"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

spank_inferno

Akrasia wrote: »

The debate about global warming is over, we seriously need to focus on what we're going to do about it.

What do you reckon?

More taxes by chance?

karma_

LordSutch wrote: »

I am with the David Bellamy's of this world on this one. Yes we may be eperiencing global warming? (but if so, humans are only partially responsible) for what is the natural warming up and cooling down of the palnet over millennia. Of course, speaking out against the tide can get you into trouble if you are in the public eye, like David Bellamy used to be.

David Bellamy tells of moment he was "frozen out" of BBC. for daring to question "Man made" global warming.

"We’ve done plenty to smash up the planet, but there’s been no global warming caused by man. The UK Met Office this month downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

Mr Bellamy insisted that he had no regrets about being so outspoken and had not changed his opinions about global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html

So you align yourself with one mans opinions over the 95% of actual climate scientists who tell you otherwise? That's just crazy.

I respect Bellamy, but he's not a climate scientist and his opinion has no weight if all he is doing is stating just that. Why does he not back his claims up with proof and get it peer reviewed?

The thing about this is it's so serious and if it were left up to the likes of yourself you'd gamble EVERYTHING on the notion that a 5% opinion is correct. There will be no take backs on this one, consider that just for a moment.

spank_inferno

Akrasia wrote: »

You really have no clue do you?

Most people would be embarassed to display such a level of ignorance in public

So... My educated man.

What do you think should be done to reverse the calamity of a 1 degree temp rise over the last 100 years?

Jonny7

spank_inferno wrote: »

What do you reckon?

More taxes by chance?

Taxes or global regulations/laws to seriously cut down on emissions.

spank_inferno

Jonny7 wrote: »

Taxes or global regulations/laws to seriously cut down on emissions.

You mean like Kyoto?
And the huge taxes on petrol/diesels etc?

How has that worked out so far?

C14N

spank_inferno wrote: »

You mean like Kyoto?
And the huge taxes on petrol/diesels etc?

How has that worked out so far?

It hasn't because China and the US aren't changing a thing. In both cases because they would rather deny the existance of climate change instead of dealing with it.

spank_inferno

C14N wrote: »

It hasn't because China and the US aren't changing a thing. In both cases because they would rather deny the existance of climate change instead of dealing with it.

Much of the signing countries (incluing Ireland) have failed to comply with Kyoto....

So blaming the USA & China aside.... What is the solution?

Mabey we should just pay more taxes?

Jonny7

spank_inferno wrote: »

Much of the signing countries (incluing Ireland) have failed to comply with Kyoto....

So blaming the USA & China aside.... What is the solution?

Mabey we should just pay more taxes?

What do you propose as a workable solution?

spank_inferno

Jonny7 wrote: »

What do you propose as a workable solution?

Well.. personally I dont give a sh1t about the global warming racket.

I dont feel I should pay more taxes because china erects a new power plant every month & the earth warms by 1 degree over an entire century!

(heracy I know).

Its up to the global warming evangalists to bring the solutions to their new faith.

Hitchens

Jonny7 wrote: »

What do you propose as a workable solution?

ask 'Big Al' ..........he'll probably tell you to cut the number of bathrooms in your house to around the 8 mark :pac:

Akrasia

spank_inferno wrote: »

You mean like Kyoto?
And the huge taxes on petrol/diesels etc?

How has that worked out so far?

We need to limit our carbon emissions one way or another.

It's going to get harder and harder to prevent the worst scenarios the longer we delay. If it wasn't for the Oil Industry denial machine, which you and the countless other internet 'sceptics' are merrily parroting we might have started taking appropriate action much earlier and the costs would be lower.

We are now locked into a certain amount of pain. The longer we refuse to act, the more we are going to suffer, and the more expensive it will be to deal with it.

old hippy

The Earth is flat, dammit.

Hitchens

old hippy wrote: »

The Earth is flat, dammit.

just like some heads, eh?

old hippy

Hitchens wrote: »

just like some heads, eh?

You'd know all about that, I'll warrant.

Jonny7

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well.. personally I dont give a sh1t about the global warming racket.

Beats me why you're asking for a solution to a problem you don't even believe exists.

Whatever about global warming or cooling, I'll gladly pay a tax that helps decrease the ****ton of pollution we pump into the air around us.

Surely this is a case of dogmatic belief trumping common sense

Filibuster

Jonny7 wrote: »

Beats me why you're asking for a solution to a problem you don't even believe exists.

Whatever about global warming or cooling, I'll gladly pay a tax that helps decrease the ****ton of pollution we pump into the air around us.

Surely this is a case of dogmatic belief trumping common sense

You better close your mouth, they'll tax the CO2 coming out of your mouth next.

Artful_Badger

There is no reason to take a chance and hope the massive amounts of crap we're pumping out wont have severe detrimental effects. If there is any evidence to suggest certain human activity may be an issue we need to curb that activity if possible unless its conclusively proven not to be the case.

kneemos

Used to be a common saying years ago "they'll tax the air next"
They went and done it.

Jonny7

Filibuster wrote: »

You better close your mouth, they'll tax the CO2 coming out of your mouth next.

Flat-earth society paging you, they want some comebacks to modern science they can't deal with

Filibuster

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There is no reason to take a chance and hope the massive amounts of crap we're pumping out wont have severe detrimental effects. If there is any evidence to suggest certain human activity may be an issue we need to curb that activity if possible unless its conclusively proven not to be the case.

Yes, lets put limits on our economic growth and stop the 3rd world becoming prosperous on the results of faulty computer models.

