Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Saintandy666]

Because, generally, it's the "I'm all right Jack" syndrome - why should I be concerned about projections of disaster 60 years hence, when I'll no longer be around. This is often coupled with "Humans are adaptable, we'll adjust to the new environment".

 

Out of curiosity, has anybody any links to a breakdown by age group on what proportion of the population accept MMGW as a reality ? Without any substantiation, I suspect that the under 30's are more likely to think it is a reality.

 

I expect so too. People are happy to take science when it says something positive and helps theirs lives, but when it is slightly inconvenient, they just dismiss it. It's pretty high stakes.

[Minty]

Contradiction Alert !!!!!

 

Sorry, your second statement is the correct one, therefore I marvel at the willingness of the individual to be taken in hook, line and sinker by Global Warming Hysteria. I understand govenrmental willingness to accept it of course, it provides taxation opportunities.

What contradiction is there? Science currently agrees that the climate is changing, that the planet is warming. Science also currently strongly suggests that man has had significant impact on this, but the exact degree of influence, and therefore when we might reach certain 'tipping points', is subject to modelling and interpretation and therefore it is entirely possible that people might say 'No, I was wrong about that'.

 

The fact you agree with the second highlighted sentence is good, on the face of it, until you then try to tell me that it is 'hysteria' and 'guilt-trip crap'. THAT is a contradiction. If you genuinely believe we still have lots to learn then you have to accept that you might be wrong. And given that science currently thinks you're wrong anyway, quite where you get such a stubborn opinion is baffling.

 

I've said it before but I am quite happy to accept that as science learns more, the AGW theory may well be completely disproven. That would be a good thing for everyone, although current deniers seem only interested in point scoring and political rhetoric to back up views with a minority of current evidence. Are you able to accept that you might be wrong, even ignoring the current weight of evidence? Your dismissal of the subject with silly name calling, and attempts to prove a point by quoting local weather examples, rather than global climate trends, also weakens your argument.

 

Mother Nature will regulate any gross abuses of the planet;

I completely agree. The planet will be fine. What we're talking about here is the effect on the human race.

 

why dont you all give it a rest?

Well, for starters, this is a discussion forum, so that's kind of the point of the place. Secondly, anyone who thinks we need to learn about this, should be willing to discuss and debate it with a view to doing exactly that. Dismissing it as you attempt to do would seem to indicate that you've made your mind up and don't want to learn any more. That's all well and good, and I'm all for hearing different views, but you've yet to present any credible point of view.

[alpine_saint]

What contradiction is there? Science currently agrees that the climate is changing, that the planet is warming. Science also currently strongly suggests that man has had significant impact on this, but the exact degree of influence, and therefore when we might reach certain 'tipping points', is subject to modelling and interpretation and therefore it is entirely possible that people might say 'No, I was wrong about that'.

 

The fact you agree with the second highlighted sentence is good, on the face of it, until you then try to tell me that it is 'hysteria' and 'guilt-trip crap'. THAT is a contradiction. If you genuinely believe we still have lots to learn then you have to accept that you might be wrong. And given that science currently thinks you're wrong anyway, quite where you get such a stubborn opinion is baffling.

 

I've said it before but I am quite happy to accept that as science learns more, the AGW theory may well be completely disproven. That would be a good thing for everyone, although current deniers seem only interested in point scoring and political rhetoric to back up views with a minority of current evidence. Are you able to accept that you might be wrong, even ignoring the current weight of evidence? Your dismissal of the subject with silly name calling, and attempts to prove a point by quoting local weather examples, rather than global climate trends, also weakens your argument.

 

 

I completely agree. The planet will be fine. What we're talking about here is the effect on the human race.

 

 

Well, for starters, this is a discussion forum, so that's kind of the point of the place. Secondly, anyone who thinks we need to learn about this, should be willing to discuss and debate it with a view to doing exactly that. Dismissing it as you attempt to do would seem to indicate that you've made your mind up and don't want to learn any more. That's all well and good, and I'm all for hearing different views, but you've yet to present any credible point of view.

 

I am not particularly inclined to go through, point-for-point on your post, but I will respond.

 

I do not completely exclude the possibility of some man-made influence on climate, but I believe it is minor when compared to "forces of nature" such as solar activity, volcanoes, and other long-term less tangible influences such as, from my perspective, an incomplete understanding of climate science.

 

Simply put, the science of climate change is not incontrovertiably proven, and, despite your efforts to given the impression of a consensus, there are scientist out there that dont agree with current thinking.

