Article by on climate change by James Lovelock

[sandbender]

An article by on climate change by James Lovelock in the Times, in which he writes about the changes he sees ahead for the UK.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5682887.ece

 

[Shambling Shaman]

The first truly great environmental disasters will usurp the political agenda and displace many false ideas hampering change. As in war, there could be the rapid application of new technology to climate and survival problems. I hope it will work, but I do not think humans as a species are yet clever enough to handle the coming environmental crisis and I fear they will spend their efforts trying to combat global heating instead of trying to adapt and survive in the new hot world.

Good article, imo

 

[BigShot]

I'm not sure whether or not I enjoyed that on its merits as creative writing or if it just annoyed me.
For someone who alludes to being pretty moderate - mentioning his arguments against doom-sayers - he's a bit extreme.

I still can't persuade myself to buy into any of this climate hysteria, be it believeing we're causing the changes, that we can stop it, or that it's necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks for posting the link, it was most refreshing to see such an article dismiss the crack-pot schemes to move to renewables no matter the cost.

 

[BigShot]

I actually disagree that any environmental disasters will usurp the political agenda.
That agenda is, and always has been, about power and control.

When (if?) the smelly brown stuff hits the fan, most people will do what they always do - go running to the government to be saved from it - that will only serve to further it, not to derail it.

If you ask me - and you didn't - but still

 

[gzornenplat]

Does anyone have a link to any site (or can tell me of any other resource) where there is
any proof of climate change at all?

I ask this seriously. There are endless EOTWAWKI articles and programmes, but I have
yet to see anyone show any proof that the climate is changing unnaturally, or that the
current trends have even a convincing correlation with human activity.

There was a 3-part TV program mid-September last year by Dr Iain Stewart which I watched
with interest since he is usually pretty good, but you still got leaps of faith (assuming you
have faith in the End Of The World).

For example, he said "This year on year relentless rise in carbon dioxide is the one
undisputable piece of evidence in the whole global warming debate. It meant that nobody
could seriously argue with one simple statement: The human race *has* steadily
increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air."

But that was it. He just made that statement and moved on. No proof of a link between
human activity and CO2 was given.

I emailed him about it (and other problems I had with the episode).

I was hoping for the gap to be filled by Dr Stewart pointing me to some research which
he considered too technical to present in a pop-science series.

His reply was "The relentless year-on-year rise is attributed to human activity because
no other scientific theory can explain why there is a natural mechanism for this."

I replied to his email with a number of points that it raised. He replied to my email,
but he didn't answer any of my questions (he didn't even address them as opposed
to not answering them to my satisfaction).

I came to the conclusion that Dr Iain Stewart was merely a presenter, and was picked
because he had a similar accent to John Laurie ("We're doomed, I tell ye. We're
doomed.")

The 'lack of other explanation' approach isn't all that scientific. I would hope that it
wouldn't hold up in court. "I sentence you to death for murder. Well, I can't think of
anyone else who might have done it. Take him away and hang him by the neck until
he is dead."

I'm not denying climate change (you can't prove a negative), just asking for proof,
or at least, a convincing theory.

Cheers,

Ian

 

[traderran]

The climate has been changing over hear to we don't have the
winters we use to

 

[gzornenplat]

The climate has been changing over hear to we don't have the
winters we use to

Nor do we - haven't had a foot of snow like last week since 1963 where I live, or a heatwave like 1976 since, well, 1976.

 

[gunslinger]

No I don't believe it is caused by co2, but rather a cycle that has been going on for millenia.

Probably better explained by a scientist. Proffessor Bob Carter

Here

This is part one but its easy to follow on to the next.

IMHO the most sense spoken on this subject.
GS

 

[locum76]

i found this website http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ which pulls together facts and theories from both sides of the debate. It may well be worth a read.

personally I believe that global warming is happening and that we will run out of accessible oil by the end of this century. I believe we should start to think about how we can adapt to living in these conditions now and practice a little preparedness. There is no doubt that Food security is going to be the biggest issue by far - its time to learn to grow your own.

 

[Shambling Shaman]

imho, there is a natural balance in the world if it goes out of kilter the the planet will right its self.
















and then when all true balance is restored Scotland will achieve a grand slam in the six nations....

 

[Matt.S]

The Earth's climate has been changing since it came into being, and I'm not denying that the planet's climate is different to how it was at certain points in the past. However, I don't buy into the theory that humankind caused it either; no proof.

Independence, self-sufficiency and adaptability are always useful skills, especially when everyone else is running around, surprised that Tesco doesn't have 2 chickens for a fiver, or that there aren't any potatoes.

