Climate Change Report

[Will]

So, it appears that climate change is human caused, despite all the naysayers. And climate change to some extent is also inevitable, though we can limit the effects by taking some form of action.

I'm thinking that not a whole lot is going to happen to prevent this. Which depresses me. Meh. :/

 

[Skyler]

Yeah well the government here are particularly retarded on this subject.

Subsidise Solar Panels on every house roof where it is actually viable (as in can make them self sufficient electricity wise). House owners can pay for it over multiple years (will eventually cost less than the electricity bills anyway).

Encourage all industry to use more economical and efficient methods for producing things, cars, planes, trains, metals etc.. all sorts. I believe Branson thinks he has a more economical fuel that may work for aeroplanes, getting that working is a good idea.

For air travel instead of the taxation, make the operators be more fuel efficient. I think it was said a week or so ago that Easyjet, despite coming under flak for encouraging more use of air travel by being cheap, is actually far more fuel efficient per passenger than BA, something like 3 times more efficient. So clearly price isn't the problem and tax isn't going to help.

Reward people for being more efficient instead of taxing people for being inefficient since like it or not, most people can't afford to have a certain kind of car, pay more for air fares, eat the certain types of food and use renewable electiricity etc.

Set up local infastructure for things like food and water supplies, thus reducing the amount of products flown in from abroad or driven around just to arrive at our local Tesco.

Set up infastructure to produce bio fuel in large quantities, getting petroleum companies involved and selling it (bio fuel might not be totally green but it's a shitload greener than petrol and a lot cheaper even with the same amount of tax that is on current petrol).

Invest in more nuclear power stations now, obviously with safety in mind. Yes, nuclear waste is crap and not a good thing, but arguably a small concentration of highly fucked up stuff is easier to manage than large amounts of fucked up stuff that is going to run out quicker.

Then we also have to figure out a way to change Americas habits and help China/India into more economical manufacturing and power sources as they grow otherwise what we (the western world) do wont really matter.

Not all of these are perfect, or total solutions.. but they are pro active and beneficial overall.. I'd like to see many of these happen, but I forsee all that will happen is more tax. Tax on rubbish, tax on air travel, tax on cars, tax on roads, tax on electricity, tax on gas, tax on petrol (more) etc..

Blah.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, as great George Carlin said "Save the planet, bah. The planet's fine, it's the humans that are f*cked".

And quite right. The planet can shake us off like a bad case of fleas. This globve has taken polar changes, meteor beatings etc etc.

But, a bit more ontopic, the funny thing is that 75% of pollution comes from housing. Heat etc generated just by us being here

 

[Sharma]

And i'll say the same thing I said when I last read it.

This is 2007 not 1995, they've only JUST came to the conclusion that it's human caused?

 

[Tom]

‘let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings,

for there is none worthy of the name but God,

whom heaven, earth and sea obey.’

 

[Will]

Seriously Tom, what are you talking about?

 

[Tom]

The vanity of men in power believing they can do anything to change the natural cycle of the Earth's environment.

And King Canute being wiser than those men.

 

[mank!]

It was t-shirt weather today.

 

[Will]

The vanity of men in power believing they can do anything to change the natural cycle of the Earth's environment.

And King Canute being wiser than those men.

Despite the overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence? If the extremely conservative IPCC says mankind has caused climate change, I'm inclined to believe them.

 

[Aada]

This report would be mind blowing...


If i actually thought the leaders of nations would do something but the fact is not a great deal of people care about it enough for anything to happen.

We will be long gone before anything if ever happens.

I'm a firm believer in that humans have caused it is it blatantly obvious that we made the huge hole in the ozone layer but like i said nothing will get done about it.

At the moment people are more interesting in killing each other then anything else.

 

[Tom]

Despite the overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence? If the extremely conservative IPCC says mankind has caused climate change, I'm inclined to believe them.

They're not saying that. They're saying that they think its likely.

They're saying "Well, we think its likely but actually we can't agree on the science so we're not prepared to risk our credibility by saying things we have no demonstrable way of proving".