 

In the meantime, our lives are being dictated, bullied and taxed to the eyeballs by people with ulterior motives. And coming from a scientific/engineering background, the last people in the world I trust on this are scientists themselves, since they have grants and funding to protect. The IPCC at Uni of East Anglia have done MASSIVE damage to the publics confidence in the reliability of climate change theory AND to scientists in general.

[Sheaf Saint]

Simply put, the science of climate change is not incontrovertiably proven

 

Which is exactly what most people in support of the idea have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

 

despite your efforts to given the impression of a consensus, there are scientist out there that dont agree with current thinking.

 

Very few though, so does that not constitute a consensus if the vast majority are in agreement?

 

Alps, even the major oil companies now accept the theory of AGW. That's right - even the giant faceless corporations who care more for profits than they do for human life and who have a massive vested interest in maintaining the 'denial' stance recognise that it's a losing battle.

 

And coming from a scientific/engineering background, the last people in the world I trust on this are scientists themselves

 

Well having only a very limited exposure to the scientific world myself, I would rather trust them with it than any politicians.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Sheaf Saint

[alpine_saint]

Well having only a very limited exposure to the scientific world myself, I would rather trust them with it than any politicians.

 

If we are only faced with a choice of politicans and scientists to lead us, humanity is f**ked anyway

 

As for your point about oil companies accepting the theroy of global warming, yes I can well believe that is what their Media Relations departments are saying in the name of PR.

[Whitey Grandad]

I am not particularly inclined to go through, point-for-point on your post, but I will respond.

 

I do not completely exclude the possibility of some man-made influence on climate, but I believe it is minor when compared to "forces of nature" such as solar activity, volcanoes, and other long-term less tangible influences such as, from my perspective, an incomplete understanding of climate science.

 

Simply put, the science of climate change is not incontrovertiably proven, and, despite your efforts to given the impression of a consensus, there are scientist out there that dont agree with current thinking.

 

In the meantime, our lives are being dictated, bullied and taxed to the eyeballs by people with ulterior motives. And coming from a scientific/engineering background, the last people in the world I trust on this are scientists themselves, since they have grants and funding to protect. The IPCC at Uni of East Anglia have done MASSIVE damage to the publics confidence in the reliability of climate change theory AND to scientists in general.

 

Nutshell.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by Whitey Grandad
What's a nushell?

[Saintandy666]

I am not particularly inclined to go through, point-for-point on your post, but I will respond.

 

I do not completely exclude the possibility of some man-made influence on climate, but I believe it is minor when compared to "forces of nature" such as solar activity, volcanoes, and other long-term less tangible influences such as, from my perspective, an incomplete understanding of climate science.

 

Simply put, the science of climate change is not incontrovertiably proven, and, despite your efforts to given the impression of a consensus, there are scientist out there that dont agree with current thinking.

 

In the meantime, our lives are being dictated, bullied and taxed to the eyeballs by people with ulterior motives. And coming from a scientific/engineering background, the last people in the world I trust on this are scientists themselves, since they have grants and funding to protect. The IPCC at Uni of East Anglia have done MASSIVE damage to the publics confidence in the reliability of climate change theory AND to scientists in general.

 

On what basis do you say this? What scientific studies to have to back this up? I suspect none, and that your suspicions are based on nothing more than some stupid whim. Again, if you know something that modern science doesn't, please contact your nearest academic institution and get your findings written up soon and receive your Nobel prize!

[alpine_saint]

On what basis do you say this? What scientific studies to have to back this up? I suspect none, and that your suspicions are based on nothing more than some stupid whim. Again, if you know something that modern science doesn't, please contact your nearest academic institution and get your findings written up soon and receive your Nobel prize!

 

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo. So your benchmark for what makes something a fact or not is complete b*llcks in my eyes, so I am surprised you even bothered to repeat this silly challenge of yours.

 

Until I see evidence of an incontrovertible truth, with independent scrutiny, revision and confirmation, I remain firmly in the sceptic camp, relying on my own understanding of science and instincts, and I find it more than amusing that doomsayers are now revising their predictions of apocalypse downwards.

[Whitey Grandad]

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo. So your benchmark for what makes something a fact or not is complete b*llcks in my eyes, so I am surprised you even bothered to repeat this silly challenge of yours.

 

Until I see evidence of an incontrovertible truth, with independent scrutiny, revision and confirmation, I remain firmly in the sceptic camp, relying on my own understanding of science and instincts, and I find it more than amusing that doomsayers are now revising their predictions of apocalypse downwards.

 

Yup, I agree with all of that.

[Saint in Paradise]

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo. So your benchmark for what makes something a fact or not is complete b*llcks in my eyes, so I am surprised you even bothered to repeat this silly challenge of yours.

