Climate Change I hope this is not to political but it is so important

[Wook]

I think that regardless of people's opinions on whether climate change is true or not, taking steps to combat climate change also takes steps to combat pollution, biodiversity, and our dependence on fossil fuels.

I think this picture sums up my view of the subject quite well!

As one of the people who is massively struggling to heat his home due, in part, to the 10% green taxes have added to everyone in the UK's fuel bill, and whose local landscape has been blotted by those rotating subsidy farms, you'll forgive me if I think you're being somewhat selective in how you describe the issue.

There are costs associated with greenism, as well as benefits. And many of the benefits are overstated.

 

[Macaroon]

As one of the people who is massively struggling to heat his home due, in part, to the 10% green taxes have added to everyone in the UK's fuel bill, and whose local landscape has been blotted by those rotating subsidy farms, you'll forgive me if I think you're being somewhat selective in how you describe the issue.

There are costs associated with greenism, as well as benefits. And many of the benefits are overstated.

As are many of the costs..............and anyway, in what walk of life do you find any benefit without cost of some description? The true cost will only become apparent if we do nothing............

 

[Wook]

As are many of the costs..............and anyway, in what walk of life do you find any benefit without cost of some description? The true cost will only become apparent if we do nothing............

Not necessarily. The cost of doing something can easily be higher than the cost of doing nothing.

Like say you want rid of some house-martins. You could go ape with a flamethrower, and end up burning your house down. The cost of ignoring them would have been far lower.

Does this apply to greenism? Maybe, I don't know. In my case, my energy bill has indisputably gone up, and my local countryside has indisputably got uglier. So far however, global warming hasn't caused me any problems.

The only problems I've had are financial and bureaucratic, and they are 100% "anthropogenic".

 

[Macaroon]

I'm in the same boat as you as regards the cost of heating and the effects of power generation on the landscape; but I believe it's long past the time to look at this objectively - we have for too long taken subjective decisions and look where it's led us...........

I personally don't think it's acceptable for me to form an attitude on these issues based on my own circumstances and then tell my godchildren and great nephews and nieces that I can't afford to at least attempt to clear up some of the disgusting poop that I and my generation have dumped all over the planet and into the atmosphere, and I'm going to leave it for them to clear up;.......but that's just me

 

[Elen Sentier]

@Joonsy; that's actually a resonable summation of James Lovelock's Gaia Theory, recommended reading for the confused and bewildered......Make it quick though, there's not long left!

+1 to that

 

[Wook]

I'm in the same boat as you as regards the cost of heating and the effects of power generation on the landscape; but I believe it's long past the time to look at this objectively - we have for too long taken subjective decisions and look where it's led us...........

I personally don't think it's acceptable for me to form an attitude on these issues based on my own circumstances and then tell my godchildren and great nephews and nieces that I can't afford to at least attempt to clear up some of the disgusting poop that I and my generation have dumped all over the planet and into the atmosphere, and I'm going to leave it for them to clear up;.......but that's just me

That really doesn't address the issue. Personally I haven't dumped anything anywhere.

What is an acceptable price to pay for a spiffy clean environment? Mass unemployment perhaps? Raging fuel poverty? Deaths from hypothermia?

What price would be too high for the sake of a clean environment?

And that's before you even consider the possibility that the green lobby cannot actually deliver on its promise to clean up the environment. There are lakes of radioactive sludge in China that are a direct result of the renewables industry.

There has to be point where we ask whether what we are doing is really a good idea. Are we actually achieving what we're trying to achieve, and is it worth the price we end up paying?

The cost of simply learning to live with a slightly different climate might be much lower than enacting Al Gore's plan for utopia.

 

[Macaroon]

Well, each to his own, eh?....................I'm off to bed and hopefully I'll get to sleep before I worry myself into an early grave!

 

[mountainm]

There has to be point where we ask whether what we are doing is really a good idea.

Indeed, at the moment we are doing nothing.

