Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

A growing groundswell of opinion?

Recommended Posts

"Go Green" - no agenda or scaremongering there then :rolleyes:

Oxfam? Scaremongering??? Oxfam? Hidden agenda????

Well I'm struggling again. Weren't Oxfam supposed to provide aid for destitute,desperate developing world victims or some such???Wouldn't they, via their work on the ground, be ideally positioned to note any increase in 'weather/climate related disasters' on a global scale as opposed to mere 'individuals'?

Very confused now, don't know who to trust my pennies to now when my conscience is pricked by some foriegn disaster or other.

Ah well, maybe charity begins at home if the biggest charity catering for disasters is tainted with their 'AGW scaremongering' in a vain attempt to fleece their less discerning contributors.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxfam? Scaremongering??? Oxfam? Hidden agenda????

Well I'm struggling again. Weren't Oxfam supposed to provide aid for destitute,desperate developing world victims or some such???Wouldn't they, via their work on the ground, be ideally positioned to note any increase in 'weather/climate related disasters' on a global scale as opposed to mere 'individuals'?

Very confused now, don't know who to trust my pennies to now when my conscience is pricked by some foriegn disaster or other.

Ah well, maybe charity begins at home if the biggest charity catering for disasters is tainted with their 'AGW scaremongering' in a vain attempt to fleece their less discerning contributors.......

Oxfam like any large charity is run just like a business, it has its own agendas and political manoeuvring to do, go and see what the smaller charities like Farm Africa say on GW, Not a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxfam like any large charity is run just like a business, it has its own agendas and political manoeuvring to do, go and see what the smaller charities like Farm Africa say on GW, Not a lot!

I think that there is a difference between helping rural Africans better utilise land and resources (and I'm sure that they are very aware of "changing Africa" and cater to those changes too!) and a relief agency responding to global calamities!

Oxfam must be better positioned to know how their budget breaks down year on year (earthquake relief/tsunami relief/volcanic event displacement relief/cyclone relief/hurricane relief/drought relief/flood relief etc,etc) across the globe and any changes occurring in that breakdown (globally) than F.A.R.M. Africa does. No matter what proportion of monies raised is lost to 'admin' the amount that is distributed (as a percentage) to aid must be a constant and therefore useful to note trends in 'spends' in certain areas. I find it refreshing to hear from 'ground zero' that the predicted changes both in climate and weather can be shown to be occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oxfam? Scaremongering??? Oxfam? Hidden agenda????

Well I'm struggling again. Weren't Oxfam supposed to provide aid for destitute,desperate developing world victims or some such???

Yes GrayWolf, it's called the "Real World". Shock, Horror - charities are run as businesses and have to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just found this on AOL:

http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/go-green/weathe...125071009990001

Weather and GW intermixed again, they are not going to learn are they?

I agree re specific events, however, dwell a bit longer before being too hasty. Climate is simply the mean of weather over a long period. If individual weather events have changed significantly, then climate will have changed: the same could reasonably be induced in reverse.

Say I have a factory that puts smarties into packets, and the machinery is intended to put the different colours in in equal numbers. If, after a while, I note that one colour repeatedly predominates I could dismiss this as a random occurrence, or I could listen to my SPC (statistical process control) colleagues telling me that something is amiss with the machinery. Not on every pick of a smartie, but on enough picks to be causing a problem. Furthermore, say it was reds exceeding the quota, the difficulty would be in telling which red pick was a 'normal' one, and which a 'flawed' one.

So, yes, individual extreme events have always happened, but - and assuming the count is reliable - when the volume of events changes dramatically it's fair to suggest that climate has (and will) change. If this weren't true you'd be proposing, for example, that here in the UK we could suddenly get a lot of snow events without the climate cooling: that, clearly, stretches plausibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is the thing. What axe have Oxfam to grind? Why would they 'push' AGW? They are a relief agency and however their internal admin is pursued the majority of the cash goes into relief efforts. They highlight that the breakdown between 'Natural' disasters and 'weather/climate' related incidents has shifted with an observed 4 fold increase in aid needed for the later whilst the former remains stable and folk cry foul!!

Why so?

We've had folk insist they are a business ((and?)) we've had folk demand 'peer reviewed papers' (for why? it's a report on their spending breakdown!!) and we've had folk insist that the report is driven by politics and agenda's. Why could they not just be pointing out the truth of the matter (for their organisation)? why must their be subterfuge just because it appears to confirm what the likes of myself keep banging on about???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully the GW lark is now on the way out. What's the next major disaster to pontificate about? Some sort of disease probrably. Bird flu has already had its time. So what will they come up with next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to step back from all the arguing and ask ourselves the following questions regarding the AGW agenda: -

Who benefits?

Who will lose out?

Who is controlling the message?