 

Until I see evidence of an incontrovertible truth, with independent scrutiny, revision and confirmation, I remain firmly in the sceptic camp, relying on my own understanding of science and instincts, and I find it more than amusing that doomsayers are now revising their predictions of apocalypse downwards.

 

My view as well, I won't bother to mention other old "facts" that are now proven to be incorrect.

These are still put out as being true by people with vested interests who cannot admit they are wrong

because they would not only lose face but lots of money as well.

[Saintandy666]

My view as well, I won't bother to mention other old "facts" that are now proven to be incorrect.

These are still put out as being true by people with vested interests who cannot admit they are wrong

because they would not only lose face but lots of money as well.

 

There are some things which are just fact though. I won't bother to go into how molecules are made up, and infra-red spectroscopy and so on, but this stuff is solid fact backed up by more evidence than you can imagine.

[Saintandy666]

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo. So your benchmark for what makes something a fact or not is complete b*llcks in my eyes, so I am surprised you even bothered to repeat this silly challenge of yours.

 

Until I see evidence of an incontrovertible truth, with independent scrutiny, revision and confirmation, I remain firmly in the sceptic camp, relying on my own understanding of science and instincts, and I find it more than amusing that doomsayers are now revising their predictions of apocalypse downwards.

 

And your opinion and instinct doesn't matter in science. It's based on experimental evidence. Come back when you have some.

[Saint in Paradise]

Saintandy666 please read my electric universe thread, when this present load of

"experts" have died out they will be seen to have been very wrong about the Universe.

The electric universe will be totally accepted and people will wonder how these experts wouldn't

see how wrong they were. Science should always evolve and and never stand still just because

it suits some people not to take new ideas and proof on board. Don't forget it was scientists

who insisted the Sun orbited the Earth, said the Earth was flat and ships would fall off the edge.

They had scientific proof in those days to support it and murdered anyone who spoke against them.

 

As people get older they mostly find that refusing to look at new ideas just because they don't

agree with their present thoughts is the way to going senile, brains need stimulating otherwise

they gradually wither and die.

 

This post isn't a dig at you personally because you are young enough to adapt and question your

present beliefs as you get older. My thoughts about lots of stuff have changed considerably since

I have progressed to my present old age and I am sure yours will as well. Mind you I will probably

be dead before you change

[Sheaf Saint]

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo.

 

What..... ALL science? Your opinion is that every single scientific institutuion is corrupt? You believe that EVERY single study that has ever been carried out in the area of climatology has been influenced by higher powers with vested interests in getting a particular result?

 

With all due respect Alps (which in this case isn't much) we are all well aware from your matchday thread posts how quick you are to offer (no, impose) your opinion based on absolutely nothing, so forgive me if I would rather place my trust in the research of highly qualified and experienced academics than the opinion of somebody who has never displayed the slightest capacity for admitting the possibility of being wrong.

[Minty]

Saintandy666 please read my electric universe thread, when this present load of

"experts" have died out they will be seen to have been very wrong about the Universe.

The electric universe will be totally accepted and people will wonder how these experts wouldn't

see how wrong they were.

How can you be so certain? Especially if...

Science should always evolve and and never stand still just because

it suits some people not to take new ideas and proof on board.

Sounds to me like you've made your mind up and also aren't willing to evolve if evidence demonstrates otherwise?

Don't forget it was scientists who insisted the Sun orbited the Earth, said the Earth was flat and ships would fall off the edge.

They had scientific proof in those days to support it and murdered anyone who spoke against them.

Whilst other scientists presented an alternative view which was then proven and accepted. That's what happens. Any true Scientist should be equally as willing for their work to be disproven as proven, and to simply increase understanding.

 

As people get older they mostly find that refusing to look at new ideas just because they don't

agree with their present thoughts is the way to going senile, brains need stimulating otherwise

they gradually wither and die.

Can you not see the irony in your post? You seem to refuse to believe something other than what you believe. Being a skeptic is very healthy as long as you remain open to all possibilities.

[Saintandy666]

Saintandy666 please read my electric universe thread, when this present load of

"experts" have died out they will be seen to have been very wrong about the Universe.

The electric universe will be totally accepted and people will wonder how these experts wouldn't

see how wrong they were. Science should always evolve and and never stand still just because

it suits some people not to take new ideas and proof on board. Don't forget it was scientists

who insisted the Sun orbited the Earth, said the Earth was flat and ships would fall off the edge.

They had scientific proof in those days to support it and murdered anyone who spoke against them.

 

As people get older they mostly find that refusing to look at new ideas just because they don't

agree with their present thoughts is the way to going senile, brains need stimulating otherwise

they gradually wither and die.

