* Posts by Peter W

55 posts • joined 26 Feb 2007


Glastonbury online ticket sales fiasco

Peter W

what was wrong with that system?

A J, essentially that older system was fine until the internet made ticket touting ridiculously easy and profitable. Kudos to Glastonbury I say, for actually making a decent attempt to solve the problem. Obviously there are still some problems with the tech of handling so many requests (which could basically be solved by having more servers, more bandwidth, and switch to Linux), but it seems to have gone off pretty well overall.

EU spoils Blair's energy saving party

Peter W

Why is the temperature map important?

It's not in the slightest bit relevant. The UK for instance has a vast Wind resource, whilst the Scandinavian countries have cheap sources of wood for biofuels.

Researchers link human skull size and climate

Peter W

maybe its simpler

bigger head = more hair = easier to cope with the cold.

Cheney shoots down Bush message on climate change

Peter W

good arguments but you miss the point

Geoff, you make some good points but you miss a few key facts. First of all is the risk if we get this one wrong. If the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong, but we listened and acted, whats going to happen? Simply speaking, slightly higher fuel bills in the short term and slightly lower fuel bills in the long term.


If those scientists are right on the other hand, and we don't act...then we're in serious trouble.

So do we wait for the science to be absolutely proven (rather than almost absolutely, as is the case currently - the haggling now is over the precise magnitude of change, not whether that change will happen), even if thats another 20 years - 20 years the scientists warn us could make a significant difference?

"Dealing with climate change is the real heart of the issue here - we do know that the planet has been significantly warmer, and significantly cooler than it is today. It's safe to assume that the real constant in the history of climate is not its stability, but its variability. "

Rate of change - this is an abnormal weather event already, due to both the temperatures but more importantly the rate that this change has happened. When you talk about variables such as volcanoes - do you think scientists are so stupid that they don't consider these? They do - the magnitude of them is not enough over such a small timescale.

Peter W

Still too much uneducated comment

Very good comment by Raoul Miller above. People who don't understand the science really should read up on it before commenting.

I would point out that Ryan Nix really doesn't understand the science when he claims "Yes, CO2 levels are up 30% in the past 100 years, and things like cars, factories, even farm cows, are a major contributor for this". Ryan, Farm cows do produce CO2, but no-one cares about that. However, they also produce a large amount of methane which is why they are commonly brought up as an issue.

Neither is scientific concensus a bad thing - the person making that comment seems to believe that the more people who believe something, the less likely it is to be true: a very strange viewpoint.

For any climate sceptic: please, go, read, discover, learn. Don't just read the sceptic websites, read the science. Try and learn the valid scientific reasons for uncertainty, and ask yourself whether that uncertainty is worth the gamble. Because that is what it is: a giant gamble.

The basic science of the greenhouse effect is known. Where there is discussion, it is in regard to the magnitude of the change and how this will be altered by feedback effects (again, if you don't understand this term, read up on it, a wuick comment is not enough to explain the science). This is where the confusion arises, but simply ask yourself: what are the options? Here's a range of options

1)We act: the threat was not as bad as is currently feared.

Result - positive, as oil/gas will last longer for both ourselves and our descendants, and humanity as a whole will benefit.

2)We act: the threat was as bad or worse than currently feared

Result - positive. We will still suffer from global warming but we will have mitigated the worst effects.

3)We don't act - the threat was not as bad as is currently feared

Result - negative. Oil/Gas prices are already going up, and we will STILL pay higher costs for energy.

4)We don't act - the threat was as bad or worse than is currently feared.

Result - Disaster.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020