Jump to content

Global Warming


legov

How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. How certain are you that Global Warming is man-made?

    • Certain
      34
    • Likely
      49
    • Not Likely
      34
    • No way
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective because the UK is a drop in the ocean in terms of CO2 emissions and incapable of making any sustainable difference unilaterally through reduction of emissions.

 

that's my biggest problem with it, why bother me with having to fill a form in every week at work telling them my mileage and car size and alternative means of transport surveys etc why should I have to tick a box somewhere that claims I'm doing my best to aid captain planet? I bet all of us together on here don't have the emissions per year that more than a fair factories in this country let alone usa / china / india have a day, complete waste of time IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd come down behind this view as well. On the basis that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, surely we can't unlock so much carbon in such a short space of time without fundamentally changing the balance in the atmosphere and with it the weather - although my missus did her Doctorate in this stuff and I may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome after a decade+ of her eco propaganda.

 

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective because the UK is a drop in the ocean in terms of CO2 emissions and incapable of making any sustainable difference unilaterally through reduction of emissions.

 

What I'd love to see is UK Gov saying "right, we're going to solve the problem of cold fusion and we won't stop until we've cracked it". Success would crash the global economy in the short term and make us a lot of enemies (because it is built on hydrocarbons), but once we got past that it would be the answer to so many of the world's problems.

 

We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

Well you've hit on the fundamental difficulty here. Solving the planet's problems causes all manner of financial problems. And it causes them to very powerful industries and people. Unless those industries can get in on the ground floor and continue to make profits from the new systems and processes, they will actively and aggressively lobby against their introduction. Then we have China.

It doesn't serve the immediate interests of the money men to solve the planet's problems. Their priorities are in complete conflict with those of everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd come down behind this view as well. On the basis that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, surely we can't unlock so much carbon in such a short space of time without fundamentally changing the balance in the atmosphere and with it the weather - although my missus did her Doctorate in this stuff and I may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome after a decade+ of her eco propaganda.

 

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective because the UK is a drop in the ocean in terms of CO2 emissions and incapable of making any sustainable difference unilaterally through reduction of emissions.

 

What I'd love to see is UK Gov saying "right, we're going to solve the problem of cold fusion and we won't stop until we've cracked it". Success would crash the global economy in the short term and make us a lot of enemies (because it is built on hydrocarbons), but once we got past that it would be the answer to so many of the world's problems.

 

We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

Well you've hit on the fundamental difficulty here. Solving the planet's problems causes all manner of financial problems. And it causes them to very powerful industries and people. Unless those industries can get in on the ground floor and continue to make profits from the new systems and processes, they will actively and aggressively lobby against their introduction. Then we have China.

It doesn't serve the immediate interests of the money men to solve the planet's problems. Their priorities are in complete conflict with those of everyone else.

 

Free market capitalist economies certainly aren't perfect, they're essentially greed driven. It's important that the human race can see what issues it faces, so that movements can be made to force changes politically and move towards inventing better technologies for the benefit of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free market capitalist economies certainly aren't perfect, they're essentially greed driven. It's important that the human race can see what issues it faces, so that movements can be made to force changes politically and move towards inventing better technologies for the benefit of the future.

True but a little idealistic too. The United States haven't signed up to the Kyoto Protocol for example, because it doesn't serve the interests of powerful political benefactors to do so. When governments as influential as the USA & China are run and influenced by monetary interests and those same interests are destroying a particular resource or sending us down a path of inevitable ruin, then what do you do to resolve it? I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd come down behind this view as well. On the basis that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, surely we can't unlock so much carbon in such a short space of time without fundamentally changing the balance in the atmosphere and with it the weather - although my missus did her Doctorate in this stuff and I may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome after a decade+ of her eco propaganda.

 

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective because the UK is a drop in the ocean in terms of CO2 emissions and incapable of making any sustainable difference unilaterally through reduction of emissions.

 

What I'd love to see is UK Gov saying "right, we're going to solve the problem of cold fusion and we won't stop until we've cracked it". Success would crash the global economy in the short term and make us a lot of enemies (because it is built on hydrocarbons), but once we got past that it would be the answer to so many of the world's problems.

 

We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

Well you've hit on the fundamental difficulty here. Solving the planet's problems causes all manner of financial problems. And it causes them to very powerful industries and people. Unless those industries can get in on the ground floor and continue to make profits from the new systems and processes, they will actively and aggressively lobby against their introduction. Then we have China.

It doesn't serve the immediate interests of the money men to solve the planet's problems. Their priorities are in complete conflict with those of everyone else.

 

Free market capitalist economies certainly aren't perfect, they're essentially greed driven. It's important that the human race can see what issues it faces, so that movements can be made to force changes politically and move towards inventing better technologies for the benefit of the future.

 

Exactly and why it needs state backing to achieve it. Greenpeace et al do not have the juice to make something like this happen.

