44 2 mins 15 yrs

I happened to catch an item carried on Radio 5 this morning focusing on the impact sport has on our global environment. In essence, the BBC story was suggesting that any sport that involves people travelling by air is having a serious impact on the environment.

Tennis was being singled out this morning for the eco-wacko treatment with the point being made that because Tennis is an individual sport (Gasp horror!) this means tennis players travelling all around the world to participate in various tournaments. In turn this results in them having an increased carbon footprint, ergo they become a menace to the planet. Events like Formula 1 Grand Prix Racing were also singled out as hazardous to Planet Earth.

I got the impression that hiding at the back of this story was the agenda that we may need to stop international sport – in the name of saving Planet Earth. If we want to stop global warming, then it may mean that the concept of global sports is abolished.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

44 thoughts on “THE WAR ON GLOBAL SPORT…..

  1. Straw man alert!

    No-one is calling for an end to international sport. But these guys and gals could probably just about afford to pay for carbon offsets for their flights. Too much to ask?

  2. Peter,

    Isn’t the practice of ‘carbon offsets’, just a way of passing the buck and not really a way of reducing carbon emissions?

    Or is it just another way of buying your way out of responsibility? which – of course, – will favour those who can afford it.

  3. Ernest

    Obviously the emissions are made, but at least they are offset, usually by tree planting. Unsatisfactory, but better than nothing.

    Of course it favours the rich who can afford it, but it’s also the rich who do most of the flying.

  4. "pay for carbon offsets for their flights."

    Pay who? Should we all get so many air-miles a year and let the rich pay the poor to use theirs. Or will all the money go to the state?

  5. Peter,

    do you really think jet-setters planting a few trees, or perhaps buying up the air miles alloted to Amazonian tribemen is going to have any effect on the climate?

    Or is it to raise awareness, and therefore for the greater good, like when Al Gore tours the world, telling us we shouldn’t be flying?

  6. H94
    The scheme is to plant enough trees to offset your share of the carbon emitted by the flight. You pay the carbon offset company who organise the tree planting.

    Richard
    The carbon offset is calculated according to the length of the flight. If carbon has to be emitted it’s better that it is offset by tree planting as trees absorb carbon from the air.

    Sneer at Al Gore all you want. He has succeeded in getting this issue onto the agenda like no other individual has.

  7. "You pay the carbon offset company who organise the tree planting"

    Nice work if you can get it and a massive opportunity for corruption.

  8. I will sneer at Al Gore, because he’s a super rich kid flying to England to tell me not to do as he does, but as he says – stone cold hypocrit.

    As for his message – it’s a load of rubbish, at least if you believe the IPCC latest, He’s expressed the need to paint the worst picture of AGW to shock and scare people. Which is another way of saying he’s totally dishonest in what he represents in his stoopid film, but that doesn’t matter because the end justifies the means, right? Screw him, patronising rich boy hypocrit.

  9. Henry,

    "Nice work if you can get it and a massive opportunity for corruption."

    I know you don’t believe there is an issue in the first place, but are you also saying the free market cannot handle it?

    Supposing you did agree that AGW was an issue , what would you suggest?

  10. H94 posted:
    "Nice work if you can get it and a massive opportunity for corruption."

    Not if it’s properly certified, as with sustainable forest produce. No doubt you’re cynical about that as well.

    Nice rant Richard. I take it you’ve seen the film?

  11. Frank

    That is not a free market solution. That is a state licenced business with no demand from anybody. You either create a monopoly state organisation which will in the end probably lose money on it’s operations. Or you licence private bandits like clampers.

    That’s what happens when there is no demand but the state imposes.

    But your question is fair. What to do if you want to discourage carbon use.

    There is no satisfactory state solution because the economy depends on energy.

    Up the price and you will cause inflation. Impose restrictions like rationing and there will be an outcry.

    The solution would have to be a combination of strategic energy decision (Nuclear option) technological advance (working from home for computer workers, better cars using less fuel) and a smaller state.

    But I wouldn’t worry. The cooling will come naturally anyway and the only lasting damage will be to reputations.

  12. Peter,

    I would, but I can’t justify the carbon emissions such activity would engender! Every little helps.

    "The last King of Scotland" is my priority movie-wise.

  13. Richard

    Don’t let the fact that you haven’t actually seen Gore’s film prevent you from rubbishing it. LOL!

  14. H94 posted:
    "But I wouldn’t worry. The cooling will come naturally anyway and the only lasting damage will be to reputations."

