- Seriously WHY BOTHER ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change has happened through the entire history of the planet, and nothing humans do is going to change that. Grape growing for wine in northern England in Roman times, the Thames freezing solid in winter in the 16-17th centuries. Still, it's a good excuse to find new ways to tax people.Posted 8 years agomijeSubscriber
two wrongs don't make a right?
climate change deniers… amazing how you can sound so confident on the back of so little knowledge
yes, the earth is flat, smoking does not cause lung cancer, the holocaust is a myth, and governments across the world lacked the ability to tax their populations and so had to dream up climate changePosted 8 years agoanagallis_arvensisMember
Climate change has happened through the entire history of the planet, and nothing humans do is going to change that. Grape growing for wine in northern England in Roman times, the Thames freezing solid in winter in the 16-17th centuries. Still, it's a good excuse to find new ways to tax people.
doesnt make it a good thing and doesnt mean we should rush to encourage it to happen more quickly you feeble minded twerp.Posted 8 years agoJunkyardMember
yes just google carbon cycle and realise tha the large store in fossil fuel is being used up in about 150 years and explain why this has no effect in the short [geologically speaking] time frame of our lifetime. Scientists everywhere need to know what your explanation is as they[despite all their research and knowledge] are all wrong. It is either that or you are talking b0llocks.Posted 8 years ago5thElefantMember
Climate change deniers? How about the climate-change-couldn't-care-lessers?
Why is change bad? Bad for some, sure. Good for others (northern English grape growers for a start). As a country it's in our strategic interest. Maybe our honourable leaders have figured this out.Posted 8 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
5th Elefant wrote, "Why is change bad? Bad for some, sure. Good for others (northern English grape growers for a start). As a country it's in our strategic interest. Maybe our honourable leaders have figured this out."
Our strategic interest? If some of the predictions come true- water shortages, loss of arable land, rising sea levels encroaching into habitable land- then that's going to be massively destabilising worldwide. It's not in our strategic interest to have half the world starving or short of water and looking with keen interest at places which are less badly affected. And bear in mind that we import 40% of our food.
Also, "northern english grape growers"- another likely impact of fast global warming is weather system changes, global warming doesn't automatically mean mild winters and hot summers. It could equally mean the stall or redirection of ocean currents due to desalination, which would basically turn our weather on its head.
Whether you believe in global warming or not's a different question, but if you do then "I'm alright Jack" isn't going to work, no island is an island. Um. You know what I mean 🙂Posted 8 years ago5thElefantMember
Northwind, I'm obviously taking the piss, but the main point stands. Climate change is only bad for some, good for others and indifferent for the rest. By the time it's bad enough to force governments to take action (with 5 year terms, that'll have to be really bad) it'll be too late anyway, so forget about stopping it.
Better to plan on dealing with change than trying to avoid (there's money to be made I'm sure). We can obliterate co2 production (and more importantly protect resources) in 100 years by limiting one child per couple. Job done. No pain, no technology.
We'll be too late to stop climate change (even if it can be stopped) but as a rather nice bonus we can then happily cope with global migration to the warm and rather lovely Alaska and Siberia.
I'm alright Jack will work perfectly on this island.Posted 8 years agostumpyjonSubscriber
I think the key point is that as a global population we don't stand a chance in hell of reversing what we've probably significantly worsened. Northwind has it about right, what we should be worried about and just maybe we could do something about is UK self interrest. We should be concentrating of self-sufficient energy technologies, foremost so we don't get dragged into the energy wars and secondly so that we can eventually also help other countries more significantly impacted by global warming. Cheap plentiful energy will help to some extent by helping with water purification and transportation which will in turn help boost agricultural output in desert areas.
The biggest fallout from global warming will be the selfish and destructive way governments around the world react to it.Posted 8 years agoCapt. KronosSubscriber
I am getting bored of this type of arguement now…
For the deniers – yes it is happening, and if you actually look at the raw research data then you would be very, very worried. Most the IPCC predictions were seriously watered down as a result of political pressure.
