Global Warming not eroding ice shocker

[The Rivet]

Mowgli you spend your money not mine. I'll choose my own causes thanks. Political priority for me would be to get a fair consensus amongst all nations on how it would be financially achieved fairly. At the moment western governments and radical theorists seem to think we should take the moral high ground and lead with our households money in tax pounds. Why? So governments and individuals have world 'standing' All in it or none pays for it!

 

[dangull]

I saw somewhere that looking at historic records, we have been due an ice age for a while and that global warming by humans could help delay this from happening, so it might not be that bad a thing. Could be rubbish though.

 

[beorhthelm]

Totally agree. A skeptic only needs to demonstrate a single predictive model is wrong to proclaim the entire theory of manmade climate change is wrong. It is barmy.

you know that is the normal process of the scientific method? an observation disproves the theory, you have to propose a new theory to cover the new observation. that seems to be the core problem for climate change, its not really a firm theory, its become a bit of a moving target or at least the consequences are.

and you mention efficient combustion engines being suppressed. this doesnt make sence when you consider since the 1970's oil crisis fuel economy has been a core sales pitch for the vehicle manufacturers. the car that saves big% fuel would be best seller. likewise a lorry with even a small advantage would clean up. the conspiracy that oil companies suppressed tech doesnt really stack up when european car companies (without large oil corps around) havent found the secret, nor russia or china who cont play the same game. and the oil companies didnt exactly help Detriot in the past decade, so you'd think they'd be bring it out by now. doesnt fly.

 

[HovaGirl]

This is The Register though. It's known for it's climate change denial and I'd say it's a pretty dangerous stance to take.

You can't doubt that the impact we are having on this planet is affecting the climate.

No it's not. Human beings can't overpower nature.

 

[drew]

No it's not. Human beings can't overpower nature.

Your saying that human activity has no effect on nature?

 

[portslade seagull]

nope. too much of it isn't hard science, its computer simulations and models based on limited observations and the researchers prejudices. some models that fed into the IPCC report didnt even include Sun radiation output. it is immensley complex, and some of the inputs and feedback cycles arent even properly understood, but they will tell you with certainty the conclusions are correct and accuracte (to +/- 100%).

Yes but people get paid squandudles of money to spout that

 

[The Rivet]

Your saying that human activity has no effect on nature?

Perhaps she meant we have effected it but, how do we go about 'controlling' nature? And who is paying for it? Us or the whole world? I asked Napier earlier and I'd like to ask you. We are effecting nature but how do we correct it by controlling nature? And who should pay for that?

 

[Sloe Joe]

Global warming has about as much reality as BHA signing Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi (or both) on a free in the January window.
Those who wish to believe either are totally deluded and should be consigned to a lunatics asylum/sanatorium for mad folks with mental disorders.
Total hype in both cases and I blame the ARGUS !

 

[Soulman]

Global warming has about as much reality as BHA signing Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi (or both) on a free in the January window.
Those who wish to believe either are totally deluded and should be consigned to a lunatics asylum/sanatorium for mad folks with mental disorders.
Total hype in both cases and I blame the ARGUS !

Move to Ferring, no global problems there

 

[Sloe Joe]

Hopefully not. It was still intact after xmas.
Soulman, I owe you a Harveys !
I'll be in the usual queue. Ferring awaits and counting down the days already What's three times thirty or so ?

 

[Mowgli37]

Mowgli you spend your money not mine. I'll choose my own causes thanks. Political priority for me would be to get a fair consensus amongst all nations on how it would be financially achieved fairly. At the moment western governments and radical theorists seem to think we should take the moral high ground and lead with our households money in tax pounds. Why? So governments and individuals have world 'standing' All in it or none pays for it!

I see your point, what I was trying to get at was our government uses the money we earn for numerous things which have little or no benefit to this country whereas renewable energy will clearly be a change for the better. Yes, there are a lot of people with very strong views on climate change but pollution has other negatives besides global warming (whether you believe in it or not is up to you, I'm personally on the fence). Think smog, acid rain etc. Developing technology that stops this from happening is fine by me as long as it is affordable for the masses and is widely implemented. We're bleeding our planet dry at an ever increasing rate and something needs to be done.

 

[The Rivet]

Move to Ferring, no global problems there

There's nothing much happening in Ferring on a general basis but, one thing sure is happening. Each household is paying 'Green' taxes.

 

[Diego Napier]

I'm intrigued Napier. Like you I'd like to see us be able to control nature (perhaps we already have with carbon emissions in the negative) but I ask you how do we successfully do it? I admit I don't know how the whole world will ever get into sync to achieve it or even come up with the technology to succeed. Do you have any ideas that don't involve the residents in the UK paying excessive green taxes when others across the world don't? Genuine question. Yes, a question.

I didn't allude to controlling nature however, I'd like to see the human race modifying their impact on it!

I think that you've fingered the two biggest hurdles that need to be overcome:
a. "what's in it for me" - unless individuals are given personal incentives or feel genuine hardship/pain then they are unlikely to act altruistically. There have been instances where, arguably, "people power" has influenced government policy (anti-Vietnam sentiment, American civil right movement, fall of the Berlin Wall, Arab spring etc.) but the driving forces (hardship/pain) were far stronger than those currently experienced by global warming.
b. nationalism - unless the threat to the earth is recognised as significant enough by the major global powers to override their national interests and act together then any initiative is dead in the water. Again there are instances from the past (formation of the EEC, United Nations) but these are pretty small beer compared with the act of financial will required to significantly shift any nations economic foundation from one rooted in fossil fuel to sustainable energy. The technology is in place to move to that model (wind, wave, hydro, geothermal, tidal, solar) and migrate over a period of decades.