 

This post isn't a dig at you personally because you are young enough to adapt and question your

present beliefs as you get older. My thoughts about lots of stuff have changed considerably since

I have progressed to my present old age and I am sure yours will as well. Mind you I will probably

be dead before you change

 

Perhaps in cosmic based science you may have a point, but in the type of science the greenhouse effect is based upon, not really. It is very solid... it's not an idea which as of yet is unproven like the M theory etc

[alpine_saint]

And your opinion and instinct doesn't matter in science. It's based on experimental evidence. Come back when you have some.

 

Who the f**k do you think you are, you patronising little git ?

 

I CHALLENGE acepted wisdom with my BRAIN, I dont go along with the sheep like you just because it fits my political agenda.

 

I have no vested interests, no shares in an oil company, and I, unlike you, have children (and will hopefully have grandchildren) that have to grow up in this f**ked up little world of dwindling resources yet I STILL challenge the "perceived wisdom" about global warming.

 

Your "expeirmental evidence" is mostly a load of mumbo-jumbo 2+2=5 sh*t to fit peoples political agendas for taxation AND their need to keep funding and grants running.

 

A couple of phrases for you...

 

BIRD FLU

TAMIFLU

 

The biggest corporate rip-off supported by scientific "research" in HISTORY

 

Yep, you carry on lapping it up, little boy....

[aintforever]

Dont you get it ? I thought I made it clear. Scientific research is CORRPUT, imo. So your benchmark for what makes something a fact or not is complete b*llcks in my eyes, so I am surprised you even bothered to repeat this silly challenge of yours.

 

Until I see evidence of an incontrovertible truth, with independent scrutiny, revision and confirmation, I remain firmly in the sceptic camp, relying on my own understanding of science and instincts, and I find it more than amusing that doomsayers are now revising their predictions of apocalypse downwards.

 

What incontrovertible truth do you expect to see then? The temperature could rise 20 degrees and we would all burn to death yet you would still maintain it was natural variations.

 

There is little doubt over the science, predicting exactly what will happen in the future will ALWAYS be impossible. Carbon emissions are having an effect, only a complete fool would ignore science and just hope things turn out OK.

[Minty]

Who the f**k do you think you are, you patronising little git ?

 

I CHALLENGE acepted wisdom with my BRAIN, I dont go along with the sheep like you just because it fits my political agenda.

 

I have no vested interests, no shares in an oil company, and I, unlike you, have children (and will hopefully have grandchildren) that have to grow up in this f**ked up little world of dwindling resources yet I STILL challenge the "perceived wisdom" about global warming.

 

Your "expeirmental evidence" is mostly a load of mumbo-jumbo 2+2=5 sh*t to fit peoples political agendas for taxation AND their need to keep funding and grants running.

 

A couple of phrases for you...

 

BIRD FLU

TAMIFLU

 

The biggest corporate rip-off supported by scientific "research" in HISTORY

 

Yep, you carry on lapping it up, little boy....

While Saintandy666's reply isn't exactly helpful, you don't help yourself with some of your comments.

 

As I said, I'm all for learning more, so I'd genuinely be interested to know exactly why you believe the evidence that Andy mentions is "2+2=5"... ignore politics and taxation, lets stick to the science here. It is entirely healthy to challenge what we know, but it has to be done objectively.

 

And as someone who works in the NHS, I can categorically state that H1N1 Avian Flu was certainly not a rip-off. Try telling that to those who lost someone to it. Its effect was not as widespread as feared but once again, a precautionary approach must be taken.

 

If you have pre-conceived ideas about science or scientists then I struggle to know how you'll ever form an objective opinion, other than becoming an expert in these subjects yourself and doing the research for yourself.

[Saintandy666]

Who the f**k do you think you are, you patronising little git ?

 

I CHALLENGE acepted wisdom with my BRAIN, I dont go along with the sheep like you just because it fits my political agenda.

 

I have no vested interests, no shares in an oil company, and I, unlike you, have children (and will hopefully have grandchildren) that have to grow up in this f**ked up little world of dwindling resources yet I STILL challenge the "perceived wisdom" about global warming.

 

Your "expeirmental evidence" is mostly a load of mumbo-jumbo 2+2=5 sh*t to fit peoples political agendas for taxation AND their need to keep funding and grants running.

 

A couple of phrases for you...

 

BIRD FLU

TAMIFLU

 

The biggest corporate rip-off supported by scientific "research" in HISTORY

 

Yep, you carry on lapping it up, little boy....

