There is a consensus beyond science on the impact of man on climate. Pretty much every international organistion (UN, IMF, World Bank, OECD etc etc) accept the reality. Governments pretty much understand and accept this but have to live within a 4/5 year election window so have to be cautious. So the odd Pickles nonsense keeps the sceptics onside. Also, without international cooperation significant progress will be hard. That said, China is pushing v hard on green tech unilaterally, partially because of market demand and partially because of immediate pollution issues locally.

It is true that (a) weather happens, (b) climate changes over time naturally – but neither of these are arguments against manmade impact. Equally, we will not be able to assess the degree to which manmade impact has driven climate change until years more data. However, the evidence is very strong and consequences are very serious, failing to take action is foolhardy in my opinion.

My brother is a soil scientist and does some work in the field.

Well, he would.

That WAS a problem, but WE FIXED IT which is why there wasn’t a problem in the end.

Well said. That sort of ignorant comment makes me quite cross. The reason the Millennium Bug was a non-event was because a lot of people worked bloody hard to ensure that it wasn’t. Whilst most other folk were off partying I saw in the Millennium new year in an otherwise deserted office in the arse end of Warrinton. We should be lauding the Millenium Bug as a massive achievement, it’s a great success story.

Visibility is a big issue in IT. If you’ve got a good IT department no-one notices, if you’ve got a shit one everyone notices. You know how you get to the end of the day and everything’s worked all day? You’re welcome.

In the strange and pointless mixing of science with political leaning, people on on both ‘sides’ are missing the point.

Yes, the climate will change anyway, nothing we can do about that, the Earth in the long run will be fine. It’s just that Humans are rather nicely adapted to how it is at the moment. We won’t ruin the planet, we’ll ruin the planet for us.

People seem to forget this.

The debate isn’t whether climate change is real or not*, but whether it is man made or not and the current floods prove nothing**

*The Earths climate is constantly changing (ice ages as a prime example) and this is fairly well documented and pretty much all scientists agree!

**Although if the religious nutters are right the floods may indicate a much higher homosexual population than I expected in somerset!!

What? That WAS a problem, but WE FIXED IT which is why there wasn’t a problem in the end. Had we done nothing there would certainly have been a problem.

Well said. That sort of ignorant comment makes me quite cross. The reason the Millennium Bug was a non-event was because a lot of people worked bloody hard to ensure that it wasn’t. Whilst most other folk were off partying I saw in the Millennium new year in an otherwise deserted office in the arse end of Warrinton. We should be lauding the Millenium Bug as a massive achievement, it’s a great success story.

Nope. Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Eg Russia spent a fraction of the money the US did and didn’t suffer any consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/jan/09/y2k.observerbusiness

Cougar +1. If you are brilliant and solve a difficult problem easily, everyone assumes it was easy. If you make a meal of it and have to put in loads of hours and get loads of other people involved, you get congratulated on your hard work.

Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Am I the only one who can see some massive flaws in that argument?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/adelaide-sets-summer-record-for-extreme-heat/5252482

Mike, tell me about it….. 😕

As for the debate as to whether it’s real or not…. Well, there is no sensible debate. Climate change, and the influence of humans upon it is about as well as established as the fact that the planet is round and that gravity stops you from floating off it. If you think otherwise, then please float the **** off what I presume you think is a flat earth, made in seven days, by a magical bloke with a beard.

And frankly, wgaf if it’s humans or not, the fact is that it is changing, and adapting to do something about it rather than arguing about it like we’ve several other earths to go to would be a bloody good idea.

Am I the only one who can see some massive flaws in that argument?

Go on then…

The mini ice age that led to the Thames freezing can be traced to a single short term event. As can many other historical fluctuations. The new factor is that instead of a volcano or meteor strike pumping tons of junk into the atmosphere which then falls to earth over a few tens of years we are now continuously pumping into the at an increasing rate so causing climate change that is more gradual but has no end unless and untilled we stop. The dificulty is that There is believed to be a tipping point at which the climate c hange will become self fueling .

The countries that didn’t spend much – why didn’t they spend much?

A site we developed a few years ago caused loads of problems “downstream”. It was a big commercial park and was sold with “free flow” into a brook across the road. Cue several 100k sq ft of development and the ea stuck their boot in albeit too late. All development on site now has to have water attenuation.

molgrips – if you want to make a point, how about you make a point – perhaps after reading the article I posted a link to.

You say there are massive flaws – point them out, rather than asking endless trolly ‘devil’s advocate’ questions.

I imagine you’re suggesting those countries didn’t have many computers – Russia and Italy had plenty of computers.

