Forum menu
calories are plentiful, we are living for longer than ever before
We're living for longer because of better medical treatment, not because we eat more food. I don't see any carbon reduction plan which advocates denying people the basic things they need to have an enjoyable life, and if you consider getting on a plane essential for travel, or a PS3 to be the pinnacle of entertainment, sorry to sound like my parents here, but you need to broaden your horizons. Lots of the measures that reduce CO2 emissions could also increase standards of living - for example, decent public transport systems, cleaner air, local food production, and more.
Kramer,
I'm sorry to have to tell you that calories are only plentiful because of oil, and we're using that up fast.
Without oil based fertilisers and pesticides the planet could (I believe although I can't quote the source from mmemory) only support around 2 billion population - i.e pre-WWII levels. But we currently have a population of 6.7 billion and rising.
That's another ticking time bomb that politicians aren't addressing.
And just how do you quantify "being entertained better" ????
We're living for longer because of better medical treatment, not because we eat more food. I don't see any carbon reduction plan which advocates denying people the basic things they need to have an enjoyable life, and if you consider getting on a plane essential for travel, or a PS3 to be the pinnacle of entertainment, sorry to sound like my parents here, but you need to broaden your horizons. Lots of the measures that reduce CO2 emissions could also increase standards of living - for example, decent public transport systems, cleaner air, local food production, and more.
I wasn't claiming we lived longer because we had more food, it is partly because of better medical treatment, but mostly due to public health initiatives - clean water, vaccination programmes and the like.
I don't consider a PS3 to be the pinnacle of entertainment, but it does give many people entertainment options that they didn't have before. It may not be your cup of tea, but the level of entertainment for the price is something that would have been jaw dropping only ten years ago. Similarly, I'm a fan of going on holiday in the UK, but cheap air travel gives me many options that I haven't had in the past. It's fun to spend a weekend in Oslo/Amsterdam/Paris, and until fairly recently it was something that only the very rich could afford to do. People don't have to do any of these things, but to have the choice to is a wonderful thing. Similarly the 'simpler life' becomes much less attractive when one has no choice about living it.
but to have the choice to is a wonderful thing. Similarly the 'simpler life' becomes much less attractive when one has no choice about living it
Unfortunatley a lot of our "choice" denies other people in the world even the option of a "simpler life"
How so?
All these advances take energy to supply them, and I would not deny that to my fellow human beings anywhere in the world
no but the finite supply of ever depleting resources will deny us all this. Surely we should act now rather than wait?
As oil becomes more scarce, it'll become more expensive, that's when we'll start to come up with some decent alternatives.
What else is running out?
How so?
WAKE UP!
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8350629.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8350629.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1581457.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1581457.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554221.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4554221.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1860217.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1860217.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4265295.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4265295.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6333279.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6333279.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7243612.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7243612.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5103290.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5103290.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7040239.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7040239.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/904461.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/904461.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7239328.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7239328.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4604627.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4604627.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4760707.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4760707.stm[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7563456.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7563456.stm[/url]
Ok, maybe I haven't been taking the outrage seriously enough, but it is somewhat ludicrous when you see people living luxury western lifestyles taking the high moral ground on the emissions caused by consumption.
How many of you folk having a go at me live a non emission lifestyle? Got a car? consume electricity? Tsk, tsk.
How about 15,000 climate scientists in one convention. Presumably if they really believe there is a problem they would have cycled there, because it would be hypocritical to fly there, wouldn't it?
rightplacerighttime - Member
...But now you are saying that climate scientists can't be right when they make predictions, because some other smart people created a model for predicting and pricing equities in a stock market and that was shown not to work very well?I have got that right haven't I?
That is what you just said?
What Mr Boyce said was large amounts of experts with high levels of academic qualifications, who are in consensus, who have access to massive amounts of computing power, and have unlimited budgets, can and do get it wrong. There's nothing new in that. (They can also be right, btw)
If you truly believe we are responsible for climate change, stop consuming. Right now.
Here's a few suggestions:
[s]Sell your car[/s] No, scrap it, we don't want anyone using it again, do we?
Disconnect from the grid.
Walk/cycle to work.
No holidays overseas.
No man made fibres.
Stop buying stuff that needs to be transported.
And get rid of that mobile phone.