 

What a bizarre reply. When did I once mention politics? I've only mentioned the science which is backed up by tonnes of evidence. Just because I don't agree with you, why does it mean I have come to the conclusion. Though I suspect if you actually looked at the evidence, you would quickly see that the greenhouse effect is fact. This crosses the political spectrum and I'm sad for you that you've placed it in a box of left right politics again. And what has you having kids got to do with looking at scientific evidence? Oh, and I also don't have shares in an oil company. Good for us.

[Bearsy]

I CHALLENGE acepted wisdom with my BRAIN

 

I DISREGARD accepted wisdom with my EGO

[alpine_saint]

Dear oh dear.....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html

[badgerx16]

Dear oh dear.....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html

An interview he gave in April that doesn't quite reflect the above interpretation:

 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

 

"Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”

 

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said."

 

 

" …..stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.

"

[alpine_saint]

An interview he gave in April that doesn't quite reflect the above interpretation:

 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

 

"Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”

 

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said."

 

 

" …..stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.

"

 

Hmmm. Not sure what sort of response you are expecting. One way or the other, it appears that there has been some mis-representation and bandwagon-jumping for green causes going on.

 

At least it gave governments the excuse to tax the f**k out of people for while.

[badgerx16]

 

At least it gave governments the excuse to tax the f**k out of people for while.

 

Do they need an excuse ?

[dubai_phil]

In other news as you guys bask in such a glorious summer....

 

Local Police have issued a warning to Motorists as the summer vacation season looms down here.

 

Apparently after one of the hottest Mays' on record, forecasters are predicting that the summer heat down here could break all records. Officially the temperature never exceeds 50C (as all businesses by law must close if that were to happen), but expectations are that "in some areas" the temperatures could exceed 60C.

 

The Police warning to motorists is to avoid refuelling cars "FULL" as there have already been a number of cases of cars parked in the sun exploding in the Northern Emirates. Whilst the blame for this is put on poor maintenance standards and expansion vents being blocked by dust and sand locally, this is the first time that reports of this nature have been seen.

 

Wonderful news for us Sun lovers. 60C - simply means we spend all our salaries on Electricity for the A/C bills

[derry]

I am willing to accept HONEST research set out HONESTLY, completely, not selectively, or opinion that is presented as such. I find some of the dishonesty and biased reporting is putting off people like myself who are sceptical about the motives of the scientists. The parts of the world that matter, India, China, Russia, Brazil patently aren't caring. We are a pimple on the earth so why are we bothering, if the real problems including the US aren't bothering. We are damaging our economy by a hysterical adherence to green policies that make no real difference.

 

I think we in the UK should drop it until the real problem is addressed by the real culprits, as our sacrifices are just gesture politics with little or no effect on the alleged global warming.

[alpine_saint]

I am willing to accept HONEST research set out HONESTLY, completely, not selectively, or opinion that is presented as such. I find some of the dishonesty and biased reporting is putting off people like myself who are sceptical about the motives of the scientists. The parts of the world that matter, India, China, Russia, Brazil patently aren't caring. We are a pimple on the earth so why are we bothering, if the real problems including the US aren't bothering. We are damaging our economy by a hysterical adherence to green policies that make no real difference.

 

I think we in the UK should drop it until the real problem is addressed by the real culprits, as our sacrifices are just gesture politics with little or no effect on the alleged global warming.

 

Yep. Good post.

 

The UK is responsible for 2% of the earths greenhouse gas emission. Therefore a 50% cut for example, which would utterly destroy UK economic competitiveness and would represent national suicide, makes a 1% difference to the planet. That is background noise compared to US and Chinese emissions related to economic activity level. And UK government reduction targets are less than 50%.

 

Really, I think the UK should forget it and focus on growth to pull it out of the depression into which its heading...

[Frank's cousin]

Guess all depends on your own personal philosophy and what you feel is an appropriate level of risk to take, based on the inconclusive evidence/data that currently exists, and potentially whether or not there wil be any significant impact.

 

My twopenneth on the various discussion points:

 

1. Scientific eveidence (and my view as a scientist of sorts)

 

As others have suggested, Science is all about collecting data. Formulating hypothsis and designing robust controlled studies that will either support or invalidate the hypothesis. If these experiments are repeatable and with appropriate time, always generate the same results, then you get to teh point where it becomes a theory. Again this is not 100% proof, but in all probablity it is likely to be true.

 

With climate change, the tricky thing is whether you look at these things with a geological time perspective (100s of millions of years) or one that is more comprehensible to humans 300-500 years etc.