For the I don't care, climate change is good for some – no it isn't. No one wins. You are going to see MASSIVE migration, unrest and outright warfare as more land becomes unproductive and water supplies simply dry up. On top of this the Northern English Grape Growers may find that the additional energy in the atmosphere which causes massive increase in windspeed and rain fall are really going to screw up their crops. It should make life so much more pleasant for the rest of us to, no?
Oh – and we have bollocks all time to do anything about it, so everyone running around thinking it is a non-issue or blocking progress is a complete f'cktard.Posted 8 years agoddmonkeySubscriber
Climate change is just a symptom of a larger issue. Overpopulation and overconsumption are pushing every ecosystem we depend on to the point of collapse, and our entire way of life (the way we grow food, the way we stay warm, everything) is dependant on a supply of oil that will start to run out well within our lifetime. How much are out of season veg going to cost when oil is $200 a barrel? How do we grow enough food to support the population of the UK when it costs so much to fill a tractor with fuel that farmers can't afford to buy fertiliser that is also made with oil? There is never going to be the political will to make the changes needed, is too late already I should think, so despite it all I do wonder what the point is of doing anything except try to be happy and have a bit of fun before you die. I think burying my head in the sand is the only realistic option.Posted 8 years agouponthedownsMember
Climate change may or may not happen. However what we definitely know will happen is that oil and gas will become rarer and more expensive and the main reserves are under geopolitically unstable parts of the world. Therefore it makes sense to start moving our economy towards a re-newable and nuclear power mix which will also have the by-product of reducing our carbon dioxide emmissions.Posted 8 years agoaracerSubscriber
yes, the earth is flat, smoking does not cause lung cancer, the holocaust is a myth
you feeble minded twerp.
Nice to see that as always, the first response of the climate change fundamentalists is to either throw up a load of strawmen, or simply ad hom when their orthodoxy is challenged. Scared of a reasoned debate?Posted 8 years ago
Quote from Guardian
10:10 bill defeated (this is why I'm cross!)
' A move to force the government to sign up to the 10:10 campaign and cut greenhouse gas emissions from its estate and the public sector by 10% in 2010 was defeated in the Commons.
MPs voted by a margin of 71, 297 votes to 226, to reject a call by the Liberal Democrats to commit to the cut. Yesterday, in the run-up to the afternoon vote, the Lib Dems' challenge to the government built up a head of steam with 63 MPs from all parties supporting their motion.
According to 10:10's organisers, nearly 10,000 people had written to their MPs about the debate in the preceding 48 hours, and made more than 600 phone calls. In all, 96% of MPs were contacted by members of the public before the debate. A government amendment welcoming the 10:10 campaign was carried without a vote.
The campaign, supported by the Guardian, asks businesses, organisations and individuals to pledge to cut their CO2 emissions and thereby pressure the government to commit the country to similar action. Since it was launched last month, more than 35,000 people, 1,200 businesses, and 850 schools and organisations have joined. Fifty-one councils so far have either signed up or passed a motion to do so, covering 14% of the population.
Though the cabinet, shadow cabinet and Lib Dems have all signed up to the 10:10 commitment to reduce emissions by 10% in 2010, ministers argued that signing up the government estate to the 10:10 campaign would "make no sense". Instead Joan Ruddock, the energy minister, announced £20m to help departments make carbon reductions further and faster across their estates.
Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, will also co-chair a review with the Treasury to examine the potential across the whole public sector.
After the vote, Greg Clark, Tory shadow energy minister, said: "It is disappointing the government felt it had to vote down an eminently sensible bill. The scale of the task is such that we need precisely these kinds of measures." During the debate, Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem climate change spokesman, said: "This is a bad day for parliament, Labour and the planet," adding that it was particularly damaging ahead of talks in Copenhagen's to strike a deal on climate change.
Describing savings possible in Westminster, Hughes said: "We could have TVs turned off when they're not needed; we could have lights turned off, we could have computers turned off.
