TalkClimateChange

Additionally Formula 1 cars make that awesome noise when they go by.

We do not need to feel guilty or justify some of the pleasures afforded us by our fossil fuel use. Many recreational and sporting activities use fossil fuels, are these diversions and threads of the fabric of life to be abandoned?

Should International competition be banned because of air travel?

Some greens think so.

I for one agree that competitive sports do innovate and contribute to our future technologies and should be encouraged not vilified.

I could suggest a zero emission sport alternative, we could go back to the coliseum concepts of ancient rome, where we could pit AGW deniers and the great beasts of nature against each other in galditorial combat. That would fit our new green lifestyle and seek to divert the masses and make them forget their economic ills at the hands of regulatory green government.

Ok the last paragraph was sarcasm, so please do not freak out.

In a highly mobile society, any popular sport is causing exorbitant carbon expenditure.
To access centralized locations of events people must drive or fly, few take public transportation, all create excessive waste and use vast quantities of products not normally bought at home.

It is a cultural ball going wasteward. No, we would not want to see modern gladiators wrestle some poor captive beast. the whole crowd of meat eaters would have to drive hummers to the circus. or crowd an airport somewhere.

world communities would do better encouraging local sports instead and walk to these. a micronizing of the status quo. at least a reduction of the scale. can we appeal to the aggrandizing momentum?

Interesting perspectives. I certainly have learn something new by reading this.

My town of residence hosted the A1GP recently and I went along for a day to see what its all about. I’ve never been a major fan of motor racing, always taking preference with nature-based sports. However I enjoyed the day and was impressed to read about the A1GP’s recent environmental efforts. Apparently it has become the first global motorsport body to switch to a 30% biofuel mix.

What are your thoughts on this Blue Team?

“Here’s a story about it on TVNZ”:http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1508317.

A post I could have written myself. Also a conversation I had with a Friends of the Earth campaigner/ regional organiser 20 years ago.

We both liked F1. Somehow the duality between deep ecology and F1 resolves itself in a higher synergistic whole.

Once I took my car in for a service at one of the top rally car builders in the UK, outside of the works/factory teams. On finding out I was originally a metallurgist he asked my to do some design work.

6 months later the car, a private entry, was 4th in a championship, the rest of the top 5 being works machines.

As a metallurgist I was competing against the engineers from the manufacturers. I was advised to go and sit outside the office of Frank Williams or Ron Dennis until they gave me a job. I just couldn’t see myself doing it full time.

In 1997 my girlfriend had her ex boyfriends son staying. It was the launch and first test flight of the prototype, what would become, Typhoon Eurofighter.

Wow we said. Cue the girl friends CND/Green tirade at me. How could you, it’s disgraceful etc. I might be a deep ecologist and want the world ridding of all artefacts of war, death and destruction, but I am still originally an engineering with visions for a future. If we don’t build things such as aircraft with this level technical of technical performance, how are we learn if we don’t strive. The gaining of such knowledge, I believe should not be due to the forces of the market requiring weapons of death and destruction, rather as a contribution and addition to the process of evolution and development. If you can’t build a Eurofighter, you don’t have the primitive foundation for the peaceful and inquisitive goal attractor of the exploration of space and time

We should still be able to build that level of technology. We should just not need that motive to have it.

F1 needs aerodynamic knowledge. The wind tunnels where hydrodynamic flows are observed and the desired properties aspired to. Evolution is flow from the big bang, supernova, origin of the solar system, the Earth and the evolution of life and human global society.

At some point flows, just like those passing over the wing of an F1 will go into chaotic or turbulent flow. This may result in undesired properties. Vibration, loss of down force or excess drag. If two process or evolutionary flows, land use changes and weather and climate oscillations or perturbations, sub flows of the overall evolutionary flow, are interacted. At some point they will go into chaotic or turbulent flow. The physical manifestation is flooding.

My projection was that flooding in the UK from more than 15 years go would occur on or after the 9th October 2006. The Tay flooded in Scotland on the 13th December 2006 and the pattern rolled out over the rest of the UK from then on during 2007. OK I didn’t predict flooding. I modelled two sub systems of the evolutionary flow, which on interaction where predicted and went into chaotic flow in October 2006. I didn’t predict flooding, that was the physical manifestation, the name society gives to that particular phenomenon.

