UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Mike Halmarack
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


More vested interest in the currently dominant technologies than other
political groups?

cheers

Jacob


--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Phil L
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who
most seem inclined to debunk the theory?

I wouldn't have thought it was exactly rocket science!

They are driven by big business - which has the most to lose from any
curtailment to our energy-profligate lifestyle.


...so it *is* rocket science then?
:-p


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article .com,
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


You can make more money in the short term by ignoring the problem.

And Bob Carter *does* know better and so could rightly be questioned as to his
reasons for writing the Telegraph article.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
EricP
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob


Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to
be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense
outlook.???



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Phil L
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

EricP wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who
most seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob


Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to
be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense
outlook.???


Do I detect logic creeping into the equation?

:-p


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Jason
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Because that is what makes them right wing.

The main conclusion to accepting global warming, and its effects, is that we
can't continue to do the things we take for granted now. That means putting
limits on human industrial, consumer and travel activity, for the good of
the whole. Right-wing thinking is more about ensuring the minority are safe
from the effects of global warming, while keeping the masses as uneducated
survants to their needs, and sod what happens to them. Right-wing thinkers
have no interest in saving the world for anyone else - it is just their for
them to use as they wish.

-- JJ


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Steve Firth
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and
global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Peter
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Phil L" wrote in message
. uk...
EricP wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who
most seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob


Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to
be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense
outlook.???


Do I detect logic creeping into the equation?

:-p


I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that the 'so
called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the 'problem' while
failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties, have done nothing, nada,
zilch and what is more, given their total inability to manage large scale
projects, I for one would be horrified to learn that my pennies would be
spent by them on yet another cock up.
Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or working to
order,
The dome,
Cheap housing,
Immigration,
Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards,
45billion on national health, and for what?
OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to spend
our money.

P





  #10   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone
like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global
warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a

(1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech )
(2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey )
(3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in
communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ).

These ideas are tools in their quest for socialism.

Andy.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Mike Halmarack
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:50:08 +0100, "Peter"
wrote:


"Phil L" wrote in message
.uk...
EricP wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 07:18:22 -0700, wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who
most seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob

Going by the mindset of the left and right wing here, the left seem to
be suckers for daft ideas and the right have a more commonsense
outlook.???


Do I detect logic creeping into the equation?

:-p


I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that the 'so
called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the 'problem' while
failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties, have done nothing, nada,
zilch and what is more, given their total inability to manage large scale
projects, I for one would be horrified to learn that my pennies would be
spent by them on yet another cock up.
Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or working to
order,
The dome,
Cheap housing,
Immigration,
Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards,
45billion on national health, and for what?
OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to spend
our money.

P


The only lefties around these parts are capitalist gophers. Exactly
the kind of lefties we deserve.

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
raden
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In message , Andy
writes

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone
like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global
warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a

(1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech )
(2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey )
(3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in
communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ).

These ideas are tools in their quest for socialism.

Bit of a ******, aren't you

I'm not politically correct, but I don't have the ignorant blinkered
attitude you seem to have

BTW, I'm not going to get involved in this idiot thread, so

nerrrrr .......


--
geoff
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Jason
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


You can make more money in the short term by ignoring the problem.

And Bob Carter *does* know better and so could rightly be questioned as to
his
reasons for writing the Telegraph article.


Nothing new in that article though. Same old retoric designed to appeal to
the emotional side of the uninformed. Just about everything Bob Carter says
has been debunked already.

-- JJ


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Phil L
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Peter wrote:
I am rather amazed that a few here are overly ready to suggest that
the 'so called' right wing have a vested interest in debunking the
'problem' while failing completely to note that the, ermm, lefties,
have done nothing, nada, zilch and what is more, given their total
inability to manage large scale projects, I for one would be
horrified to learn that my pennies would be spent by them on yet
another cock up.
Not one large scale computer installation on budget on time or
working to order,
The dome,
Cheap housing,
Immigration,
Motorways that cost millions per 100 yards,
45billion on national health, and for what?
OK sorry rant over, just dont give these dickheads any more time to
spend our money.