The cost of simply learning to live with a slightly different climate might be much lower than enacting Al Gore's plan for utopia.

We don't know, but we do know know that fossil fuels aren't a long term strategy regardless. We do know the climate is changing. We do know that the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing. We know that practically all scientists are extremely concerned. And, we know doing nothing, continuing regardless, will not help us in any way whatsoever.

 

[Wook]

So I just imagined all those windmills, green taxes, treaties, climate conferences, research units, renewable subsidies, cars being taxed by CO2 production, carbon credit trading and so on? I don't think that's doing nothing.

"Something must be done" mentality is very dangerous. It is often true that something does, in fact, need to be done. But it is equally true that frequently, doing nothing would be infinitely preferable to doing the wrong thing.

And fossil fuels are a long term strategy. The reason people are so excited about shale oil and gas is it is so very plentiful compared to other fossil fuels. There is enough of that to meet the planets energy needs for the next few centuries. By which time hopefully we'd have fusion figured out......

 

[Elen Sentier]

Because Gaia enthusiasts are always going on about how we misuse the Earth and at sometime there will be a reckoning. Total nonsense and I was trying to illustrate the fact that if Gaia was a fact then a nice clean planet might be preferred by She.

And you have similar qualifications and experience to James Lovelock FRS ??? Lovelock invented the electron capture detector which helped in the discoveries about CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion. he has also done massive work on nuclear power and his work on geoengineering is fascinating too. In the 1960s, as a result of his work for NASA, he proposed the Gaia hypothesis which is where what you call the "Gaia enthusiasts" come from.

 

[mountainm]

So I just imagined all those windmills, green taxes, treaties, climate conferences, research units, renewable subsidies, cars being taxed by CO2 production, carbon credit trading and so on? I don't think that's doing nothing.
.

Sure as a country we've made a token gesture, and we should go further (not fracking for one thing). as a planet were doing nothing. Going backwards in fact.

Change costs money, but unless we invest in new technologies we'll never transition. How we pay for it is a different matter, don't let one thing cloud the other.

 

[Wook]

Sure as a country we've made a token gesture, and we should go further (not fracking for one thing). as a planet were doing nothing. Going backwards in fact.

The reason most of the planet is not interested in "going green" is most of it is still developing and they know that it would cripple their economies just when they're starting to take off.

Trying to create an international green mandate is effectively Europe and North America saying to the third world "Yes, we've had our industrial revolution, - but you're not allowed one. Kindly return to farming pigs....."

 

[mountainm]

The reason most of the planet is not interested in "going green" is most of it is still developing and they know that it would cripple their economies just when they're starting to take off.

Trying to create an international green mandate is effectively Europe and North America saying to the third world "Yes, we've had our industrial revolution, - but you're not allowed one. Kindly return to farming pigs....."

I agree, but that doesn't mean to say it's the wrong thing to do - and we have an obligation to help those countries make that transition. Forgive me but your argument seems to revolve around the financial and practical cost of "going green" and not the imperative to do so. The longer we leave it the more it'll cost - we are burning our bridges.

 

[Elen Sentier]

I agree, but that doesn't mean to say it's the wrong thing to do. Forgive me but your argument seems to revolve around the financial and practical cost of "going green" and not the imperative to do so. The longer we leave it the more it'll cost - we are burning our bridges.

+1 to that MM. Why are we fixated on money all the time, we even cost disasters in dollars not lives

 

[mountainm]

+1 to that MM. Why are we fixated on money all the time, we even cost disasters in dollars not lives

There's plenty of money available to solve the problem. The top 300 richest people in the world have more money than the poorest 3 billion.

 

[Wook]

MM and Elen - your arguments are circular. You state that it is urgent something be done, and that any difficulties this plan generates is justified because it is urgent. The problem is, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that it is, in fact, urgent. Yes the climate is changing, but that's what climates do. There is no evidence that the changes we are currently observing will present any real problems in the long term - at least not if we plan for them rather than waste time trying to prevent them. Climate models has consistently failed to predict the changes in our climate. In 2000 they were saying snow would be a thing of the past by the 2010s. Temperature rise forcasts have been repeatedly adjusted down.

