Question Is climate change a Good thing?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sorry Rusty , but whenever someone brings this part up it shows a complete lack of understanding or trying to score cheap points. The crap that they are going to put into the atmosphere isn't going to regsiter comapred to the deicsions they are making.
Video conferencing does not work for this type of debate. This is not a multinational firm where everyone is supposedly pulling in the same direction and video conferencing might work. It is politics and big buisness , where most of the work /decision making is effectively made outside of the main meetings face to face where body language is over 50% of the communication.

It's a cheap point to expect people to practice what they preach? Behave. And try and address some of the other issues I raise - or are you going to hide behind the usual **** that the 'science is settled'?

 

[SARF]

Compared to the amount of 'carbon' in the atmosphere mankind makes a miserably small impact.. I think we should be more concerned about what volcanos spew out.. Whose fault is that , lets tax them!

 

[davewebbsbrain]

When your golf course is six feet under water remind me to dig this post out.

It is at the moment with all this rain, so no change there then!

 

[Slipperduke]

Rare though it is that a centre-left (and gradually drifting right) dolt like me would agree with Rusty, I think he's got a point. Every politician is there in the knowledge that they'll look good next to Bono, or whichever celebrity is sounding off this week. They'll talk, they'll gossip and they'll make ludicrous promises and then, at the end, they'll all join hands and sing about how wonderful they all are.

In the next five years, every promise they make will slip away.

Don't believe me? How's Live Aid and the subsequent conference in Scotland working out?

Gore is the template of the narcis...narsa....narsy....self-obsessed, do-nothing politician, and everyone's keen to copy.

 

[Lord Football]

Climate Change - a bad thing (although Canvey will be underwater). All statistics seem to prove there is a massive man made problem, and we need to act now to have any chance of stopping it.

Climate Change Tax - A really pointless thing, coz the money isn't being use to limit climate change, it simply taxes those companies who produce a detrimental effect on the environment.

Stopping Climate Change - it wont happen because the "West" have a vested interest in producing oil etc, and the "Developing World" such as India and China want to compete with the west and as such wont limit their industry.

Some very clever and serious thinking needs to be done.

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

Rare though it is that a centre-left (and gradually drifting right) dolt like me would agree with Rusty, I think he's got a point. Every politician is there in the knowledge that they'll look good next to Bono, or whichever celebrity is sounding off this week. They'll talk, they'll gossip and they'll make ludicrous promises and then, at the end, they'll all join hands and sing about how wonderful they all are.

In the next five years, every promise they make will slip away.

Don't believe me? How's Live Aid and the subsequent conference in Scotland working out?

Gore is the template of the narcis...narsa....narsy....self-obsessed, do-nothing politician, and everyone's keen to copy.

And that's the other problem. I know that climate change occurs and would occur irrespective of whether a) primitive lemurs got bored of swinging around in trees or b) God thought it was probably unhealthy talking to himself so much*. What I don't know is whether mankind is now or has in the past had a detrimental effect on the natural course of climate change.

You've only got to spend 5 minutes reading bad science to know that you can pretty much find (or pay) a scientist to back up any hypothesis you care to put to them. I doubt we'll ever know for sure either way.

What really doesn't help though is the flocks of disingenuous vote/fame-hungry politicians (or ex-politicians), and clueless, cause-hunting celebrity crusaders all inadvertantly setting themselves up as Aunt Sallies to further the opposition arguments.

*delete as appropriate pending religious/scientific viewpoint.

 

[united we stand]

It's a cheap point to expect people to practice what they preach? Behave. And try and address some of the other issues I raise - or are you going to hide behind the usual **** that the 'science is settled'?

Rusty - we will have to agree to disagree. My pont was that this portion of your post is (IMO) totally wrong so why should I believe the rest of it. The practise what you preach is irrelvant - its the bigger picture that matters. again my opinion.

now the main issues (I beleive you rasied two points) - yes I have my views. I take in as much info as I can and make my own mind up . I don't listen to one or two views but take in many and try to take out the spin (which is very difficult). Its a subject where it is all too easy to pick a report of a shelf and use it as proof.l

The 10% figure- well it depends what report you read but if we take it to be correct it still meaningless without understanding what difference a 1% change can make. i.e. if we can reduce mankinds emissions by 10%- that (according to your figures) =1% total change- does that matter ? Again depends on what you read/beleive

Al Gore- Apple - I get your point , the flip side to that is that if Al Gore left Apple now he would hardly be a poor man without influence. I happen to beleive he is a very clever man and is correct - but that doesn't make be wright/wrong.

It is interesting to note though that the US admin now offically believes in global warming- even though it is a vote loser- but hey I am now 'picking a report ' to 'prove' an opinion.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Rusty - we will have to agree to disagree. My pont was that this portion of your post is (IMO) totally wrong so why should I believe the rest of it. The practise what you preach is irrelvant - its the bigger picture that matters. again my opinion.

now the main issues (I beleive you rasied two points) - yes I have my views. I take in as much info as I can and make my own mind up . I don't listen to one or two views but take in many and try to take out the spin (which is very difficult). Its a subject where it is all too easy to pick a report of a shelf and use it as proof.l

The 10% figure- well it depends what report you read but if we take it to be correct it still meaningless without understanding what difference a 1% change can make. i.e. if we can reduce mankinds emissions by 10%- that (according to your figures) =1% total change- does that matter ? Again depends on what you read/beleive

Al Gore- Apple - I get your point , the flip side to that is that if Al Gore left Apple now he would hardly be a poor man without influence. I happen to beleive he is a very clever man and is correct - but that doesn't make be wright/wrong.

