Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Climate change


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#21 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,833 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:37 PM

Anyone with a knowledge of chemisitry, and who has ever had to deal with the Environment Agency and Defra,  knows that the British government is happy to try to make science fit its policies, rather than the other way round.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#22 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,456 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:37 PM

Anyone with a knowledge of chemisitry, and who has ever had to deal with the Environment Agency and Defra,  knows that the British government is happy to try to make science fit its policies, rather than the other way round.

 

The report that came out last week had nothing to do with the British government.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#23 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,833 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:45 PM

My comment wasn't directly related to climate change; it actually refers to the assessment of hazardous wastes.  However, it confirms my opinion that the "establishment" is prepared to put politics above logic and to bluff away its policies through bogus assessment parameters.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#24 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 6,148 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 04:17 PM

What no one seems to want to think about, climate change or not, fossil fuels will run out fairy soon. When they do, without us coming up with an alternative, human life as we know it on this planet will be at an end. Planet Earth however will do just fine without us (or with billions fewer of us).


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#25 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,691 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 04:50 PM

Ideally? A few nuke reactors, a few gas plants on standby, some renewables (wind, solar, tidal, etc), more efficiency (street lighting, etc), more micro-generation (home solar, etc). Can't see any of that happening mind you!


Unfortunately it IS that simple

#26 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,493 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 05:04 PM

If you think that big money means that various academic labs are grinding big oil interests into the dust, then you are very stupid. If you think that all the scientists around the world are in it together in a huge cabal, then you are very stupid.

It is happening, the extent is uncertain. However, as people think the climate can be altered by banal arguments to try and make it fit their political viewpoint, then it seems odd to believe that pumped lots if industrial gases in the air should make no difference.

On the other side of the argument, the planet is not in danger, only being able to carry on the way we are. Small islands might be lost and bits of land that might get rather salty. It should also be said that big cars and planes are rather fun, so giving them up is bad news and probably not going to happen.

Don't believe what you are told = stupid. Thanks for that.

#27 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,660 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:11 PM

Unfortunately it IS that simple

It still won't happen...


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#28 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,738 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:37 PM

'®ed'

Anyone know what this is about?


yes . Eds subriquet now he has promised tp bring back socialism

Edited by JohnM, 30 September 2013 - 06:39 PM.


#29 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,691 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:40 PM

Greenpeace et al painted themselves into a corner with the unilateral rejection of nuclear. Instead of embracing it and trying to work with the nuclear industry to move the technology forward they very effectively politicised it. As a consequence government after government delayed/ rejected nuclear power as too political and a vote looser ( after all the issue was never going to come to a head within their 5 years).

Now we are reaping the fruits of the green lobby's effective and misguided campaigning. However there is hope, some of true environmentalists have recognised this and are trying to open up the nuclear debate

The solution is exactly as Bedford Roughyed said Renewables are not the solution, they are part of the solution but there is a finite proportion of the country's energy that they can supply. Above that level the environmental case is zero unless we are going to accept power cuts when the wind stops.



P.S I've just had the advert at the top of my screen asking me to join Greenpeace :)

Edited by Bostik Bailey, 30 September 2013 - 06:43 PM.


#30 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,456 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 07:39 PM

Don't believe what you are told = stupid. Thanks for that.

 

Now, now.

 

But the point is broadly valid.  You're concerned that the scientists are finding results that match the results of big business interests.  The funding has largely gone the other way though.  If that's the issue you have you should be wondering about the motives of those who have spent a very long time firstly denying any climate change, then moving the goalposts to deny any man-made influence and who now are moving them again to go:  well, what can we do now, I mean, look at China ...

 

Or to put it another way: one comment I read was to say that if your doctor was 95% certain of something you'd probably believe him rather than going to check what a Telegraph columnist had to say.  I'd go slightly further.  If you go to your GP you're going to follow his advice because the odds are he's right and the odds are that what is being prescribed is what will be best for you ... and even if it isn't then it's going to do no harm.

 

And the odds are that the GP will be broadly right, the treatment broadly correct ... and that's despite the fact that the GP will have received funding from pharma companies from pretty much the day he joined med school.

 

The 'solutions' to climate change in reducing energy and consumption, investing in renewable and more efficient energy -- these are good things regardless if that 95% certainty turns out to be wrong ...


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#31 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,493 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 05:50 AM

Now, now.

But the point is broadly valid. You're concerned that the scientists are finding results that match the results of big business interests. The funding has largely gone the other way though. If that's the issue you have you should be wondering about the motives of those who have spent a very long time firstly denying any climate change, then moving the goalposts to deny any man-made influence and who now are moving them again to go: well, what can we do now, I mean, look at China ...

Or to put it another way: one comment I read was to say that if your doctor was 95% certain of something you'd probably believe him rather than going to check what a Telegraph columnist had to say. I'd go slightly further. If you go to your GP you're going to follow his advice because the odds are he's right and the odds are that what is being prescribed is what will be best for you ... and even if it isn't then it's going to do no harm.

And the odds are that the GP will be broadly right, the treatment broadly correct ... and that's despite the fact that the GP will have received funding from pharma companies from pretty much the day he joined med school.

