 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Are you going to ignore our views and press on regardless?
|
If he does, that proves he is not DG but is Tony Blair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
The Abominable snowHead, you're just being stupid again. Every person who comment said the audit was a bad idea. Lots of reasons were given as to why it's a bad idea. You totally failed to convince anyone but yourself as to the merits of such a scheme. We weren't discussing whether or not climate change will affect skiing, we were debating the idea of a CO2 audit and you lost the debate.
Are you going to ignore our views and press on regardless? |
I'm actually in favour of all views of SCGB members being solicited and valued, on all significant aspects of the Club's policy.
I will propose to the Environmental Working Group that the subject is aired to all members, via the Club's printed and electronic media.
Ultimately the Club's board of directors will, of course, decide what's to be done ... not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Since the best scientific minds on the planet seem to have concluded that CO2 will kill our sport, |
Hyperbole. Analysing the climate isn't like predicting the motion of billiard balls or even sub-atomic particles or mapping the genome. It's more akin to predicting movements on the stock market. If scientists could do that, they'd all be rich. |
...and here's an example of why we should treat what we read about 'scientific consensus' in this field cautiously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Since the best scientific minds on the planet seem to have concluded that CO2 will kill our sport, |
Hyperbole. Analysing the climate isn't like predicting the motion of billiard balls or even sub-atomic particles or mapping the genome. It's more akin to predicting movements on the stock market. If scientists could do that, they'd all be rich. |
...and here's an example of why we should treat what we read about 'scientific consensus' in this field cautiously. |
That's just a mistake, which can be made in any research, whether in an exact science or not. It doesn't tell us whether or not the conclusions which are being drawn from the rise in world temperature are correct or not.
The problem is distinguishing the effect, if any, of man's activities, in particular CO2 emissisions, from the 'normal' climate change which takes place regardless of what we do. I'm not convinced one way or the other, although erring on the side of caution seems a reasonable attitiude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
It's not what we know about how the climate is changing that is frightening - but what we don't know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting point, David. People generally take the relaxed view that what they don't know they don't have to worry about.
Of course, if what we don't know turned out to be non-threatening we would have less to worry about.
Personally, I find the predicted temperature rise of 3 degrees this century (conservative for some scientists) frightening enough. To save the sport of skiing (not to mention millions of displaced people and many lost lives) we need to do exactly as richmond suggests - err on the side of caution (i.e. action).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DavidS wrote: |
| It's not what we know about how the climate is changing that is frightening - but what we don't know! |
Possibly true, but couldn't that apply to anything? It's not what we know about snowHeads that is frightening - but what we don't know! And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
richmond - my point was that complex systems react unpredictably (and sometimes very suddenly) to changes in inputs...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidS, indeedy doody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| richmond wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Since the best scientific minds on the planet seem to have concluded that CO2 will kill our sport, |
Hyperbole. Analysing the climate isn't like predicting the motion of billiard balls or even sub-atomic particles or mapping the genome. It's more akin to predicting movements on the stock market. If scientists could do that, they'd all be rich. |
...and here's an example of why we should treat what we read about 'scientific consensus' in this field cautiously. |
That's just a mistake, which can be made in any research, whether in an exact science or not. It doesn't tell us whether or not the conclusions which are being drawn from the rise in world temperature are correct or not. |
Mistakes can lead to wrong conclusions - as in this case. The problem with this field is that the models are so complicated and based on an imperfect understanding of the underlying processes, that mistakes are more or less inevitable, rendering the confidence that can be placed in their results limited. I have direct personal experience of reviewing atmospheric models, which had been used to draw certain conclusions, published in reputable journals, under the name of a professor from a reputable British university. I found errors in understanding of the underlying physics, the mathematical representation of physical processes which were understood up to a point, and in the computer programs developed to crunch the numbers - all of which were admitted. Of course, these 'mistakes' rendered the results absolutely useless. I was puzzled that another reputable institution (abroad this time) had come up with similar conclusions from their research - until I discovered that they were using the same underlying and deeply flawed computer model for a different part of the world (a fact that they had attempted to hide). On such foundations 'scientific consensus' can be built!
