Green science has bothered me for a long time as predictions are generally not reliable for short time spans, and become less reliable over long times. To conclude that things are certain based on such predictions and to further conclude that the cause of the prediction is known does not seem to me to be wise.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Global Warming not eroding ice shocker
- Thread starter Guinness Boy
- Start date
One of the issues is how this gets paid for? But, of course, this assumes we're going to keep our levels of consumption at the levels they are at right now. Perhaps we should be look at mass behaviour change as well as the provision of cleaner forms of energy and changes to the food change. Is that behaviour change possible? Has it ever been done before on any scale?
Of course, people can opt out of this debate, but do they really have a choice? After all, if we're going to do something about the stresses being placed on the planet then we all have to accept that we all contribute towards what's being taken out.
On taxes, it certainly doesn't help if taxes are just heaped onto energy prices alone. They need to be centralised somehow - taken out of the central pot - so spread across income tax, corporation tax, VAT etc. It's the general cost of living/surviving.
Of course, people can opt out of this debate, but do they really have a choice? After all, if we're going to do something about the stresses being placed on the planet then we all have to accept that we all contribute towards what's being taken out.
On taxes, it certainly doesn't help if taxes are just heaped onto energy prices alone. They need to be centralised somehow - taken out of the central pot - so spread across income tax, corporation tax, VAT etc. It's the general cost of living/surviving.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
this is a very valid but somewhat different matter. one of the things that falls out of the climate science is to use renewables, but nothing much is said about the viability of those renewables. for example, you wouldnt want to replace all the cars in the world with electric ones because the processing required to make the (relativly short lived) batteries is pretty nasty for the environment. similar with solar panels, but we dont need to worry about it too much as we export all that pollution to China. Hydrogen run fuel cells were the great hope once, but its not possible to scale out fuel cells with the current technology as there isnt enough platinum in the world. My favorite was the EU mandate to use n% of biodeisel, intended to use up surplus vegetable oils and spur new developments in oils from algea and the like, but ended up creating a new market for palm oil and an increase in deforestation to grow palms... oops.
interesting issue, more interesting the aspect of GM you are concerned with. you worry how GM might affect us, when its not going to. might seem glib, but the genetic material spliced in comes from other organisms we otherwise consume. whats far more open to question and should be the concern is what happens to the subject of the GM and its near relatives, especially in the case of crops very difficult to control.
Seagull kimchi
New member
I'm sitting on the cusp of China - and I can't deny that there is a massive problem with air pollution and it sure ain't gonna get better any time soon. Life expectancy is shrinking in the big cities and that's just the short term effects. This is nothing like we've seen in Europe since the industrial revolution.
I'm not too concerned about GM to be honest. I'm a pragmatist. My point is that this is where we should be taking the debate. Not is climate change happening or is it not, but rather what are we going to do about it. That's where the real debate should be had.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
agree, but i fear the problem is no debate is allowed. if you want to question any of it you are a "denier" and must be burnt at the stake. reducing carbon emissions, by say using more efficient power plants or cleaner fuel, isnt good enough and we've theres a mentality saying "no carbon at all", which has already led to legislation that virtual prohibits building any new coal/gas based power, even if technology makes it better than the old. meanwhile round the world other countries have said bollocks to it all and built coal based power on the older technology anyway.
drew
Drew
Is it reversing? The Arctic sea Ice has fallen dramatically over the last 30 years whereas whilst there has been an increase in Antarctic ice, it isn't anywhere near as dramatic. The trend for Artic sea ice over 30 years is a decrease per decade of 4.1% (500,000 km²) whereas in the Antarctic, the increase per decade has only been 0.9% (100,000 km²).
100% agree. It's a bloody mess. Too much of our debate - thanks to politicians chasing short-term votes and attempting to appease the media - is based upon polar debates. It's either black or white and nobody ever accepts that it could be grey. In fact, we have to go for the grey areas, because we just can't continue to wait for the perfect answers to come along.
