Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

Climate change

87 posts in this topic

There's a report out today but it features lots of big words so I'm waiting for James Delingpole to shorten them for me.

 

In the meantime time to peruse this classic again ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am naturally a green sort of person. I recycle almost everything, save electric don't drive unnecessarily etc etc.

But I still don't buy all this. It's just yet another money making scam but for different people. The important countries on this issue are the ones who should be leading, not piddling little UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting debate on Radio Five Live on the drive back home yesterday about the issue. The report is being rebuffed by around 30,000 independent scientists according to an Aussie bloke interviewed.

 

As a geography graduate, I am unsure on the whole issue. I do think we are ruining the planet but unsure if this isn't just a natural blip. The Aussie mentioned that there hasn't been any warming in the past 17 years despite mankind releasing about a 1/3 of all CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution into the atmosphere during that period...

 

I do think we need a more natural equilbrium between mankind and the natural world as we are currently a cancer on this planet. But are we warming the planet? Definitely not sure...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument seems to go something like this, in its simplest form

 

1. Long term, the planet is getting warmer.

2. As a result, quite a bit of ice is melting, which may cause the sea level to rise

3. Its also upsetting the weather patterns and that may result in more extremes of weather

4. Although there may be other reasons as well, its our use of energy that is warming and polluting the atmosphere.

5. To prevent armageddon, we need therefore to reduce our use of energy - in the home, at work, on the road, at sea and in the air.

6. An accepted method (and maybe the only effective one) is by price- as road fuel prices increase, people buy less fuel. This is the same argument that has been put forward by those who advocate minimum prices for alcohol.

7. ®ed Miliband  fully buys into this as shown by his determination to freeze domestic gas and electricity prices. ..oh., hang on a min.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if the governments of the world can see a way to introduce new taxes on people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument seems to go something like this, in its simplest form

 

1. Long term, the planet is getting warmer.

2. As a result, quite a bit of ice is melting, which may cause the sea level to rise

3. Its also upsetting the weather patterns and that may result in more extremes of weather

4. Although there may be other reasons as well, its our use of energy that is warming and polluting the atmosphere.

5. To prevent armageddon, we need therefore to reduce our use of energy - in the home, at work, on the road, at sea and in the air.

6. An accepted method (and maybe the only effective one) is by price- as road fuel prices increase, people buy less fuel. This is the same argument that has been put forward by those who advocate minimum prices for alcohol.

7. ®ed Miliband  fully buys into this as shown by his determination to freeze domestic gas and electricity prices. ..oh., hang on a min.....

 

Is this the level of debate we're at here, already?

 

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument seems to go something like this, in its simplest form

 

1. Long term, the planet is getting warmer.

2. As a result, quite a bit of ice is melting, which may cause the sea level to rise

3. Its also upsetting the weather patterns and that may result in more extremes of weather

4. Although there may be other reasons as well, its our use of energy that is warming and polluting the atmosphere.

5. To prevent armageddon, we need therefore to reduce our use of energy - in the home, at work, on the road, at sea and in the air.

6. An accepted method (and maybe the only effective one) is by price- as road fuel prices increase, people buy less fuel. This is the same argument that has been put forward by those who advocate minimum prices for alcohol.

7. ®ed Miliband  fully buys into this as shown by his determination to freeze domestic gas and electricity prices. ..oh., hang on a min.....

 

1 - Yup that's what the science and evidence suggests.  Though it won't be a linear thing, there will be bumps upon the way.

2 - Yup.

3 - Yup, though the weather aspect is a bit chaotic as warming can subtly change so many things.

4 - There is (and will always be) natural variations.  The increased greenhouse gas effect sits on top of those. 

5 - Can't see us reducing energy consumption.  Energy efficiencies seem to always just increase our usage!  The home should be more efficient now that it's ever been, but the majority of us just use more energy. (LED's, etc)

6 - I think it's the politics that cause the most scepticism.  Tax's?  (maybe introduced for right reason, but generally just seen as general taxes soon after). 

7 - Again the politics is muddled and often contradictory. 

 

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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - Yup that's what the science and evidence suggests.  Though it won't be a linear thing, there will be bumps upon the way.

2 - Yup.

3 - Yup, though the weather aspect is a bit chaotic as warming can subtly change so many things.