| Quote: |
| The problem is distinguishing the effect, if any, of man's activities, in particular CO2 emissisions, from the 'normal' climate change which takes place regardless of what we do. I'm not convinced one way or the other, although erring on the side of caution seems a reasonable attitiude. |
Quite so, but not to the extent that the cure is worse than the (predicted) disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
| On such foundations 'scientific consensus' can be built! |
I have a friend who does advise ministers on certain environmental matters. He has a PhD and something like 30 years of experience in his field. Hopefully, he gets things right most of the time. The government has access to many such folk. The general public, including well-meaning but scientifically ignorant journalists, do not. Brent Spar showed us we could not rely on organizations such as Greenpeace. Therefore, a little loathe though I am to say it, I think we have to rely on government actiion on environmental policy. "Something is better than nothing" is not necessarily true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Zotov, the government does not have a monopoly on people with PhDs and 30 years experience and, more to the point, disregards or manipulates the advice it is given. I'm not suggesting that it has done so on global warming, but it is perfectly capable of doing so. Relying on governments, in the sense of trusting them to arrive at, make public and do the right thing in response to the correct assessment of a situation is pretty optimistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Couldn't agree more, richmond. We're heading for hell in a handcart with governments which see the future as "four more years" (US) or "five more years" (UK) and can't even get to grips with the idea of taxing aircraft fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
David Goldsmith, how many snowHeads would you like to see priced out of skiing? All? None? Only those poorer than you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
richmond, I understand your point. Nevertheless, few if any non-government organizations have anything like the access to expert advice that the government has. Furthermore, after the Greenpeace Brent Spar episode (see my link above) my faith in so-called green organizations is rather shattered. An journalists of the time did the public no favours in properly understanding the issue. So in the absence of an alternative, the government seems to be the only show in town.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, how many snowHeads would you like to see priced out of skiing? All? None? Only those poorer than you? |
Absolutely. Fabulous. Any snowHead who doesn't shop at Harvey Nicks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Nick Zotov, I'm not convinced that global warming is due to CO2 emissions or anyhting else within our power to control. I edited my post (but it got lost in the ether - I blame global warming) to say that, typically, those with power and influence take extreme positions on global warming. Perhaps what will happen will be modest reduction in CO2 emissions, which may be the best thing. Unusually optimistic for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
David Goldsmith, is it true that you would like to see people going on fewer skiing holidays?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, it was a serious question. Taxing stuff deters people at the margins and of course, in this case, there would be no CO2 reductions if that were not so. So would you envisage a 25% drop in ski trips from the UK, or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Tim, no, what we have to do is extract the CO2 we generate, from the atmosphere, and convert it or bury it. It doesn't have to mean fewer ski hols, but I think taxation will be needed to finance the CO2 extraction/burial. We can't expect general society to finance the pollution solution.
laundryman, as above. Sorry for being flippant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, here's another serious question: "how big a risk are you prepared to take with the fate of people living in low lying regions in order to enjoy your hobby on the cheap?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I think taxation will be needed to finance the CO2 extraction/burial. We can't expect general society to finance the pollution solution. |
Taxation is general society funding it, surely. Shouldn't the cost of mopping up CO2 emissions (if that is needed) be borne by those who create it, that is, those who fly? It might move ski hols out of some people's reach, but that's life. Energy costs are likely to increase massively sooner or later, so their inability to go on skiing hols will probably be the least of poorer people's worries anyway. The costs I've seen for 'carbon offsetting' are trivial compared to the cost of a ski (or any other) hol, but they could be complete rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
DavidS, if I can no longer afford skiing holidays (or some other thing that is less than important to me than skiing) because of carbon taxes, then I am not the only one to suffer: everyone who would get a slice of my spending would suffer too. Writ large, increased carbon taxes would reduce (or even throw into reverse) world economic growth, which would inevitably hit hardest those who are already poor - the poorest of which, say, may no longer to be able to afford medicines. Any measure such as increased carbon taxes requires a careful cost-benefit analysis; the risks are not all on one side.
I'm not taking sides myself here; my only point is that this issue involves the most complex scientific and economic calculations (both with large uncertainties) and that anyone who thinks the answers are self-evident is deluded.
To get around to your question - it presents a false dichotomy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| ................my only point is that this issue involves the most complex scientific and economic calculations (both with large uncertainties) and that anyone who thinks the answers are self-evident is deluded............ |
Exactly. Which is why a bunch of amateurs forming themselves together as the SCGB Environmental Working Group - and recommending policies to inflict on club members, seems fatuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| laundryman, as above. Sorry for being flippant. |
No problem at all; I'm always getting into trouble for flippancy myself. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| ................my only point is that this issue involves the most complex scientific and economic calculations (both with large uncertainties) and that anyone who thinks the answers are self-evident is deluded............ |
Exactly. Which is why a bunch of amateurs forming themselves together as the SCGB Environmental Working Group - and recommending policies to inflict on club members, seems fatuous. |
Now who's "bringing the Club into disrepute"??
