tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3825444167631807883.comments2023-03-21T07:38:40.720+00:0080% by 2050?Adrian Chttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09422798397586559122noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3825444167631807883.post-78625529404413306622009-11-10T23:53:27.447+00:002009-11-10T23:53:27.447+00:00I was dismayed at the flippant responses I've ...I was dismayed at the flippant responses I've heard from politicians over this - almost suggesting it's just 'whacky eco-nuts' wanting to turn everyone vegetarian. Truth is, how we eat can substantially affect our carbon footprint. I reckon eating far less meat, and probably paying more for good, local produce, is an essential first step. <br /><br />Like you, I live in the south west. We manage our farm and small <a href="http://www.wheatlandfarm.co.uk/naturereserve.html" rel="nofollow">Devon nature reserve</a> for wildlife. And being culm grassland it needs to be grazed by cows to maintain its biodiversity. Much of our lovely landscape in this region is there because of livestock, and of course we'll want to keep that. But surely we can still take on board the underlying message!Devon Green Holidayshttp://www.wheatlandfarm.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3825444167631807883.post-78421000590350028062009-01-16T10:52:00.000+00:002009-01-16T10:52:00.000+00:00But the CO2 emission can be offset against saving ...But the CO2 emission can be offset against saving made by people who are able to work at home rather than travel to an office, because of the technology tools such as Google that enable this.KarenChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872397296020453665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3825444167631807883.post-70825561290127607892008-07-25T16:26:00.000+01:002008-07-25T16:26:00.000+01:00Is it information such as this"CO2 doesn't match t...Is it information such as this<BR/><BR/>"CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. ... They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols"<BR/><BR/>that you are thinking of? <BR/><BR/>This certainly does provide "accurate scientific information" in that it demonstrates that the writer is only somewhat distantly familiar with actual science. <BR/><BR/>Specifically, to say that the drop of temperature is sorted because the models predicted it is a) absurd - I have a phd in data analysis and have seen more fiddled models from academics that you can shake a stick at, and b) is quite clearly "assuming the answer", in that if we are going to assume the "models" are correct, no debate is required. The whole point is that I and many others think they're nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Maybe a reason for the drop consistent with AGW exists, maybe not. But the folks at RealClimate certainly don't have one. Do you know anyone who does?Kid Salamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03032699716171669184noreply@blogger.com