Still, you can pay Gordon Brown more tax if you like, after all thats sure to save humanity. Not that anybody really gives a shit, after all if people were really concerned about the supposed effects of anthropogenic climate change wouldn't they be ditching the comforts of their western lifestyles and donating their time and efforts to the benefits of those people already living in poverty (peversely, the same people who its predicted are most likely to suffer from climate change).

 

[Tom]

I'm a firm believer in that humans have caused it is it blatantly obvious that we made the huge hole in the ozone layer but like i said nothing will get done about it.

Is it?

 

[Will]

They're not saying that. They're saying that they think its likely.

They're saying "Well, we think its likely but actually we can't agree on the science so we're not prepared to risk our credibility by saying things we have no demonstrable way of proving".

They have said very likely, and they haven't found any other possible explanation which fits the figures. If they were actually unsure, they wouldn't have published this. They are prepared to listen to other theories, but they have yet to find one which disproves human-driven climate change, or fits the observed evidence better than human activity.

Still, you can pay Gordon Brown more tax if you like, after all thats sure to save humanity. Not that anybody really gives a shit, after all if people were really concerned about the supposed effects of anthropogenic climate change wouldn't they be ditching the comforts of their western lifestyles and donating their time and efforts to the benefits of those people already living in poverty (peversely, the same people who its predicted are most likely to suffer from climate change).

If noboby really gives a shit, why are we talking about it at all? I've done a lot to reduce my carbon footprint. Donating my time to help the poor is a totally separate issue from reducing makind's impact on climate change.

Hell, even the Sun has advised its readers on how to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

[TdC]

They're not saying that. They're saying that they think its likely.

Tom, if you jump off a cliff it is very likely that you will fall to your death. Will you doubt it on the way to the bottom?

 

[Skyler]

What you'll find that for anything really drastic to be done, it will require things getting very bad. This is because it will take a "life/death" type thing for companies and governments to all agree as one that finances or the exchange rate matters for shit if half the world is going to die cause sea levels rise a stupid amount etc.

They will only throw out the profit making and money related stuff to fix things once it's already gone over the crest most likely.

Same with the supply of oil, although this is also debatable and was discussed here before.

I listed a lot of good ideas that would help reduce things a huge amount, far more than paying an extra £10 in air duty, or planting a few tree's to alleviate your carbon footprint, or offsetting your footprint by purchasing others right to have a footprint since they don't use it.

That whole business of using money to alleviate your responsibility and the pollution you cause is another big reason why it's so obvious that things will get far worse before anyone with the power actually stands up and says "oh shit" or "whoops we should have done this earlier".

I can drive a Hummer 20,000 miles in a year and take 50 short haul flights as well as running a few yachts etc. just because I can offset my huge carbon footprint by purchasing a few thousand footprints from Japanese Monks who don't leave a footprint doesn't mean I am suddenly not polluting the world or making things worse.

There are plenty of clever solutions that would reduce all of this on a global scale, but no one will implement them.

The solar panels on roofs thing could make more than half this country completely self sufficient for electricity. How much coal, oil and gas would that save? an insane amount, it wont 'fix' things but surely it's better to do it than to tax airline traffic? or tax something else...

 

[Tom]

The solar panels on roofs thing could make more than half this country completely self sufficient for electricity. How much coal, oil and gas would that save? an insane amount, it wont 'fix' things but surely it's better to do it than to tax airline traffic? or tax something else...

I'd like to see the total energy used in the manufacture, maintainance, and decommissioning of those solar panels.

If it were a viable proposition, everyone would have them. They cost a fortune to install and run. Electricity from the grid is cheaper for a reason.

 

[rynnor]

Set up local infastructure for things like food and water supplies, thus reducing the amount of products flown in from abroad or driven around just to arrive at our local Tesco.

Set up infastructure to produce bio fuel in large quantities, getting petroleum companies involved and selling it (bio fuel might not be totally green but it's a shitload greener than petrol and a lot cheaper even with the same amount of tax that is on current petrol).

The rest I pretty much agree with but not these - countries like the UK cannot support their own populations food requirements and our diet in the winter would be very dull - it also produces more CO2 growing certain foods here than flying them over oddly.

Bio fuel really isnt a solution - a study showed if they used all the agricultural land in the US to grow bio-fuel they would only supply 25% of its requirements for fuel and would then have to import all its own food - theres also a massive loss of energy in the process so its probably as bad as petrol from a CO2 perspective.