I have enjoyed reading this debate today. Makes for plenty of thought (makes my head hurt sometimes!) Every human on earth should be aware of how we are all using this planets resources at faster and faster rates. However, if governments around the world all sit down and discuss it then the end theme usual ends up being about cost to 'developing' nations. Hence quotas etc. For a lot of people though it can be depressing that our government always seems keen to take the lead. Usually that means TAX. If we have to pay towards going greener I'd like to see ALL countries doing it! Not just us. In the real world though it is costing households in the UK a lot of money.
I don't see many people concluding that anything is certain though? The only real certainty I have seen claimed is that the human race is having an impact on planet we live on. And that's a pretty hard thing to dispute.
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Immeasurably more than a Guiness Boy sound bite
- Thread starter
- #52
That really wasn't what I was getting at. However, to take your points:
Why wouldn't you want to use cleaner energy? The answer would depend on cost for most people. Why would we want to drive around in combustion engines for the next decades? Because the alternatives are no greener and (again) more expensive. Why wouldn't we want to recycle? No idea. I recycle as much as possible and keep my food waste to a minimum but it's not my place to lecture people on whether they should when it'll amount to a hill of beans compared to what China's currently pumping out.
But really it is cost / benefit for your average person I would think. While cleaner energy and organic food are more expensive and big supermarkets discount disposable nappies and plastic bin bags people are inevitably going to ask why they're being told to go green. That means less hysteria and more facts on BOTH sides. And IMO that's simply not possible.
- Thread starter
- #53
You do understand the difference between a question and a statement?
The trouble is that generally the people who 'deny' climate change are not the people who have actually studied it, they merely take second hand info from the media, which will generally have some form of bias.
The media is generally pretty terrible at reporting science stories of all kinds because 1) journalists don't understand it and 2) most of it doesn't fit with the need for explosive revelations that the media uses to sell it's wares.
As has already been stated on this thread that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know about this stuff and have studied this over many years believe that there is a problem. This story takes a very small data set in one particular location, and yet is held up as proof that climate change is a fiction.
Why do you believe this one set of scientists who have found this result, but think scientists who have produced studies with different results are wrong?
The media is generally pretty terrible at reporting science stories of all kinds because 1) journalists don't understand it and 2) most of it doesn't fit with the need for explosive revelations that the media uses to sell it's wares.
As has already been stated on this thread that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know about this stuff and have studied this over many years believe that there is a problem. This story takes a very small data set in one particular location, and yet is held up as proof that climate change is a fiction.
Why do you believe this one set of scientists who have found this result, but think scientists who have produced studies with different results are wrong?
Last edited:
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
New technology will always cost more - initially. Solar panels for example have tumbled in price as worldwide demand has increased. As demand has increased the technology continues to improve. More investment can then be made to improve the technology and make further advancements. You have to make those initial investments to make it work.
I'll be a little 'conspiracy theory' here, but I have no doubt that for decades we've had the know how to make cost effective non combustion engine greener cars. These developments have been stifled by car manufacturers and oil fueled economies. It is only as political desire increases do we see manufacturing companies respond. Crap electric electric cars of today, will be the lessons learned for a new generation of vehicles tomorrow. We have to have the will to change from our reliance on burning stuff.
If as a civilisation we never did anything because it cost a bit more, we really would still be in the middle ages.
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Yes; you posed a question at the end of your post. The fact that it was a question was confirmed by your use of a question mark at the end of the sentence. Whether it was rhetorical or not is immaterial.
I responded with a statement which also provided my answer to your question. (I actually helped you a little to understand I was answering your question by boldening the type. Go on, have another look).
I hope that's cleared up your confusion for you.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
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. In our current time, it is the equivalent of saying Galileo was a heretic for saying the earth rotated around the sun.
banjo
GOSBTS
The planet has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years it's only now that we're recording such events that everyone is getting there knickers in a twist.
drew
Drew