 

We paid £700 odd billion to bail out the cocaine driven egomaniacs in the banking sector, we could crack real sustainable energy (not pissing around with laughable wind farms) for a fraction of that. Education is the key to unlocking global consciousness and the internet is the medium - for now.  

 

In terms of vested interests just build it then give it away in the greatest act of philanthropy in history, then it can't be monopolised. Once the genie is out of the bottle then that is it, there would be no going back. Access to unlimited, clean and virtually free electricity would be transformational in terms of human progress.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of vested interests just build it then give it away in the greatest act of philanthropy in history, then it can't be monopolised. Once the genie is out of the bottle then that is it, there would be no going back. Access to unlimited, clean and virtually free electricity would be transformational in terms of human progress.

Who builds it though? For it to be real sustainable and not a pissy wind farm it would have to be on a scale only achievable by the very people who wouldn't want it to happen. It wouldn't surprise me if the likes of Exxon and Shell have already bought & shelved patents that would damage their interests. People have disappeared for much less than the credible threat of seriously damaging the pockets of big gas and oil. It would never get off the ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOF, on 27 Sept 2013 - 4:29 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 27 Sept 2013 - 1:03 PM, said:

or we could listen to around 8,000,000 scientists that didn't take part in the in-depth report  who may have a different opinion :)

If they do have a different opinion then there'll doubtless be a rebuttal in many science papers soon cuz that's how those things usually play themselves out. I'll keep an eye out :)

 

 

 

does every nutjob get a rebuttal  ??   If something is so clearly  false then it needn't be dignified with a rebuttal B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That D'ream fellow, Brian Cox,the scientist said (about another subject)

The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!

My opinion :) is that when 800 expert scientists in a field come to a conclsuin such as the one voiced today, after careful study and analysis, that non-experts, interested parties (such as Oil companies, the Koch Brothers and their well funded astroturf puppets) can and should be roundly ignored on this, and have their inexpert views made fun of.

 

 

Yes totally agree. their findings should not be ignored. You are always going to get a minority of sceptics. There's those that still believe the holocaust didn't happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective...We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

That's right, withthe caveat, that there's an extra factor. In the question you pose "what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically" there's also a weighting - if we do nothing, because it will disadvantage ourselves (now) economically, what will be the economical damage in the future, from not doing anything.

It's overcoming the short term view, and looking longer.

If the planet heats up and becomes drier and hotter, then there's (say) less water and food. So growing food is more expensive, there's more need for air-con, or whatever. That costs money. I dunno how you quantify these things. How do you mitigate for war over water, or power supplies?

It's almost impossible to have the discussion because any mention of treading an onyone's turf, or vested interests brings about a storm of PR and scare stories.

If (say) we talk about Nuclear, then there's scare stories about Fukishima. If you talk about wind power, then it's the perils of wind turbines, etc. etc. It's not balanced. The Media treat untrained sceptical views with equal weight to scinetists, in the interests of "balance", or Fox news will just go with their view and sod the balance.

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bigger issue is what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically. Any solution has to be global in scale to be effective...We've got the scientists, we've got the facilities, what we need is the political will.

That's right, withthe caveat, that there's an extra factor. In the question you pose "what to do about it without fundamentally disadvantaging ourselves economically" there's also a weighting - if we do nothing, because it will disadvantage ourselves (now) economically, what will be the economical damage in the future, from not doing anything.

It's overcoming the short term view, and looking longer.

If the planet heats up and becomes drier and hotter, then there's (say) less water and food. So growing food is more expensive, there's more need for air-con, or whatever. That costs money. I dunno how you quantify these things. How do you mitigate for war over water, or power supplies?

It's almost impossible to have the discussion because any mention of treading an onyone's turf, or vested interests brings about a storm of PR and scare stories.

If (say) we talk about Nuclear, then there's scare stories about Fukishima. If you talk about wind power, then it's the perils of wind turbines, etc. etc. It's not balanced. The Media treat untrained sceptical views with equal weight to scinetists, in the interests of "balance", or Fox news will just go with their view and sod the balance.

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

 

In reply to you and BOF:  Of course vested interests are the obstacle, they control the politics and they control the media, but that is not insurmountable.  The only way to 'cross the Rubicon' is to elect a political party committed to doing it, in a country with the means to deliver it - which narrows the options significantly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

blandy, on 27 Sept 2013 - 5:33 PM, said:

 

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

 

 

 

I didn't think there was a debate though

 

It was always a scientist says global warning is melting the ice caps  and anyone that doesn't agree is then "deluded" ( same with the disappearing rain forest debate , but No lets all listen to Sting )

 

then a few more scientist came up with evidence that maybe suggested it wasn't ALL man made  and suddenly public opinion had moved to more of a not sure stance

 

 

and then today we get this new statement after it appears the proportion of people who believe human activity is making the world warmer has fallen from 55% in 2008 to 39% in 2013.

 

and yet you accuse the oil companies and Fox  of acting in their own interest with the data  ??