Give it to the other dickheads who will do the same thing.
Seriously - we are a two party 'democracy' just like America, and no matter
which way you vote, you've lost as they are all the same.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
tim \(back at home\)
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Phil L" wrote in message
. uk...
Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
wrote:

I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who
most seem inclined to debunk the theory?

I wouldn't have thought it was exactly rocket science!

They are driven by big business - which has the most to lose from any
curtailment to our energy-profligate lifestyle.


..so it *is* rocket science then?
:-p


Not for the average person, perhaps for politicians
:-)

tim







  #16   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
tim \(back at home\)
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Andy" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and
global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a

(1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech )
(2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey )
(3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in
communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ).


Which bit of GW don't you accept?

That it happening?

What its effect is?

What is required to stop it?

Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you
think is wrong.

tim




  #17   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article ,
Andy wrote:
You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct.....


He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least is clear.
Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering that you support the
dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Broadback
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

tim (back at home) wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
...
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?
Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and
global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.

The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a

(1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech )
(2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey )
(3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in
communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ).


Which bit of GW don't you accept?

That it happening?

What its effect is?

What is required to stop it?

Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you
think is wrong.

tim




I am by no means certain that it is happening. The, oh so clever
"experts" keep changing their minds about what the effects are/will be.
The predictions are all based on computer models, which are renowned
for their fallibility. The Gulf Stream is going to stop suddenly, no it
is going to slow down, it will cause extreme cold Winters. If the
Winters become extremely cold then will now the Gulf Stream
restart/speed up? I don't know nor do they. By the way in the 1920s
lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed that unless the human
race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because of bad genes. The
cleansing was practised for a while then common sense prevailed and it
was stopped, we are still here.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


tim (back at home) wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and
global warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a

(1) Political Correctness ( aka suppression of free speech )
(2) Immigration ( destruction of whitey )
(3) Global Warming ( we can't have SUV's and will all have to live in
communes, eating beans and weaving wicker baskets ).


Which bit of GW don't you accept?

That it happening?


No one can seriously deny It is happening. What is open to debate is
how quickly it is happening


What its effect is?


A return to warmer climate.


What is required to stop it?


And whether it can, oe even should, be stopped.

You missed the most important: Is it natural or man-made?

MBQ

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


Andy wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?


Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see someone
like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global
warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a


They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their
place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by
exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey
man".

MBQ



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:14:22 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy wrote:
You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct.....


He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least is clear.
Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering that you support the
dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home.



You mean the Chinese communists with their coal fired power stations
being opened at a rate of (IIRC) one a week or so or was it someone
else?

It seems to me that environmentalism, or the reverse isn't the
preserve of any particular political position but rather the ability
and opportunity.



--

..andy

  #22   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Phil L
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Andy Hall wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:14:22 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy wrote:
You are unwittingly, institutionally politically correct.....


He is certainly correct and you are certainly wrong. That at least
is clear. Surprisingly he has treat you remarkably well considering
that you support the dangerous idiots intent on destroying our home.



You mean the Chinese communists with their coal fired power stations
being opened at a rate of (IIRC) one a week or so or was it someone
else?

It seems to me that environmentalism, or the reverse isn't the
preserve of any particular political position but rather the ability
and opportunity.


Nail; meet head!
This is exactly correct, the only thing that's bothering us westerners is
the fact that developing countries with huge populations like China and
India are fast becoming car owners....it's been OK for us and America to
belch out pollution for the past 100 years but now that the 3rd world wants
in on the action it's brown underpants time.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the
effects are/will be.


No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the
richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people
think the evidence isn't strong.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone
like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global
warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.


The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been
looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a


They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their
place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by
exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey
man".

MBQ


Exactly, certain things are siezed upon and used as tools to control our
behaviour.

I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle ages
and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm enough to farm
in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come ice caps didn't melt
and the atlantic conveyer halt then? )

Also, given the divergent predictions given by the computer models, just how
reliable are they? Even the scientists admit there are problems.