The 'solutions' to climate change in reducing energy and consumption, investing in renewable and more efficient energy -- these are good things regardless if that 95% certainty turns out to be wrong ...

That's a reasonable analogy but....
Pretty sure my GP has not much to *gain* by telling me if I have the correct illness or not. They would however have a lot to lose by diagnosing people wrongly; reputation etc.

Governments and big business have plenty to gain by taxing people in new ways or making them use their particular brand of energy.

Put it this way, I may be stupid but I know that if the government wanted to produce a bunch of respected scientists with impressive looking charts to prove that black was, actually, white (and was I really so stupid as to not see that?) then they could do.

#32 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,691 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 06:50 AM

Whilst I understand the skepticism, and governments have jumped on this as a new "acceptable" tax method. The way I understand it is that all the research points towards climate change and there is a very high probability that man made emissions are contributing to this.

At the moment there is no research available that does not show this. That is the key arguement.

Having said all that the politiicising of the debate into an almost religious arguement doesn't help the general public to appriciate the complexities of this issue.

#33 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,049 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 06:51 AM

Oh and incidentally the whole thing about the global temperatures not rising for the past 17 years is a lie. See here

 

Interesting. I'll have a read of those...

 

Whether climate change is man-made is, for the UK, irrelevant because China and India will continue to ignore western pleas and will carry on their industrial programmes to serve two billion people, occasioning a  great increase in their carbon footprints.

 

For me, this is key. There are far too many human beings on this planet and nobody will admit it. It is the same argument in this country when people are discussing housing, infrastructure etc. No politician would ever say such as it all boils down to politics in the end. 


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#34 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,456 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 07:04 AM

There are far too many human beings on this planet 

 

Off you go then.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#35 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,660 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 10:44 AM

Put it this way, I may be stupid but I know that if the government wanted to produce a bunch of respected scientists with impressive looking charts to prove that black was, actually, white (and was I really so stupid as to not see that?) then they could do.

 

But it's not just one government.  It's every single nation's scientific bodies, the World Met office, etc, etc.

And even the majority of the sceptics will agree (grudgingly for some) that the green house effect is real and CO2 will make it warmer.  They disagree with how warm it will be, if warmer world = bad or just object to the counter measures.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#36 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,241 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 11:52 AM

Lets look at it another way! Does anyone disagree that the composition of gasses in the atmosphere don't effect the temperature of a planet?

#37 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 2,001 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 11:54 AM

All these scientific predictions can offer no vision of our climatic future than the same predictions on the Y2K phenomenon. 

 

Using the existent state of carbon as a measure for climate change is disingenuous because the earth has a level of equilibrium for all it's elements and major compounds. This equilibrium swings over millions and millions of years. Our existence on the planet provides nothing more than a blip in the balance of the earth's constituent elements. 

 

What annoys me is that issue is presented as an issue for the planet, when it is an issue for mankind and it's ability to utilise the resources of the earth in a sustainable fashion.

 

The only FACT is that mankind's main sources of energy will need to change. The planet has demonstrated that it can sustain life regardless of what has been thrown at it.



#38 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 12:58 PM

All these scientific predictions can offer no vision of our climatic future than the same predictions on the Y2K phenomenon. 

 

Using the existent state of carbon as a measure for climate change is disingenuous because the earth has a level of equilibrium for all it's elements and major compounds. This equilibrium swings over millions and millions of years. Our existence on the planet provides nothing more than a blip in the balance of the earth's constituent elements. 

 

What annoys me is that issue is presented as an issue for the planet, when it is an issue for mankind and it's ability to utilise the resources of the earth in a sustainable fashion.

 

The only FACT is that mankind's main sources of energy will need to change. The planet has demonstrated that it can sustain life regardless of what has been thrown at it.

 

The informed predictions on Y2K were pretty spot on, eg one prediction was that the organisation I worked for at the time would have had to cease trading if it had not dealt with the shortcomings in its software.

The concern about climate change is the potential problems for human civilisation rather than life on the planet. I'm sure having the human population reduced to a few million hunter-gatherers would be beneficial to the biosphere but that is not the goal we're chasing. 


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#39 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 2,001 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 01:32 PM

The informed predictions on Y2K were pretty spot on, eg one prediction was that the organisation I worked for at the time would have had to cease trading if it had not dealt with the shortcomings in its software.

The concern about climate change is the potential problems for human civilisation rather than life on the planet. I'm sure having the human population reduced to a few million hunter-gatherers would be beneficial to the biosphere but that is not the goal we're chasing. 

Y2K had no effect on me whatsoever so essentially predictions of armageddon were unfounded. If we all had a collective sigh of relief then I wouldn't have made the comparison.

 

On the other point, no-one has made it clear what the goal of tackling climate change is. Does anyone know? Is it to reduce temperature? Is it to reduce sea levels? Is it to have more ice?

 

Or as I suspect, is the argument for tackling climate change the same as tackling masturbation to avoid loss of eyesight?



#40 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,241 posts

Posted 01 October 2013 - 01:51 PM

Maybe most of the disasters of Y2K were avoided because we actually... you know... prepared for it!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users