Revolution Mike

You are essentially saying you distrust all scientists both for and against so what basis for your skepticism?

I fear you are right! Unfortunately not all scientific evidence is equal... Steve Jones's (no not electricnose as far as I know!) piece for the BBC Trust on the BBC's science reporting makes some interesting (though hardly new) points on how the media tries to be balanced by putting forward for and against arguments for subjects like climate change, where in reality the scientific evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that by trying to be balanced they actually give "false" credence to the anti- side.

That is true of everyone in life - it is called human nature. The point about the IPCC is that it is trying to present science, not beliefs. If you are then going to contest the scientific work what basis are you doing it on? That is a straw man - no one is claiming the earth will end, and you are right that the earth is a constantly changing environment. On whether serious change will happen in your or your descendent's lifetime(s) - what are you basing that on?

Haha - yes, I agree with you about that as a notion of "clean" coal. The EU is pushing for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to clean up coal emissions of CO2, but the problem seen with some of the demonstrator plants is that installing CCS reduces the efficiency of the plant as a fair proportion of the energy is used to separate the CO2 - basic thermodynamics ie nothing comes for free, there is always a trade off somewhere! If people are interested in the subject, but confused as to what to believe then I do little more than suggest reading the summary for policy makers by the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html (it is a relatively short document that sets out the main issues). The IPCC is far from perfect and like any scientific process the work is subject to continuous refinement and improvement. There has been significant criticism of the IPCC - some of it justified but much of it not. Sure there are dissenters, but that doesn't make the scientific consensus (that we are having an effect) any less so. Again I come back to the parallel with creationism vs evolution - it is pretty clear where the majority of the scientific community lies. One thing to remember is that despite claims to the contrary the IPCC does not claim to be 100% accurate, but to give our best work (with a corresponding estimate of accuracy) on a very complex problem. Cheers, Mike

It was nothing to do with Bush that there was a change from global warming to climate change - it was recognition that global warming is not the whole picture and could be seen as misleading. Some parts of the earth will warm and others will cool. I disagree that it is impossible to have an objective position, but I agree that it comes down to an act of trust/faith. That is true for much/all of science - I am not expected to go to first principles to understand gravity/evolution etc etc, I have to take on trust certain things. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. For the UK, total energy supply (ie coal and gas) accounts for about 39% of total CO2 emissions. Transport accounted for 24%. Source: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/climate_change/1214-stat-rel-uk-ghg-emissions-2009-final.pdf (see page 5 for a summary table of CO2 emissions by sector) To complicate matters coal fired power can emit serious amounts of SO2 (if there is no flue gas desulphurisation) which can cause cooling...! I can choose to believe in creationism - it does not make it right!

I think you have it a bit back to front. I referred to Arrhenius earlier, who demonstrated that CO2 causes warming. The question is not whether CO2 causes warming, but whether anthropogenic CO2 (ie the additional CO2 released by man's activities) causes climate change. To complicate matters you are right that warming can cause the release of CO2 (and much more worringly methane). Plus you are right that temperature rises could be influenced by a whole host of factors, but then the task (that the IPCC has been working on) is to try and work out which is the main driver.

Sorry to disappoint you but those sorts of arguments (as made in the videos) have been well and truly debunked by the vast majority of the scientific community. Dave - I agree with you to a point that there has been an element of man made climate change that has been political (which personally I think has been a mistake), but if you look at the underlying science it is difficult to refute. Sure there are lots of unknowns, but that doesn't invalidate many of the arguments. I still struggle to see why people object to us using technologies that pollute less and use resources more efficiently (nothing to do with hair shirt reductions in growth and quality of living). It seems like basic common sense. Of course I will defend your right to be inefficient or pollute more, but then don't be surprised if I also defend the right to tax you or charge you more for doing so! Cheers, Mike

I am afraid that I think it does...otherwise where does it stop? While I might not notice the cooler group I would certainly notice if the windows were wrong - blanked/not blanked off. Furthermore what is acceptable to one person as a compromise will not be acceptable to another. I thought that in all scales (not just N) we had got past this sort of compromise...

While I agree that the science behind man-made global warming is far from exact, I think that the pointers are all there that we have had some influence. CO2 causes temperature rises - that part of the science is not debated, it has been established as fact since Arrhenius. The question is then whether man's CO2 input (which is admittedly an extremely small % of total CO2 emissions) is enough of a tipping point to push the earth's natural feedback loops past equilibrium and whether the rate of temperature change is quicker than we have seen before (given that normal geological timescales where we have seen dramatic changes in T are far longer than the last 150-200 year timescale that we are really looking at for man-made CO2 emissions I think that is another clue). For me it is a bit of a win-win - forget the hair shirt environmentalists who want growth to stop, there is little reason why we can't increase efficiency, reduce resource use and reduce emissions. If global warming is ha I agree with the idea that the world will save, I would question whether man will! But then as Kenton acknowledges there are other issues surrounding increased population and increased longevity. There is coal available, but then coal is not oil which is what we really need for plastics and chemicals. As for the idea that the "green agenda" (whatever that is) is going to destroy our way of life - why? Sorry but that is fairly laughable - for example what has more influence on our energy prices at the moment? A premium for a relatively small percentage of renewable energy or global gas prices (which are dictated by supply/demand)?