 

If you look at it from a geoplogical time perspective, the current increases in temp are not really a biggy, the planet is cooling, but teh climate fluctuates due to many events and cyclic issues from polar field reversals, plate tectonics (and associated volcanic activity), but the biggest shift was what created our oxygen atmosphere in teh first place - the evolution of plant matter... but I digress

 

If you look at it from a 200 year scale, or since the industrial revolution, I think its pretty well accepted that we have changed our environment significantly, most notably deforrestation, and fossil fuel burning... which WILL have had an impact on the overall chemsitry of the atmosphere. It is also accepted that such change, will undoubtedly impact on climate, but what is not understood is what kind of long term impact this may or may not have... and for me that is the key issue.

 

We do not know.

 

So it comes down to your personal philosphy.

 

Indsutry and politics are so intertwinned and naturally self serving that they will always defend their approach - its simply not in their interests to support any evidence or data that suggests they are impacting on this. The Green movement, is again subject to much political hipocracy, even if at the grass roots level its simply folk who are have a genuine concern about the environment.

 

Should we be worried about what might happen in 200, 500, 20,000 years? Some will say nope, I'lll be gone, others have a diffferent stance in that we have a duty of care

 

What about all this damage we have done and species we have wiped out? Well species do come and go, typically a species exists for about 2 million years, should we then care? Guess it depends again on what kind of world you want to live in... one which is is only self serving, or one that takes care of its environment to the benefit of all.

 

 

But a note of caution is simply this: there are now 7 billion of us on the planet. We have consumed a fair amount of the natural resources and due to political divisions and economic self interest we cant even feed everyone now, or ensure all children get passed their 5th birthday - that is what we have created... some are comfortable with that others are not.... but if we dont do something about that, AND climatic change does impact as some models predict, we could see even worse issues with global famine and the strife and political turmoil that will inevitably follow. Maybe not in our life time, but our Grandchildren may well be looking back at us and thinking what a bunch of fricken arseholes we were.

[Saintandy666]

Yep. Good post.

 

The UK is responsible for 2% of the earths greenhouse gas emission. Therefore a 50% cut for example, which would utterly destroy UK economic competitiveness and would represent national suicide, makes a 1% difference to the planet. That is background noise compared to US and Chinese emissions related to economic activity level. And UK government reduction targets are less than 50%.

 

Really, I think the UK should forget it and focus on growth to pull it out of the depression into which its heading...

 

The Earth is more important than the economy. You can't bail out the earth.

[alpine_saint]

The Earth is more important than the economy. You can't bail out the earth.

 

Yep, you really didnt read the issues of scale I was making, did you ?

[Minty]

The Earth is more important than the economy. You can't bail out the earth.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Earth will be just fine. It's the Human Race who need to consider their actions.

 

Some of the new posts on this thread today nicely highlight some of the problems that surround this issue. Lovelock's recent comments are to be welcomed... honest opinions, a willingness to review previously held theories, and robust discussion of the science surrounding Climate Change are all needed.

 

What is not needed is people to then try and project what he says as some kind of watershed moment to prove or disprove the entire premise of Climate Change itself, or to say that everything needs to change because of one persons opinion. The work is ongoing. As Lovelock says, there are aspects of this that we will probably never fully understand, but any good scientist would recognise this... the consensus remains that the climate is changing, that human activity has/can/will significantly influence it, and that we should act to minimise the effect on the human race.

 

Making any kind of final judgement about it being right/wrong, true/false, is just silly, when all we can do is continue to learn.I have friends and family who have a different opinion to me about climate change, which i fully respect, but we all accept that this is a significant issue that science needs to be allowed to look into without being judged by every Tom, ****, newspaper, politician, wannabe climate scientist and Harry around.

 

alpine's point about scale is flawed. Whilst our direct emissions are indeed much lower than many other countries, our indirect emissions, arising through things like consumer demand for goods made abroad, or technologies invented and created in the UK but then exported for use elsewhere, make our contribution to the global situation far more significant.

 

This is a global issue, hence why IMO it needs a co-ordinated, global response, and for politics to be put to one side. Governments, whose sphere of influence and concern rarely stretches beyond a term or two of government, are making (or failing to make) decisions that will affect me and my children and their children for decades and decades to come.

 

There are a host of smaller countries, who are feeling the effects far more than us right now, who are leading by example, because they recognise the importance of doing so. 'Do as I say, not as I do' might work for some parents, but for global issues like this, leading by example is paramount, not least to help persuade the larger countries and major contributors to also start to act. By not doing so, we are helping to provide other countries with even more excuses to do nothing.

[trousers]

The Earth is insignificant. Fact.

[Sheaf Saint]

I think we in the UK should drop it until the real problem is addressed by the real culprits, as our sacrifices are just gesture politics with little or no effect on the alleged global warming.