You speak of green taxes but what that does is to obscure reality. In the 1940s/50s/60s, there was no talk of green taxes but billions of pounds were spent on developing nuclear energy that was paid for by oblivious British taxpayers. Nowdays, nuclear energy is spoken about as alternative, clean or green. Whatever it is, if the same amount of time and money had been expended on true renewable energy then this country would be largely self sustaining. The £50-70 billion required to build a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham could find a better home. The government (any colour) could do far more to encourage research & development of new technologies (e.g. flexible ceramics instead of plastics, superstrong paper istead of plastics, anything instead of plastics!) as well as direct support for alternatives.

After all that speil I don't have an answer! At least nothing novel; it will be addressed by world leaders if global calamities hit their national pockets harder and harder, it will be addressed by individuals as a collective if global events provoke increasing resentment. In the meantime, I would praise rather than pillory supermarkets for charging for plastic bags!

 

[Soulman]

Hopefully not. It was still intact after xmas.
Soulman, I owe you a Harveys !
I'll be in the usual queue. Ferring awaits and counting down the days already What's three times thirty or so ?

Safe journey down, watch out for fallen trees.

 

[The Rivet]

I see your point, what I was trying to get at was our government uses the money we earn for numerous things which have little or no benefit to this country whereas renewable energy will clearly be a change for the better. Yes, there are a lot of people with very strong views on climate change but pollution has other negatives besides global warming (whether you believe in it or not is up to you, I'm personally on the fence). Think smog, acid rain etc. Developing technology that stops this from happening is fine by me as long as it is affordable for the masses and is widely implemented. We're bleeding our planet dry at an ever increasing rate and something needs to be done.

Once again Mowgli I do agree with you but we all need to pay a proportionate amount across ALL nations with a consensus between all nations governments. Otherwise you get the west paying far too much in relation to other rich countries and that means MY money. Trouble is the world squabbles badly and no good consensus will ever be achieved!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

No it's not. Human beings can't overpower nature.

You clearly need to watch Armageddon and Deep Impact.

 

[BadFish]

Oh, because I was interested in seeing what reaction it would bring. And because, there is a prevalent attitude in Australia that rejects climate change besmirching it as 'green science' and 'scaremongering' none of it which helps in debating an issue that is affecting our lives and will continue to do so.

Not so sure about this, Please don't confuse the ill conceived opinions of our Prime Minister with the opinions of everyone else. Despite opinions to the contrary Australians are not that stupid.

 

[The Rivet]

I didn't allude to controlling nature however, I'd like to see the human race modifying their impact on it!

I think that you've fingered the two biggest hurdles that need to be overcome:
a. "what's in it for me" - unless individuals are given personal incentives or feel genuine hardship/pain then they are unlikely to act altruistically. There have been instances where, arguably, "people power" has influenced government policy (anti-Vietnam sentiment, American civil right movement, fall of the Berlin Wall, Arab spring etc.) but the driving forces (hardship/pain) were far stronger than those currently experienced by global warming.
b. nationalism - unless the threat to the earth is recognised as significant enough by the major global powers to override their national interests and act together then any initiative is dead in the water. Again there are instances from the past (formation of the EEC, United Nations) but these are pretty small beer compared with the act of financial will required to significantly shift any nations economic foundation from one rooted in fossil fuel to sustainable energy. The technology is in place to move to that model (wind, wave, hydro, geothermal, tidal, solar) and migrate over a period of decades.

You speak of green taxes but what that does is to obscure reality. In the 1940s/50s/60s, there was no talk of green taxes but billions of pounds were spent on developing nuclear energy that was paid for by oblivious British taxpayers. Nowdays, nuclear energy is spoken about as alternative, clean or green. Whatever it is, if the same amount of time and money had been expended on true renewable energy then this country would be largely self sustaining. The £50-70 billion required to build a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham could find a better home. The government (any colour) could do far more to encourage research & development of new technologies (e.g. flexible ceramics instead of plastics, superstrong paper istead of plastics, anything instead of plastics!) as well as direct support for alternatives.

After all that speil I don't have an answer! At least nothing novel; it will be addressed by world leaders if global calamities hit their national pockets harder and harder, it will be addressed by individuals as a collective if global events provoke increasing resentment. In the meantime, I would praise rather than pillory supermarkets for charging for plastic bags!

Napier I really appreciated your response. I do agree with an awful lot of what you have eloquently expressed. Your are, when pressed, an impressive wordsmith with thought behind your arguments. I still stand behind my argument however that all should pay fairly or none at all. This country cannot continue to pay pay pay without worldwide consensus, emerging nations or not! Thanks for your answer.

 

[Diego Napier]

Napier I really appreciated your response. I do agree with an awful lot of what you have eloquently expressed. Your are, when pressed, an impressive wordsmith with thought behind your arguments. I still stand behind my argument however that all should pay fairly or none at all. This country cannot continue to pay pay pay without worldwide consensus, emerging nations or not! Thanks for your answer.

No problemo, the only thing I'd ask you to consider is...... that..............it seems strange being called by my forename rather than my surname, even on the interweb!

 

[BadFish]

If climate change were real then surely we would be experiencing record temperatures around the globe and loads of extreme weather too. Anyone noticed any extreme weather recently?