Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html en-gb 30 Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:27:28 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html Robyn81 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=98#comment57 As usual, this is a bang on analysis of the situation. Thanks Richard. Wed 19 May 2010 19:13:28 GMT+1 sarahhewit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=96#comment56 Let us not dishearten Copenhagen is just spring board to solve our climate and environmental problems. Wed 19 May 2010 08:39:26 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=94#comment55 I've pointed people to the NASA DAAC's and sources of free software they can use to process the raw data used to estimate ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic. This was in response to a post claiming that the ice extent was increasing in the arctic and antarctic. There is no indication that any of them have taken up the challenge. These people just keep making the same claim regardless of the facts. Unfortunately, this tact is frequently taken in political campaigns were the tactic is that if you say something often enough most people will accept it with out actually questioning the accuracy of the statement.One can get the true quality of the skeptics argument by seeing who they link to on those few occasions where they try to provide support for their assertions.Unfortunately there are a lot of people who simply can not cope with the bad news and so go into denial and get quite belligerent when the unpleasant news keeps getting pushed in their face. Mon 17 May 2010 04:21:12 GMT+1 wichitazen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=93#comment54 Viz....54:Absolutely on the mark.Regarding ice extent in the Arctic (one of the talking points recently)...go to this source: Google:Climate Progress: Arctic Ice....In it, the real issue of volume versus extent is talked about at great length, with real data (as per 54's excellent request). I too tire of posts that are mostly fist shaking and glib dismissals of entire scientific communities. My own posts then become more and more negative, which is not what I wish. I'll try to stick to simple factual reportage and let the spinning and innuendo hopefully fade to black, for me as well as others. HungeryWalleye: "...what we need is some disinterested critical discourse on the issues at hand." Thanks for the reminder about what true debate is. Perhaps we could all return to direct factual sources. I would like to say that either one accepts that the scientific community at large is basically doing its job, or one doesn't. There aren't whole areas that go rogue. Many of the sources quoted in these posts are from people who are not necessarily scientists or trained mathematicians professionally, but the layman may not know this. Hence what may seem a stunning revelation may, in fact, only be an outlier or layman with some modest math skills (or without the latter). There have been confusing statements about the general fields of climatology and physics, as well as statistical interpretation. It might be of some interest to readers to follow the Q and A (Google: Statisticians Comment on Status of Climate Change Science; particularly note both the support of the hockey stick and the IPCC conclusions in general; the quibbling is with some semantics, but the overall conclusions are supportive of change, including AGW. Fri 14 May 2010 18:30:51 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=91#comment53 51. At 7:47pm on 13 May 2010, infinityYou take some of the posters to these blogs too seriously. Many of them are just trying to be provocative by making absurd assertions. I've pointed them to publicly available data that they could analyze themselves if they had the interest but most of them would rather just repeat their assertions.To understand them just look at the behavior of various monkey species. Antagonistic troops climb as high as they can in the tree canopy, screaming at each other and trying to get into position to urinate and defecate on opposing troop. Think of people such as Rush Limbaugh as the troop leaders and you will have a better understanding of what they are up to.Then of course you have the paid flacks from propaganda tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institutes who provide talking points and rhetorical suggestions to the right wing that have been tested for effectiveness by the use of focus groups and surveys of targeted populations. They are well rewarded if they tow the line, but get quickly canned if they say anything that doesn't go with the current political strategy. In this case, think of pilot fish getting the left overs from the sharks.Unfortunately some liberal groups now are trying to set up their own corresponding propaganda tanks when what we need is some disinterested critical discourse on the issues at hand. Fri 14 May 2010 08:32:38 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=89#comment52 Oops, hit the wrong key before correcting the spelling of Wynne-Edwards.Sorry. Fri 14 May 2010 08:08:18 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=87#comment51 47. At 5:16pm on 13 May 2010, Flatearther:You claim to be a scientist (physicist) yet use the word theory as a negative pejorative when describing AGW. You don't seem to think that doing research and publishing the results is a worth while activity and that only people who work for industry are adding value to society.So I thought it would be interesting for you to share your views on the role of theory in science and to give us some idea of the context in which you used your knowledge of heat and mass transfer for the benefit of the economy. What kind of problems did you solve for industry that contributed to the good old bottom line? Fri 14 May 2010 07:31:53 GMT+1 infiniti http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=86#comment50 Re 39 jasonsceptic wrote:The end of an El Nino doesn't point to a cooling future. An El Nino ended in the 1970s for example. What happened after that? 40 years of warming, not cooling.The Sun caused some cooling in the past few years going into it's solar minimum. It would have caused a lot more if greenhouse gases hadn't risen during the same period. The solar minimum was last year. Solar output is now rising and will continue to do so for the next few years, so we can expect warming from both that increase in solar output and the fact that the warming from greenhouse gases, notably co2, is not being countered by a reduction in solar output anymore.The AO is a regional pattern of temperature and so doesn't bear on global temperatures. If it did it would spell upcoming warming, as it's been negative in recent months, yet with negative AO, those