Also, what are the benefits of global warming? Noone ever mentions them, are
there none - is this the Goldilocks climate already then?

I note the left will jump onto a bandwagon when it sees one, look at George
Galloway and his prediliction for muslims, though the whole left seem
inclined that way, e.g. Ken Livingstone. They have spotted a support base
for their plans for gaining power, despite the fact that muslims are
notoriously conservative and make strange bedfellows for people who profess
to champion female and homosexual rights. Same with global warming, see a
bandwagon, work out some potential benefits from it for their designs on
utopian societies, hop on and ride it 'til the end, whatever the truth is.

Andy


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Jason
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"tim (back at home)" wrote in message
...

Which bit of GW don't you accept?

That it happening?

What its effect is?

What is required to stop it?

Difficult to discuss without knowing what it is that you
think is wrong.


The bit that tells him what he's not supposed to do anymore. I think he is
afraid that if he is made to give up his SUV, then the next thing would be
to make him eat beans, just like the thousands of scientists around the
world working on climate change research (who instantly turn into
lentil-eating hippies the moment their graphs come out hockey-shaped).

-- JJ




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article ,
Andy wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Andy wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

Why is it that the left wing want to dress up their attempts to get
something for nothing at someone else's expense and to implement their
agenda of controlling every citizen's thoughts and actions as
"environmentalism"?

Melons, all of them, in the sense of watermelons. It's good to see
someone
like you coming out and admitting that most environmentalism and global
warming in particular is the hobby horse of the loony left.

The left lost the economic battle to capitalism, so they have been
looking
for new ways to achieve their ends. These currently a


They also need something to scare the masses and keep them in their
place now that the cold war is over. Global warming is happening. by
exhagerating and distorting the facts they have a convenient "bogey
man".

MBQ


Exactly, certain things are siezed upon and used as tools to control our
behaviour.


I would like to know:-


How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle ages
and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm enough to farm
in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come ice caps didn't melt

This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter what
caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.

and the atlantic conveyer halt then? )


Also, given the divergent predictions given by the computer models, just how

They vary. From bad to catastrophic. Do you really want to quibble?

reliable are they? Even the scientists admit there are problems.


Between bad and catastrophic. OK is like a lottery win.

Also, what are the benefits of global warming? Noone ever mentions them, are
there none - is this the Goldilocks climate already then?


Plenty of benefits. The deserts of the world get drier, Bangladesh and other
damp places get wetter, Britain gets hotter then freezes.
But London drowns. ;-)

Oh - and if anyone is around to bother we might be able to find some
interesting fossils in the Antarctic once the ice has gone. ;-))

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Steve Firth
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Andy wrote:

I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle ages
and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm enough to farm
in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come ice caps didn't melt
and the atlantic conveyer halt then? )

[snip]

That global warming is happening is a matter of fact, and not something
that I wish to rake over again. However the implication that it is man
made and that we can do anything about it are things I take with a pinch
of salt.

It's something that gets overlooked that only 120,000 years ago London
was a tropical paradise. Note that's 120 *thousand* years, a mere blink
of he ye in geological time. We're in an interglacial period, which way
would you expect the global temperature to be heading?

The evidence that it is human activity resulting in global warming is
IMO circumstantial.
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:14:47 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the
effects are/will be.


No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the
richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people
think the evidence isn't strong.


Luxembourg has never struck me as that influential.



--

..andy

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy wrote:



I would like to know:-


How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle ages
and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm enough to farm
in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come ice caps didn't melt

This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter what
caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent
increase in temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has
little relationship to CO2 emissions.

If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions
would not have the effect that is hoped.

In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission
levels down to the figures at the point that there was first thought
to be a possible connection.

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2
emissions, but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with
the impact of substantial climate change if and when it happens.

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little
unwise.


--

..andy

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Steve Firth
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Andy Hall wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:14:47 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the
effects are/will be.

No they don't. As with all good science they keep refining them - but the
richest nation on Earth keeps finding ways to muddy the waters and make people
think the evidence isn't strong.


