Global Warming
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Just heard on the news this morning, thought it was relevant to this topic.
Royal Society launches new climate change guide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11438570
Royal Society launches new climate change guide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11438570
Alternatively, if you don't like it, go and read something else.
Looks to me like you ticked all your own boxes with that post.
That's what winds me up about the debate; the Planet can't suffer, it's a non sentient, non feeling collection of atoms.
The whole "Global Warming" thing is totally anthropomorphising the situation; YES we will make the planet unsuitable for humans; TOUGH. There will be a lot of species, current and evolving, which will revel in the conditions that we are producing.
The planet will still be here, with millions of life forms, long after we've screwed things up for ourselves.
The planet might well survive (it's about half way through the life which the sun will allow it) but how can you be so sure about the life on it?
We might be the only sentient beings in the whole universe. I think that's very unlikely, but there's no evidence available to us either way. We have now found a lot of other planets, but I don't think anyone has seriously proposed that any of them would be capable of supporting life. The research is still in its infancy of course.
We're here through a number of well-documented lucky breaks. We don't yet know how common, throughout the universe, are the particular sets of conditions which will permit life to develop. Take a reasonably quiet star, a smallish rocky planet at just the right orbital distance, and sprinkle on it some rather uncommon chemical elements. Stir the ingredients until the right consistency is reached. In our case, for about 4,500 million years. That's a heck of a long time by any standards, the age of the universe itself is in the same order. It seems to me that if beings like us are easily produced, our planet made hard work of it.
If we're the only ones here, it would seem a terrible shame if we were to blow ourselves away before we even had a chance to go and take a peek at what could be out there, ours for the taking if we want it.
So I think we should recognize that even if there's a small risk of our being in trouble right now, we should at least be taking sensible precautions. A lot of people here on BCUK like to show us their bug-out bags and survival kits, do they not?
You'll see sentiments like "Leave No Trace" all over the place on this forum. Those of us urging caution with the climate are just scaling up the advice to suit the environment, of which the climate is just a symptom.
Last edited:
Sounds a pretty silly thing to do Ged, after the way we are treating this planet should we go to another and basically rape that one as well?
Wings
That's just it. Too much focus on the "Big Picture" and ignoring the "developement" of natural habitat that's been going on for too long.
Climate change is being exploited by the usual suspects to amass £millions out of Carbon Trading, the people who could DO something about it aren't interested in the environment, only growth and profit.
That cartoon is like asking "do you believe in family values"? Facile and over simplified emotional blackmail.
Lets look at - huge tax rises to pay for uneconomic fuels
Energy independence ....err how exactly?
Sustainability....what with technologies that consume more energy to amke tahn they produce in their lives?
Livable cities? Last I looked, people live there now. Job done.
Clean water, air....yep, its cleaner now than its ever been, so.....what exactly?
Healthy children....you have to be kidding me right? *** has this got to do with anything related to climate change - directly?
Honestly, what a total piece of emotive nonsense that has no place in a discussion based on logic and fact
Lets look at - huge tax rises to pay for uneconomic fuels
Energy independence ....err how exactly?
Sustainability....what with technologies that consume more energy to amke tahn they produce in their lives?
Livable cities? Last I looked, people live there now. Job done.
Clean water, air....yep, its cleaner now than its ever been, so.....what exactly?
Healthy children....you have to be kidding me right? *** has this got to do with anything related to climate change - directly?
Honestly, what a total piece of emotive nonsense that has no place in a discussion based on logic and fact
Energy independence through the use and development of renewables, rather than fossil fuels.
Sustainability, reducing your own ecological footprint to the level at which it doesn't leave a deficit (Limits to Growth by Meadows, Randers and Meadows).
People do live there, but cities like Tehran, Dhaka and Algiers are hardly healthy environments for people to live in.
Cleaner than it's ever been? WHO/UNICEF numbers show 884 million people without access to safe water, 2.6 billion without access to adequate sanitation, 1.4 million children die from diarrhoea caused by unclean water. You're right, let's just leave it how it is.
Healthy children: Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects. These "vector-borne" diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Also, algal blooms could occur more frequently as temperatures warm — particularly in areas with polluted waters — in which case diseases (such as cholera) that tend to accompany algal blooms could become more frequent.
I'm surprised by your own emotive response to that. It's my belief that we in the Western world have too great an expectation of 'business as normal'. We're doing fine right now, so what the problem. That attitude is quite clear in your response to the cartoon. Yes, cities in the UK are fine, we have adequate access to clean water and sanitation.
Yes, it'll be expensive, but we've already cut costs by an over-reliance on ridiculously cheap fuels and shifting costs (waste management, manufacturing) to the developing world.
The cartoon is an oversimplification of a complex issue but emotional blackmail might just be what it takes for people to stop thinking it's okay to buy apples flown in from New Zealand, own gas guzzling 4x4s or pay £20 for a flight to Europe.
Climate change is an incredibly complex issue, a mix of both sociological and scientific matters. Human beings are having an impact on the world and the impact is often negative. Most of us are scared that trying to improve the world will result in a tightening of belts. By the way we have been splurging so far, I don't see that as too high a price to pay.
Sustainability, reducing your own ecological footprint to the level at which it doesn't leave a deficit (Limits to Growth by Meadows, Randers and Meadows).
People do live there, but cities like Tehran, Dhaka and Algiers are hardly healthy environments for people to live in.
