And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving? Plant forests? Or just spend it on other resource hungry commodities?
You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.

And breathe….

Do you feel better after that rant?

climate sceptics’ biggest problem is that dellingpole has emerged as their spokesperson

Climate sceptics ? really ? a Skeptic is someone who challenges his opponents to provide evidence for their beliefs and insist that all claims be supported by high quality evidence. Delingpole is a denialist, he refutes the truth because it’s against his ideology.

And breathe….

Do you feel better after that rant?
Rant? 😆

And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving?

I’m sure there must be a proper term for this logical fallacy.

“Hey you haven’t martyred your entire existence to making things better, so you’re just as bad as someone who travels everywhere in a helicopter with ivory controls and snow leopard upholstery, dropping napalm on baby seals.”

And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving? Plant forests? Or just spend it on other resource hungry commodities?
You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.

What are you on about? I’m fairly happy that we are able to be energy and resource efficient. What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.

Of course he later changed his mind as per his wiki entry.

Is that a bad thing?

What are you on about? I’m fairly happy that we are able to be energy and resource efficient. What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.

That’s fair enough.

My point, for GrahamS, is that it doesn’t matter how you spend your money in a carbon economy, it all ends up as using the same resources.

Turning your heating down and buying titanium toys with the money you saved (or anything else) doesn’t save the world.

Of course, but whilst many people do that, not everyone does.

You make a good point though. I wonder if buying flights to the US for my family is more or less damaging than spending £2.5k on manufactured goods…? Hmm.

What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.

My mantra for life 🙂 and the reason sustainability is unpopular.

My point, for GrahamS, is that it doesn’t matter how you spend your money in a carbon economy, it all ends up as using the same resources.

Okay but I don’t believe that is necessarily true. Money saved in energy (e.g. by using the car less, choosing a more fuel efficient model, insulating your house, etc) can be used for things that are less carbon intensive; things that aren’t carbon related (like paying off the mortgage, saving for your child’s education) or even used in saving further energy (like paying for solar panels, wind turbines, more efficient appliances, insulation, or paying a little extra for a “green” energy provider)

I could have a go at calling all of your examples just more carbon, but the mortgage one is the fattest target.

What do you think happens to the money you give to the bank for your mortgage? They magic up 10x as much and then that’s used to buy more carbon.

What do you think happens to the money you give to the bank for your mortgage? They magic up 10x as much and then that’s used to buy more carbon.

Great, so you agree that by putting my money towards paying off the mortgage early I’m denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?

Excellent news 😀

Great, so you agree that by putting my money towards paying off the mortgage early I’m denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?

It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.

Stop earning. Stop spending and most importantly, stop breeding.

Or just stop worrying…

Rant?

Well, it was hardly a reasoned argument, was it?

In case you hadn’t noticed, polar arguments full of hyperbole rarely result in constructive debate, as TJ used to demonstrate with predictable regularity.

Or just stop worrying…

Or, everyone does what they can, and the world becomes a slightly better place…

It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.

Stop earning. Stop spending and most importantly, stop breeding.

Or just stop worrying…

This can be applied to any type of situation, not just interpersonal relationships.

Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)

The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory;[2] it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, but sees the good and bad as separate. In psychoanalytic theory this functions as a defense mechanism.[3] It is a relatively common defense mechanism for people with borderline personality disorder in DSM-IV-TR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyftjT_SJfA[/video]

Or, everyone does what they can, and the world becomes a slightly better place…

But they’re not. They’re just fooling themselves.

I believe you have some form there as well Mr Zokes 😉

That one as well is a mini rant that would have provoked an argument

TBH most of could make our points in a nicer way as you so ably demonstrated 😛

But they’re not. They’re just fooling themselves.

Nahh don’t buy it, you’re another one suffering from an impairment. This time from a cognitive distortion as opposed to possible psychopathy.

But they’re not. They’re just fooling themselves.

The only person being fooled here is you,…

There are many options between doing nothing and regressing to a caveman. Most would be preferable for the environment than doing nothing.

The trouble with arguing in absolutes is it leaves you very little wriggle room to defend your stance.

> “I’m denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?”

It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.