Luxembourg has never struck me as that influential.


They do have nice low petrol prices though, as does the second
wealthiest country in the world, Switzerland.


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Jason
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


"Broadback" wrote in message
...

I am by no means certain that it is happening.


People who know more than you are pretty certain it is.

The, oh so clever "experts" keep changing their minds about what the
effects are/will be.


As has been said, the experts do not keep changing their mind. There are
many articles published that try to rubbish the research, and by muddying
the research, they make it look like the whole scientific community is in
disagreement.

The predictions are all based on computer models, which are renowned for
their fallibility.


They are renowned for being models. Like all models, they are as good as the
knowledge that goes into building them. The only real true model of climate
change is the Earth itself. We can either try to model what we believe is
going to happen in advance, or watch the real thing play out in slow motion.
There is no argument which will be the most accurate.

However - the evidence for current change is just that - evidence of it
happening now. That has nothing to do with models.

The Gulf Stream is going to stop suddenly, no it is going to slow down, it
will cause extreme cold Winters.


It is slowing down now. There is evidence of that. We will have to wait and
see what it does to our winters in Northern Europe.

If the Winters become extremely cold then will now the Gulf Stream
restart/speed up? I don't know nor do they.


Right, 'they' don't know how easy it would be to start the thing up again.
That's a good argument for not letting things get so far.

By the way in the 1920s lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed
that unless the human race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because
of bad genes. The cleansing was practised for a while then common sense
prevailed and it was stopped, we are still here.


Are you talking about the Nazis? Perhaps communist dictatorships? Yes, some
pretty nasty stuff has been done by many dictators, but what has this to do
with climate change?

-- JJ




  #32   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Steve Firth
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

Jason wrote:
[snip]
By the way in the 1920s lots of scientists and politicians firmly believed
that unless the human race was "cleansed" it would cease to exist because
of bad genes. The cleansing was practised for a while then common sense
prevailed and it was stopped, we are still here.


Are you talking about the Nazis? Perhaps communist dictatorships? Yes, some
pretty nasty stuff has been done by many dictators, but what has this to do
with climate change?


I take it you never heard of eugenics then? Nor of the work of Louis
Agassiz? If you are as woefully ignorant as you appear to be, how one
take your views of the accuracy of climate prediction seriously?
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy wrote:



I would like to know:-


How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle
ages and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm
enough to farm in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come
ice caps didn't melt

This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter
what caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent increase in
temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has little relationship
to CO2 emissions.


If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions would
not have the effect that is hoped.


It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.

In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are going
to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels down to
the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a possible
connection.


A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as you
reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, but
equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact of
substantial climate change if and when it happens.


If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the tundra
& sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half the world's
population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.


Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #34   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob

Because they tend to be more in the pockets of oil companies.
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming


The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
I follow the global warming debate at intervals by looking at
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News
Question is: why is it the generally the political right wing who most
seem inclined to debunk the theory?

cheers

Jacob

Because they tend to be more in the pockets of oil companies.


I don't think it's that simple; direct self interest. It's more of a
mind-set or idea syndrome. Is is that the rights are stupid and
disturbed by and distrust all who challenge their simplistic world
views and that tends to include scientists, philosophers, thinkers in
general, artists, liberals and the whole pinko intelligent community?

cheers

Jacob



  #36   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:05:13 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy wrote:



I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g. the
little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early middle
ages and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was warm
enough to farm in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now, how come
ice caps didn't melt
This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter
what caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent increase in
temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has little relationship
to CO2 emissions.


If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions would
not have the effect that is hoped.


It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.


Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether
climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because
obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the
extent to which it does contribute to climate change?

It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by
some huge percentage, that there had been no effect.



In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are going
to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels down to
the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a possible
connection.


A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as you
reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?


You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.



This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, but
equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact of
substantial climate change if and when it happens.


If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the tundra
& sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half the world's
population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?


You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea
does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence
than was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would
not have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2
emissions and climate change was happening anyway and beyond our
control.