    Pray tell us when this cooling will arrive and share your scientific evidence.

  15. Peter,

    hasn’t the world been cooling since 1998?

    re: seeing the movie, I didn’t go to the ridiculous Millennium Dome either, but I can still criticise. I dare say I’ll see it at some point – if not before when the Neighbourhood Watch Officer comes round to enforce my re-education class order and collect a urine sample.

  16. Peter

    "Pray tell us when this cooling will arrive and share your scientific evidence."

    Do you know that Marxists use to describe their ideology as scientific. Scientific as opposed to utiopian socialism.

    But what it was in fact was a prediction.

    Global warming is also a prediction as no matter how much science you put into a prediction the prediction itself is not science.

    And deciding what if anything to do about it is not science either. It is politics. And when faced withthe collection of crooks, creeps and criminals pushing this tarted up version of socialism wise men will hang on to their wallets.

  17. Peter,

    it may indeed sound like an ignorant rant, but I have read a lot attacking the accuracy of the film (e.g. the rise in sea levels) and I have seen a quote from Gore suggesting he thinks the doomsday scenario needs to be exaggerated in order to seize people’s attention. Now, if you agree with his views, you could say "the end justifies the means", but otherwise it’s plain dishonest. I will no doubt see the film sometime, just to wind myself up (and, even in spite of myself, I have an open mind), but even based on ignorance of the film, Gore cannot jet round the world to lecture me on AGW, without looking like a hypocrit.

  18. H94 posted:

    "Global warming is also a prediction as no matter how much science you put into a prediction the prediction itself is not science."

    If your doctor predicted that, on the basis of medical evidence, smoking 80 cigarettes per day would seriously risk your health, would that not be science either and therefore would it be safe to carry on regardless?

    Please supply evidence for the assertions in your final paragraph at 2.02pm or confirm that they are merely ignoorant smears and prejudice.

  19. Richard

    If you have an open mind on this subject, you do a very good job hiding it and disguising yourself as one of the most prejudiced deniers on this blog, which itself is an acheivemnet given the competition.

  20. Peter

    "If your doctor predicted that, on the basis of medical evidence, smoking 80 cigarettes per day would seriously risk your health"

    He would know that from past experience. If I was the first ever somker he wouldn’t know until I died.

    Giving an example of an accurate prediction doen’t help yours become accurate.

    This is not essentially a scientific question at all. The supporters of a particular political position are trying to attach the label of science to their demands. There is no justifiaction for it.

    To as a very simple scientific question, Peter what would disprove global warming?

  21. H94 posted:

    "This is not essentially a scientific question at all. The supporters of a particular political position are trying to attach the label of science to their demands. There is no justifiaction for it."

    Total crap. This theory is confirmed by a detailed analysis supported by 2,500 climate scientists worldwide. It’s right-wing freemarket zealots like you who have chosen to politicise this and who will NEVER accept any evidence that invonveninces your world-view.

    "To as a very simple scientific question, Peter what would disprove global warming? "

    Er, global cooling, growing ice caps, later springs, shorter summers. As you well know, we have the exact opposite of all of these.

    What evidence would convince you that the scientists are right? I suspect that the answer is none, but please confirm for the record.

  22. Auntie Beeb wants all you ignorant plebs to know your place, to sit in your sofas and accept the televisual liberal swill you are fed without questioning.

    Meanwhile thoses self appointed guardians of wisdom, the "enlightened" media class flies around the world, paid by the fees you are are forced to pay, telling you what you must believe.

  23. Man may or may not be contributing to global warming, which may or may not exist,(though cleaing our act up would be a good ideas regardless) but all this liberal wailing has got diddly squat to do with the environment and everything to do with the Climate Change industry lining its wallets and furthering its power over the lives of others.

    When a scientic report is issued which has recived funding from private enterprise it is attacked as biased. However the UN / BBC climate change industry can issue the most absurd nonsense without challenge.

    Europe is nearly as hot as it was in the days of the Roman Empire – chariots did not emit anything stronger than horse flatluence.

    The Scilly Isles were one landmass split up by rising sea level in stone age times – did the the cave dwellers leave the lights on too long.

    The simple answer is to invest in the next technology, bio fuels, hydrogen, renewables, etc and not have little arrogant little eco-Hitlers running around issuing diktats as to how people shold live.