Once you have done that I'll take you seriously.
Your point being? I see lots of news stories that I've seen before, and someone who, unable to make a cogent argument, is screaming rabidly at me (metaphorically speaking).
Sort of sums up the whole sorry state of the environmental movement really, borderline hysterical.
My point being that when I said
Unfortunatley a lot of our "choice" denies other people in the world even the option of a "simpler life"
I was talking about the people who are the subjects of these stories.
You did say
how so?
So I'm showing you how our "choices" limit other peoples "choices".
How stupid are you?
How do our choices cause these people's problems? Institutionalised corruption, inadequate regulation, and failure to account for externalities seems to be the major cause to me.
In answer to your last question, just because I disagree with you, it doesn't automatically make me stupid. Resorting to personal attacks does you, or your argument no favours.
epicyclo,
You're really making rather a lot of assumptions about me.
If you want me to I'll e-mail you with a list of the actions that I've taken to reduce my personal CO2 output, but I don't really want to get into a "my dad's bigger than your dad argument"
Did you hear me asking anyone to give up their car, or disconnect from the grid?
Heard of a straw-man argument?
Some choices are difficult.
Like your ridiculous assertion that unless climate change can be explained in a sentence then it isn't a valid problem, your new idea, that no one can have a valid view on climate change unless their CO2 output is zero, is equally silly - would you like everyone concerned about CO2 to hold their breath too?
Sorry, but if you can't see a link between our (western) consumption, and these peoples' problems, then you are (in the dictionary definition of the word) stupid.
So what have you given up to reduce your carbon footprint?
Just out of interest, what's your income as well?
rightplacerighttime - is it any coincidence that most of those problems seem to afflict areas which have undemocratic governments?
I guess I am stupid, you'll have to spell out the link for me between western consumption and those problems...
...although I all I see is you making personal attacks because the nasty man doesn't agree with you.
You are quite nasty aren't you?
Not really, just have a low tolerance of waffle.
Seems more like a compulsion to me.
As I said earlier, name calling does neither you, nor your position any favours.
rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo,
You're really making rather a lot of assumptions about me.Did you hear me asking anyone to give up their car, or disconnect from the grid?
You have totally convinced me that you believe that climate change is caused by human actions.
The only assumption I have made is that someone as dedicated as yourself would hold themselves to very high personal ethical standards, and as a result would not be party to causing any damaging emissions. Simple really.
And why aren't you asking anyone to give up their car, or disconnect from the grid? MTFU and demand all those around you follow your example and cease to emit.
The suggestions I made above would be a good start for them.
BTW talking about assumptions, I am not a goldfish. 🙂
Kramer said:
As oil becomes more scarce, it'll become more expensive, that's when we'll start to come up with some decent alternatives.What else is running out?
Fish.
And the alternative is?
epicyclo,
MTFUYYSA
Other fish?
Fish.
And the alternative is?
Whales, there's loads of the f*ckers and they're dead smug, all they do is swim around and fart out of the top of their heads and everybody loves 'em. They've got it comming I tell ya!
Farmed fish?
tazzymtb - Member
Whales, there's loads of the f*ckers and they're dead smug, all they do is swim around and fart out of the top of their heads and everybody loves 'em. They've got it comming I tell ya!
They taste good too. The Japanese have an ongoing research programme. Many of their leading scientists are in consensus about this.
epicyclo- has their menu had a peer review?
They are the experts, we have just got to take their word on it. Our palates are not refined enough to appreciate the full flavour.
Tazzy,
Surely that would be a pier review?
Kramer,
You ask a reasonable question "what else is running out?"
I give a reasonable answer "fish"
You have another go at showing me, and everyone else, that you really are stupid.
epicyclo,
A while back you said
I was hoping for a simple and reasonable answer to my questions that a simple but reasonable person would accept.
I manage to answer a question in one word, and apparently that's still not quite simple enough for you?
rightplacerighttime,
I was impressed by how little energy you used to condense the answer into an abbreviation. Alas, I failed to understand the latter part being alternately lazy, simple, or a goldfish...
I must commiserate that you have to deal with so many stupid people on this forum, it's amazing they can even write, let alone earn a living. Still it is a comfort to me to know that I have a peer group.