 

 

 

So until the larger polluters in the world begin to make serious reductions in their output, we should just say "f*ck it, it's not our problem"? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

I disagree entirely. Briatin was one of the original pioneers of industry and it could be argued that our colonial influence in India is partly to blame for their current industrial and economic boom. The way I see it is that we have a duty to lead the way for others to follow. As does everybody.

 

Alpine argues against reducing our greenhouse gas emissions on the basis that we would be damaging our economy, but to my mind that is senseless. My recent (admittedly limited) studies on this subject have taught me two important lessons... Firstly, that everything in this biosphere is inter-connected in some way and as the dominant species on this planet we have a repsonsibility to protect biodiversity as much as possible, and secondly that a healthy environment and a healthy economy are not mutually exclusive.

 

Look at the example of Masdar in the UAE. It's a massive project that aims to create a clean-energy driven and sustainable city. It has required a lot of external investment but the construction of it will provide jobs and revenue for all of the contractors involved (the main architects are British I believe). Why could that not be recreated in the UK?

[dune]

Briatin was one of the original pioneers of industry and it could be argued that our colonial influence in India is partly to blame for their current industrial and economic boom.

 

That's right Rebecca, blame the Empire.

[Thedelldays]

how does taxing me an extra £20 on a flight to majorca help combat "climate change"

 

its just another method of extracting money from us

 

 

I don't doubt change is happening...but it has happened throughout earth history...to suggest NOW, at the pin point in earth existence it is man made is laughable

[buctootim]

The parts of the world that matter, India, China, Russia, Brazil patently aren't caring. We are a pimple on the earth so why are we bothering, if the real problems including the US aren't bothering. We are damaging our economy by a hysterical adherence to green policies that make no real difference.

 

I think we in the UK should drop it until the real problem is addressed by the real culprits, as our sacrifices are just gesture politics with little or no effect on the alleged global warming.

 

Not true on several fronts. China in particular is leading the way in development of renewables and both India and China use much less carbon to produce each unit of industrial production than does the UK or the rest of Europe. Yes the US are being difficult and their policy is predicated on 'screw you' but they will move if isolated. There are already mechanisms to measure the amount of carbon used in producing and transporting a product. The EU will likely introduce an import tariff based on this in the next 5-10 years.

 

We are not damaging our economy by "hysterical adherence to green policies that make no real difference". For both economic reasons and for reasons of energy security it makes no sense to spend billions on importing fossil fuels whose price is on a long term upward trend. Britain is a high wage economy and the money to be earned in the future is developing high tech solutions to the spiralling demand for energy - not digging up and burning bits of black dirt. Wind power is competitive with oil at $70 per barrel, tidal at $105 per barrel.

[Minty]

how does taxing me an extra £20 on a flight to majorca help combat "climate change"

 

its just another method of extracting money from us

I actually agree that to simply whack a tax on people does nothing to really help... what is needed is for people to see exactly where that money is going, what it is contributing to, and to help show people why it is necessary. Taking money off someone doesn't achieve anything unless you show them what it goes towards. Taxes in general are like this... with most of them there is a disconnection from how and where the money is obtained, to where it is then used, and a clear explanation of what it is used for.

 

I don't doubt change is happening...but it has happened throughout earth history...to suggest NOW, at the pin point in earth existence it is man made is laughable

Well, maybe to you, but not to the consensus of scientists who are studying the issue. As I said previously, I have no issue with anyone who disagrees having looked into it, but to blindly disregard it as 'laughable' without any premise for such an opinion, is sadly rather blinkered IMO.

[trousers]

The human race is insignifcant too

[Minty]

The human race is insignifcant too

 

I guess everything is at some level.

[trousers]

I guess everything is at some level.

 

Indeed. None of this matters in the general scheme of things.

[TopGun]

I actually agree that to simply whack a tax on people does nothing to really help... what is needed is for people to see exactly where that money is going, what it is contributing to, and to help show people why it is necessary. Taking money off someone doesn't achieve anything unless you show them what it goes towards. Taxes in general are like this... with most of them there is a disconnection from how and where the money is obtained, to where it is then used, and a clear explanation of what it is used for.

 

 

Well, maybe to you, but not to the consensus of scientists who are studying the issue. As I said previously, I have no issue with anyone who disagrees having looked into it, but to blindly disregard it as 'laughable' without any premise for such an opinion, is sadly rather blinkered IMO.

 

I agree with this point as it is not explained well enough by the govt. Also, if you read the Mailygraph you could be forgiven for thinking that green energy taxes on utility bills run into £100s each year. Well, here's news for you. OFGEM (the energy regulator) calculated a few months ago that each house hold pays an average of £21 per year that goes towards green energy subsidies. The subsidies are the necessary incentive to get developers in a wholly privatised market to invest in low carbon technologies. Funnily enough, the OFGEM report was not reported in the Telegraph, Mail or Express.