4 - There is (and will always be) natural variations.  The increased greenhouse gas effect sits on top of those. 

5 - Can't see us reducing energy consumption.  Energy efficiencies seem to always just increase our usage!  The home should be more efficient now that it's ever been, but the majority of us just use more energy. (LED's, etc)

6 - I think it's the politics that cause the most scepticism.  Tax's?  (maybe introduced for right reason, but generally just seen as general taxes soon after). 

7 - Again the politics is muddled and often contradictory. 

 

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! 

 

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)

 

I'd go along with that, plus maybe emphasising the opportunity for more small and medium scale hydroelectric plant.

 

However, in all of that, we hold these truths to be self-evident: "You want energy? Well, energy costs. And right here is where you start paying ... in taxes and in bills"

 

The cost of energy is not going to go down, no matter what ®Ed says, no matter what Cameron says, and no matter how John D lambasts the energy companies. Sheesh! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reduction in deforestation and better utilisation of the current landmass to develop more woodlands would be a decent step to helping remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Granted this is only a tiny step in the big picture but very much worthwhile as it also has the added benefit of creating more habitats for wildlife.

 

The real crux of the issue is reducing CO2 emissions though and that could only be tackled through the utilisation of masses of nuclear power plants across the world. I am surprised the big corporations haven't started to push this yet as it would be a money spinner...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reduction in deforestation and better utilisation of the current landmass to develop more woodlands would be a decent step to helping remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Granted this is only a tiny step in the big picture but very much worthwhile as it also has the added benefit of creating more habitats for wildlife.

 

The real crux of the issue is reducing CO2 emissions though and that could only be tackled through the utilisation of masses of nuclear power plants across the world. I am surprised the big corporations haven't started to push this yet as it would be a money spinner...

Quite right, I agree on both points. Particularly that nuclear is the way to go. Sadly the Chinese and Indians are taking this in directions we won't find funding for (and would be cheaper than HS2) an MSR to burn the existing waste would be pretty useful right now.

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

and heres the debunk on the daily wails lie about it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure someone can come up with a counter argument to show otherwise using different charts etc.

I personally don't believe any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure someone can come up with a counter argument to show otherwise using different charts etc.

I personally don't believe any of them.

What evidence would convince you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence would convince you?

None really. It's just different groups of conmen trying to push their argument so they are either kept in a job or can create one or get funding to research this that or the other.

Governments don't give a about the environment but if they can tax people by way of scaremongering then its a nice little earner. Similarly, other people can make a few quid arguing the opposite.

As Tommy from Early Doors would say 'it's all a bloody con'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's obviously no point discussing the scientific evidence (of which there is a lot) I would ask that you consider this. The politicians involved make lots of money out of things one way or another and obviously climate change is no different. The scientist don't make much out of it at all? What would be their motive? More research grants? They'll get that either way as long as they show they're good and thorough.

As for not accepting evidence, I've even said I'll convert away from atheism (humanism to be precise) for peer reviewed evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sceptical yes. That is because I believe big business is behind a lot/most of the research that goes on. It's bent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peer review helps stop that from a science perspective.

Sadly its how its portrayed to the public through the right wing media that introduces the bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peer review helps stop that from a science perspective.

Sadly its how its portrayed to the public through the right wing media that introduces the bias.

I don't read much media, much less so right wing. I haven't got my opinion from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first it was called Global Warming. Then, inconveniently, the predicted warmth surge didn't occur and the calculations proved to be based on unsound figures, even after ignoring historic periods when the global temperature was higher than now ... and then fell back again. Therefore, to save face and preserve environmental-tax income, the government and scientists stopped calling it that and switched to Climate Change.

 

A bit like their changing the name of the Calder Hall nuclear plant whenever there's a serious radiation leak. So far we've had Windscale and Sellafield. Who knows what it will be called next. 

 

Then  the highly-influential University of East Anglia Climatology Unit was exposed (at least partially by the Look North Weather Presenter Paul Hudson) to be not revealing the figures from which it had made its Climate Change predictions.

 

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.

 

We might as well just go with the flow. Unfortunately, that would mean having to justify the continued levying of ridiculous environmental taxes. As we are in the EU, even if we wished to decrease them, we couldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.