[Closed] 'No such thing as climate change'

It seems to go against the current secular, nihilistic way most of us see our place in the universe.

That is both insulting and pessimistic!

Secularism is not a perjorative; relying on unchanging, old, religious views of the world will not help move us on to any future, never mind any bright, hopeful, optimistic one.

If you want to be nihilistic, be my guest, but I'll be dancing on the event horizon.

If you want to be nihilistic, be my guest, but I'll be dancing on the event horizon.

Interesting perspective there and great image in my head now! 😀

😀

It would be good to be still debating religion and belief in another 2000 years.

Good post, I don't give a f about the planet when I'm dead. Future generations will adapt to their environment, as they have always done. Sorry, Guardian readers if you have difficulty understanding this concept!

By the same notion, why give a f about millions dying of poverty and disease right now? Not me I'm fine. If anything I'm better off because they are dying. Genocide in a foreign country? Dictator murdering civilians? Who cares, I don't know anyone there. etc etc

If you are happy with that attitude to life then fair play to you.

I'm just disappointed that all the hot air on this thread hasn't been added to my 'Global Warming update' thread. I clearly missed a trick not resurrecting it for the current climes! 🙁

I think the big question is to ask who believes in Climate Stability? 🙂

Dellingpole is hilarious.

i particularly love the way he can swing effortlessly from

a) the climate hasn't changed since 1997*
and
b) the climate changes all the time - we've got nothing to do with it.
and
c) no-one's arguing that humans aren't affecting the climate, but it's only a tiny amount.
and
d) d'y'know why David Cameron isn't popular with the electorate? - he's just too damn liberal.

(*which is a) bollocks and b) shite science even if it were true**, why is it always 1997? never 1995, or 1999?)

(**which it isn't, not even nearly)

GrahamS - Member
By the same notion, why give a f*** about millions dying of poverty and disease right now? Not me I'm fine. If anything I'm better off because they are dying. Genocide in a foreign country? Dictator murdering civilians? Who cares, I don't know anyone there. etc etc

If you are happy with that attitude to life then fair play to you.

Unless we are devoting our lives and efforts 100% to addressing all of these issues eg. working directly to alleviate poverty/disease, protecting the vulnerable from their oppressors etc, than are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents? Step forward those who want to cast the first stone......

Unless we are devoting our lives and efforts 100% to addressing all of these issues eg. working directly to alleviate poverty/disease, protecting the vulnerable from their oppressors etc, than are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents? Step forward those who want to cast the first stone......

Fallacy, you cannot devote 100 percent of your life to addressing all of these issues. You can probably spend 15 percent of your life addressing one issue, that does not mean that you cannot care about the other problems.

You're guilty of intellectual laziness.

On a side note, oldboys train of thought is a symptom of psychopathy.

Of course not, but equally we should be less willing to condemn others. Most of us feel concern about matters but are equally happy to relegate them well below our more immediate concerns. Hell, we even waste time on forums instead of doing something tangible about them.

We go for rides on bikes instead of helping others, we could all so more, but we chose other priorities. Attitudes towards AGW are a prime example of this conflict every day. I am as guilty as the next guy....

I am as guilty as the next guy....

Guilty of what...?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/192930-was-wetter-in-southern-england/

😈

On a side note, oldboys train of thought is a symptom of psychopathy

I just don't like seeing wonderful things destroyed.

The military industrial banking complex have free energy technology hidden away so even if AGW were real it's their fault anyway for being such total psychopaths

are we not all guilty of "that attitude to life", albeit to different extents?

Absolutely!

But the "different extents" is the key bit. No one can devote themselves 100% to addressing all these causes all the time. They'd be dead from stress within a week! But I think caring [i]a bit[/i], weak as that may be, is far preferable to wasting our hands and deciding not to care at all because it's just not our problem.

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

Tom_W1987

That link doesn't reference any peer reviewed journal articles, it wasn't science that was wrong. It was the media.

Well the media were quoting scientists. Like Prof Hubert Lamb of the University of East Anglia. Who is Sept 1972 said "the last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ASRHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u_MMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1081,1308250

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

". At first his view was that global cooling would lead within 10,000 years to a future ice age and he was known as “the ice man”, but over a period including the UK's exceptional drought and heat wave of 1975–76 he changed to predicting that global warming could have serious effects within a century"

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

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

I never thought I'd say this, but Bwaaarrrraaarrraaarrraaapppp, I like your work 😈

Doesn't it just.

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

The military industrial banking complex have free energy technology hidden away

Y'know I really don't think they do. But please do offer us some conclusive YouTube based evidence 😀

I agree Graham, but at the end of the day, our actions speak louder than words

Yep. So if those actions are to support green measures, do a bit of recycling, think a bit about how to minimise our carbon, energy use and waste, avoid certain products and only [i]ever[/i] buy the free range organic hummus ?

Those things aren't enough on their own. But that doesn't make them invalid.

And, for me, weak as they are, they are a far better choice than the "f*** it! it's not my problem is it?" approach suggested above.

Perfectly summed up Graham.

We get energy and water bills that compare us to the average 1-4 person households. When things were going right our energy bill was lower than the 1 person average.

Simple thins make a small difference, if everyone does them it makes a big difference.
Solar hot water, panels, small scale turbines etc. will all help to reduce demand on carbon based energy.
When it's time to change your car not going for the one that does 25mpg because anything else just doesn't drive "proper"

The bottom line is money is going to be the biggest influence on change. Look at the supermarkets that now have their fridge sections behind doors, yep they can claim green credentials but they did it to save money. Next time people want to complain about energy prices try reducing use.

Next time people want to complain about energy prices try reducing use.

I suggested this on one of the endless borefests that is arguing about the carbon tax on the ABC's facebook pages.

I was met with genuine bafflement about how that could be done, despite most having huge houses with no insulation, and air-con set to 20....

We get energy and water bills that compare us to the average 1-4 person households. When things were going right our energy bill was lower than the 1 person average

You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.

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?

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.

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 [i]necessarily[/i] 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 [i]less[/i] 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?

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

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

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 [i]more[/i] 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.