 

[Tom]

They have said very likely, and they haven't found any other possible explanation which fits the figures. If they were actually unsure, they wouldn't have published this. They are prepared to listen to other theories, but they have yet to find one which disproves human-driven climate change, or fits the observed evidence better than human activity.

Very likely isn't proven though is it? They can't actually say with a degree of certainty what will happen.

The atmospheric concentration of co2 is around 0.0383%. Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of that figure. Mankind is responsible for 0.0013405% of the global concentration of co2 in the atmosphere. Hardly headline stuff, is it? And yet people would have you believe that turning the odd lightbulb off is going to make a blind bit of difference to that?

So the polar ice caps might disappear (despite Antarctic ice mass actually increasing)? So what? The normal state of the Earth is to not have ice caps.

There are no theories which disprove anthropogenic climate change because anthropogenic climate change isn't proven - and I don't believe it ever will be. There hasn't been any observeable change in global climate outside normal background variation. Surface temperatures? Measured in boxes in and around populated areas? What about global troposphere temperatures showing no observable change?

And since when was Co2 a pollutant? The last time I looked, plants rather enjoyed co2. And its not as though doubling the manmade co2 in the atmosphere will somehow double the predicted effect - it simply doesn't work like that. Theres only so much long wavelength solar radiation that co2 can absorb, and the curve is more logarithmic than linear.

If noboby really gives a shit, why are we talking about it at all? I've done a lot to reduce my carbon footprint. Donating my time to help the poor is a totally separate issue from reducing makind's impact on climate change.

Hell, even the Sun has advised its readers on how to reduce their carbon footprint.

Talk is cheap - actions are louder than words. I seem to remember lots of talk about Ethiopia and Somalia, and how awful it was that people were starving. Not much has changed though. People still sit watching their Plasma TV while other people starve. George Monbiot calls people irresponsible for cheap flight holidays, and then jumps on a plane to Canada for a book signing.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05642.cfm

The insidious stifling of any debate sickens me. Its on the news every single day across the BBC, a supposedly impartial news organisation that never bothers to present any opposing arguments. Even Al Gore's steaming pile of excrement film is to be sent into schools. Well heres some things that Al didn't mention:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

I've seen reports linking global warming to Venice. Except the sea level is absolutely nothing to do with Venice disappearing below the sea. But this stuff gets transmitted/printed, and people believe it. Until somebody presents me with conclusive proof, a full detailed perfect model of the global climate (which remains, to the best efforts of climatologists, very poorly understood), and can predict with near certainty future trends, I'll remain a sceptic.

Science is never settled. Anybody that tells you otherwise is a fool.

 

[Tom]

Tom, if you jump off a cliff it is very likely that you will fall to your death. Will you doubt it on the way to the bottom?

If you're trying to relate that analogy to some kind of environmental tipping point, first you have to know what that tipping point would be. Nobody does. So the only answer to your question would therefore be "The height and angle of the cliff face is unknown, as is the surface at the bottom, and the gravitational constant is also an unknown - therefore no answer can be given".

 

[rynnor]

I'd like to see the total energy used in the manufacture, maintainance, and decommissioning of those solar panels.

If it were a viable proposition, everyone would have them. They cost a fortune to install and run. Electricity from the grid is cheaper for a reason.

Its true - they also use rare metals like platinum that we simply dont have enough of to mass produce for the world - nuclear power is the only viable solution using current technology but its not without problems.

However all this is irrelevant - the west is almost entirely irrelevant as the big increases will come from the developing world.

Blair himself said that if we reduced the uk's carbon footprint to 0 tommorow that within 2 years China would have made it up.

 

[Tom]

Well I don't want to fall out with anyone save I get rather hot under the collar about all the preaching thats going on. All I ask is that people read from sources that don't come from government agencies (including the IPCC), and form their own opinion.

Try watching the Penn & Teller documentary on recycling. Another pet hate of mine.

Life is never simple. Thats my view, I think I've expressed it well enough.

 

[Tom]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213

Actually, watch that instead. It pretty much summarises my opinions better than I could.

 

[throdgrain]

Blair himself said that if we reduced the uk's carbon footprint to 0 tommorow that within 2 years China would have made it up.