[Minty]

Indeed. None of this matters in the general scheme of things.

 

Just for future reference, apart from Saints (or am I wrong there too?) what is significant to trousers?

[Saintandy666]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the Earth will be just fine. It's the Human Race who need to consider their actions.

 

Some of the new posts on this thread today nicely highlight some of the problems that surround this issue. Lovelock's recent comments are to be welcomed... honest opinions, a willingness to review previously held theories, and robust discussion of the science surrounding Climate Change are all needed.

 

What is not needed is people to then try and project what he says as some kind of watershed moment to prove or disprove the entire premise of Climate Change itself, or to say that everything needs to change because of one persons opinion. The work is ongoing. As Lovelock says, there are aspects of this that we will probably never fully understand, but any good scientist would recognise this... the consensus remains that the climate is changing, that human activity has/can/will significantly influence it, and that we should act to minimise the effect on the human race.

 

Making any kind of final judgement about it being right/wrong, true/false, is just silly, when all we can do is continue to learn.I have friends and family who have a different opinion to me about climate change, which i fully respect, but we all accept that this is a significant issue that science needs to be allowed to look into without being judged by every Tom, ****, newspaper, politician, wannabe climate scientist and Harry around.

 

alpine's point about scale is flawed. Whilst our direct emissions are indeed much lower than many other countries, our indirect emissions, arising through things like consumer demand for goods made abroad, or technologies invented and created in the UK but then exported for use elsewhere, make our contribution to the global situation far more significant.

 

This is a global issue, hence why IMO it needs a co-ordinated, global response, and for politics to be put to one side. Governments, whose sphere of influence and concern rarely stretches beyond a term or two of government, are making (or failing to make) decisions that will affect me and my children and their children for decades and decades to come.

 

There are a host of smaller countries, who are feeling the effects far more than us right now, who are leading by example, because they recognise the importance of doing so. 'Do as I say, not as I do' might work for some parents, but for global issues like this, leading by example is paramount, not least to help persuade the larger countries and major contributors to also start to act. By not doing so, we are helping to provide other countries with even more excuses to do nothing.

 

I am agreeing with you. I know the Earth will be fine long after we are gone, but that doesn't mean we don't damage it as we go down ourselves.

 

And a note to some people who seem to find this an inconvenience, I'd never argue that we need to go and live in electricity free huts or whatever... just some organisational/behavioural change coupled with a massive change in energy source should be sufficient. We just need to start living sustainably. Think of the Earth as spaceship, hurtling through space. It only has finite fuel and once it runs out, that's it and we are screwed.

[Saintandy666]

how does taxing me an extra £20 on a flight to majorca help combat "climate change"

 

its just another method of extracting money from us

 

 

I don't doubt change is happening...but it has happened throughout earth history...to suggest NOW, at the pin point in earth existence it is man made is laughable

 

You ignore the science. We all know that the Greenhouse effect which is causing global warming is fact. Some greenhouse effect is very useful, and without it life wouldn't exist on Earth. However, what humans are doing is enhancing the Greenhouse Effect which could cause climate change and warming on a scale much life can't keep up with leading to warring amongst ourselves and a mass extinction.

[Saintandy666]

Yep, you really didnt read the issues of scale I was making, did you ?

 

The issues of scale doesn't matter. It's no good saying, well if the US doesn't do it, so we won't. What we need to do here is lead by example and show it can be done successfully and then hopefully others will follow us(and they will if we can find a way to get renewables cheaper than fossil fuels - a lot of this is a failure of capitalism which is great in many respects but weak on the urgency needed in this situation). Though, I do agree with you, a global agreement is needed eventually. But we shouldn't just give up because the USA and China aren't on board.

[doddisalegend]

Just for future reference, apart from Saints (or am I wrong there too?) what is significant to trousers?

 

Generally a good belt and a working fly.......

[doddisalegend]

If it all goes tits up it won't be the first time human civilization has been destroyed by climate change just take the the Harappans of the indus valley 4000 years ago

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/29/4000-years-ago-climate-change-caused-massive-civilization-collapse/

 

or the Hohokam indians of the southern US in the 1400s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam

 

Of course climate change is going on it always has and always will.

[Bearsy]

I was thinking bout all the moneys we're spending doing sustainabilities. What we should do instead is do no sustainabilities and put half the money we save in a bank account that people in the future can use to fix things if it gets really bad. They'll have better sciences in the future so they could probably fix things easy!

[Petersfield Saint]

Bearsy has the solution! Close the thread!