Climate Change is here and man made

kas_tippler said:
All that might be true but it's uncool to say such things, to question climate change is seen as bad as a holocaust denier nowadays. Unbelievable !
Click to expand...

Exactly mate. Which is precisely why the world has so grossly overreacted over any possible risk. The level of media hype is simply unbelievable, and unfortunately your average Joe who knows no better is forced into being understandably alarmed and goes off shouting about how something MUST be done. The whole thing is whipped up into a completely unjustified frenzy.

I wonder how many people have actually stopped to think, what if the world WAS 2 degrees warmer by the year 2100? Would it actually be a *bad* thing? We'd certainly have less people dying of cold (which is a real issue, btw). We'd have a more warmer, wetter and more verdant environment and higher crop yields. We'd lose some species (as the planet has always done for thousands of millenia) and others would thrive. The world would be slightly different. But how would it be SO MUCH worse as to justify the ridiculous amount of money and attention it gets?

Polar bears would be fine by the way. They were fine when there was no ice and the world was MUCH warmer than it is now. Yet we are constantly subjected to footage of the "poor polar bears" swimming around with no ice to cling to, as if this in itself is reason to act.

It's not like carbon reduction initiatives are free and "why not do them anyway". It greatly holds back the industrialisation of Africa, which will doubtless cost tens or hundreds of millions of lives over the next century, for example. Think on that for just a moment.
 
Last edited:
blueinsa said:
Like i said, hysteria is driving this argument and its a government led hysteria.
Click to expand...

No, science and scientists drives the climate change theory and pretty much every one of em that has spent years independently studying the subject agrees that man has had a huge influence on the global environment.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Exactly mate. Which is precisely why the world has so grossly overreacted over any possible risk. The level of media hype is simply unbelievable, and unfortunately your average Joe who knows no better is forced into being understandably alarmed and goes off shouting about how something MUST be done. The whole thing is whipped up into a completely unjustified frenzy.

I wonder how many people have actually stopped to think, what if the world WAS 2 degrees warmer by the year 2100? Would it actually be a *bad* thing? We'd certainly have less people dying of cold (which is a real issue, btw). We'd have a more warmer, wetter and more verdant environment and higher crop yields. We'd lose some species (as the planet has always done for thousands of millenia) and others would thrive. The world would be slightly different. But how would it be SO MUCH worse as to justify the ridiculous amount of money and attention it gets?

Polar bears would be fine by the way. They were fine when there was no ice and the world was MUCH warmer than it is now. Yet we are constantly subjected to footage of the "poor polar bears" swimming around with no ice to cling to, as if this in itself is reason to act.

It's not like carbon reduction initiatives are free and "why not do them anyway". It greatly holds back the industrialisation of Africa, which will doubtless cost tens or hundreds of millions of lives over the next century, for example. Think on that for just a moment.
Click to expand...
Very well put, bravo!
 
Chippy_boy said:
I wonder how many people have actually stopped to think, what if the world WAS 2 degrees warmer by the year 2100?
Click to expand...
That's pretty short-term thinking. And what about 2 degrees warmer 50 years after that? And another 2 degrees soon after that? Well we know what would happen. Certain areas of the world would become uninhabitable unless you were good on stilts. And given that some of these areas are places where people already live, it's probably desirable that it doesn't happen.

Yes the climate has always changed, but usually at a pace that allows animals to evolve to deal with it. But at the moment, it's changing a lot faster than evolution takes. As for more crops, I think you'll find that any new areas for growing crops will be more than made up for by areas turned to desert.

British people in particular should be all for this. Regardless of the facts, with the right investment, Britain would be to renewable energy what Saudi Arabia is to oil. We're a windy, rainy, tidal island. We could easily be a world leader in all of those technologies.
 
stonerblue said:
No, science and scientists drives the climate change theory and pretty much every one of em that has spent years independently studying the subject agrees that man has had a huge influence on the global environment.
Click to expand...
All you need to do for any conspiracy theory is ask one question: is it in the interests of the rich and powerful to lie? Why would a parliament full of politicians largely funded by big business want to lie about this? Do these lobbyists want people to cut their consumption? Do they want to have in invest in green technologies when oil and coal work perfectly well? Do the big supermarkets want to charge for plastic bags? When something is accepted despite being against the interests of pretty much all big business, it generally means it's true.
 