My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we
have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with
climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2
emissions the end will come?

My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures
happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all.
Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below
the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism
doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing,
but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations
are going to become self denying.





Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.


Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(


There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue
situation does not make sense either.





--

..andy

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
John Cartmell
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:05:13 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy
wrote:



I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g.
the little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early
middle ages and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was
warm enough to farm in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now,
how come ice caps didn't melt
This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter
what caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent increase
in temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has little
relationship to CO2 emissions.


If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions
would not have the effect that is hoped.


It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.


Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate
change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously
that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it
does contribute to climate change?


As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to
that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest
there is no effect.

It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some
huge percentage, that there had been no effect.


Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like
GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything
about it.


In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels
down to the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a
possible connection.


A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as
you reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?


You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.


If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing
- and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I
*shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to
defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you
seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting
emotional?

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions,
but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact
of substantial climate change if and when it happens.


If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the
tundra & sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half
the world's population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?


You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does
turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was
initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been
able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate
change was happening anyway and beyond our control.


My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have
got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate
change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the
end will come?


Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal?

My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures
happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even
as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the
surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't
work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would
be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to
become self denying.


And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far
too late. We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have
already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything
but drastic action. We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We
have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now.

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.


Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(


There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation
does not make sense either.


It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

  #38   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.


Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate
change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously
that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it
does contribute to climate change?


As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to
that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest
there is no effect.


Of course. Just as it is equally silly to suggest that it is the only
effect as is implied by the political bandwagon. More reasonably,
the reality is likely to lie somewhere between a natural trend
happening (which may of course be subject to variations up and down
over decades and centuries) and man made influence of CO2 emission.



It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some
huge percentage, that there had been no effect.


Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like
GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything
about it.


Hence my point that this debate is not where the entire focus ought to
be as it seems to be today, but also to consider what to do in the
event of various global warming scenarios actually happening.

This would cover the situations of Dubya, his successors, the Chinese,
the 3rd world and everybody else who is unwilling or unable to do
anything about CO2 emission as well as the scenario that CO2 emission
might not have as much influence as is thought and that it is other
phenomena beyond our control instead or as well.

This is not to say that I don't think that reduction in CO2 emission
is worthwhile. I am simply concerned about backing one horse only
and especially when the other punters are not laying bets at all.




In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels
down to the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a
possible connection.

A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as
you reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?


You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.


If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing
- and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I
*shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to
defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you
seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting
emotional?


No I don't which is why I make the point that sensible thought should
go into how to deal with movement of people, should that become
necessary at some point, before it actually happens.

Applying emotion to it is not going to deal with this in any useful
way.





This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions,
but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact
of substantial climate change if and when it happens.

If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the
tundra & sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half
the world's population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?


You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does
turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was
initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been
able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate
change was happening anyway and beyond our control.


My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have
got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate
change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the
end will come?


Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal?


This assumes that you believe that CO2 emission reduction is *the* way
to address the issue and that looking at that *and* other things such
as what to do if that can't be achieved for whatever reason or doesn't
have the influence that was first believed does not make sense.

It is that that is my concern about the current bandwagon. When
there is tunnel vision like this, the usual outcome is to meet a train
coming the other way.


My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures
happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even
as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the
surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't
work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would
be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to
become self denying.


And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far
too late.


That's not what I said at all. The point is that attention should
be paid to CO2 emission, including reducing it *and* the possibility
that that cannot be done sufficiently and soon enough to make a
difference *and* the possibility that there are other manmade
influences *and* the possibility of natural influences and *also* to
look at what to do if none of these play out and we do have to deal
with climate change happening.

We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have
already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything
but drastic action.


What if the conclusions are wrong and it is (also) another manmade or
natural phenomenon and the change is happening even if we do take
drastic action on CO2 emisssion? What happens if Dubya's successors
take a similar view to him and the Chinese and 3rd world continue to
go in the wrong direction?


We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We
have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now.


No we haven't. You didn't read what I said, just what you wanted to
think I said.



Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.

Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(


There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation
does not make sense either.


It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen.


Listening to one-issue politicians certainly doesn't.


--

..andy

  #39   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Mike Halmarack
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Snip
You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.


If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing
- and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I
*shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to
defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you
seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting
emotional?

snip

I think there's inevitably an emotional component to the
discussion/argument. Emotion is probably beneficial but it depends
what it's combined with.
As humans I don't think were as important as we consider ourselves to
be. By the same token I don't think were as responsible for these big
events as we imagine.
Natural changes tend toward the amorphous. Human responses to these
changes usually range from stiff to rigid.
Civilised man responds to changes in sea level and flow patterns by
moving millions of tons of rock and pouring millions of tons of
concrete. Primitive man would just move out of the way.
People spend fortunes trying to preserve houses built on the edges of
crumbling cliffs because natural erosion isn't prepared to consider
title deeds and mortgage commitments.
Most of us share a concern for the quality of life of our
grand-children but isn't defending their home against starving,
dispossessed hordes inevitable for one reason or another at various
points in time?
Hollywood regularly makes a fortune from presenting mock-ups of such
situations for our entertainment and we lap it up appreciatively.
Sometimes we have to live it.
always a
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT global warming

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:30:28 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:



It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.

Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether
climate change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because
obviously that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent
to which it does contribute to climate change?

As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to
that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to
suggest there is no effect.


Of course. Just as it is equally silly to suggest that it is the only
effect as is implied by the political bandwagon. More reasonably, the
reality is likely to lie somewhere between a natural trend happening (which
may of course be subject to variations up and down over decades and
centuries) and man made influence of CO2 emission.


Truth is rarely conveniently found half-way between where competing ignorant
statements place it. I prefer to accept scientific evidence.


So do I, which is why I think it's important to keep all possible
factors in mind. Since non-man-made change cannot be eliminated as a
contributor to global warming, it is foolhardy to assume that CO2
emission is the only causal contributor.




It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by
some huge percentage, that there had been no effect.

Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people
like GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do
anything about it.


Hence my point that this debate is not where the entire focus ought to be
as it seems to be today, but also to consider what to do in the event of
various global warming scenarios actually happening.


Prepare for the worst-case scenario? Then prepare for your civilisation to
disappear.


That may happen. There are also numerous other possibilities between
where we are now and that.

It would be far more useful, while doing what is technically and
politically achievable with CO2 reduction, to put some effort into
whether any of those can also be influenced, or at the very least to
consider options as to what to do should they occur.



This would cover the situations of Dubya, his successors, the Chinese, the
3rd world and everybody else who is unwilling or unable to do anything
about CO2 emission as well as the scenario that CO2 emission might not have
as much influence as is thought and that it is other phenomena beyond our
control instead or as well.


This is not to say that I don't think that reduction in CO2 emission is
worthwhile. I am simply concerned about backing one horse only and
especially when the other punters are not laying bets at all.


We're back to you cheering on those yobbos ...


No *we're* not. Only *you* are.




In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission
levels down to the figures at the point that there was first thought
to be a possible connection.

A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and,
as you reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?

You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.

If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are
disappearing - and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try
explaining to me why I *shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my
grand-daughter having to defend her home against starving hordes from the
South East - or do you seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused
without people getting emotional?


No I don't which is why I make the point that sensible thought should go
into how to deal with movement of people, should that become necessary at
some point, before it actually happens.


If you get to that point you have lost. We're planning to avoid that.


Really? What happens if said planning is wrong and despite the best
efforts for CO2 reduction, climate change continues to occur?






Applying emotion to it is not going to deal with this in any useful way.


Applying quiet, scientific detachment has not got us very far since the early
60s.


Quiet scientific detachment considers all of the options and outcomes.
It should also consider options if the original theory is incorrect or
the changes that it would like are not achieved.




This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2
emissions, but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal
with the impact of substantial climate change if and when it happens.

If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the
tundra & sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half
the world's population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?

You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea
does turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than
was initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not
have been able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and
climate change was happening anyway and beyond our control.