  24. Peter

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    "It’s right-wing freemarket zealots like you …"

    Quite a telling contribution there, Peter. No need to go on and elaborate, we get where you’re coming from. As for what would disprove, in your opinion, global warming:

    "Er, global cooling, growing ice caps, later springs, shorter summers. As you well know, we have the exact opposite of all of these."

    They could disprove global warming, if we had a few of centuries of them and were able to observe a long-term trend. We could then take a position based on that long term trend. All we have at present is more evidence of climate change, which seems to fit in with the long term pattern.

    No-one can conclusively deny warming based on it, but you cannot definitely claim AGW based upon it either.

    You really must keep an open mind on this issue, Peter.

  25. NRG

    No-one is claiming that now is the hottest it’s ever been. That doesn’t mean that global warming caused by us isn’t happening.

    New technology will be an important part of the solution, but there is no "simple answer" to this problem. Reduced emissions will have to be part of the solution as well.

    "However the UN / BBC climate change industry can issue the most absurd nonsense without challenge."
    What industry would that be? And there’s plenty of challenge from the likes of you and the other highly vocal deniers.

    "arrogant little eco-Hitlers"
    LOL! So the scientists should just shut up, should they? Sorry, that just ain’t gonna happen.

  26. Pete Moore

    Are you seriously claiming that *you* have an open mind? Your attitude to this is consistent with your right-wing politics, raising the suspicion that it is driven by them rather than by any considered view of the evidence.

    Your position seems to be that we should DO NOTHING FOR A FEW HUNDRED YEARS or so, till we’re absolutely sure that we’re heating the planet. Trouble is by then that arctic ice cap will be history and so will all our coastal cities.

    LOL!

  27. Peter

    My position is consistent with my right wing politics? How interesting! So yours would be consistent with your left wing views, yes? That is the corollory. Thanks for confirming that which we’ve actually known all along: that the (anti-capitalist) Left is naturally drawn towards the eco-doom position. Why would that be I wonder?

    My position, whether or not it has anything to do with any political outlook, is that those who advance a hypothesis are obliged to prove it before demanding its widespread acceptance. It’s the novel view that science ought to be led by the facts. If those who advance the hypothesis are still meeting with objections then they really ought to try harder instead of banging the table some more.

    And don’t assume that virtue resides with the eco-doomsters. I’m with NRG in thinking that it would be good to clean up our act. Resources aren’t limitless and it never does any good to foul your own nest. What I won’t do is respond to ill-informed demands by politicians to pay more tax by opening up my wallet willingly.

  28. Peter,

    I’ve seen Gore’s movie. I assumed it was a comedy since no serious scientist could swallow the mistakes that riddle it. I’ll leave my political views on Gore to one side – he just sells BAD science. Hardly conducive to good debate!!

  29. Peter,

    "If you have an open mind on this subject, you do a very good job hiding it and disguising yourself as one of the most prejudiced deniers on this blog, which itself is an acheivemnet given the competition"

    Peter, what am I denying? I’m happy to consider global warming is taking place. The climate is not static, thus it’s either warming or cooling, and of the two warming sounds better.

    To generalise, the problem of the Left is the idea of an us and them in every question, and the necessity to toe the party line, which is why you don’t seem to mind if Al Gore is willfully dishonest, because it’s all for THE CAUSE. Another aspect is you assume those that oppose you are acting likewise. My opinions are not dictated by anyone but myself. All I do is question the idea that "the debate is over", especially because the idea of a man-made global warming catastrophe fits so neatly with the plans of those that hate and always have hated the capitalist system.

    I also think if the doomsayers are right, we would be better dealing with the problems as they arise rather than trying to grasp the wind with measures to restrict energy consumption.

    The AGW debate doesn’t affect a lot of other things concerning the environment that I would no doubt agree with you about, and measures to restrict pollution and protect nature are often necessary and worth paying for.

  30. Didn’t Al Gore once claim that he actually ‘invented’ the Internet? when all he had done was to vote – along with many others for the legislation that made it possible.

    The man is no more than a modern version of the old Snake Oil salesman, i.e. a conman…

    The quality of the scientists involved with the British Antarctic Expedition was severely damaged recently, when one admitted in a live interiew, that he did not realise that the Lunar effect, i.e. the tidal cycle affected ice flows as well as the ocean.

    When further informed that it affected most of the Earth’s crust, he admitted to being totally ignorant of the fact, and this was a Professor….