"We could use stairs rather than lifts, and have real water out of the taps rather than bottled water out of bottles."
During the debate, Ruddock said: "Some of the money will go on energy efficiency, some on smart meters, some on low carbon cars, and some on mapping possibilities of renewable energy on public land – that will be led by the Forestry Commission."'Posted 8 years agoaracerSubscriber
My thoughts? The comment you seem to have responded to was "Climate change has happened through the entire history of the planet…" – now if you can explain to me why stating a known fact is the ramblings of an idiot, I might concede your ad hom was fair and reasonable.Posted 8 years agoCountZeroMember
Thanks aracer, someone with a brain who knows how to use it. It's the global warming fundamentalists, like religeous fundamentalists, who hack me off. There is clear data that I've read about recently that shows that the overall global temperatures over the last two decades have fallen, have been falling since the 1940's. We are currently in an interglacial period, no one knows what triggers glaciation, and it's entirely possible the next large glacial period has already started. There are already large snowfalls in Europe and North America. How are you going to stop a two mile high ice sheet? Wee on it?Posted 8 years agoahwilesSubscriber
Xipe – please could you provide a link to this 'evidence' – i'm sure there are thousands of scientists around the world who'd love to see it…
"there is clear data that i've read about"
er, ok, link please?
(if it's not peer-reviewed then it is worthless btw)
(fingers crossed that you don't drag up that idiot Durkin)Posted 8 years agomolgripsSubscriber
Climate change has happened throughout the history of the planet, yes, but that doesn't make it good. Mass extinctions, ice ages, dry periods etc etc. Dinosaurs died out and no-one cared. Personally, I care if human beings die.
What I don't understand is why Joe Public thinks they know enough about the subject to disagree with thousands of highly educated and intelligent scientists who've been studying this their whole lives? Do you disbelieve other things that science claims too?
Or maybe you just don't believe the ones that might inconvenience you? Think about it – is that the real reason for this cynicism? I suspect so.Posted 8 years agoBushwackedSubscriber
I don't disagree that Climate change is happening and I think that there is a certain amount of pressure to make changes. I also agree it could have catastrophic impact on society as a whole…
… but we as a race have done some many amazing things in the past, such as putting people on the moon, creating nuclear weapons, inventing the car and genetic advances that surely between us we are well prepared to adapt to the changes (not all good but still quite big advances). Only those who resist change will be ones saying we will act.
Plus, we have people living in a variety of climates round the world (and in space), surely this is proof we can survive in various extreme climates.Posted 8 years agomountaincarrotMember
I was so impressed by those bunch up on top of the Houses of Parliament the other day that I immediately set up £10 a month to Greenpeace. Direct actions really do make a difference. So go and do something. Sign up for Airplot, or do what I did. I'm not about to lock myself to a lamppost, but I am very happy to support those that do.
I wrote to my MP and told them where I sent my money. It's my first ever "political" donation. I'm sure the Conservative party would have loved to have my £10 a month, but no, it's going to the folks on the roof of the Commons.
These real actions do make a difference. Politicians do take notice. I guess cyclists have a greater than average support for this sort of thing, but clearly there are some notable exceptions on this forum.. so I'm heading for the bunker right now.Posted 8 years agoBigEaredBikerSubscriber
Can someone post a link to a study that directly proves human produced Co2 causes global warming. Can we have one where no models & projections are used?
Personally I think the money spent on countering climate change would be better served building decent hospitals, schools in the developing countries. What use is Britain spending billions to reduce our CO2 emissions compared to turning third world countries into self sustaining countries with good schools, hospitals and access to clean water?
The second will result in better living standards for more people than the first. GM trees will take care of excess CO2 if we desperately need to get rid of it – Need is the mother of all invention and all that.Posted 8 years agoAdamWMember
Can someone post a link to a study that directly proves human produced Co2 causes global warming. Can we have one where no models & projections are used?