It is interesting to note though that the US admin now offically believes in global warming- even though it is a vote loser- but hey I am now 'picking a report ' to 'prove' an opinion.

Where to begin with this? My goodness. I'm always suspicious of someone who points me towards the 'bigger picture' when they can't really explain why I'm wrong with substantive argument. Your argument that 'I disagree with one of your points so I'm going to assume the rest is crap' is not exactly bulletproof either. I'm not sure where your procession of percentages is meant to take me, but if you're implying that we should do 'whatever we can', then surely that should extend to the climate change zealots doing their best to reduce their 'carbon footprint', rather than prancing around their beloved Mother Earth in private jets and limousines.

You don't get my point about Al Gore and Apple at all. I'm implying that he's in a position to organise some state of the art video conferencing facilities - where we might be able to pick up that oh so important body language which you seem to believe holds the key to our future. You don't seem to understand my basic arguments, so I'm not surprised that you've been duped by this pseudo-science.

Of course the current US administration believes in climate change (you can't call it global warming anymore - the average temperature hasn't gone up in over a decade), it gives them an opportunity to pass the Cap and Trade bill which is purely a mechanism to redistribute wealth to the special interest groups that keep the current clowns in power.

One final word of advice, if you want to come and debate with me, make sure your bag's packed a whole lot better than it seems to be now.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I am not sure I totally agree with the most pessimistic views regarding climate change but ignoring concerns over mans impact seems a very risky thing to do.

At worst cutting emissions will cost a lot of cash and may have zero effect. At best it might just secure the future of the human race (at least until the next supervolcano eruption, comet strike or godzilla attack).

I'm sure none of us wants to imagine our great granchildren enduring a situation like this:

Food for thought.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I am not sure I totally agree with the most pessimistic views regarding climate change but ignoring concerns over mans impact seems a very risky thing to do.

At worst cutting emissions will cost a lot of cash and may have zero effect. At best it might just secure the future of the human race (at least until the next supervolcano erruption or comet strike).

I'm sure none of us wants to imagine our great granchildren thinking this about our generation:

You maniacs.

I'm unlikely to ever meet my great grandchildren so I really don't give a ****.

And the cash we're going to spend on this crap could be better spent feeding people.

 

[united we stand]

Where to begin with this? My goodness. I'm always suspicious of someone who points me towards the 'bigger picture' when they can't really explain why I'm wrong with substantive argument. Your argument that 'I disagree with one of your points so I'm going to assume the rest is crap' is not exactly bulletproof either. I'm not sure where your procession of percentages is meant to take me, but if you're implying that we should do 'whatever we can', then surely that should extend to the climate change zealots doing their best to reduce their 'carbon footprint', rather than prancing around their beloved Mother Earth in private jets and limousines.

You don't get my point about Al Gore and Apple at all. I'm implying that he's in a position to organise some state of the art video conferencing facilities - where we might be able to pick up that oh so important body language which you seem to believe holds the key to our future. You don't seem to understand my basic arguments, so I'm not surprised that you've been duped by this pseudo-science.

Of course the current US administration believes in climate change (you can't call it global warming anymore - the average temperature hasn't gone up in over a decade), it gives them an opportunity to pass the Cap and Trade bill which is purely a mechanism to redistribute wealth to the special interest groups that keep the current clowns in power.

One final word of advice, if you want to come and debate with me, make sure your bag's packed a whole lot better than it seems to be now.

Rusty not sure why you are taking this so personal and why the whole tone is so patronising just because I disagree with you. Apologies if you took offence to my first post. I explained why I though the jets /cars bit was irrelevant but with hinsight could and should have phrased it differently.


No need for your last paragraph though, regardless of the subject matter or the knowledge, or insinuated lack off of those debating- Personally I don't see where you have actually proven anything I have said is wrong - but that’s a side point.

You don't understand my percentages. OK apologies If I was not clear. If I understand you correctly you are saying that man puts out only 10% of CO2 and therefore it is irreverent what man does. I believe that reducing this 10 % amount is relevant (not flying onto the conference would make no difference as you are well aware- it would just be political stunt).

You believe my views rely on pseudo science- I don't , and as I said it depends on exactly what you reading. Its interesting to note that both pro and against views say that the other side is using pseudo science

Cap and trade again we choose to differ in our understanding of how cap and trade works in the real world . Admittedly the first trances of allowances were far to over-generous and it didn't work (admitted by most people) , but the allowances have now been adjusted (incidentally 2009 allowances expire on Monday ) . World temperature – agreed (this is I understand a fact that is easy to substantiate), but it is necessary to understand the lag between cause and effect which I do not believe is completely understood yet.

Not sure where I said body language holds the key to our future- just tried to explain rationale behind an opinion. and regardless you missed point on how big decisions are made

anyway happy to agree to disagree on all of the above

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

My tone is patronising because you write with all the panache and accuracy of an autistic six year old.