This is the issue to be dealt with, if any. No amount of tax paid to the labour government (and you just fucking know its coming by the way, dont you ? ) will make two fucks of a difference.
Speak to China and the other big countries.

 

[Aada]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213

Actually, watch that instead. It pretty much summarises my opinions better than I could.

No offence Tom but that video is YEARS old the analysis is over mate it's fairly obvious that change has come about because of humans.

I just think the huge melting of the ice in the artic screams out climate change.

 

[Trem]

This is the issue to be dealt with, if any. No amount of tax paid to the labour government (and you just fucking know its coming by the way, dont you ? ) will make two fucks of a difference.
Speak to China and the other big countries.

Agreed.

But hey ho, its good enough reason to rip us off so Labour will run with it.

So off topic its scary but, this July public ban on smoking thing, if they truly hate it just ban tobacco. They won't do that because too much money comes from it. Its a shit world and we live in a shit country*.



















*possibly beer induced ravings

 

[Tom]

No offence Tom but that video is YEARS old the analysis is over mate it's fairly obvious that change has come about because of humans.

I just think the huge melting of the ice in the artic screams out climate change.

Debate is never over. Science is never settled.

So what if it does? That doesn't prove mankind is responsible. As I said, the normal state of the Earth is not to have ice caps.

 

[Bodhi]

I believe every word of today's report. After all mankind has proved that the first Ice Age came about cos the Sabre Tooth Tigers of the west didn't fit energy saving light bulbs, and they only used to have vineyards in the UK cos roman chariots had V8's in them. Also, the dinosaurs died out cos we invaded Iraq and now that I've remembered - we were about during the last Ice Age aswell, so that was probably our fault too. I'm guessing after inventing the wheel we put it straight on a Hummer.

Or something.


Get a fucking grip folks. We're living on a planet than can do a lot more damage to us than we can do to it. I'd be much more worried about a SuperVolcano going off or the Canaries falling into the sea than it getting a bit hotter if I were you.

 

[throdgrain]

Personally I think the government ought to make more things illegal, that would sort it out.
Imagine if the greens actually got in power ? It would be like the end of the Dancers At The End of Time by Micheal Moorcock.
Obscure? You fucking betcha !

 

[DaGaffer]

*Sigh* Here we go again. The thing that pisses me off about the whole climate change debate is that its the wrong debate. The debate should not be "how do we stop global warming?", but "how are we going to prepare ourselves for a changed environment?". Because make no mistake, we could all reduce our carbon footprints to nothing tomorrow, and climate change would still happen, because that's just what the world does. The whole argument about reducing carbon emissions is just fucking silly because:

1. Unless its global, its pointless, and you're just not going to deny 2 billion Chinese and Indians the right to air-conditioning and cappucinos.

2. Even if you did reduce emissions, then what? Are people seriously suggesting the human race consigns itself to a low energy use world for ever?.

3. If you did point 2, and the ice caps still melt (which is likely) then what?

I've got no problem with using resources efficiently, and not fucking up the environment with toxic waste etc. but not because of global warming, but because resources are finite (at least until we get off the planet) and shouldn't just be pissed away. The fact is, people need to start accepting that climate change is going to happen and we need to learn how to live with it, because the only effective way to change the human influence on the environment is to have far fewer humans, and that's not going to happen.

 

[TdC]

If you're trying to relate that analogy to some kind of environmental tipping point, first you have to know what that tipping point would be. Nobody does. So the only answer to your question would therefore be "The height and angle of the cliff face is unknown, as is the surface at the bottom, and the gravitational constant is also an unknown - therefore no answer can be given".

but that's not true Tom. A cliff is a cliff because otherwise it would be a slope or possibly even a mild hill you state that because nobody knows how the climate functions anyway, you're not given to have a go at helping out with the best guess. perhaps I should have analogized jumping over a cliff in the dark. when you can't tell where you're going, and have no idea what the outcome may be, it's generally a good idea to use all the help you can get to define your path.

you know, I have had a wee drink, and tbh in my slightly misty state the idea just came to me that if you had been around a long time ago we'd never have had fire as the sun rose in the morning anyway and rubbing two sticks together would just get you hot and aggravated and thus clearly not worth the bother.