In my own opinion; despite government influence in the IPCC research...I see no particular benefit of AGW in terms of financial interests for those who work for government agencies. Perhaps the careers of certain politicians who want to make a name for themselves in promoting their interpretation of the data and the way they convey the issue to audiences. I see no particular benefit of AGW in terms of industries, oil companies, etc regarding this agenda. The pressure will be for them to produce less, employ less, travel less, etc within their business frameworks. And as far as the consumer, the everyday person is concerned....we will all have to cut-down on the amount we consume, the amount of stuff we throw away and the sheer wastefulness of our lifestyles. There are no beneficiaries in terms of the AGW thus far if one looks at it from the outset.

In terms of losers. Well there are many. While we are encouraged to go down the road of producing less, investing in alternative fuels and technology, changing lifestyles, buying less, etc....the economy will start to feel the pinch and our lifestyles will do so too. The costs will increase in consuming fuel products and of course; building and maintaining new infrastructures based around alternative fuels as well as the associated risks that come with them. More and more people will feel like they are being intruded upon; like they are placed in a restrictive vice in terms of their consumer lifestyle...a quota system....but maybe this is the only way to act.

But what if we act like that? There are even more losers. The third and second world tiered nations will have to produce even more products that we give up; to keep their economies at a stable rate if they are to operate under the same neo-liberalist frameworks as the current system dictates. The issue of trade tariffs and dependencies are not yet ironed out; the costs of implementing a less wasteful and cleaner energy system will liable be too great for the majority of the world. The only way for them to 'grow' is to burn fossil fuels, to mass produce, etc....but they will likely suffer more as a result of a more eco-friendly western group of nations who refuse to import more disposable products or be involved in their outsourcing design. The fundamental falling-point is the issue of economic development in LEDC's and the majority of the world. No matter what we do (although we should try and do as best we can to waste less and produce less waste) the majority of the worlds' needless production and consumption takes place in the East Asian and South Asian economies and also to a growing degree in South America. What do we tell them? Must there always in this world be an incentive for an economy to keep growing and growing and growing. What happened to stability? A steady income? A steady GDP? The whole status-quo of currency speculation, competition, out-sourcing, etc is not a healthy approach for a sustainable and balanced environment....and only helps to increase pressures on nations, their working populaces and the respective carrying capacity. We need to seriously rethink the current neo-liberalist capitalist agenda. A capitalism with a more distributive consciousness is required. Earth first, 'growth and competition' later. But how do we do that? I have no idea.

Who is controlling the AGW message? Well, tbh, nobody is. There is of course the IPCC; but this by no means demonstrates a monopolised core view on the severity of the problem, what we should do about it, and to the extent we should act. Although there is unity in the report in terms of the anamolies of warmth in periods that stand-out from the +\- cycle and the symptoms of such affects....at the end of the day...these are all scientists happening to say similar things but nobody is controlling them to say so, neither are they controlling each other. What is happening however is that politicians, agencies, companies, media circles are putting spin on certain parts of the report, taking parts out of context, or using them to further their own careers, produce sensationalism to improve their own revenue, or to even promote an-anti AGW agenda. We have a dialectic going on in terms of what AGW means for different parts of the economy, for certain nations, etc. There is sort of a war of information going on....and many are trying to instill it because their interests lie in trying to 'discredit' the findings of AGW as somehow false. Despite the convincing nature of the scientific reports. Most however, want to make money out of the issue...and thus information is controlled at any point in order to maximise profit or to ensure profit is made at a later timeframe.

My view on AGW is that it is real, but somewhat exaggerated by those who take the findings out of context or produce pathological science with limited data sources and restrictive hypotheses. The solution? Well....firstly I feel that we consume and produce far too much and that has to cut down. Cut down on needless waste too. The biggest issue however; is sustainable economies for the third and second world. Even if it means us sacrificing many things in order to sell them technologies which will allow them to grow without doing so much harm to the environment. Also; the media needs to be used to get information to the workers in these countries that they do not deserve to be living in an environment with such a sharp geographical and social gradient\gap between rich and poor. Some of the discrepancies in terms of wealth in these countries, is quite frankly, obscene. This needs to stop. And no, I'm not a communist...I just believe in a more sustainable and beneficial honest form of capitalism that puts limits on monopolies of wealth.

We are sitting on a social timebomb as well as an environmental one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would seem you have Piers as Co-sceptic,

He may be a sceptic but im a realist so not much in common tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He may be a sceptic but im a realist so not much in common tbh.

The label "realist", like "a good man" is, perhaps, one best bestowed upon us by others. One might suggest that one tries to be a realist, but that is a different matter - which of us not believe that of ourselves. It is part of the essence of personal psychological stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to step back from all the arguing and ask ourselves the following questions regarding the AGW agenda: -

Who benefits?

Who will lose out?

Who is controlling the message?

Yes lets step back a little and look at if there was no global warming or indeed AGW, what would be happening? The growth within Asia and China is pushing resource and commodity usage to all time highs and beyond, the sleeping giant is awakening. Two thirds of the world has a need to develop to a point just to sustain life and then they will want more of the goodies too. The simple plain fact is there are not enough natural resources for this process to take place unhindered, demand will exceed supply and prices will rocket. Long before AGW was on the agenda talk of energy crisis and oil running out was, it was clear that the world needed to slow down its resource usage.