Cleaner than it's ever been? WHO/UNICEF numbers show 884 million people without access to safe water, 2.6 billion without access to adequate sanitation, 1.4 million children die from diarrhoea caused by unclean water. You're right, let's just leave it how it is.
Healthy children: Climate change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by mosquitoes and other insects. These "vector-borne" diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Also, algal blooms could occur more frequently as temperatures warm — particularly in areas with polluted waters — in which case diseases (such as cholera) that tend to accompany algal blooms could become more frequent.
I'm surprised by your own emotive response to that. It's my belief that we in the Western world have too great an expectation of 'business as normal'. We're doing fine right now, so what the problem. That attitude is quite clear in your response to the cartoon. Yes, cities in the UK are fine, we have adequate access to clean water and sanitation.
Yes, it'll be expensive, but we've already cut costs by an over-reliance on ridiculously cheap fuels and shifting costs (waste management, manufacturing) to the developing world.
The cartoon is an oversimplification of a complex issue but emotional blackmail might just be what it takes for people to stop thinking it's okay to buy apples flown in from New Zealand, own gas guzzling 4x4s or pay £20 for a flight to Europe.
Climate change is an incredibly complex issue, a mix of both sociological and scientific matters. Human beings are having an impact on the world and the impact is often negative. Most of us are scared that trying to improve the world will result in a tightening of belts. By the way we have been splurging so far, I don't see that as too high a price to pay.
Could you edit your post to make your contributions more clearly yours and not mine?
You see - emotiveness again Tom,
Care to show me how renewables can produce enough power to remove fossil fuels in...say...three decades? Many do not even cover their own construction energy needs in a decade. They have their place, but will not remove fossil fuel dependency.
Please illustrate how sustainability can be achieved by the UK, without imports at a population of over 60 million - including food and fuel (non fossil based)
People in poverty is not something new, the answers are technologically driven.
You also fail to mention all the people whose health would be improved by climate change - or is that a fact that doesn't fit your argument.
The cartoon simply loads emotive and silly words on a screen. It provides no solutions, nor rational debate.
But of course as stated previously by climatologists "we must act as though the argument was won and no debate is required or allowed"
What about a bit of global cooling intead? Seems Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates and the Queen of the Netherlands are concerned at least ;-)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
Its a cartoon, you need a sense of humour in order to view it properly, could you possibly borrow one for a while?
Worry not old bean. I am busting a gut laughing at all the twaddle peddling climatologists. Look at the poll results. They have convinced barely a quarter of the members of this forum with their arrant nonsense. And this is an outdoor and nature loving forum.
I take great delight and amusement in that.
I always have a huge laugh when the silly "gas guzzling 4x4 tripe" is trotted out. It shows me the writer hasn't even thought about what they are writing, they are simply regurgitating propoganda verbatim
1) Very few 4x4s run on gas
2) Most don't even run on gasoline - although why they insist on an inaccurate an Americanism is beyond me.
3) The number of wheels that are driven, does not affect the CO2 output of a car - the miles per gallon do. However 4x4s are an easy target. Despite the fact that sports cars, large estate cars etc. have far worse mpg. In fact the correct measure is passenger miles per gallon. Public transport - particularly buses, fairs far worse than the average 4x4 by this measure.
4) Many normal road going cars are 4x4 - they have four wheel drive for safety or performance reasons
I laugh long and hard at the fact that people never let the facts get in the way of a nice sound bite.
Don't feel left out though Dunc - I laugh at your posts too
Red
I take great delight and amusement in that.
I always have a huge laugh when the silly "gas guzzling 4x4 tripe" is trotted out. It shows me the writer hasn't even thought about what they are writing, they are simply regurgitating propoganda verbatim
1) Very few 4x4s run on gas
2) Most don't even run on gasoline - although why they insist on an inaccurate an Americanism is beyond me.
3) The number of wheels that are driven, does not affect the CO2 output of a car - the miles per gallon do. However 4x4s are an easy target. Despite the fact that sports cars, large estate cars etc. have far worse mpg. In fact the correct measure is passenger miles per gallon. Public transport - particularly buses, fairs far worse than the average 4x4 by this measure.
4) Many normal road going cars are 4x4 - they have four wheel drive for safety or performance reasons
I laugh long and hard at the fact that people never let the facts get in the way of a nice sound bite.
Don't feel left out though Dunc - I laugh at your posts too
Red
Last edited:
On a point of order, I don't think these polls let you change your mind so as it seems more like an "entry poll" than an "exit poll" I don't think your argument leads logically to your conclusion.
On the other hand a salesman once said to me that people make decisions based 7% on logic and 93% on emotion. So don't sell with logic.
Depressing, isn't it?
Am I synical? I wonder if it is all about the governments justifing making every bodies lives more expensive and removing freedoms from peoples lives while giving energy company share holders another angle to extort money. it seems to me that reducing your individual energy use in the long run will just increase the unit cost inline with keeping the share holders profits at level they dictate or are acustomed to.
Are you sure that you have enough experience to be properly cynical?
I don't think any of this has to do with justifying anything. There are some simple, but uncomfortable, facts which are becoming more and more obvious and more and more uncomfortable with every passing day. They'll continue to do that until enough of us finally get the message and do something effective about it, or until we perish. The only real question is which will come first.
What is it about numbers, that people should have so much difficulty with them? They are innocent, they have no agenda, they answer only the questions that they are asked and they do that without bias.
We only have to ask the right questions. Questions like "What will happen, if, for the next couple of hundred years, we continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple of hundred years?"