Was all that money spent on Y2K wasted?

The climate is changing and man must be adding to it.

However, I fell like we are being conned by buying into some of the crap that gets sold to us as green.

Hybrid cars – How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be “green”?

Offshore wind – Utter nonsense.

Car scrapping scheme – Scrap working machines to buy brand new ones that are slightly more efficient.

There are plenty more examples.

There’s a lot of ‘greenwashing’ certainly winston_dog – I’m interested to know why offshore wind farms are utter nonsense? Can’t say I’ve seen much evidence in support or against.

i thought the car scrappage was more about improving air quality
https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clearing-londons-air/air-pollution-and-public-health

(and boosting the uk car market)

pictonroad – Member
Yes, the climate will change anyway, nothing we can do about that, the Earth in the long run will be fine. It’s just that Humans are rather nicely adapted to how it is at the moment. We won’t ruin the planet, we’ll ruin the planet for us.

People seem to forget this.

Wise words. Unfortunately, they do not suit our (the human race’s) over-riding sense of self-importance and arrogance. If human beings fail to feel responsible and/or in control they begin to feel insignificant and impotent in the world in which they live. Recent events merely highlight all too clearly how real both factors are – not surprisingly it is the politicians who struggle with this reality more than most.

We are marginal players and passive responders to the current flooding. Nothing new there.

Offshore wind takes huge quantities of steel, concrete, carbon fibre, oil, ships and manpower to build. It is doubtful that the vast majority will be carbon neutral at the end of their working lives.

At the heart of the problem, apart from their construction, is you are putting a complex electro mechanical system a few metres above the North Sea and expecting to be reliable. EG There are numerous gearbox failures which are incredibly expensive and resource hungry to fix. Even a simple problem that would require one man in a van to fix onshore, requires several people and a boat to fix.

Human activity has raised atmospheric CO2 from around 280ppm to around 400ppm. The effect of this hasn’t settled down yet.

(this Earth’s climate has a HUGE amount of lag)

the change in global climate over the last few decades can be measured, but it’s not always obvious – and often easy to ignore. life as i/we know it can continue largely unaffected with the current ‘amount’ of climate change.

and the opening up of shipping lanes through the arctic will prove very handy if you’re interested in that kind of thing.

the threat of man-made climate change deserves to be taken seriously because we just don’t know what will happen after we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 to 500ppm, and then 600, and then 700, and eventually over 1000 – which is going to happen.

we can have a go at predicting what will happen, and it looks catastrophic.

The weather certainly keeps you on your toes. But half an hour ago it was peeing it down and I was worried about flooding behind our house, yet now the car is completely covered in snow. At lunchtime I’ll be out sun-bathing 😆

Hybrid cars – How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be “green”?

The batteries don’t actually weigh that much. And the cars overall generally weigh less. But yes of course there is a lot of greenwashing which certainly causes more harm than good because people start to get cynical. If people paid attention to science then that wouldn’t be an issue of course 🙁

Grum – maybe a lot of money was spent in places where it wasn’t needed – but that doesn’t mean none needed to be spent. Maybe the countries who spent less were just more efficient?

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

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

Ooh! can I play too?

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

ahwiles – Member

(this Earth’s climate has a HUGE amount of lag)

and of course, there’s a difference between lag, and settling time.

and now i’m arguing with myself, so i’m out.

Hybrid cars – How can lugging around a load of batteries that are heavy and expensive be “green”?

load of old bollocks, not driving a car quite so much would be better. Cars are the source of a lot of problems energy use being just one of them, making them a buttload more efficient would be nice but halving private motorised transport use would be nicer-er.

Car scrapping scheme – Scrap working machines to buy brand new ones that are slightly more efficient.

governmental bollocks where they are seen to be doing something for the environment but are actually only boosting car sales, so helping the economy (possibly a few backhanders from the car industry) and alleviating a few people’s consciences, be that drivers, car makers or politicians.

We won’t ruin the planet, we’ll ruin the planet for us.

Ecosystems cope well with change but not the rate of change that is occurring because of human activity, so it think that statement is a little too human-centric. Read the State of Nature report from last year to see how UK nature is already being affected.

load of old bollocks, not driving a car quite so much would be better

Of course, but the two aren’t exclusive. You can drive a hybrid car less too. But you are right, most private car journeys are needless, really.

I thought it was already well established that there is no credible argument to this whole global warming thing. I think we all know who to blame for the floods…..

Even the yanks seem to have worked it out…

Nope. Countries that spent almost nothing on the Y2K bug suffered no more problems than the countries that spent a fortune.