And while you are at it, can someone post a study that directly proves that quantum mechanics is correct, or general relativity? After all, even though things appear to be accurate they are just models after all and I haven't seen any proof. Therefore until I see proof I think it is the fairies at the bottom of my garden sprinkling pixie dust over stuff.Posted 8 years agojimmer himselfMember
Given that human nature is inclined to change little or nothing of significance when times are good, the best thing the UK can do is tool up.
Whether climate change occurs as part of the natural warming cycle of the planet or because of human waste, when it really starts to make its presence felt humans will likely take to arms to scrap over resources.
Ultimately the planet needs to be in balance and with the human population only increasing, perhaps global warming is a way to balance things out on a grand scale……Posted 8 years agoBigEaredBikerSubscriber
These are all measurable things so there should be no need to rely on models. Newton did not have to come up with complex models – just made some accurate measurements and then did the maths. His laws don't quite hold up at the level you are talking about but work well enough to describe what I experience everyday.
Now is there a study that does that with regards to AGW? There might well be but I have not yet seen it and each one with models seems to come to varying conclusions as to how much the climate will change.Posted 8 years ago
Just plunged the plunger on my cafetiere. Smells good 🙂
You're right that poverty is the other serious global issue which needs addressing. It's not one or the other. Without addressing both development and climate change at the same time you'll not address either. Access to clean water and food, the geographical spread of diseases, civil projects etc will all change under a rapidly changing climate.
As for single papers – that's rarely how science works. Could you show me a single peer-reviewed paper which attributes the current warming trend to other factors with a high degree of likihood. However, I'd suggest finding a paper that demonstrates that the common greenhouse gases absorb strongly in the infrared. Then look at the increasing concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. To examine the impact you'd have to model this plus all the other factors and see how this affects global temperatures. The alternative is to conduct an experiment on an earth-like atmosphere and see what happens over say 20 to 200 years. That's what we're doing.
On a lighter note, GM trees? You're joking right. I believe we emit around 15 to 25Gt (IIRC) of CO2 a year. That's a lot of trees!Posted 8 years ago
Sorry BEE, just saw your last post. If you don't think that Newton's mathematical equations are models then you seriously misunderstand mathematics and what climate models are.
The more you increase the number of variables, the more complex equations become and the more of them you get. Past a certain point it's easier to get a computer to do them.
In fact it's probably a good example as Newton's equations have turned out to be approximations (pretty good ones) but not quite spot on. To calculate the orbits of satellites, planet etc. more exactly we use … guess what … models!Posted 8 years agoAdamWMember
Climate change is a complex system – granted – and I doubt there will ever be a single paper that can say 'hey everyone – look!'. You'd need a review or meta-review for that as there are many things pointing in the same direction, e.g. sea acidity (due to CO2 dissolving to produce carbonic acid) would rise, atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature gradients in different areas of the globe, ice levels at the poles etc.)
I am of the opinion (as a scientist) that AGW is occurring, however as a scientist if positive proof that it wasn't was placed before me I'd look and see if it stacked up. If it did then I would change my view. And I follow the science as best I can, and not sound-bites from idiots from either side.
So to strong viewed people on both sides of this discussion:
What would it take to change your view?
If it is something like 100% proof that something does or does not exist then you won't get it – scientists don't work in absolutes. And if someone says they are 100% certain either way then they are a charlatan.Posted 8 years agowhippersnapperSubscriber
I believe we emit around 15 to 25Gt (IIRC) of CO2 a year
…and the rest. Defra data for 2006 states UK emitted about 500Gt of CO2.
I don't know what to believe…convincing arguments come from both camps, whether it be sun spots, solar flares or fossil fuel burning. In the last couple of years global temperatures have decreased. However, none of this is important.
What is important is that we all do our bit to act responsibly. So what if climate change isn't caused by us, we now know how to go about industry and our domestic lives in an environmentally better way. Surely adopting these new technologies can only be a good thing and if it does make a difference to the climate then there's a bonus.Posted 8 years ago
The topic ‘Seriously WHY BOTHER ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE’ is closed to new replies.