In one model of reality famine, species extinction, war, drought, extreme weather, crime etc are just manifestations of chaotic or turbulent flow in the evolutionary process. The way to stop this was to place an aerodynamic wing or structure or a specific design to bring stability to the flow.

The Millennium Dome had sufficient global magnitude that will the correct design of it’s cybernetic systems with Earth process monitoring and global socio-economic systems it would have started to remove turbulent flow from the planetary evolutionary process. Reducing the physical manifestations, of that flow, of the examples given in the previous paragraph.

No different that in doing aerodynamic testing and development of a F1 car in wind tunnel.

Now in from climate change to climate changed Metyu and Climateheretic accuse me of being barmy and spreading misinformation. Though both intelligent and fully at one with their subject matter, what they say is more a reflection of their psychology and perception.

http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/01/21/from-climate-change-to-climate-changed-when-climate-change-is-no-longer-news/

If these two had met a Mr Wright some 100 or so years ago and asked him hat he was doing. If he had told them he was building a heavier than air flying machine they would have laughed at him. Probably gone around telling people and writing letters that he was barmy.

If they had been at the debate and presentation of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, they would have been the ones yah booing and shouting “stop spreading misinformation”.

If they had seen Galileo’s work they would have probably demanded he be put to death by the Inquisition for proposing that the Earth was not the centre of the solar system. Though both intelligent, they dismiss and jeer at something outside their paradigm of knowledge and experience.

Climateheretic is not really a heretic. Climateheretic is main stream conservative with values that decry new ideas in innovation. Heretic is telling the heart of government when they want to bomb terrorists (children) that terrorism is not important, that the global environment is. Not one of a million on a protest march, but the one that says it, before the invasion, no matter what the price to pay is. Heretic is then being shown to be correct in the final assessment.

Forget G*!#n and climate change they really shouldn’t have got past 1980. Laugh all you want. Just remember to some of us this has been a passion since we could talk. Remember the 200,000 that lost their lives in a Tsunami, because people thought another music venue was more important than an Earth process monitoring system with a global communication net work. Yes laugh at that suffering. Watch the suffering of our planet’s innocent animals dying from drought and persecution, so people could go see bands. Really funny? New Orleans, Bangladesh, Philippines the list goes on and on of unnecessary suffering. I don’t find it amusing.

Is it not better to offer support than laugh at someone trying?

I am not just getting at you Climateheretic and Metyu, there are billions of people around the world with a similar mind set. If and when this planet’s ecological life support system goes down the pan and takes 6 billion people with it, at least I tried.

All you need to know to secure the future of the Earth is how to make one car go round a track quicker than another, a little imagination and the ability to ignore those who laugh without trying it for themselves.

Go for it Mark! This is a pretty convincing argument your wrote here!
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

Roger, my friend, we did not accuse you of being barmy in the sense that you take it. Your posts tend to be wandering and amorphous then suddenly becoming incomprehensible at times.

If you would like to have a discussion about your theories then please make the attempt to reach out with some coherent attempts to engage.

Regarding my positions and politics you are sadly mistaken and fall into the self imposed trap of pre-defined realities regarding those around you that most “thinkers” do. I never categorize individuals until they do so to me, I never discount an opinion or idea until I analyze it. I am very open to radical thinking as it is what drives humanity forward and turns the pages in our evolution, yet I also will resist as hard as you push when I think that your path is flawed based on your tenants, ideas and vision of the future of our race.

I post here specifically on the subject of climate and economics, dealing with the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. Perhaps I am not as ecologically evolved as you claim to be, maybe I deal on a smaller resolution when looking at the world then you. All well and good, people need to be the big thinkers, the philosophers of our age, posterity will judge the validity of your views. Unfortunately philosophers rarely infuence the age in which they live.

Keith

The one thing I have against the A1GP is the standardisation of the cars, unlike in F1.

This reduces competition and innovation amongst the designers and engineers etc.

So some of the benefits outlined by Mark are not gained in A1 GP, despites an equivalent amount of fuel derived emissions.

My own view, based on Mark’s assessment, is that A1 does not have the same effective cost/benefit analysis as F1 in terms of returns to a ecologically sustainable society.

Or perhaps I don’t find it as exciting or involving as F1.

Celtic Lion

To address some of Nadine’s points.

It is always difficult writing when you do not know where the audience lives, as writing can be paraochial and a global audience will not be familiar with the subject.

In the UK these is a music festival called Glastonbury, which is quite large and famous here.