past few months have been some of the warmest on record. So imagine what would have occurred if AO was positive!Noone has found any problem with the way NASA GISS splices temperature records or homogenization. Indeed other people have reproduced the result. The satellite record also shows similar warming over the past 30 years. The NASA/GISS methodology is available to download online, as is the source code and the input data.The arctic is melting based on 30 years "data comparison".In short there is nothing pointing to a future of cooling. It's just wishful thinking on the part of those so desperate to deny AGW that they strenuously bend the otherway as far as they can. Thu 13 May 2010 18:47:18 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=84#comment49 jasonsceptic wrote:"Modern nuclear war would cover the entire globe in airborne debris and radioactive material. The crops would fail worldwide, billions would die of radiation poisoning and whoever was left would be witness to complete social collapse and extinction."Ahhh that explains why Chernobyl killed the entire population of Russia and half of Europe! BTW Chernobyl was equivalent in radiation and nuclear material to about 400 to 600 bombs. Ever heard of geomagnetic Pole reversal? when that happens the earths entire magnetosphere shuts down and bathes the whole planet in cosmic radiation, maybe for thousands of years. The simple truth is that life evolved to survive radiation, everything might get sick for awhile but it would survive. Radiation might be bad for individuals but long term its generally good for species because it accelerates evolution - even purging mutations more quickly.Seriously much of everything we were told about nuclear weapons before about 1995 was full of propaganda and errors and exaggerations - much of them completely accidental. The real weapons are bad enough but they can't destroy the world - like I said its huge. The irony of people who are such skeptics about things like climate change falling for the even more blatant propaganda of an earlier age.... Thu 13 May 2010 18:42:14 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=82#comment48 #44 jasonsceptic wrote:"It has everything to do with a mild and stable climate in the past 6000 years,"Which led to reliable and productive farming and therefore an abundance of food -- i.e. cheap food."industrialisation,"Which led to less labour-intensive production methods to sustain life -- i.e. cheap food."improvements in health care and general social and structural development."Less overcrowding, better sewerage systems, sure. But the reason for the overcrowding in the first place was the prohibitive expense of living in places where people could not afford to "put food on the table". The Satanic mills etc. described in Hard Times weren't a "lifestyle choice" made by people who preferred life in a filthy city to climbing mountains! Thu 13 May 2010 17:43:26 GMT+1 wichitazen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=81#comment47 Re: #36Read: "Dummies guide to the latest ”Hockey Stick”controversy"...by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman: Online version......a PDF that will help the average reader understand this subject.And no, I'm not joking. I thought you were kidding. Go figure.You wrote: "Climate science is a small sub-branch of physics". Well, that's rather misleading, don't you think? Small...that word seems staggeringly inappropriate for these sub-branches. Astrophysics is a sub-branch of physics, but would you deny it (or climatology's) true complexity, sophistication and scale? There are countless examples of what technically could be termed 'sub-branches' of certain overarching categories, but it is clear that you are trying to trivialize climatology. Since climatology actually is not, per se, a sub-branch of physics (it includes chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc etc.) your statement feels disengenuous.Viz: population explosion...there I absolutely agree. This enormous elephant in the living room is never talked about because of its politically explosive repercussions. China has pulled back from its one-child policy recently, which will compound the issue in short order.Even if nothing whatsoever happened with climate change, there are sufficient other cliffs we are madly driving over to give me pause, to wit: The loss of arable land and topsoil; the diminishing aquifers and general potable water; the salinization of irrigated land; the modification of components of our biosphere that we rely on (loss of bees, for example); the tainting through industrial waste of water and land; the acidification of the ocean; loss of coral reefs and habitats; overfishing; the inevitable need to switch from carbon-based energy to other sources; the political mayhem in competing for all of the available and finite resources (from uranium to oil to natural gas to water to etc etc) and so on ad infinitum. Whether you accept warming or choose to ignore it, you still have to deal with all of these issues. And, as far as I know, there isn't any credible disagreement upon their severity or reality. If you add climate change, (even if you think it's cooling, which, as you pointed out, would still impact food supplies etc.), then the whole mess only gets that much worse. Perhaps it is that, as T.S. Eliot wrote so eloquently in his Four Quartets, humans can't stand too much reality. So we play pretend games, like children playing 'grown up', or 'hero and villain', or whatever, and then hope when we go inside that mum and dad will feed us and read us a story before bedtime, and all of the scares and scrapes will vanish from playtime. Unfortunately, it is us that have to be the grownups and face the worst, if for nothing else, our own childrens' future. Thu 13 May 2010 17:20:28 GMT+1 Flatearther http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=79#comment46 HungeryWalleye #43:Private industry where what counts is repeatedly doing reliable, correct work; adding value and generating profit to pay for the non-productive side of the economy. Unlike academia where publishing papers, regardless of value, is what counts for advancement and funding. Not me on public radio.What do you want to know about the role of theory in science? Isn't it obvious?Are you not a scientist then? Thu 13 May 2010 16:16:12 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=77#comment45 Oh and Richard, you mention Tuvalu, so I will point people to this post as a starting point for learning about the REAL reasons why Tuvalu is in trouble and needs help:http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/05/13/richard-black-and-tuvalu/ Thu 13 May 2010 15:31:00 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=75#comment44 42. At 3:27pm