I envisage you pedalling your cycle powered generator to power a flickering screen, shivering because the power generated should be going to heating your leaky ethical home made of natural materials all found within walking distance, instead of having to waste it thumping your [s]religion[/s]* beliefs into the heads of so many idiots and goldfish. Indeed a prophet is without honour in his own country.
It would be cruel of me to deprive you of your hot air in such weather, so just to provide you with some comfort in these disastrous times, I'm off to make a carbon free journey on my bike. I will dress lightly because maybe if I have faith, global warming will happen for me too.
* You said it was too complex to understand for us foolish and ignorant types, therefore if we are to accept it, it can only be on a basis rooted in faith. I think that's how religions work. Ignore the anomalies, and trust in god/Allah/Thor, and yes the priesthood is above reproach.
I meant the "fish" answer.
MTFUYYSA isn't a word.
And my answer - 'farmed fish' would suggest my alternative to the fish that are running out. We're only just starting to explore the potential of the sea for intensive farming to feed the world.
What do you think they feed farmed fish?
Which species of fish do you think can be farmed?
Which species of fish are currently farmed with no knock-on ecological problems?
+1 for prety much everything rightplace is saying though I cant be @rsed with them anymore
Epi you said
Assertions, consensus, complicated graphs etc don't do that job, they just confuse
and then
You said it was too complex to understand for us foolish and ignorant types
😯
As said then if you dont understand best listen to someone who does. There is near universal acceptance* of global warming these days and doubters are generally at the margins of science.
and why the religous references ?
*debate in science is a good thing as long as it is informed and has evidence and data and graphs and other confusing things to back it up.Invective is worthless.
As said then if you dont understand best listen to someone who does. There is near universal acceptance* of global warming these days and doubters are generally at the margins of science.and why the religous references ?
*debate in science is a good thing as long as it is informed and has evidence and data and graphs and other confusing things to back it up.Invective is worthless.
As mentioned before, there is a huge incentive in scientists who look at global warming to actually find it, and very little incentive in disproving it. A significant number of people find this disturbing, because it is not a situation that is conducive to conducting good science. As you admit yourself, the people who debate it are on the margins, probably because if you do debate it, that is where you find your career, no matter how good your science.
FWIW, this phenomenon is not limited to climate change, it is also occurring in particle physics, and has been happening in medicine for years.
The reference to religion is that there becomes a time when a theory ceases to be a theory, and starts to become dogma - sacred and unchallengeable, beyond debate. Some might say that this is what has happened with global warming.
There are parallels with the Millenium Bug here...
Kramer - Member
....There are parallels with the Millenium Bug here...
I was excoriated for being an unbeliever in that too 🙂
there is a huge incentive in scientists who look at global warming to actually find it, and very little incentive in disproving it.
People on your side of the argument keep saying this, but I really don't get it.
What are the incentives to scientists for proving global warming?
BTW, you can forget my fish questions if you like. Lets concentrate on this.
Global warming has become a huge industry in itself - lots of funding, a great area to make a name for yourself. If you help disprove it, that funding disappears because nowhere near as many global warming scientists are needed for a problem that isn't there. It's fairly simple economics, part of the madness of crowds.
1. Who are the mysterious people/organisatiom that have persuaded the world scientists in a number of divergent fields to manipulate their divergent data to suggests the world is heating up ?
2. how have themanaged to contirl all this data nd make it look like it is heating up when it is not?
3. What exactly is their purpose for doing this?
PS
If you help disprove it, that funding disappears
Not for you it does not. You are world famous, a Noble winner able to work where you want and command money for reseach just by your name, you would be intelectually and academically without equal ...yeah why would any scientist want that eh? 🙄
Similarly the 'simpler life' becomes much less attractive when one has no choice about living it.
Well we'd better get used to it... it's coming, possibly sooner than you think. Unless you know a way to make more oil?
As for global warming and energy efficiency being some sort of meal ticket for the people who promote it, maybe in some cases (although I doubt Al Gore would be homeless if he hadn't gone on to become and environmental crusader). But as a whole the amount of money pumped into alternative technologies and "green" research is tiny, and has been for many years.
In who's interests (other than a few wind turbine manufacturers) would it be to invent global warming?
And on the flip side, in who's interests (other than the oil companies) would it be to show that there was no global warming?