My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we
have got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with
climate change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2
emissions the end will come?

Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal?


This assumes that you believe that CO2 emission reduction is *the* way to
address the issue and that looking at that *and* other things such as what
to do if that can't be achieved for whatever reason or doesn't have the
influence that was first believed does not make sense.


I'm looking at the scientific question and answers. Choosing which populations
to choose to wipe out is a political consideration.


Brigands, murderers, dentists and civil servants would be a reasonable
start.

I was also looking at the scientific, applied acientific and possibly
engineering considerations.

Work should also go into what can be done in the event of the various
scenarios resulting from global warming - for example different types
of food production in different places plus the other paraphernalia
and locations for the support of mankind's continued existence.



It is that that is my concern about the current bandwagon. When there is
tunnel vision like this, the usual outcome is to meet a train coming the
other way.


I'm not on a bandwagon. I'm trying to educate someone who dismisses real, and
dangerous problems as a bandwagon.


Don't be mistaken. I am not dismissing CO2 emission and it's
reduction, per sec, as a bandwagon. It may well have a substantial
influence on climate. On the other hand, there amy be other factors
as well.

The bandwagon is following it as *the* issue to the exclusion of
others. This is convenient for politicians and others who are hard
of thinking. The danger in this is if either the required
reductions can't be made either technically or politically (which is a
very likely possibility whether we like it or not) or if the influence
is not what we thought.



My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures
happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all.
Even as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below
the surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism
doesn't work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing,
but it would be naive to expect that world governments and populations
are going to become self denying.

And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's
far too late.


That's not what I said at all. The point is that attention should be
paid to CO2 emission, including reducing it *and* the possibility that that
cannot be done sufficiently and soon enough to make a difference *and* the
possibility that there are other manmade influences *and* the possibility
of natural influences and *also* to look at what to do if none of these
play out and we do have to deal with climate change happening.


We don't deal with climate change if we get the worst. There is no reason to
suppose that, if we let it go beyond the tipping point, there is any
technology that will cope - and no reason to suppose that any mammals will
survive, even though it's likely that life will continue.


There may well not be any technology that will cope if no effort is
put into researching that. It would also assume the notion of a
tipping point. Granted, one can model that, but it depends on a set
of assumptions that may or may not happen.



We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have already
checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything but
drastic action.


What if the conclusions are wrong and it is (also) another manmade or
natural phenomenon and the change is happening even if we do take drastic
action on CO2 emisssion? What happens if Dubya's successors take a
similar view to him and the Chinese and 3rd world continue to go in the
wrong direction?


Could be a touch uncomfortable.


Exactly. Unfortunately, I think that this is the most likely
scenario. I don't *want* that this should be what happens, but fear
that it will be.

Given that likely reality, I would like to see at least some effort
going into dealing with the consequences.



We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We have to do
something bloody fast!" stage. Now.


No we haven't. You didn't read what I said, just what you wanted to think
I said.


Your advice was to investigate further. We have done. We have spent too long
doing so.


No it wasn't. I have not said that effort should not go into
reduction of CO2 emission or that it should be delayed to look at
alternatives. My point is that while that is being done, and knowing
full well that it will take longer than is desirable, we should also
be looking at whether there are other factors and whether we can do
anything about those and also to look at how to deal with the outcome
of CO2 emissions not being reduced as we might hope.




Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little
unwise.

Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(

There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue
situation does not make sense either.

It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen.


Listening to one-issue politicians certainly doesn't.


I don't listen to politicians or the media on questions like this. None of
them show more than minimal real understanding.


Which is all the more concerning


--

..andy

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming hits the Eastcoast ! carneyke Metalworking 333 May 15th 06 05:46 AM
OT - Global Warming Revisited Lloyd Parker Metalworking 5 March 20th 06 12:38 PM
OT - Global Warming Revisited Martin H. Eastburn Metalworking 0 March 9th 06 03:32 AM
Completely OT Preparing for life with global warming Clark Magnuson Metalworking 139 February 24th 05 01:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"