What ever happened to the 'hole in the ozone layer' thing? I thought we'd all be burnt to a crisp by now?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
All you need to do for any conspiracy theory is ask one question: is it in the interests of the rich and powerful to lie? Why would a parliament full of politicians largely funded by big business want to lie about this? Do these lobbyists want people to cut their consumption? Do they want to have in invest in green technologies when oil and coal work perfectly well? Do the big supermarkets want to charge for plastic bags? When something is accepted despite being against the interests of pretty much all big business, it generally means it's true.
Click to expand...

That's more than one question Stupid but in order of asking;
Yes
Greed
No
Not really
Yes.
 
stonerblue said:
No, science and scientists drives the climate change theory and pretty much every one of em that has spent years independently studying the subject agrees that man has had a huge influence on the global environment.
Click to expand...

Well our carbon footprint, fridges, deodorants and 4x4's had fuck all to do with the previous ice ages and warm periods so I will stick entirely with my theory that the Earth's weather patterns are a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it other than allow governments to blame us and tax us of course.
 
blueinsa said:
Well our carbon footprint, fridges, deodorants and 4x4's had fuck all to do with the previous ice ages and warm periods so I will stick entirely with my theory that the Earth's weather patterns are a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it other than allow governments to blame us and tax us of course.
Click to expand...

The Earth's natural weather shifts occur over thousands of years, (17000 years since the last ice age?) the current climate shift is over 300 years ( start of industrial revolution).

*edited: Last ice "ended" 11700 years ago. Some schools of thought also say it hasn't ended yet!
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
That's pretty short-term thinking. And what about 2 degrees warmer 50 years after that? And another 2 degrees soon after that? Well we know what would happen. Certain areas of the world would become uninhabitable unless you were good on stilts. And given that some of these areas are places where people already live, it's probably desirable that it doesn't happen.

Yes the climate has always changed, but usually at a pace that allows animals to evolve to deal with it. But at the moment, it's changing a lot faster than evolution takes. As for more crops, I think you'll find that any new areas for growing crops will be more than made up for by areas turned to desert.

British people in particular should be all for this. Regardless of the facts, with the right investment, Britain would be to renewable energy what Saudi Arabia is to oil. We're a windy, rainy, tidal island. We could easily be a world leader in all of those technologies.
Click to expand...

Who says it won't be cooling in 100 years, rather than warming? And if in 50 years time once we have gathered some solid *evidence* rather than constantly changing and messing with the theories because they don't match reality, then we could do something about it with 2070 technology, which would be a whole load cheaper/better/more effective. Rather than messing about now with £1,000 first year road tax for a 4x4, which will do ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL other than line the coffers of the treasury a bit more.

And as for renewables: How do you power the car plant and the steel works on a dark cold night when the sun isn't shining and there's no wind? Kittens harnessed to a wheel? Renewables is a peripheral waste of time when it comes to supplying the required energy consistently, reliably, in volume, all the time.

Right now, low-carbon energy means NUCLEAR. Happy to go down that route?
 
I think what MAY happen in 100 years is rather less important than what IS happening now. Fifty years time might be a little too late for lots of countries.

Renewables will not cover every need, this is true, but seeing as Cameron binned the 'green crap', we have a government who don't care about things like that.

Yes, nuclear power is the only large scale option, allowing for the fact that it stores problems up rather than getting rid of them. I'm absolutely fine with having nuclear stations - we're not on an earthquake zone.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Yeah I don't see too many governments having the strength to implement it as a compulsory process, however what's to stop people having their 2.5 and then opting for it? I mean, I have 2 kids now and I'm in my early thirties, by the time the youngest is in college I'll be late forties, so if I was offered a nice pay off to get snipped now I would probably take it.
Click to expand...

Without trying to sound elitist or like a snob, this is for people at the lower end of the class system. We need to make it more financially viable for them to not have kids, than have them.

This would be a world wide project and would stop more being born in poverty.

I understand it's borderline immoral but the consequences of not stopping overpopulation will be a lot lot crueler and the issue cleary is much worse with those less fortunate.
 
Ban-jani said:
Without trying to sound elitist or like a snob, this is for people at the lower end of the class system. We need to make it more financially viable for them to not have kids, than have them.

This would be a world wide project and would stop more being born in poverty.

I understand it's borderline immoral but the consequences of not stopping overpopulation will be a lot lot crueler and the issue cleary is much worse with those less fortunate.
Click to expand...
I agree, only those households earning $100k per year get to have babies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top