Nikolai, you're terribly worked up about something which is in its very early stages. Various branches of the Ski Club - most predominantly its Council and public relations division - have taken initiatives. Nothing is "inflicted" - environmental guidance has been provided, much of it quite sound.
It's a start. It isn't perfect. It shows some commitment.
There is no pure science on this, but the Club clearly recognises that CO2 is a major issue for the future of snow.
I've asked you to recommend 'non-amateur' scientists to advise the Club, but your response is that the initiative should be abandoned. Please be constructive, and remember that this forum is to the general public.
The planet has been heavily screwed by a pinprick in human evolution - a mere 200-300 years of industrialisation. It's deeply scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| The planet has been heavily screwed by a pinprick in human evolution - a mere 200-300 years of industrialisation. It's deeply scary. |
Do you wish that hadn't happened - that we were all living in the conditions prevailing in the early 1700s? (Hint: not a lot of skiing happened then.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
No point in wishing it had never happened, laundryman.
We are where we are (to coin a cliche)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| The Abominable snowHead wrote: |
| Nothing is "inflicted" -........... |
Hmm. And yet there is talk of removing heliskiing from the Freshtracks agenda. What will be next? Cat skiing? Then what? Air travel?
So we don't have anything, inflicted, perhaps. But we have choice removed.
As for sound advice, it was when I saw that I was supposed to check if the chalet used low-wattage light bulbs (even presumably, in low carbon-emission France) that I began to wonder the Club was beginning to loose touch with reality.
Please tell us, by the way, when this season you yourself followed your own advice, who the TO was, where the resort was, and what the answer was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Nick Zotov, the EWG should be advising us to lobby for nuclear. The experts agree it's the best way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| As for sound advice, it was when I saw that I was supposed to check if the chalet used low-wattage light bulbs (even presumably, in low carbon-emission France) that I began to wonder the Club was beginning to loose touch with reality. |
Then once you've done all those things, make sure youy buy an oil-based wristband to show how much you care  But don't worry, it's coloured green so it must be OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Nick et Rob. Lightbulbs and wristbands have never been discussed in our little Environmental Working Group. We deal with the big issues!
Seriously, we don't make the policy or initiate all the environmental initiatives of the SCGB.
Tim. The Ski Club has decided not to be involved in national political lobbying, and there's no way we would lobby Club members or skiers in general ... but thank you for the suggestion re. nuclear. Do you glow in the dark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The Abominable snowHead, so the green resort guide takes no notice of how energy is generated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The Green Resort Guide, published online by the SCGB, was not authored or passed by the Environmental Working Group of the Club ... so I'm afraid I can't comment on what it takes notice of. From memory I think it does cover the energy sources used by individual ski resorts, but that would need checking.
It's best if you take up any query on that side of things with the Club's web publishing dept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The Abominable snowHead, So. We have an Environmental Working Group which is not consulted before the Club publishes its environmental policy to the world. Odd - and a reflection of the Council's opinion of the EWG. "Big Issues"? Are you reduced to selling (quite admirable) magazines on the street? Or do you think you have resources beyond DEFRA, and the intellectual rigour and scientific training to evaluate highly complex scientific discussion? If so, I have seen no sign of it.
BTW, bearing in mind your advice that the EWG has not affected the club's published environmental policy, what effect has the group had on what the club does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
So. We have an Environmental Working Group which is not consulted before the Club publishes its environmental policy to the world. Odd
|
Sounds like government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick, I genuinely think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Many many organisations across Britain are taking environmental initiatives, in similar ways to the SCGB, without appointing high-powered scientific committees and intellectuals.
It doesn't take a PhD to reduce one's impact on the planet. One has to wise up on the prevailing scientific consensus (which we've done), take guidance from respected NGOs (non-governmental organisations) (which we've done) and recommend responsible courses of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
The Abominable snowHead, As you know, following the Brent Spar episode, I have lost confidence in "green" organizations home-baked analysis of prevailing scientific consensus - whatever that is. And journalists' ability to understand environmental science. Getting back to the EWG, what notice, if any, has the Council taken of its deliberations, and what action has resulted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick, I guess the primary guidance we've given was in the area of 'environmental compensation', which culminated in the ongoing 50p levy in the annual membership fee which funds the tree planting etc.
We drafted the 'environmental code', which guides members as to how they can reduce or mitigate impact of their ski holidays.
One reason you're asking me these things, I guess, is that the Club's membership communications tend to concentrate on marketing, promotions and skiing information, but are not so strong on minuting/reporting on policy stuff, so that members know the background to stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