You can use the insulating ® value of the insulation as a starting point which enables a theoretical calculation of how insulation should effect your heating needs - insulation is well...insulation there isn't a way that it won't work when essentially you are trying to keep something relatively warm with a colder temperature outside. After that you are right that it will depend on your exact set up. Having a pool to heat and air conditioning to power is definitely not a "normal" energy use scenario for the UK, but I still struggle to see how insulation would not help reduce the portion of your bills that come from heating requirements. The question as you acknowledge is will the savings in my energy bills > cost of insulation. Given that decent insulation can be picked up pretty cheaply from DIY type places/builders merchants etc then in the majority of cases the pay off time is normally quick. (The proportion of your energy use that *you* use for heating is not really that relevant to answering the question of pay-off time). Plus of course insulation may* help reduce your need for air-con and heating of the pool...*but again it will depend on a variety of factors (is the pool indoors/outdoors, how much of the property is in direct sunlight, how much ventilation there is etc etc. We can go round and round on this...

Fair enough, but that suggests either that your house is well insulated to start with, you have a relatively warm climate or you tolerate colder temperatures than most. It certainly is not the normal pattern of energy costs for them to increase in summer! However just because insulation may not help you does not in any way make it a con...you don't have to trust other people's figures you can work it out for yourself which is far more accurate than anecdotal evidence from your neighbour.

So the word of your neighbour beats basic laws of physics? I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that it makes little or no difference... The crucial part of loft insulation is what material and perhaps even more crucially - how much. Most people are shocked by how much insulation is recommended as a minimum.

I completely agree - it is a mess. I agree with Re6/6 that the Govt should (and could) do something relatively simple to sort this. I would be very sceptical about the source of that! I am not aware that any of our local authorities are approaching the likes of the Netherlands or Flanders in their recycling rates - both of whom rely extensively on separate collection of multiple bins. If you have source segregated recyclates it is much, much easier to produce reasonable/good quality recycled materials. But the consistency of approach is crucial.

In what way? There is no getting away from the fact that for some materials it is so much more energy and resource efficient to recycle than to use virgin materials - the simplest (most obvious) example is aluminium, but the same is true for many plastics/metals/glass etc. Of course it would be cheaper, but then recycling is not just about stopping things going to landfill. The reason to recycle glass is whether it is cheaper/more efficient to make from new or recycle nothing to do with landfill (as you say it is inert!).

If you want a setpiece set of flats converted from a warehouse, how about the Hacienda? Iconic nightclub (originally a warehouse) owned by New Order, turned into very swanky flats and opposite Deansgate station IIRC in Manchester. Looking good anyway David. Cheers, Mike

Martin Thanks for the review - sounds excellent! Cheers, Mike

Not that unbelievable - IIRC SNCF have some disco carriages for their ski trains!

Nice idea and N gauge too! You might just be the closest club to me now that I have moved to Colliers Wood. Cheers, Mike

Wow - excellent work as always Pete! Cheers, Mike

I agree with Kris - single track and some carriage sidings. I would probably ditch the goods shed.

The Sound of the Smiths, particularly enjoying What difference does it make?

Thanks Jack - much appreciated! I am sure they will be popular and a very useful addition. Cheers, Mike

Excellent work Jack. Any chance that the Tigers will be available for sale (I presume they are more 3D printing from Shapeways)? Cheers, Mike

I bought a few Lifelike locos in the past for chassis cannibalising and although the running was very good, the bodies were nothing special and certainly not as good as modern UK N in terms of detail. They ran very well and had plenty of weight in them, but again I am not sure they are that much better than modern UK N diesels in terms of running. No contest in terms of price! Couplings - we are starting to get there with Farish and Dapol supplying buckeyes which are much less obtrusive. If/when an NEM version of the microtrains type coupling becomes available then shunting should be much easier. Cheers, Mike

I have just noticed in Dapol's 2011 catalogue that although they have re-instated the HSTs as book sets, what you will get is 1 x first and 1 x second, rather than a TGS and/or buffet. There is still no news on HST buffets or TGSs...(the catalogue just mentions buffet for ATW, Pretendolino and W&S) When will manufacturers learn that incomplete sets put people off buying??? Given that I am sure Dapol are concerned about the tooling costs for the one offs then why not include them in the sets so they are guaranteed sales at the appropriate cost for the toolings.... Cheers, Mike