In the mid 80’s I was trying to devise ways of reducingthe carbon footprint of N W England communities.

It was noticable that with no entertainment available at holiday weekends people left the area and went away.

This removed income from the local economy and increased C02 emissions.

So I sought solutions. I noticed many local musicians and bands who had no audience. So I started showing them how to put events on.

Greenpeace had just done a fund raising Rainbow Warrior music CD. So contacted them. They really liked the idea of a live promotion and we started discussing a project. Them supplying bands of the album (via U2s agent) and I would provide the event.

Unfortunately the Local Authority who owned the land would not permit me to raise the money for the extra crowd safety measures. (They had already signed contracts with other sponsors). Bands onthe RW album were U2, REM, Waterboys etc. So I had to terminate the project with Greenpeace.

The event went ahead without the major bands but was still a nationally acclaimed success with reviews on Radio 1 etc. People could walk to a high quality event, where as before thay may travel 100s miles for entertainment.

The local authority banned me from putting anymore events on as they considered them “too high a qualityand detracted from the small manufacturing provincial town image they wanted to project”.

This is 80’s Thatcher’s Britain. Sources and leaks informed me the real reason the council banned the event was because of ‘competitive tendering’ if questions were raised as to why we were better at running high national quality events than the council, they could lose their funding. To retain Government income, the local authority just had to ban anyone else from putting events on. Mounting a legal chllenge would prohibitively expensive aginsta local authority with effectively unlimited legal resources. They also sent someone to tell me I would have my legs broken if I did another event. (There was £ 2.1 million of funding involved for them to protect).

I did tell them what to do with their threat, but it underlined their legal resolve to ban future events.

Greenpeace were now fully interested in doing live events. We could nolonger work together with the ban on me.

Greenpeace went to the Glastonbury Festival and took over co-promotion from CND, (Berlin Wall just came down) The modern Glastonbury festival people now know, was in fact partly influenced by projects to reduce comminity carbon footprints in the mid 1980’s.

So Nadine’s point. I would say it depends on the how, why, wheres etc of the event. Everything carbon wise is realtive to a number of different datums. Giving different assesments.

Climate heretic. I have re read the post you describe as “wandering and amorphous then suddenly becoming incomprehensible at times”.

I cannot find why you consider it that. It is comprehensible and referenced to other material. All posts/comments never convey a full explnation of the true reality. If they attempted that they would all be in excess of 200,000 words. Trying to cover all anticipated issues which may result from the core presentation.

As to your “Regarding my positions and politics you are sadly mistaken and fall into the self imposed trap of pre-defined realities regarding those around you that most “thinkers” do. I never categorize individuals until they do so to me, I never discount an opinion or idea until I analyze it”.

You appear to have agreed with Metyu I was barmy and spreading misinformation. There seems to be some conflict in your opinions.

If I presented the truth in an attempt to add to the knowledge of this site, why do you decide that is misinformation? It was fact.

Roger,

I had read your entire website after your post and had performed a web search and since there was no methodology, papers, explainations of any substance regarding your claims. That combined with the rambling nature of your post I first agreed with Metyu that your were hard to understand, then second that your claims were fantastical in nature and I simply stated that predicting a flood is easy, rivers all tend to flood at some point, also that preventing a flood was a rather futile effort.

I myself like to predict the course of events and often do, but I also put my predictions on my blogs and sites where anyone who hears me can see them.

I cannot find any record anywhere of your huge volumes of work, if you could direct me then I would be happy to digest them. I searched your entire website but do not see anything resembling your claims. Perhaps I missed it?

We are jut tit for tatting. I have a shed full of work to do.

You don’t know my work? The agenda for the 2005 G8 was climate change and Africa. Are you aware of that agenda.

Many world leaders say, “climate change is a greater threat than terrorism”.

Now the corporate lawyers say either that is my work. OR. Even more incredible I managed to predict all this. It doesn’t really matter which. It’s there. Those are only tiny fraction of my work.

They do not seem to be good enough for you.

Now Mark says my work is “enlightening” and will be doing a post on it.

Paul Flynn MP says

“Many thanks Roger Thomas, for fascinating submission.

I have read all the references you give. I cannot think of a better use for the Dome”.

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/gossamer-sleaze.html?cid=99421734

“The information you provide is of the greatest interest and I am grateful to read it. I hope your work will receive its due recognition”.