on 13 May 2010, Robert Lucien wrote:"The unspeakable irony is that any nuclear war that hits mainly population centres becomes green positive within about five years because it reduces the consumption of resources so hugely. Its not that nuclear weapons are clean its that our society is a pretty poisonous sore."Modern nuclear war would cover the entire globe in airborne debris and radioactive material. The crops would fail worldwide, billions would die of radiation poisoning and whoever was left would be witness to complete social collapse and extinction.To suggest that a nuclear war would be "green positive" is so absolutely off the map that I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would suggest such a thing.The problem could be sorted within a decade. Rather than trying to stop this fantasy of C02-driven Armageddon, simply put a global limit on each person having one child in their lifetime (ie a couple has two and that is it).At the same time stop the Catholic church from spewing out its message that abortion and contraception are wrong. But of course that is something nobody will agree to as its our "human right" and we must not block the message of the church, a body based upon a belief and nothing more, so instead we fiddle while Rome burns panicking about minor rises in gas and sea levels instead. Thu 13 May 2010 15:23:29 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=74#comment43 41. At 3:24pm on 13 May 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:#39 jasonsceptic wrote:"the real reason for all of our problems - insane population growth."And the reason for that is cheap food. What on Earth do you propose to do to remedy that?-It has very little, if anything to do with "cheap food". It has everything to do with a mild and stable climate in the past 6000 years, industrialisation, improvements in health care and general social and structural development.The bottom line is that rather than people squealing about climate change, and the "tough message" needed to get C02 levels down, we need to deliver an even tougher message and somehow enforce it:STOP HAVING CHILDREN. Thu 13 May 2010 15:12:58 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=72#comment42 Flatearther:What industry was willing to pay for your knowledge of heat and mass transfer?Were you the same person who identified themselves as "Flatearther" I heard on a Public Radio call in show on AGW some months ago?Perhaps you could share your view on the role of theory in the practice of science? Thu 13 May 2010 15:04:48 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=70#comment41 DrBrianS yes I'm sure your right, but -a/ Like I said the WHO estimates that about 30 million people die a year of starvation now, of course poverty is the major cause but local environment is also a large factor. The reason for most African famines is hot summers and repeated failing rainy seasons - today aid and emergency food rations prevent most from dying. Reduce the worlds crop growing ability and increase the size of the famine area and you get a big disaster. Thats why scientific projections put the death toll at up to 5 billion people over the next hundred years (5 billion over 100 years is an average of 50 million people a year). b/ The major difficulty is in the hottest areas, in places throughout the tropics rainfall patterns have chanced over the last 50 or so years and are faltering. The reason China are suddenly trying to become more green is that they are seeing climate change now, but it can really be anywhere in the tropical region. (I got this from reading New Scientist)Like you I agree humans are more than capable of doing something, its just that the solutions are all so huge that they will take 20 or more years to implement. Waiting till its to late is the real danger. And nothing they are doing today is preparing the world to cope with climate change -its probably already to late to slow it much so these climate change summits are almost completely pointless. c/ Your missing the whole point of my argument, if we continue to sit on our behinds arguing and doing nothing then eventually things like nuclear weapons will become the least worst option. If you look at the real statistics for a nuclear war a WWIII style nuclear war could have killed up to 2 billion people. The huge irony is that it is the advanced nations of the west and east that would have suffered and the people climate change is set to kill would have mostly survived. The unspeakable irony is that any nuclear war that hits mainly population centres becomes green positive within about five years because it reduces the consumption of resources so hugely. Its not that nuclear weapons are clean its that our society is a pretty poisonous sore.d/ This is Britain, if we didn't keep taking the happy pills we'd all kill ourselves :) As I have pointed out I am a scientist and scientists and engineers and designers are trained to look on the black side and take a pessimistic view of safety. Who would like to fly in a plane where the engineers had only taken an optimistic approach? cause I wouldn't! (metal fatigue, fuel leaks, hydraulic failure, don't worry about things like that - couldn't happen!) Thu 13 May 2010 14:27:10 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=68#comment40 #39 jasonsceptic wrote:"the real reason for all of our problems - insane population growth."And the reason for that is cheap food. What on Earth do you propose to do to remedy that? Thu 13 May 2010 14:24:47 GMT+1 Flatearther http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=67#comment39 HungeryWalleye:Andrew Montford is by training a chemist. Climate science is a small sub-branch of physics. I spent many years involved in heat and mass transfer - the essence of the climate. You don't have to publish to know your subject; particularly if you don't work in academia or for a government body. Thu 13 May 2010 12:17:24 GMT+1 jazbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=65#comment38 24. At 6:12pm on 12 May 2010, wichitazen wrote:"Cooling...I'm a little puzzled. The past ten years are the hottest decade in recorded history according to NASA, but you indicate that we're cooling. I don't get it. Help me out here. What exactly is pointing to a cooling future?"Try:1. End of El Nino2. Sun is quiet3. Negative AO 4. NASA/GISS - splicing of multiple station records, homgenisation of data sources, "adjustments", poor data record keeping, no methodoloy published, 1200km smoothing including no stations in the higher latitudes where warming is apparently worse.5. Claiming arctic is melting based upon 30 years data comparison.And in addition all ignoring the elephant in the room which is the real reason for all of our problems - insane population growth.Nevermind, 