WilyCoyote

I think this thread should be locked. The Gods have internet access at fierce speeds (can even know what your'e going to post next year) and could cause horrendous damage if upset. I mean it could rain shit if they so wanted.

All HAIL to the Gods!

PopePalpatine

WilyCoyote wrote: »

I think this thread should be locked. The Gods have internet access at fierce speeds (can even know what your'e going to post next year) and could cause horrendous damage if upset. I mean it could rain shit if they so wanted.

All HAIL to the Gods!

Why are gods such vicious cunts? :pac:

C14N

kneemos wrote: »

What would it take for the climate change scientists to say it's all over,no climate change anymore.

A good few actual scientists doing actual investigation and coming out with contrary results. Seriously, even so much as a peer review finding that the ideas behind it aren't sound.

Better question, what will it take for the deniers to convince them that it's real? I'm really struggling to think of a single thing that could happen that would make them change their minds.

kneemos wrote: »

Doubt one or two percent makes much difference.

Here's an idea: get absolutely smashed some evening, like totally off your face. Then go for a drive. When you end up in court, trying arguing with the judge that 0.5% alcohol blood level can't be that much and that the doctors who decided that was potentially fatal must be wrong.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Mabey we should just pay more taxes?

What's with the fixation on taxes? Trying to solve the problem is a colossal and unimaginably complex issue. It would involve changing all of our power sources over to ones that don't pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

I don't know what the solution is, I'm not an economist or a scientist. What I do know is that you can't just ignore it away.

Were there still people in the 90s denying that a few smokes a day did any harm either by the way?

WilyCoyote

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why are gods such vicious cunts? :pac:

You should know. Aren't you the middleman

Mahatma Geansai

Jesus, there is some depressing shíte being spouted in this thread. If you want to go against the accepted scientific consensus, provide some data to back up your argument. Its not always about the guv'ment trying to screw the population. Anyway, tending towards a reduced carbon economy is always smart when the resources are running out and an alternative will have to be found anyway.

The planet has been hotter several times in its past, but its the speed of the current trend which is worrying. Its like a person who spent a year losing 20kg being unworried when they gain 15kg in a single day, as they have been heavier before. If ignore what you ate during those 24 hours as being a possible cause for the sudden weight gain, you'll be ballooning towards a unhealthy future at an alarming rate.

kneemos

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Jesus, there is some depressing shíte being spouted in this thread. If you want to go against the accepted scientific consensus, provide some data to back up your argument. Its not always about the guv'ment trying to screw the population. Anyway, tending towards a reduced carbon economy is always smart when the resources are running out and an alternative will have to be found anyway.

The planet has been hotter several times in its past, but its the speed of the current trend which is worrying. Its like a person who spent a year losing 20kg being unworried when they gain 15kg in a single day, as they have been heavier before. If ignore what you ate during those 24 hours as being a possible cause for the sudden weight gain, you'll be ballooning towards a unhealthy future at an alarming rate.

There's a lot of analogies going on as well.
Not a big fan of analogies.Comes across like a teacher talking to children.it is something that I would be concerned about if I did it.

riffmongous

kneemos wrote: »

There's a lot of analogies going on as well.
Not a big fan of analogies.Comes across like a teacher talking to children.it is something that I would be concerned about if I did it.

I wouldn't worry, analogies once correct are used quite a lot in physics

spank_inferno

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Jesus, there is some depressing shíte being spouted in this thread. If you want to go against the accepted scientific consensus, provide some data to back up your argument. Its not always about the guv'ment trying to screw the population. Anyway, tending towards a reduced carbon economy is always smart when the resources are running out and an alternative will have to be found anyway.

The planet has been hotter several times in its past, but its the speed of the current trend which is worrying. Its like a person who spent a year losing 20kg being unworried when they gain 15kg in a single day, as they have been heavier before. If ignore what you ate during those 24 hours as being a possible cause for the sudden weight gain, you'll be ballooning towards a unhealthy future at an alarming rate.

I dont disagree with being efficient.... Carbon fuels wont last forever.

But is it so heretical not to question the vast tax & expenditures by governments that do little to reverse a temperature rise of just 1 to 2 degrees over the past century.

Is it worth impeding our economy and the prosperity of developing nations when temperatures are rising 1 degree celcius per century (1.5 over the next 5 decades)???

Andrewf20

Some things come to mind here:

- Preventative vs reactive decision making – everyday we take preventive measures to curtail the risk of bigger problems in the future, for example - taking out medical insurance, plugging out sockets when going on holidays, deciding to not drink and drive etc. Why not with climate change? Im thinking its mainly because the affects/risks of climate change are too subtle to notice day to day for most people.

- That old saying - prevention is better than cure.

As mentioned in the Christopher Hitchens video a number of pages back, we need to act as if human affects on global warming were detrimental in the long run because we don’t have another planet we can simply jump to. If human activity turns out to be the major catalyst, and its too late we (i.e the future generations) then are in a potentially very bad and irreversible situation.

Ultimately we are used to a standard of living and it hurts to be told you have to curtail that enjoyment. We look for someone else to blame (China, industry, gas guzzling yankee trucks, government etc) – and of course if everybody thinks the same way, no one wants to take ownership of the compromises that may be needed. Politics & industry is often driven by what the people want, so are we willing to take / accept preventive measures as individuals?

I see this as a potentially selfish act dotted across humanity – we party at the risk of the faith of future generations. It could be the premature death of the planet by 1000 X billion cuts.

kneemos

riffmongous wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, analogies once correct are used quite a lot in physics

For something complex fair enough.For something simple I'd be concerned.