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/sir-david-king.html

Now I happen to like Mr Flynn, we both have S Wales backgrounds and I think he is an intelligent hard working MP on the right issues.

My newspaper reviews are things like. the best, genius, economic anti-depressant, one man think tank…. Most importantly it is my projects which get the top reviews.

Prince Charles has read some of my work and given permission for quotes to be used in the methodology.

UK based readers if they have access to a good library, are in academic institutions, government, economic development etc. My last published work was.

Newstart, 18th January, Vol 10, No 417, The Lion Rampant.

A specialist magazine for economic development professionals, with A UK readership of 30,000.

3 days after it was published the global stock markets did crash. I have been asked to do a follow up and it is an example of my commercial work.

My main methodology is not on a site, it is not even on this computer

Why should I have every piece of work I have done on a site anyway?

Would somebody put the script for a major Hollywood film on the net a year or more before release? Or a rock band the rough mix of a future album.

One reason is commercial considrations. Another is the show man. We want to impress and entertain. We want an audience to be shocked, surprised and awe struck. We want to be judged on the finished article.

We want something that might just save your life.

Perhaps the best thing is to ask could any agents, producers, multi format publishers, investors etc to contact me, who have an interest in a major project.

I have set up the site of the largest civil engineering project in Europe and ran the front line logistics. Exceeding all expectations in quality and delivery. While in N W England (Manchester)I was approached by some of the major bands now in the world as first choice for tour and technical management.

Mark, that may be the theme to your post. Seeking producers etc for the 2008 remix of the proposal to run the Millennium Dome as a global environmental management centre.

Also my business advisors, who have seen more of my work than Climateheretic, say I can market my work as one of the most globally influencial etc environmental strategists.

Mark if you could cover that in an article it would be appreciated and just might save some lives.

Most importantly if Climateheretic is as good as he says in his CV, he might even want to consider working for me.

Agents and Producers please contact
Celtic Lion Ltd

Hassling me for liking F1 while I live a low-emissions lifestyle, when the other person doesn’t live such a lifestyle, is like a guy screwing around on his missus hassling another guy who’s faithful for liking porn.

Of course if you like F1 and live a high-emissions lifestyle, then I have no sympathy when some greenish type hassles you.

I think F1 is a boring, but then so is cricket and the only flammable substance that involves is the shots the players down after the match. I can’t really bring myself to worry about it, really.

Change begins with me. And then you. And then the other guy or girl. Example has a very great power. Just think of Gandhi’s “march to the sea” to make salt - it was a telling blow on the British Imperial administration, and all he did was go for a walk and make some salt.

Imagine if Al Gore biked, took public transport or took a sailing ship to every one of his lectures. He’d be able to do less lectures, but each would have more impact, simply by the power of example.

Here Down Under in South Australia it occurred to a local council that at the same time they were having to clean water to better than irrigation standards and pay to discharge it into the sea, the local farmers were getting less water because of the drought. Why not save on the pipeline and just give the water to the farmers?

Well, many farmers were not convinced it was safe - lab reports and pieces of paper didn’t convince them. But a couple of farmers tried it, and then as soon as they signed up a heap of their mates did. Another lot waited a year or two to see if the farmers got good results, and if people would buy their produce - and they did, so that second lot followed, too.

They were unconvinced by science, but very convinced by what their neighbours did - some just followed their neighbours, others saw tangible results and then followed.

Of course some still hold out. They’re the ones who have to petition the federal government for assistance, the others don’t need it anymore.

Personal example is very powerful. So if I liked F1, and some greenish person were haranguing me about it, I’d point out how I actually live (less than a quarter average Western emissions, about average for the world), then ask them how they lived.

Don’t just talk the talk, walk the walk.

Great post Mark.
Thank you for this post.
I actually learned a lot.
Almost changed my mind on car racing.
Great to hear that the governing bodies of Formula 1 racing are tightening the rules to make the cars even more efficient.
Feels to me a lot like when the US and the former Soviet Union were detonating a nuke every few months just to make sure everything worked as expected.
A few things:
- Are the spectators even aware of the Formula One Federation tightening of its rules ?
- In my opinion, the fact that the race keep being organized and draw media attention and crowds feed the illusion that we can keep living our lives of mindless consumption. Unless of course the F1 Federation makes a significant public relations effort to inform its public of its new energy efficient rules.
- My question is: can we do this with even more stringent energy restrictions ?