Please would you highlight Lord Paul Drayson’s address recently?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6422769.ece?Submitted=true

Lord Drayson is a successful bioscience entrepreneur who became a Government Minister relatively recently in the UK.

Just to keep skeptics grounded in the reality that not ALL Governments are totally in thrall to the extremists’ messages…..?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798680/?cat=nq

Anthony, if you would rather not have humorous posts on your site please tell me.

Also, if 300,000 a year were to be dying from Global Warming, it would be something to be concerned about, but how can our NGO and UN friends calculate this statistic against a background scores of millions killed in conflicts in Africa (one estimate 13million in the last 10 years and this may not be the worst 10 years – I was in Nigeria when over 3million died in the 1960s in civil war and associated disease and starvation:

http://www.arcuk.org/pages/apology-9m-deaths.htm

thats more than four times as many a year as our alleged Global Warming deaths and dwarfs what we call the World Wars. If this was happening in North America, we would be thought to be in need of a head examination if we were to be underscoring such comparatively quiet AGW deaths

Lets see now: there are 53 countries in Africa that works out to 5,660 AGW deaths a year per country on average – meanwhile over the last 50 years ….. Angola, Congo, Rawanda, Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Somalia …. definitely the global warming deaths would be hard to count among the bodies there and lets not forget the despots: Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe – try to count the AGW deaths among the untold hundreds of thousands who have been killed, died of starvation and are now dying of cholera in Zimbabwe because the government has run the country down to social and economic ruin. I better snip the rest of this before I get on to the deterioration of the Nobel Prize into a political prize over the past few decades.

In the most recent issue of Geoscientist (the magazine (not journal)) of the Geological Society of London (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page5546.html) there is a report of recent research published in the Journal of Environmental Quality (abstract at http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/654) concerning the amount of methane released by landfill sites and which is released into the atmosphere.

According to the article, the IPCC currently assumes that between 0 and 10% of the methane produced in landfill sites oxidized before is released into the atmosphere. The new research finds that this figure is far too low, and that in a range of samples, the mean values ranged from 22% oxidation in clayey soil to 55% in sandy soil. The standard error was 6%.

The upshot of this, of course, is that landfill sites may not contribute such a high percentage of their methane emissions into the atmosphere. The methane threat, as the author in Geoscientist writes, may be overblown.

Good spot! Very apposite.

It also reminded me of this, from Steven Jay Gould, a thought that Hansen, Mann and Co. could usefully have pinned to their respective walls:

“Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny—and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).”

‘Tis coherent, and quite a good rant!

Now, my caution though, it (you!) should NOT be content with a “good” rant, nor even “quite good a rant”.

YOU – as a reader and writer and righter of other readers – must create quite a noisy, non-quiet rant in the local press that you DO get attention by writing about the subject, by writing about it again, and by talking informatively about the subject to others who HAVE only read the media’s propaganda.

(Your bitter whine glass – unless it is read by others who don’t now know, will not matter if it were originally filled with white, red, or blush before it became vinegar.)

Especially if the greenhouse effect works like the warmists insist. Have they thought this through..? :-)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798680?cat=nq&d=090601

Thanks for the info.

Here is a fun link list of all of the stuff caused by AGW. Check it out, it has everything from incresed sexual promiscuity to the earth turning upside down.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

For the O/T on the white roofs, don’t knock it ’till ya try it. I painted my galvanized roof with a white sealant and saw an immediate and significant drop (almost 10º F on a sunny 90º August day) in inside temps. It saved me a lot of $$ on running the A/C. That is a real tangible benefit to the AGW effort via less electricity going through my meter. I wouldn’t have a dark colored roof unless I could change it back in the summer.

As far as the reflected heat, that is a non-starter. On the larger scale, it doesn’t really matter if the heat is held on your black roof, or reflected. That heat is still there, just in a different place.