Eg Russia spent a fraction of the money the US did and didn’t suffer any consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/jan/09/y2k.observerbusiness
This is complete speculation, but…

The article states that Russia started to deal with it much later and spent much of their money on consultation fees.
Presumably that meant little R&D expenditure was needed as they we’re able to take advantage of the work done and knowledge gained elsewhere.

It also says they just trained operators to ignore the glitches rather than fixing them, which is a very cheap solution!

I don’t deny that the reaction over here was possibly out of proportion but that doesn’t mean it was a total waste of time, money and effort.

Of course, but the two aren’t exclusive

very true, but everyone seems to be concentrating on making cars slightly* more efficient (and flogging more cars) only the mental tree huggers are suggesting driving less. The fact that improving efficiency a little only addresses one of the problems of car use (what comes out of the exhaust) whereas driving less addresses all of them, seems to be lost on a lot of (important) people.

*early technology presumably will get a lot better, my cynical side does wonder whether they will get incrementally better so they can sell you 10% better then 3 years later 15% then 3 years later 20% etc etc ie intentionally slowing the improvements to fit in with new models for more sales.

A good article on why people like myself are fed up to the back teeth of these non-debates with deniers

http://theconversation.com/dont-let-denial-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-science-story-22496?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+4+February+2014&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+4+February+2014+CID_eae12123dd4c0baf12e08a50

We need to reduce our overall consumption on everything not just cars.

Everything we have now is bigger and more powerful. Look around a modern house and there is just loads of stuff that wasn’t there 30 years ago. Look at how big things like fridges are, wifi routers on all the time, numerous “boxes” in your living room when you used to have 2 max.

“Back in the day” a car with 130hp was considered powerful, a XR3i only had 105hp and that was considered fast, it did only weigh about a tonne though. A current Foucs ST has 220hp and weighs nearly 1.5t. It probably has similar fuel consumption as well.

Everything we have now is bigger and more powerful. Look around a modern house and there is just loads of stuff that wasn’t there 30 years ago. Look at how big things like fridges are, wifi routers on all the time, numerous “boxes” in your living room when you used to have 2 max.

All this is true, but a lot of it is far far more energy efficient. Fridges and TVs in particular…

“Back in the day” a car with 130hp was considered powerful, a XR3i only had 105hp and that was considered fast, it did only weigh about a tonne though. A current Foucs ST has 220hp and weighs nearly 1.5t. It probably has similar fuel consumption as well.

But, the vast majority of modern cars have fuel economies that were unthinkable 10-15 years ago

But, the vast majority of modern cars have fuel economies that were unthinkable 10-15 years ago

True. But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

Cars are just getting bigger all the time, take a current BMW 5 series, it is the size of a 7 series of only a few years ago. Also, have you noticed how tight old 60’s and 70’s multi storey car parks are for modern cars?

But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

Whilst not true in all cases, increased safety. The Golf GTI is a perfect example of this.

However, I fell like we are being conned by buying into some of the crap that gets sold to us as green.

A lot of what is happening has nothing to do with alleviating climate change and everything to do with business as usual, consumerism.

Tell people the solution is not to drive and **** that it is Chinas fault!!!!! Tell people the solution is a shiny new car and yippee!!!
Boeing tells us their new planes are more fuel efficient, but they still use shed loads, so what is the more environmentally friendly? Drive a car at 55 or 80, which uses more fuel for a journey? so which makes more sense, so do we hear about reducing the speed limit for those reasons, or just to increase capacity so we can drive more!

Hear politicians say we have reduced co2 cleaned up industry, watch them explain we haven’t really reduced it just off shored it to China.

Mind you one decent volcano going pop and everything will change.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM[/video]

windfarms definitely have some benefits

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-26135345

True. But why not combine it with lighter and smaller vehicles and get more benefit?

They do. You can buy a small car that does 70 or even 80 mpg nowadays, AND has 4 or 5 star safety.

The fundamental problem we have is that pollution is linked to consumption, and our entire economic model is based on consumption. So we either need to figure out how to grow the economy based on things that don’t need to be physically made, or we need to find out how to make them without raping the planet.

It’s not easy. And we’re all complicit in this.

Maybe if it turns out the world isn’t warming up as quickly as the models previously claimed it was – then we should refocus the erection of wind turbines and solar panels etc. on places like India and Africa, where they would begin to transform peoples lives immediately?

We could then concentrate on phasing out and replacing our currently perfectly serviceable fossil fuel facilities more gradually, without the sense of moral panic caused by ‘climate alarmism’?