And there gentlemen is why I advocate that right-wing crackpots should be eliminated to save the rest of us.

I’m enjoying this thread.

Loving the Michele Bachmann non-science there.

“Hey it’s natural and it’s only 3% so it can’t possibly do any harm”

Really, okay, can you drink this glass of water please?
3% of it is naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide…

That’s the trouble with the non-man-made argument – the genuine intelligent criticisms and arguments get drowned out by the nutters.
And it is too easy to lump them all together – which would be a mistake.

I love these threads 🙂

My mates sons said this to me- I pointed out he was not borne until 1995 but he still remembers it – how old are you BTW to remember this?

I was old enough to vote in 1979 is that old enough to remember the 70s? Here’s some of the stuff that was in the news in the 70s

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

1974 – 2 Scientists Think ‘Little’ Ice Age Near

LMFAO. 2 scientists! Great!

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

Let’s see what Time thinks.

. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

Read more: TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/#ixzz2t2NFoL2U

Here’s a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations?

I’m not saying we don’t care about our nearest and dearest, but what about the distant future generations that you have no emotional attachment to?

Not trolling, just wondering why there is such worry placed on the future by a species that, for the most part, lives for themselves in the present or the immediate future.

Usual STW lefty liberal/green vs common sense thread.
Keeps it going guys. 🙂

Putting nasty gases into the air can’t be good.
Cutting down all the forests can’t be good.
Wasting resources can’t be good.

Surely everyone agrees on that so the man-made vs natural argument is almost moot. 😕

Usual STW lefty liberal/green vs common sense thread.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0[/video]

Common sense is the ability of commoners to “sense” what is true and what is untrue, without having to think about it.

Here’s a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations

Nicer? Like warmer?

Here’s a question: why does it matter to us that we make the world nicer for future generations?

I’m not saying we don’t care about our nearest and dearest, but what about the distant future generations that you have no emotional attachment to?

How many generations down your own “nearest and dearest” line do you get before you don’t care any more?

I’d like my kids to have a decent future.

I’d like my grandkids to have a decent future.

I probably won’t meet my great-grandkids, but my kids probably will so, yeah, I’d like them to have a decent future too.

Those three generations could cover the next ~90-120 years (assuming nice middle-class kids that follow my example and don’t breed till they are in their mid-30s).

Yes, but after that and after that?
Does anyone honestly care about life on earth after they and the people they know and care about are dead?

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

I would think 120 years would do it at the current rates 😀

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

I may decide that I’m never going back to a particular hotel – but it doesn’t mean I’ll shit in the pool before I leave. 😀

. Yes, but after that and after that?
Does anyone honestly care about life on earth after they and the people they know and care about are dead?

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

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! 🙂

Yes, Dellingpole. He did a great job pulling all the usual sceptic agw claims into a book which then goes on to say that the science behind passive smoking is weak, and that DDT should never have been banned and Carson is responsible for thousands of Malaria related deaths.

Pretty much every argument he makes is what you see on threads like this and each one is demolished in the second book recommended.

Do you see what I did there, I gave people a couple of easy to read books that can help people understand the nature of these debates and the all usual crap that gets spouted.

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…?

1929/30 Was Wetter In Southern England

😈

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

Not being a hypocrit isn’t the same as being a psychopath.

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 a bit, 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

Sure do. Spending thousands on toys and driving all around the country to play with them sums our priorities nicely.

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 ever 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

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.