Further, I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about costs. Money is not imaginary, nor is its importance to everyone, includling the very poor. Cost in dollars equals a cost in lives. If I take 75% out of any countries economy, people are going to die. It's not being money grubbing to worry about the financial implications of idelogues with a master plan run amok.

 

[mountainm]

MM and Elen - your arguments are circular. You state that it is urgent something be done, and that any difficulties this plan generates is justified because it is urgent. The problem is, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that it is, in fact, urgent. Yes the climate is changing, but that's what climates do. There is no evidence that the changes we are currently observing will present any real problems in the long term - at least not if we plan for them rather than waste time trying to prevent them. Climate models has consistently failed to predict the changes in our climate. In 2000 they were saying snow would be a thing of the past by the 2010s. Temperature rise forcasts have been repeatedly adjusted down.

Further, I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about costs. Money is not imaginary, nor is its importance to everyone, includling the very poor. Cost in dollars equals a cost in lives. If I take 75% out of any countries economy, people are going to die. It's not being money grubbing to worry about the financial implications of idelogues with a master plan run amok.

Ok so we'll wait until it is obviously urgent (neighbours drowning and what not) and irreversible then fail at doing something about it.

What's that phrase, "prevention is better than cure?"

I'm inclined to believe just about every scientist on the planet when they say we should be worried about this. Not a very small but vocal group of oil lobby sponsored politicians.

The doomsday clock stays at 5 minutes to midnight, the doom mongers who set it are quoted thus:

The group is also unhappy with the progress the UN has made in the field of climate sustainability and negotiations on policies in that area. The threat of global warming, they say, is still real. After all, since 2007, they claim the clock reflects not only nuclear catastrophe, but also climate change.

I can point you at multiple websites that deal with your arguments, will you read them?

[edit]
Off to bed. This argument has been had many times before by people better equipped to make it (ie qualified science bods) and still folks don't listen so I don't think I'll make any progress here.

I do think it's amusing that the ones that resist change are arguing that the climate isn't changing yet the ones that want change (in our energy habits) are saying that we must stop climate change.

 

[Midnitehound]

MM and Elen - your arguments are circular. You state that it is urgent something be done, and that any difficulties this plan generates is justified because it is urgent. The problem is, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that it is, in fact, urgent. Yes the climate is changing, but that's what climates do. There is no evidence that the changes we are currently observing will present any real problems in the long term - at least not if we plan for them rather than waste time trying to prevent them. Climate models has consistently failed to predict the changes in our climate. In 2000 they were saying snow would be a thing of the past by the 2010s. Temperature rise forcasts have been repeatedly adjusted down.

Further, I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about costs. Money is not imaginary, nor is its importance to everyone, includling the very poor. Cost in dollars equals a cost in lives. If I take 75% out of any countries economy, people are going to die. It's not being money grubbing to worry about the financial implications of idelogues with a master plan run amok.

Sense and humour, how refreshing!

The only problems I've had are financial and bureaucratic, and they are 100% "anthropogenic".

Flipping hilarious!

It used to be Global Warming then it became Climate Change, what it is really is just Climate CONTROL. When Science becomes politicised, it ain't Science! This has its roots back in 'The Club of Rome' committee, make humans the enemy for ultimate Global Control using climate and environmentalism. Book: Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire Video: Rosa Koire Speech about Agenda 21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-qLUQlmBk4

 

[mountainm]

*dons tin foil hat*
G'night,

 

[Midnitehound]

*dons tin foil hat*
G'night,

That is going to be uncomfortable to sleep in! Your funeral lol

Dons blindfold and earplugs by the sound of it. See no evil, hear no evil, see no evil, hear no evil, Zzzzzzzzz Sleeps like a baby whilst the World continues up the creek without a paddle.