  31. Pete Moore posted:

    "My position is consistent with my right wing politics? How interesting! So yours would be consistent with your left wing views, yes? That is the corollory. Thanks for confirming that which we’ve actually known all along: that the (anti-capitalist) Left is naturally drawn towards the eco-doom position. Why would that be I wonder?"

    Your position is consistent with someone who refuses to look at the evidence, which is supported by 2,500 climate scientists as recently as last week. Presumably they must all be capitalist-hating commies?

  32. Richard Carey posted

    "To generalise, the problem of the Left is the idea of an us and them in every question, and the necessity to toe the party line…"

    No, it’s the right that does that, or more particularly the neocon US right, supported by similar right-wing boneheads such as Howard in Australia. You guys don’t like it, but the rest of the world is moving on without you, and not before time.

    And this little gem:
    "I also think if the doomsayers are right, we would be better dealing with the problems as they arise rather than trying to grasp the wind with measures to restrict energy consumption."

    So it’s business as usual no matter what? Let’s wait till we’re under water and then act?

    Utter bullshit.

  33. Ernest Young uses the mistake of one scientist on the British Antarctic Survey on one one aspect of the topic to smear the whole case. Typical right-wing stuff. Smear and innuendo is so much easier than debating the IPCC report, isn’t it?

    As for Gore being a snake oil salesman, it’s been obvious for years that Dubya is bought and paid for by the oil and coal lobby in the USA.

  34. Peter,

    That wasn’t a mistake, that was ignorance, and he was a climatology team leader to boot. Any decently educated child knew more than him…if the rest of the team didn’t realise his inadequacy, it does not say much for their talents either, does it?

    Just what has GWB got to do with Al Gore being a charlatan?

    As for debating the IPCC report, it doesn’t exactly provide a basis for any meaningful discussion does it? – the way it was presented, it was supposed to be accepted – ‘as is’, and is based more on rhetoric than on facts.

    Haven’t the scientific community cried ‘wolf’, often enough to warrant even the mildest scepticism? or perhaps they have such fragile egos, that they just cannot bear any criticism whatsoever, especially from laymen.

  35. Peter: Get a grip on yourself. What about politician and hypocrite don’t you understand?

    Al Gore is a politician. Don’t you know that? And he’s a politician with fewer scruples than most. He’s selling you a load of bull. Why do I object to his bull more than that of many other politician’s ? Because there is no upside here for you and me. Only upside for Al Gore. If a politician is going to reap power,prestige, profit and glory at least something should be gained by the population in return. And there is nothing, nothing to be gained with Al Gore and his silly doomsday mongering. He’s a snake oil salesman. And a hypocrite, jetting around telling other people what to do.

  36. Ernest Young posted:

    "Just what has GWB got to do with Al Gore being a charlatan?"

    Dubya has been the major block to effective worldwide action being taken, or didn’t you know? I wonder what his motives could be? Surely not being in hock to the oil industry?

    Geddit now?

  37. Notme

    Silly name-calling is no substitute for debate. I could just as easily call Bush a thick god-bothering redkneck who stole the presidential election in 2000, but it wouldn’t advance the debate.

    Should Gore use a rowing boat to get his message round the world?

  38. Peter,

    Whatever you think GWB has done or not done, it still has nothing to do with Al Gore being a total fraud…he was born that way!

    And I am sure that GWB had nothing to do with Gore’s plagiary of thesis papers and much else besides…

  39. Peter,

    imagine for a moment that you are not convinced by the prophets of doom (just try) and then read back this string and you’ll see all you’ve done is spat and cursed and made wild exaggerations.

    I’m not suggesting we wait until we are underwater before we build flood defences, rather that if the waters are rising we should concentrate on the flood defences rather than your solution – planting trees.

    If a few bits of rock in the Pacific go under, I say help those people relocate, rather than your solution – planting more trees.

    You know as well as I do the first people on this island walked here from the continent – ergo the sea level has been rising for a looong time. etc

  40. Peter

    Is this scientist wrong? Or maybe a heretic.

    Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

    By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

    Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007

    Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

    Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

    In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

    High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

    Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

    This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3BSI3IAGOJDTPQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

  41. A special request for those who may have to go back to arguing for socialism on its merits.

    "I’ve looks at clouds from both sides now
    From up an down but still somehow
    It’s clouds illusions I recall
    I really don’t know clouds at all."

    Both Sides Now by Joni Mitchell

  42. Henry,

    It is telling that you believe only the scientists who tell you what you want to hear.

    "At the time we pointed out that while the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more ‘popular’ pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes."
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/

Comments are closed.