to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

[moogy1a]

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

All the major oil companies will agree that we have had a pretty major effect on the availability of fossil fuels over the last few few years, and that's just over a few decades of use by a very small percentage of the earth's population. Co2 or no co2 I don't think there is a 'carry on as you were' option.

Youngermother - I do have a green energy tariff, but we also have a (petrol) car. I don't own any shares in fossil fuel companies.

There are things that individiuals can do, but the level of ambition required depends on governments taking action - energy policy, carbon pricing, city and transport planning, R&D support, international collaboration etc...

Youngermother, we have led lights, very efficient appliances and a ground source heat pump going in next year so will generate a fair amount of our own heating.

We drive less than 5000 miles per year - generally cycle or use public transport and last flew 5 years ago so we do try...

Youngermother: I have no car, am parsimonious of gas & electricity, own few hi-tech devices, am a low-level consumer and never fly. This is because I'm very poor. As a corollary, there's no hope of my purchasing any independent heat- or power-producing equipment; my home leaks heat all over and is damp; I can no longer afford to worry about how my groceries were farmed. I have an illness that demands a high-protein, high-nutrient diet. I've already had to sacrifice adequate heat for adequate food this winter; it hasn't even got very cold yet.

I've little hope that this will help anyone understand why my perspective is more cynical than it was when I considered these issues from within a comfortable environment and a lifestyle that involved choice. But here you go anyway.

How's your own carbon footprint?

Sukarno where do you get your led lights? We have one but find it very directional. I'd really like to find some that cast light wider.

Doh, silly iPad!! Skaen, not Sukarno!

LED strips are nice :) Cheap on ebay. Also, have you thought about LED tube lights and rope/fairy lights?

With 'normal' light fittings, the shape of the beam depends on the style of bulb. There are loads of different reflector patters (the shiny foil parts.) Have a read to find out what you need where.

*patterns - not a mysterious technical term!

I've had a really good look garlicbaubles, but will keep looking :) I think the issue is making them bright enough so that a decent diffuse can be used. Of course, making them brighter uses more power. I'd like to be able to swap out our CFLs directly as I struggle to see with them.

Diffuser, not diffuse. Silly fingers.

I loathe fluorescents! I've got them, but I don't like 'em.

LED technology isn't yet good enough to give the same sort of all-over light you get from 'normal' bulbs. The answer is to use more LEDs - get your diffusion from horizontals, point your directionals at highlight spots, use reflective backgrounds. It's a bit more effort but, as a bonus, you can achieve fabby designer-looking interiors while burning less fuel.

I put LED-studded ceilings in my last flat. Looks a bit corporate but does the job nicely. You add depth with your additional lighting. It was really economical - I bought multi-lamp kits from Wickes and made a fake ceiling with plasterboard.

I will shut up about this now before I ramble off into interior design!

Wow! I'm impressed! we have the interior design/DIY skills of a peanut in this house.

I hate those bulbs. We can only get normal ones here. I respect the views expressed on here and obviously there is a scientific basis for these things. I don't think people who care are smug. I can honestly say though, that could not care even a little bit about it, I am going to be gone before anyone can make me drive a hydrogen car.

theodora , am really glad you are honest about it.

I get the impression that some older people have a very self-serving "Humph, what nonsense" approach, because they're not going to be around when the shit hits the fan.

I do love the people who talk about the incredible power of the climate change scientists, about how they are able to bend governments to their will, how they have pulled the wool over the world's eyes with their incredible lobbying power.

Which completely ignores the fact that all the financial and political power lies with those who deny climate change - the massive fossil fuel conglomerates, the oil and coal producers, the heavy industries.

Even if you can't be bothered to read the research, the fact that underpaid scientists with no political apparatus behind them have managed to convince most of the world they are right should be a sign that they haven't got it completely wrong.

I think we got the lights from simply led. I tend to google and see who's cheapest for warm colour bulbs of whatever fitting we need.

I do sympathise Garlic. It seems to me that one of the relatively easy and straightforward things for the govt to do is to tighten up building regs and impose restrictions on letting property so it has to meet a certain performance level - poss combined with rent control so that houses should be easier to keep warm without leaking energy everywhere.

Sorting out gas and electricity tariffs so you pay a lower rate if you use less might also be a good idea.

Theodora- if there was a hydrogen car which was effectively free to run would you really continue to use a diesel/ petrol one? We need to get to a point with the various technologies coming through that they are cheap and therefore the default.

There are sustainability standards which must be adhered to for all social housing (including shared ownership) and all public buildings. Breeam and code for sustainable homes. This even stretches out to refurbishments.It's the rest of new builds and small scale refurbishments that are the problem. I'm liking b&q as they mostly sell low energy bulbs and are signed up to 1 planet living who promote it actively in their stores.

Single me out as much as you like, ami :) Your post makes straightforward sense to me!

Emma, I'd rather a policy imposed universal quality & rent controls on existing dwellings than space-age standards on public properties. Both would be nice, of course. Actually a lot of the very worst rental homes are council-owned. If sustainability standards apply to refurbs on social housing, is this cost an inhibiting factor?

I have read and read and researched and researched and have yet to find any evidence produced that
a) "global temperatures" (whatever that actually means) are consistantly rising
b) increased CO2 levels are causing an increase in global temperatures
c) human activity is definitely responsible for an appreciable rise in CO2 levels.

I am genuinely interested to know what you are reading amicissimma that makes you think there is no evidence. Here is the best article I found showing global warming is real after just a few minutes searching news.discovery.com/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html . There are many other sources like NASA for instance.

I am an habitual sceptic. Blame my school's attachment to Edward de Bono and to something called Meticulous Thinking. Before accepting an important idea, I like to visit its sources and build an opinion from there and take specialists' comments on board as I go; I can't be an expert in anything everything. I have read numerous source documents on climate change (one thing I am good at is statistical analysis.) I'm not setting myself up as an expert, because I'm not. I do, though, consider my own opinion worth holding because I have formed it meticulously. I think the matter of climate change is still too full of unknowns for it to be pivotal. Our science is too new.

This extract, from one of many thoughtful wikipedia pages on the topic, is an illustration of why I feel it's wrong to posit a definite conclusion:-

Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png#Summary

The idea that the science must be right because the governments support it, or vice versa, is absolutely hilarious. History, up to this very minute, is crawling with bad science working with bad government to make catastrophic mistakes.

This extract, from one of many thoughtful wikipedia pages on the topic, is an illustration of why I feel it's wrong to posit a definite conclusion:-

I'm not really sure what that file you have quoted from is attempting to show garlic. As far as I can see they are saying they cant tell from the data they are analysing whether we have had a comparable amount of warming in the last few thousand years. I'm not sure whether that disproves what the majority of climate scientists are saying ie that the earth is warming and that this warming is to be expected given the amount of greenhouse gas that has bee added to the atmosphere. Maybe I am missing what the author is attempting to show though?

The idea that the science must be right because the governments support it, or vice versa, is absolutely hilarious. History, up to this very minute, is crawling with bad science working with bad government to make catastrophic mistakes.

I agree it would be absolutely hilarious if anyone were to say that science must be right because governments support it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that though.