1 degree of cooling will soon smash the crops and wipe out a billion. Thu 13 May 2010 12:01:48 GMT+1 HungeryWalleye http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=63#comment37 36. At 08:33am on 13 May 2010, Flatearther I see that Andrew Montford is a highly trained Physicist such as yourself. Perhaps you could refer us to some of your research publications. Thu 13 May 2010 08:54:56 GMT+1 Dr Brian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=62#comment36 34. Robert Lucien wrote"People so often paint the effects of a nuclear war as Armageddon or the end of the world but in reality they are minuscule compared to the potential effects of environmental climate change."Ye gods. You must have had a lousy night and escaped from your bed at the crack of dawn to empty your brain of accumulated drivel into the blogosphere. a. There is no evidence at all that the slight increase in world temperature between 1975 and 2000, speculated to continue next week, next month, next year - take your pick, has done any harm whatsoever except for the waste of resources by governments in sucking up to the Greens.b. The average difference in temperature between Finland and Singapore, both thriving societies, is about 25 degrees. So much for the speculated devastation from worst case scenarios of global temperature rise. Humans are very good at adapting to extremes of climate.c. Name one person who has died as a result of climate change. Put that against the vast numbers killed (necessarily in my view) in Japan by two very small, primitive atom bombs. An all out nuclear exchange with modern weapons would indeed solve the problem of overpopulation. Cockroaches might survive.d. Take a cool pill this morning and a sleeping pill tonight. A good night's rest will do wonders for your thinking. Thu 13 May 2010 08:44:32 GMT+1 Flatearther http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=60#comment35 Wichitazen #24Physicist.You really haven't been following the story have you? NASA data? You are joking I take it.Go to WUWT, CA and read Andrew Montford's book. Thu 13 May 2010 07:33:20 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=58#comment34 #29 b5happy wrote:Dawn of Time - world population is zero.1800 - world population reaches one billion.1930 - human population reaches two billion.1960 - human population reaches three billion.1975 - human population reaches four billion.1987 - human population reaches five billion.1999 - human population reaches six billion.This is a nice example of reasoning guided by induction and nothing else -- no interest in explanation, no attempt to penetrate the superficial appearances of the numbers. It represents climate science perfectly, minus the "sophistication". Thu 13 May 2010 06:52:09 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=56#comment33 Surely the whole problem here is as always that most of these people focus to much on today and seem unable to follow the extrapolations of what continuing climate change would actually do. As the climate warms a large band in the tropical region is likely to become less and less habitable - this is stuff we're already seeing today. The results from this will be a huge increase in social pressure and almost inevitably lead to a huge world scale war between the nations of the rich and the poor. (100x bigger than WWII) The real alternate solution to climate action should be to invest in military and nuclear weapons technology and to prepare to win that war. Its obvious to anyone that the UN and current methods are completely useless - when the scientists and people like Al Gore said there was a narrow window they meant that it was already closing, they said that ten or fifteen years ago. Today these climate change summits are talking about carbon cuts by 2030, and they cant even agree to that. I can think of a solution that would work, abandon the UN and create a new more 'draconian', 'reactive' body. -People so often paint the effects of a nuclear war as Armageddon or the end of the world but in reality they are minuscule compared to the potential effects of environmental climate change. And we don't even need to extrapolate forward to see it - around 30 million people are already dying every year from starvation and probably half of them from environmental effects. (Lookup starvation on WP) An ugly but workable solution would be to use the threat of nuclear strike to force or encourage the more recalcitrant nations into compliance with carbon reduction.====And by the way before I lose the light of Dr Strangelove from my eye's I'm talking about real nuclear weapons not the fantasy ones as portrayed by people like CND. "Oh no! nuclear weapons will destroy the earth!!", only if it was only ten miles in diameter, the real earth is absolutely huge!!! The reason humans cause climate change is because there are billions of us and we all want cars and fridges and lots of food. - I'm betting most people who aren't scientists can't even conceive what a billion is. If you count 1 as a second a billion is 31 years, 6 billion is over 180 years. As a top predator our numbers are far to high and if we were still part of nature evolution would have found a way to exterminate us long ago. - It looks at the moment like we're about to do the opposite, and the frustrating thing as a scientist is that the solutions are out there but every year we do nothing and those solutions get a little bit harder. How long till everyone's talking about using nuclear weapons? I put it at 20 to 30 years - say 2035. Thu 13 May 2010 06:04:08 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=55#comment32 The Hartwell Report:I just downloaded the pdf version (42 pages) onto my flash drive.With luck, I will print it off and read it tomorrow morning.Along with the Evo Morales speech [1] to the United Nations G-77, outlining the outcome of the Bolivian Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, I will have my work cut out for me on the morrow.Funny that - I used to explore for oil!Naturally, I'll report my impressions to the readers of this weblog.