 

[Shambling Shaman]

Independence, self-sufficiency and adaptability are always useful skills, especially when everyone else is running around, surprised that Tesco doesn't have 2 chickens for a fiver, or that there aren't any potatoes.

Agreed, some people have no clue I still love the look on peoples faces when my eldest asks "WHAT DEAD ANIMAL IS THAT"

 

[Draven]

No I don't believe it is caused by co2, but rather a cycle that has been going on for millenia.

Probably better explained by a scientist. Proffessor Bob Carter

Here

This is part one but its easy to follow on to the next.

IMHO the most sense spoken on this subject.
GS

Thanks for posting that, I thoroughly enjoyed it - which can rarely be said about lectures

 

[British Red]

That is, to me personally, the most articulate article on the challenges of the modern world I have read this millenium.

Should be compulsory reading for anyone who uses "Green" as a proper noun or indeed an adjective rather as a way to describe a colour

Red

 

[mr dazzler]

imho, there is a natural balance in the world if it goes out of kilter the the planet will right its self.
















and then when all true balance is restored Scotland will achieve a grand slam in the six nations....

Dont be too hard on yourself mate , I thought Scotland played well today, they were entertaining to watch because you could feel there desire to fight to the bitter end and try to take control of the game. They might ultimately of been outclassed, by an increasingly confident (and talented) welsh side, BUT your lads proved that the Welsh team is actually vulnerable if you run right at them with a fighting spirit and commitment, give them a tatse of there own medicine so to speak. The England game on the other hand was.....well, least said the better ; no game plan, no fighting spirit, no apparent desire to take control and win, lacking basic skills, clumsy handling, crap ping pong kicking "game", no inspirational leadership and decision making, gave away too many silly penalties.....I find it incredulous that only 6 or 7 years ago England rugby was invincible, when they would run in 7 or 8 tries and teams were scared of playing at Twickenham But balance will hopefully be restored-one day....

 

[CLEM]

Ive never bought in to it,its just a natural cycle.The earth has allways heated up and cooled down.I remember being taught in primary school how during the Roman occupation of Britain it was two degrees warmer then han now,they had vinyards right up in cumbria,I all remember being taught about the mini ice age when the Thames froze so deeply for months there were markets and fairs upon the surface of the river.

 

[Tengu]

Isnt the most important issue, resources??

 

[Draven]

Isnt the most important issue, resources??

Totally agree with that.

As Bob Carter pointed out in the above posted video, a good deal of the world is without clean water, sanitation, food and power, with the numbers only poised to rise atm, imo.

 

[BigShot]

It's very common for people to mix up the two.

If the discussion is about carbon and anthropogenic global warming/climate change - that's one thing.
If the discussion is about resources, reliance on fossil fuels and alternative ways of meeting the world's power needs, that's another thing.

What often happens (and I'm not saying it's been done here, even though both subjects are in here) is people arguing that climate change is anthropogenic switching to the resources and "clean living" argument when put on the back foot.


As for GW/Climate Change - I'm convinced it is a perfectly natural process that mankind has little or no impact on.

As for fossil fuel, yes, we are heavily reliant upon it, and we will eventually need alternatives, but I object in the strongest possible terms to confusing that issue with climate change, and further object to people attempting to ban/tax/ration use of fossil fuels. When the fossil fuels run out we'll either have an alternative plan lined up - in which case all will be well, or we won't, and the brown stuff will hit the fan.


Rather than running around chasing shadows on the Carbon issue, we should be putting those resources into feeding the starving without enslaving them to GM, providing clean water and sanitation and furthering the medical and technological development of those who still live off the land by necessity rather than by choice.

 

[gregorach]

Ive never bought in to it,its just a natural cycle.The earth has allways heated up and cooled down.I remember being taught in primary school how during the Roman occupation of Britain it was two degrees warmer then han now,they had vinyards right up in cumbria,I all remember being taught about the mini ice age when the Thames froze so deeply for months there were markets and fairs upon the surface of the river.

Temperatures in Britain are not a good proxy for global temperatures.

If anybody wants to know about the scientific background, do a search for posts mentioning "climate change" or "AGW" by me - I've been over this ground about a million times before, and frankly I'm sick to death of arguing about it. If you really want to understand the matter, you'll need an undergraduate degree in climate science, followed by a suitable Masters degree. If you want to revise the science, you'd probably best have a relevant PhD. Oh dear, there I go being all elitist again...

I'm curious as to which other sciences people think they understand better than the specialists? Perhaps some of the "skeptics" would care to devote their obviously remarkable scientific insight to some of the other great questions of science... A proof of the Reiman Hypothesis, perhaps? Maybe the Unified Field Theory that physicists have been searching for for the last six decades?