So when you give banks less money they actually make more money? Wow I’m in the wrong job. On the bright side I think you’ve solved the global banking crisis. 😀

Sorry your argument just isn’t credible. It’s based on trying to spot a hypocrisy that doesn’t exist. I don’t expect to make myself carbon-neutral by a few simple life choices. My aim is simply to do a bit less harm, not eliminate harm entirely and survive in a cave living on free fallen fruit.

So, if I get this thread right –

anyone who talks about the climate is a loony

buying a pair of bombers will kill polar bears

saving money in the bank is as eco-friendly as digging up a coral reef using a spade made from lonesome george’s shell

So, if I get this thread right –

anyone who talks about the climate is a loony

buying a pair of bombers will kill polar bears

saving money in the bank is as eco-friendly as digging up a coral reef using a spade made from lonesome george’s shell
A beautiful summary of green issues and the carbon economy.

A beautiful summary of green issues and the carbon economy.

But only if you’re a class one nincompoop.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/16/climate-change-deniers-put-up-or-shut-up?CMP=fb_gu

I really appreciated what the article was saying about it being time that the deniers hold a conference and ‘set out their scientific stall’, that really helped to clarify things for me, but I felt that it was on shakier ground when talking about the characteristics of the ‘conservative mind’. Not sure if making sweeping generalisations helps the author’s arguement at all tbh.

It’s the Guardian, firstly it’s never going to be read by conservatives and secondly to get published in the (Champagne) Socialist Workers paper you have to bash some tories!

Haha!

On a side note it looks like Ed Miliband has been prodding an index finger at what seems to me, as far as the media coverage of the floods is concerned, to be the elephant in the room

Link

reassuring….

climate change is now an issue of national security that has the potential not only to destabilise and cause conflict between regions of the world, but to destroy the homes, livelihoods and businesses of millions of British people.

No shit, sherlock…

Seems like the two major parties are in a rare moment of agreement

Link

It’s a relief to know that we have now pinned movements in the jet stream to AGW. We can stop all the unnecessary spending on research now and spend it solely on the resolution – the case is that clear cut. Brilliant.

But climate scientists says floods not caused by global warming.

Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual.

Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560310/No-global-warming-did-NOT-cause-storms-says-one-Met-Offices-senior-experts.html

That’s a pity, looked like it was all wrapped up for a moment. Still it was reported in the wail.

It makes more sense than listening to Lord lawson or delingpole [ spell]

I agree we cannot be certain what weather [ intentional use]] events are weather and what are climate[ intentional use] change related events

It does seem increasingly clear though that we are getting more variety in weather patterns and more extreme events. It might just be bad luck but it may also be the beginning of clear signs of AGW

only time will tell – problem is by the time we are certain we wont be able to act.

It does seem increasingly clear though that we are getting more variety in weather patterns and more extreme events

Not to me it doesn’t. Anecdotally the biggest UK storms I can remember are the 1987 Michael Fish one and the 1968 Glasgow hurricane that killed 20 people. I remember that one. trees down everywhere in my local area.

The 1968 Scotland storm (or Hurricane Low Q)[1][2] was a deadly storm that moved through the Central Belt of Scotland during mid January 1968. It was described as Central Scotland’s worst natural disaster since records began and the worst gale in the United Kingdom.[2][3][6] Some said that the damage resembled what happened during the Clydebank Blitz in 1941.[4] 20 people died from the storm, with 9 dead in Glasgow.[7] 700 people were left homeless.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Scotland_storm

People have short memories for weather.

So Foul a Day and the Jet Stream

Hang on a minute- is that the American government saying that it’s time to do something?!

Well, yes

it appears it is

John Kerry and Milliband in agreement. Now there’s a good reason to head rapidly in the other direction.

John Kerry and Milliband in agreement. Now there’s a good reason to head rapidly in the other direction.

Why?

“We just don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,” he said.

“I’m talking about big companies that like it the way it is, that don’t want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.

“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists… and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact.

“The science is unequivocal and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.”

The man speaks a lot of sense… Unless you’re one of the ideologues he’s on about?

There is no sensible debate on climate change. The debate should be on what we are going to do about it, and how much it might influence feedback effects from terrestrial and marine sources and sinks.

And IRC, to help with your short memory, the industrial revolution started in 1760. 1968 and 1987 are some time after we started releasing fossil-CO2 into the atmosphere. Hope that clears things up for you.

Yep, the way I see it if the US government is starting to talk about not letting the large corporations get in the way of pushing forward with environmental issues then its probably time to start breaking out the man nappies.