- Manysummits -[1] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/speech-by-president-evo-morales-to-the-g77-at-the-united-nations/ Thu 13 May 2010 00:21:58 GMT+1 vagueofgodalming http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=53#comment31 If the Hartwell report had appeared in an internet forum, it would be called concern trolling.You can bet that if countries had been discussing a carbon tax, they'd have advocated cap-and-trade. It's a classic spoiling tactic: whatever is being put forward, advocate the rival solution. That way, nothing ever gets done, which is their real aim. Wed 12 May 2010 22:57:07 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=51#comment30 @manysummits #23“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”Albert Einstein/Mango Wed 12 May 2010 20:53:58 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=50#comment29 @ # 10 I said “we cannot change Africa because we cannot change its people.”Actually we can, as China and the West exploit Africa’s resources it is likely that some people will settle and found families. A recent TV programme (cannot remember which channel) suggested that mixed race people had certain advantages, now this may just have been an example of “positive discrimination” but it is interesting to note the number of successful black role models who have mixed ancestry, Present Obama for example. Wed 12 May 2010 20:23:20 GMT+1 b5happy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=48#comment28 Dawn of Time - world population is zero.1800 - world population reaches one billion.1930 - human population reaches two billion.1960 - human population reaches three billion.1975 - human population reaches four billion.1987 - human population reaches five billion.1999 - human population reaches six billion.Mulder: "You see a pattern emerging, here, Scully?"(For those that may say, "Look, it's slowing down."Even if it were to stop... we are already livingway beyond our means and chewing up the scenery,to boot...)@Richard - Keep with the 'doom and gloom'... You are just telling it like it is... Wed 12 May 2010 19:55:31 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=46#comment27 I'm all in favour of Occam's Razor ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"). One entity we can do without is the supposed "will" of an entire country, be it a big country or a small country. Only genuine agents such as individual humans and individual animals want anything. And most people, whether they live in a big country or a small country, want roughly the same things. Wed 12 May 2010 18:18:15 GMT+1 Rob_Cambs http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=44#comment26 @Smiffie''Smiffie@ Wolfiewoods # 14 said of me “Next you will be saying that it is because Africans do not have Neanderthal ancestry like the rest of us”An interesting idea, I had not thought of that, it is however far too early to be sure of the facts and I would not want to make such a claim on such a sensitive issue.The idea that Neanderthals were primitive brutes is a Victorian one based on survival of the fittest however sometimes species go extinct because of bad luck. Neanderthals may in some ways have been more advanced than modern man but they were equipped for extreme cold and may have fallen victim to global warming.''did they burn too many wood fires ? Wed 12 May 2010 17:28:46 GMT+1 wichitazen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=43#comment25 Kamboshigh: You used the term 'religion' in relation to AGW. Usually religion is defined as something like: "...a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny..."...That doesn't seem to jibe with your comment; anthropogenic forcings are the exact opposite (i.e human-based). So a belief in them would be secular, wouldn't it?I've seen this association before (AGW as a religion) and it strikes me as one of those rather dubious techniques that we learn to puncture in high school debate societies. Offhand I can think of at least four or five misleading categories that it would fall under. Posting that kind of rhetoric is not useful in any meaningful discussion, don't you think? Wed 12 May 2010 17:27:44 GMT+1 harrywr2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=41#comment24 A couple of the points that seems to be missing.Virtually all projections of future CO2 emissions assumed global coal prices would remain stagnant for at least another 100 years.The last 4 years has proven this fundamental assumption to be false.Even if the developing world wanted to burn coal, it's questionable as to whether they could afford to pay for it. If I look at various reports comparing the cost of various electric generating capacities they all use a coal cost of $40-$60/tonne.Coal prices jumped in 2006 and then the recession hit and we all said it was a 'temporary' blip. Coal prices in most of the world are now over $100 tonne.A Chinese coal miner produces 2 tons of coal in a day. Enforce something that resembles a safety standard and that production rate will drop even further. Pay a Chinese coal miner something other then a slave wage and the idea of 'cheap, plentiful electricity from coal' becomes impossible.Cheap plentiful electricity from oil is already a thing of the past. Cheap plentiful electricity from natural gas is teetering on becoming a thing of the past.If one looks at recent coal prices and the productivity in many of the worlds coal mines, cheap plentiful electricity from coal is well on it's way to the dust heap of history as well.No one wants to be cold or live in the dark, so the question becomes 'how are we going to get electricity?'.Lot's of folks will argue as to whether or not it will make any difference if our children and grand children end up in a slightly warmer world.How many people would argue that leaving our children and grand children in the dark is good? Wed 12 May 2010 17:16:10 GMT+1 wichitazen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=39#comment23 Flatearther: what kind of scientist are you, exactly? Climatologist? Biologist? Physicist? or...Just curious. Cooling...I'm a little puzzled. The past ten years are the hottest decade in recorded history according to NASA, but you indicate that we're cooling. I don't get it. Help me out here. What exactly is pointing to a cooling future? Is this based upon Milankovitch cycles and the theory relating to same? But that general theoretical stance has to account for current data, (which clearly indicates an anomaly in the form of a sudden spike of co2 and temperature) so it would seem that if we should be getting colder, due to the cycle, but instead are warming,so there must be a significant forcing in place to overcome the former cooling scenario. Volcanoes? Cattle effluvia? Sunspot activity (wait, we're in an anomaly there too...like the Maunder minimum, when things appeared also to cool off...)