to:
London
Inverness
New York
Buenos Aires
Bangladesh
Liverpool
Sydney
etc etc etc

In other words, the fact that there have been huge climatic fluctuations during the ice ages is no reason to be unconcerned about climatic changes occurring now, and is also no reason not to attribute current changes to human influences.

55

Upbeat,

16/01/2008 21:40:15
75 Slioch

Living 7 metres above the sea I should be ordering my state of the art Gondola shortly !
56

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/01/2008 23:12:05
#76 Chairman Gordon said, "No mention of sea levels"

There is actually. The paper is about the Eemian cold event. Mostly it is concerned with evidence from ice cores in Greenland and pollen from lake sediments in Europe. Neither of those sources of data give DIRECT evidence of sea-level change - they provide data on, for example, temperature and CO2, dust etc. However, a rise in sea-level is postulated to have enabled the cold event to happen due to reduction in the "amount of North Atlantic Deep Water being formed in the Nordic Seas" [thus reducing the "Gulf Stream"] by "the increased incursion of "fresh" North Pacific water via the Bering Strait during times of raised sea level".

For direct evidence of sea-level change, detailed field surveys are required - for example there is plenty of evidence of former higher sea-levels around the Scottish coastline, eg raised beaches, wave-cut platforms etc. But this paper was not concerned with such field evidence.
57

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 17/01/2008 09:08:56
#79 Chairman Gordon

What is postulated in the paper is one of the EFFECTS of sea-level rises, not their actuality.

But the point is, the subject of this paper was temperature and vegetation evidence from ice-cores and lake sediments, not evidence for sea-level changes during the Eemian. Nor did it have anything to say about the effect of the climate changes on hominid populations or the fecundity of great auks or any number of other aspects of the Earth at that time. So what? Give me strength.
58

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 15:35:13
#81:Agreed. Finally somebody addresses the REAL issue. By far the most substantial "green" contribution anyone can make is also the simplest. Simply have fewer children. Any other contribution pales by comparison. Having one child creates a legacy of consumption that completely obliterates any and all "green" efforts that you could ever make in your own lifetime. This truth is self-evident and yet it appears to be too painful to say out loud. Instead we are left with the guilt-inducing nonsense that is printed day-after-day in this wretched publication.
59

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 17/01/2008 17:58:47
#82 Mark Renton

I agree with you with respect to having fewer children, and indeed have been saying as much (out loud!) for decades.

But the individual consumption of those people that do exist is still of importance. I don't think anyone would claim that the Scotsman's ten pledges are anything but a small first step that anyone with any awareness and responsibility will already be doing. But quite clearly a lot of people are not aware, and they are constantly told by advertisements that "they are worth it" or that the only way to get the girl/job/status/whatever is to have the latest car/kitchen/mobile/whatever. So don't be too critical of these efforts by the Scotsman. After all, the easiest way to reduce consumption is for those presently most careless about it to change their ways a little. (it's more difficult for those already treading lightly to to make an additional substantial reduction.) Perhaps when these changes becomes more universally accepted more people will be more amenable to your message.

Meanwhile, one way of making your message more palatable might be to say something like: "If you plan to have a particular number of children, consider reducing that number by one. And if you plan to start a family at a particular age, consider delaying for a few years (obviously bearing in mind the ticking of the fertility clock)."
60

scottygirl,

NZ 17/01/2008 19:46:58
Why don't all you guys who think this is a waste of time put your effort into something you do believe in rather than clogging up a very good effort to reduce pollution.

The views of psot 39 and 55 represent the opposing views that mnay bring to this subject.

The evidence of climate change is real for anyone who bothers to investigate with an open mind.

Dave from Barra - you give the Western Isles a bad name. The storm which hit the Western Isles a couple of years ago was, I am sure, a direct result of global warming. Many of you seem to find the concept of rising sea levels quite funny - it's not funny for the small islands in the pacific who are facing a real threat but hey that doesn't matter as long as all you guys who think this is nonsense can still use as many resources as you like.

As post 39 said, this is a basic starter list.

Perhaps the Scotsman can set up a blog for all everyone who thinks this is rubbish - then you can all get out of the way of those of us who think it's a good idea to take a bit better care of our natural resources.
61

,

18/01/2008 00:16:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

Kipling,

Cold 19/01/2008 00:34:51
Use of a thermos to keep hot water in for tea, hotwater bottle, etc. rather than frequent reboiling or boiling of fresh water.
63

scottygirl,

NZ 19/01/2008 22:21:45
Alan Reid from NZ - don't let Dave from Barra get to you. As I said he gives the Western Isles a bad name and I'm quite at liberty to say that as I was born and brought up there.. You can't get latte and bagels in Barra - in fact the last time I tried to get a plunger coffee I had to give up! Maybe that's what's missing in his life. On a positive note, Barra is a very small and relatively flat island - Dave may be feeling the direct effects of global warming a bit sooner than he thinks.
Chairman Gordon - I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not but why don't you read my comment properly - my point was that people who continually deny get in the wya of those who think that it best to try and limit the amount of pollution we put in the air we breathe, in the fish we eat etc etc.
64

scottygirl,

NZ 19/01/2008 22:21:46
Alan Reid from NZ - don't let Dave from Barra get to you. As I said he gives the Western Isles a bad name and I'm quite at liberty to say that as I was born and brought up there.. You can't get latte and bagels in Barra - in fact the last time I tried to get a plunger coffee I had to give up! Maybe that's what's missing in his life. On a positive note, Barra is a very small and relatively flat island - Dave may be feeling the direct effects of global warming a bit sooner than he thinks.
Chairman Gordon - I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not but why don't you read my comment properly - my point was that people who continually deny get in the wya of those who think that it best to try and limit the amount of pollution we put in the air we breathe, in the fish we eat etc etc.
65

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 21/01/2008 10:32:47
90. Glad to hear you have three brain cells. It shows.
66

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 21/01/2008 15:24:30
LISTEN IF YOU ALL WANT TO GO GREEN TYPE IN WATER POWERED CAR INTO U-TUBE AND SEE WHAT YOU GET, the governments of the world all know that petrol and diesel are huge cons, the biggest con ever to be perputrated by any government, Gordon Broon and Co all know it, go and watch for yourselves.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.