 

I heard today an expert saying about the ice caps melt and water will rise by xx inches  .... now maybe my logic is flawed but the ice caps have already displaced the water and thus when they melt the water level will remain the same  ( well actually it would drop slightly ) .. drop some ice cubes in a glass of coke and try it on a smaller scale   ..maybe oceans are different , salt content and so forth  .. maybe Brian Cox can tell me

 

I've said before when we've had this debate , that if man kind can do it's bit to not kill polar bears by melting his home  then we should do it  .. however what happens is the UK sticks a policy in place to go green , charges consumers a Green tax and the price of everything goes up ..meanwhile India and China increase their cheap and polluting production  and everyone in the UK goes off and buys the cheaper product  from those countries anyway ..whilst feeling good that they care about the environment  (I'm sure anyone that watched top gear has seen how the Prius is made and how wasteful the production is for a "Green" car )

 

 

 

it's like the EU and the NHS  .. there is a good debate to be had  ..been when the first contribution is to call people deluded  .. well it isn't gonna happen is it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drat01, on 27 Sept 2013 - 6:30 PM, said:

 "does every nutjob get a rebuttal" 

 

the icon at the end may give you a clue as to the intent

 

 

it was after the first or second reference to deluded , so I figured the grown up debate had ended

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stopped caring.

 

I've decided that if man is to blame for what will happen in the next century or so, it is too bloody late to do anything about it, because even if we (West) get our act together in a few decades, there are developing nations, or developing continents if we are being honest, who need to go through their own industrial revolutions, and unless there is a magical new energy resource developed soon, they will be burning oil, coal and gas on a huge scale.

 

And a change in weather will be the least of our worries if we are still dependent on the very same resources.

Edited by CarewsEyebrowDesigner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

blandy, on 27 Sept 2013 - 5:33 PM, said:

 

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

 

 

 

I didn't think there was a debate though

 

It was always a scientist says global warning is melting the ice caps  and anyone that doesn't agree is then "deluded" ( same with the disappearing rain forest debate , but No lets all listen to Sting )

 

then a few more scientist came up with evidence that maybe suggested it wasn't ALL man made  and suddenly public opinion had moved to more of a not sure stance

 

 

and then today we get this new statement after it appears the proportion of people who believe human activity is making the world warmer has fallen from 55% in 2008 to 39% in 2013.

 

and yet you accuse the oil companies and Fox  of acting in their own interest with the data  ??

 

I heard today an expert saying about the ice caps melt and water will rise by xx inches  .... now maybe my logic is flawed but the ice caps have already displaced the water and thus when they melt the water level will remain the same  ( well actually it would drop slightly ) .. drop some ice cubes in a glass of coke and try it on a smaller scale   ..maybe oceans are different , salt content and so forth  .. maybe Brian Cox can tell me

 

I've said before when we've had this debate , that if man kind can do it's bit to not kill polar bears by melting his home  then we should do it  .. however what happens is the UK sticks a policy in place to go green , charges consumers a Green tax and the price of everything goes up ..meanwhile India and China increase their cheap and polluting production  and everyone in the UK goes off and buys the cheaper product  from those countries anyway ..whilst feeling good that they care about the environment  (I'm sure anyone that watched top gear has seen how the Prius is made and how wasteful the production is for a "Green" car )

 

 

 

it's like the EU and the NHS  .. there is a good debate to be had  ..been when the first contribution is to call people deluded  .. well it isn't gonna happen is it

 

The rise in sea level is for two reasons, both not to do with the floating ice which as you correctly noticed displaces no more than it's sunken volume once it melts. The two contributing factors are the ice sheets on land, particularly the Antarctic and Greenland, the second reason is the fact that warm water takes up greater volume than cold water and when all the water in the world is warmed by even a small amount the difference in volume is noticeable by an increase in sea level. The term deluded wasn't used as an insult by me, just the fact I believe some people are trying to justify their argument in a debate without any informed knowledge.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware there has been a healthy debate on climate change within the scientific community. The problem the other argument has isn't that it get dismissed out of hand, but rather that it is and has been losing the argument on sheer weight of evidence for a long time now.

I think we in the UK could create a green economy that would be a win win. Our economy would be stronger than anybody's with less reliance on fossil fuels as well as the environmental benefits. There are vested interests that don't want that to happen though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware there has been a healthy debate on climate change within the scientific community. The problem the other argument has isn't that it get dismissed out of hand, but rather that it is and has been losing the argument on sheer weight of evidence for a long time now.

I think we in the UK could create a green economy that would be a win win. Our economy would be stronger than anybody's with less reliance on fossil fuels as well as the environmental benefits. There are vested interests that don't want that to happen though.

Imagine if the scientists of our country were really well incentivised to go out and create world leading green technologies, that would be a huge boost for our economy as we would have an export that the whole world would want if it was efficient. I agree with you, if we as a country got it right, it would be win win.

Edited by villaguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â