? Urban hot spots mimicking global trends? Or are NASA et al in some weird cabal, making up numbers, plotting who knows what...but, they're scientists, aren't they? I'm totally confused now. What numbers and data are not being accounted for by NASA? Wed 12 May 2010 17:12:44 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=37#comment22 \\\ Restoring the Earth ///Lester Brown, "Plan B 4.0" (Chapter 8)The Hartwell Paper seems to be pointing in the direction of Lester Brown's book."In come "politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic" policies that take aim at issues relating to energy and "human dignity", but make a dent in emissions at the same time." (Richard Black)==============As I read chapter eight, 'Restoring the Earth', I realized I was becoming more and more interested in farming practices, in deforestation and re-forestation issues, in planting shrubs and trees on top of tall buildings, etc...In short, I am returning to the land - all the while living in the city - the Greek 'polis.'Perhaps I am not alone in this?Are we taking the 'civil' out of civilization, and replacing it with something - something 'emergent'?I don't know what to call it - this 'worldshift'?I suppose you could say I am now taking a crash course in 'ecosphere economics'?I keep thinking about Stuart Kauffman's word 'co-creating.'We, as part of the natural world, are co-creating, along with all else in this world, the 'Anthrpopocene,' I suppose.We are starting to re-invent ourselves, a process that for me began in the summer of 1994, and which I thought had culminated in my seven years as a full-time climber, and then father and husband.But I see more re-invention is required.The Hartwell Paper is part of this, as was the Bolivian People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, now seconded by the indigenous peoples of the world.And Richard Wagamese has just sent me a writing which bears on this re-inventing of the person. I will post the link below for those interested:http://richardwagamese.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-puzzle/===============Lester Brown has done some calculations, and estimates the cost of restoring the Earth at ~110 billion per year. This includes - protecting and restoring forests- planting trees to sequester carbon- conserving and rebuilding soils- regenerating fisheries- protecting plant and animal diversity(from the 'Table of Content', Plan B 4.0)These are all pragmatic and useful reforms, and they are in implementation at various intensities in various parts of the world. What is required is that some 'agent', say the United Nations, be given additional funding to expand and complete the work.I think this is in part what the Hartwell Paper is talking about in the broader sense.If the money that is already owed was forthcoming, a big dent could be made in accomplishing this restoration of Mother Earth - and most of this reform and restoration is all about people - the people on the ground, foresters and reforesters, farmers and pastoralists and ranchers, fishermen, etc...I sense however that this is our Achille's Heel - funding.There is a report in the Globe and Mail (Canada) this morning, pointing towards further upheaval in our world financial situation. It looks like big trouble on the horizon, and for the world's richest nations:"The Western world keeps spending its way to disaster"http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/the-western-world-keeps-spending-its-way-to-disaster/article1565375/Perhaps re-invention of military policies will have to take place. Think of the funds that would be released and made available if we stopped killing each other over oil and other things!======================Speaking of Lester Brown, here is a new Earth Policy Release on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill:Offshore Wind, Not Offshore OilMay 12, 2010http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/press_room/C68/2010_datarelease11Better stop there,Manysummits Wed 12 May 2010 17:11:10 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=36#comment21 @ghostofsichuan #17The businesses will sell these credits and/or use them. This is an investment, money-maker for them. They will use the pre-bought credits, claim higher values and pass "costs" on to consumers and make a lot of money in the process.Not just oil companies etc, but certain high profile people have a vested interest in the carbon exchange:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/11/ipcc%e2%80%99s-chairman-pachauri-conflicted/http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/?singlepage=trueand have you ever heard of the Chicago Carbon Exchange - you will find Al Gores company Generation Investment Management listed:http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=64http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531731http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Fannie-Mae-owns-patent-on-residential-_cap-and-trade_-exchange-91532109.html#ixzz0mVcpVz79http://euobserver.com/22/29996Follow the money, ghost/Mango Wed 12 May 2010 16:36:03 GMT+1 phil henshaw http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=34#comment20 As smart and practical as Richard Black's approach and comments are, or those of Andy Revkin on the NY Times blog Dot Earth or any other I've read, the real problem is never raised. As a community we're still not addressing the underlying physical world problem. The entire warming mitigation strategy relies of perpetual economic growth, and so on continuing to multiply all *other* impacts on sensitive environments and the accelerating depletion of all *other* increasingly unusable resources. The problem is we're not making sense at all of living in a finite world yet. That using growth to fund climate mitigation pushes everyone into ever escalating resource conflicts with each other is a problem. Among other fairly obvious certainties is that we'll never get voluntary agreement on it. Like it or not, we all do live in a physical world, full of independently reacting parts of many kinds, and just because we omit them from our theories doesn't mean they're not there. Wed 12 May 2010 16:10:25 GMT+1 Dr Brian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=32#comment19 Richard.The failure of the Copenhagen conference was the second best thing that could have happened.The first would have been for the riot police to have stood aside and let the protesters occupy the conference center. After they'd trashed the place (or sat in or set fire to it or whatever) the world would have clearly seen them for the bunch of anarchists they are, attaching themselves to any cause that lets them have a bundle with the police. Chilly innit? Wed 12 May 2010 16:03:30 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=31#comment18 Smiffie@ Wolfiewoods # 14 said of me “Next you will be saying that it is because Africans do not have Neanderthal ancestry like the rest of us”An interesting idea, I had not thought of that, it is however far too early to be sure of the facts and I would not want to make such a claim on such a sensitive issue.The idea that Neanderthals were primitive brutes is a Victorian one based on survival of the fittest however sometimes species go extinct because of bad luck. Neanderthals may in some ways have been more advanced than modern man but they were equipped for extreme cold and may have fallen victim to global warming. Wed 12 May 2010 14:44:55 GMT+1 Kamboshigh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=29#comment17 #15 I totally agree the report simply states what the majority have been saying for the past few years that AGW is a meaningless advocated theory/religion with political aims rather than any caring for the environment.Clearly, they are saying seperate the energy policy from the climate policy, forget negotiations on a global scale especially via the UN, use low cost solutions to prevent pollution, invest in reliable energy sources such as nuclear. Also, release that CO2 is not a major problem but should be addressed in a manner that does not take us back to the dark ages.There is some fuzzy logic in it but all in all something that should be seriously considered. Gavin is going to be really P*ssed when he reads it. Wed 12 May 2010 14:35:19 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=27#comment16 The carbon credit system is well along. Companies have been buying up potential credits in Brazil.http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?179316-Carbon-credit-company-s The businesses will sell these credits and/or use them. This is an investment, money-maker for them. They will use the pre-bought credits, claim higher values and pass "costs" on to consumers and make a lot of money in the process. As oil and auto and energy companies have already purchased the credits in the forest of Brazil the fake opposition to ETS will step aside and the governments will institute the system.The continuation of carbon based fuels is the issue, some regulations or credits or any other scheme is just that, a scheme. Without an alternative the problems will only get worse, maybe at a slower pace but that is not a solution. Wed 12 May 2010 14:24:06 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=25#comment15 manysummits {last-blog}#4: "To Rossglory, JR4412, Davblo, et al: Please see {last-blog{last-blog}}#142,143 & 144. Thank you"Blog hopping completed; thanks for the links.All the best; davblo Wed 12 May 2010 14:15:04 GMT+1 gmoran http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=24#comment14 I like the Hartwell paper for two reasons: 1. It attempts to be pragmatic and sets achievable targets. 2. It accepts that de-carbonisation is difficult (its actually impossible given current technologies and the assumption that developed countries will not reduce their living standards). As such it is clearly worthy of greater consideration than the majority of "wishful thinking" drivel that usually gets posted in "The Green Room". Wed 12 May 2010 13:18:28 GMT+1 Wolfiewoods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=22#comment13 Smiffie @ # 10 said “we cannot change Africa because we cannot change its people.”Next you will be saying that it is because Africans do not have Neanderthal ancestry like the rest of us, always knew that they were different etc. etc. etc. Wed 12 May 2010 13:03:40 GMT+1 pandatank http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=20#comment12 Rather than focussing on reducing our Carbon outputs and "taxing" our dependence on fossil fuels, we should be concentrating on enabling the Hydrogen based economy that will replace it. In the UK, the simple expedient of allowing a 50% hydrogen content in our gas supply (as it was when we used "Town Gas") would enable our existing Gas network to form the backbone of a hydrogen distribution network. It would enable the use of Fuel Cells as Combined Heat & Power Units, which would halve the CO & CO2 outputs overnight (no Carnot Cycle) and allow easy integration of microgeneration (wind and solar). Autonomous energy supply could be brought in gradually as & when the householder buys more "green tech". We could also use Underground Coal Gasification which traps the majority of pollutants underground, enables the CO & CO2 to be easily captured at source and in conjunction with Fuel Cells doubles the efficiency of generation, thereby halving the Carbon outputs (1/2 the fuel for the same power). We then only have to work on Carbon Storage.I have worked out that for the average house to be autonomous in the UK would currently cost around £30k. Wed 12 May 2010 12:50:31 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=18#comment11 In the middle of a financial crisis, people are proposing we give money away to solve an imaginary problem?Wow...European countries are adopting all sorts of austerity measures to try and climb out of the deep dark hole we're currently in and the climate alarmists propose we give more money to poorer countries rather than try to help ourselves out of recession.Ever heard the saying charity begins at home? Wed 12 May 2010 11:49:32 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=17#comment10 jon112uk at #9You wrote: "the precedent demonstrated by ozone/cfc in advocating sensible changes to technology to reduce emissions whilst the world economy and peoples quality of life remain intact. Gone are the back to the dark ages, year zero demands"I agree with you that the moves to eliminate CFCs have not come at any horrendous cost. In fact, innovations and alternatives became readily, quickly and affordably available once it was clear that CFCs would need to be replaced.However when the restrictions on CFCs were proposed, industry and some governments reacted with exactly the same grossly exaggerated claims that a phase-out of CFCs would mean "it will be back to the dark ages" that we are now seeing in the context of climate change (and they are being made by some of the same people too!). Wed 12 May 2010 11:19:38 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=15#comment9 A more pragmatic approach indeed to achieving their goals, both stated and unstated goals, however I do think that this paper indicates that in their heart of hearts the warmists know that the game is up.It is indeed refreshing to hear adaptation money being called aid, it would be even more accurate to call it wealth redistribution. One thing that is often overlooked about wealth is that it is not a finite resource, one to be more fairly distributed, wealth is created by people, some people have been lucky enough to have natural resources on their door step but it is still down to people to make a go of it. Much of the west’s aid goes to Africa, much of Africa has plentiful resources yet its people show no interest in development, they are happy to swap there mining concessions with the Chinese for a new football stadium and to let the west snap up their best farm land to grow flowers. Africa is dependant on aid yet the west is skint and what aid Africa does get goes on yet more guns or into a Swiss bank account, we cannot change Africa because we cannot change its people. Wed 12 May 2010 10:39:05 GMT+1 jon112dk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=13#comment8 Good to see that the rebellion is making people re-think.The Hartwell Paper looks good in one way: they follow the precedent demonstrated by ozone/cfc in advocating sensible changes to technology to reduce emissions whilst the world economy and peoples quality of life remain intact. Gone are the back to the dark ages, year zero demands that ordinary people are rejecting.On the other hand they are clinging to the use of global warming as an excuse for tax. I guess they have to keep something in the package to make it attractive to the governments that will have to sign up to it.Worst of all is the continuing talk about yet more money to the fabulously wealthy leaders of 'poor' countries. Personally I would like to see a stop to any and all of my money being transferred to other countries.All the same - good to see someone understanding that progress will depend on dropping the unacceptable elements of the current global warming scam. Wed 12 May 2010 09:11:02 GMT+1 Flatearther http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=12#comment7 manysummits:We all face the future. It is the great unknown.I do what seems the "right" thing. I base it on science, not belief.As a scientist, I look at the evidence and see where it is pointing. At the moment the climate is pointing in the cooling direction. There is nothing we can do about it. We have to be prepared as best we can and adapt to whatever nature throws at us. Wed 12 May 2010 09:05:39 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=10#comment6 To #'s 2,3,4, & 5:And then there is the irrational side of things.Sometimes people just do the right thing - because they are people.- Manysummits - Wed 12 May 2010 07:21:44 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=8#comment5 #'s 2, 3, & 4:Necessity is hard to dismiss, it it not!Soon, the 'pilot' will be informed of the condition of 'his' craft.And then we will all face the future together.- Manysummits, in Calgary - Wed 12 May 2010 07:16:34 GMT+1 LabMunkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=6#comment4 well, if the science doesn't work and politics fails- call it 'aid' and put pictures of starving kids everywhere and just guilt people into cutting the life-giving gas that is co2. could work...seriously, in ten years time a LOT of people are going to look VERY stupid. Wed 12 May 2010 07:10:58 GMT+1 MangoChutney http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=5#comment3 How much is 0.7% of $2.7 trillion (2008 figure) that would have represented the UK's contribution?i make it $2.7 trillion x (0.7%) = eighteen billion nine hundred million dollars contributed by the UK alone.redistribution of wealth anyone (try redistributing in this direction please!)?mind you, according to the bbc, aid doesn't work:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4209956.stm/mango Wed 12 May 2010 06:50:25 GMT+1 Flatearther http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=3#comment2 Bring on a bit of good old global warming. When will winter end in the UK?If I thought CO2 had a significant effect on the global temperature, I would advocate burning all the fossil fuel we can get our hands on. But as it doesn't, we'll just have to survive as best we can in the impending period of global cooling. Fortunately, as long as CO2 continues to rise, plant growth will benefit. My log store is fully stocked up for the next two years.Come on sun, where have all the sunspots gone; buck up and give us a bit of global warming! Wed 12 May 2010 05:42:18 GMT+1 TeaPot562 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=1#comment1 Many Summits @#1: If so many of the "developed" countries have government expenses that far exceed their income (such as Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the US) what encourages you to believe that their politicians have the will to undertake ADDITIONAL expenses, where the money extracted from their taxpayers (or added to their fiscal deficits) will be donated to poor countries?Sorry to be so pessimistic, but the German citizens have just issued a rebuke to Angela Merkel's CDU because of her support for a bail-out of Greece. What you suggest may well be desirable, whether in the form of a carbon tax or otherwise; but experience suggests that it will never happen,TeaPot562 Wed 12 May 2010 04:33:29 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/noone_i_know_who_survived.html?page=0#comment0 To Richard Black:So many fronts are advancing all at once - it is like magic.I think this new proposal is what Stuart Kauffman is talking about - the act of creating - of moving forward into the future with hope and courage and faith - these new ideas are 'emergent,' and the proposals are as much instinctual as well reasoned out.The scientists proposing this are thus 'agents' in this 'emergent' space.James Hansen has proposed a Climate Stewardship Act (see his website), and is still advocating a carbon tax across the board.This would work - which is why it is being resisited.But instead of going head on with any one idea - rather lets advance on all fronts at once, and see what happens.The idea of \\\ Oiled Ducks & Oiled Humans /// is personally attractive - the image it creates sits in my mind.And I think it connects the half who don't vote to those of us who do.People relate to the natural world (oiled ducks), and they will jump right in and clean them off.People relate to suffering wherever it is found (oiled humans), and I think, inadvertently, it might be recognized that being 'oiled' says much about the principal culprits and their intransigence - Big Oil and Fossil Fuel.Whom among us is not in this sense 'oiled'?Stuart Kauffman talks of the "Greek ideal of the good life, well lived." ("Reinventing the Sacred" (Preface), and states that "complexity theory, is leading toward the reintegration of science" with this Greek ideal, and that "It is not some tortured interpretation of fundamentally lifeless facts that prompts me to say this; the science itself compels it." (ibid)Is this not what the indigenous peoples were saying in Cochobamba, Boilvia?Herman Daly has given us the term "un-economic growth," which accurately characterizes so much of what we now do.Lester Brown details in his book "Plan B 4.0" in chapter seven the money needed to see the United Nations' Millenium Goals all accomplished. I think the moneys that the scientists suggest are owed to the UN should be paid, and although I have not done the calculations, I suspect it would be enough to see the Millenium Goals through to completion.The money is owed - pay it!My time is almost up here at the public library - more later,Manysummits Tue 11 May 2010 23:53:51 GMT+1