AGW maybe real but wow was its timing good, just in the nick of time it arrived like a white night out of the smog to deliver its message or the need to reduce emissions. What luck for us mere peasants to have enlightened politicians to help us find our way, gone are there historical lying cheating, I should of been an estate ways, and in cometh the new honest truthful guys. The ones that don't mind if they lose the next election because the planet in 30yrs time is more important, the ones who will raise our taxes and save it all up for us in a big piggy bank (surely they won't spend this on ever increased public spending).

I am sceptic too damn right I am, if you're not sceptical about politicians motives then you should be in an asylum :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes lets step back a little and look at if there was no global warming or indeed AGW, what would be happening? The growth within Asia and China is pushing resource and commodity usage to all time highs and beyond, the sleeping giant is awakening. Two thirds of the world has a need to develop to a point just to sustain life and then they will want more of the goodies too. The simple plain fact is there are not enough natural resources for this process to take place unhindered, demand will exceed supply and prices will rocket. Long before AGW was on the agenda talk of energy crisis and oil running out was, it was clear that the world needed to slow down its resource usage.

AGW maybe real but wow was its timing good, just in the nick of time it arrived like a white night out of the smog to deliver its message or the need to reduce emissions. What luck for us mere peasants to have enlightened politicians to help us find our way, gone are there historical lying cheating, I should of been an estate ways, and in cometh the new honest truthful guys. The ones that don't mind if they lose the next election because the planet in 30yrs time is more important, the ones who will raise our taxes and save it all up for us in a big piggy bank (surely they won't spend this on ever increased public spending).

I am sceptic too damn right I am, if you're not sceptical about politicians motives then you should be in an asylum :)

I'm not sure that I'm clear what your point is HP. Are you suggesting that GW is a device designed by the developed world to retain dominance over developing economies? If so, that horse bolted a decade ago: there's nothing going to stop China continuing to develop, though America shutting up shop would slow things down a tad.

With or without GW resources would deplete. The only reason nobody worried about it before is the same reason people don't worry too much about a 3/4 full packet of cornflakes where we eat a bowl every other day: the point at which we start to run out is some way off yet, and I'd rather put off thinking about having to get some more.

I'd be supportive of your cynicism if the world around us wasn't increasingly full of evidence of warming: or is all of that the work of the CIA as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that I'm clear what your point is HP. Are you suggesting that GW is a device designed by the developed world to retain dominance over developing economies? If so, that horse bolted a decade ago: there's nothing going to stop China continuing to develop, though America shutting up shop would slow things down a tad.

With or without GW resources would deplete. The only reason nobody worried about it before is the same reason people don't worry too much about a 3/4 full packet of cornflakes where we eat a bowl every other day: the point at which we start to run out is some way off yet, and I'd rather put off thinking about having to get some more.

I'd be supportive of your cynicism if the world around us wasn't increasingly full of evidence of warming: or is all of that the work of the CIA as well?

Maybe you should read my post first before reading and making quick judgements about his views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should read my post first before reading and making quick judgements about his views.

Thanks PP

In a nutshell many AGW supporters wonder why there is so much scepticism on this subject but cannot step back enough to understand the simply fact that human's by nature are a cunning twisting cheating bunch of a species. If there is a buck to be earn't by jumping on the latest bandwagon people will, although Darkman's earlier post does not mean GW is not happening it does suggest why folk are sceptical over the subject. If we apply the rule of science to past reliability of politicians to first deliver the truth and secondly deliver a solution, the result would not be positive for AGW supporters. Look at Al Gore a washed up second rate US politician who enjoys the limelight, Noddy has more credibility than that guy?

In answer to a direct question Do I think that AGW was invented to stop poorer nations from developing NO

Do I think it will be used to do so YES I DO

If AGW was on trial in a court of law and the Jury got to hear the witnesses background and previous cases, a muggy caught red handed in daylight and on cctv would have a good chance of getting off. I just cannot understand why many are so blinkered and just can't see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks PP

In a nutshell many AGW supporters wonder why there is so much scepticism on this subject but cannot step back enough to understand the simply fact that human's by nature are a cunning twisting cheating bunch of a species. If there is a buck to be earn't by jumping on the latest bandwagon people will, although Darkman's earlier post does not mean GW is not happening it does suggest why folk are sceptical over the subject. If we apply the rule of science to past reliability of politicians to first deliver the truth and secondly deliver a solution, the result would not be positive for AGW supporters. Look at Al Gore a washed up second rate US politician who enjoys the limelight, Noddy has more credibility than that guy?

In answer to a direct question Do I think that AGW was invented to stop poorer nations from developing NO

Do I think it will be used to do so YES I DO

If AGW was on trial in a court of law and the Jury got to hear the witnesses background and previous cases, a muggy caught red handed in daylight and on cctv would have a good chance of getting off. I just cannot understand why many are so blinkered and just can't see it?

Agree 100% HP, well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks PP

In a nutshell many AGW supporters wonder why there is so much scepticism on this subject but cannot step back enough to understand the simply fact that human's by nature are a cunning twisting cheating bunch of a species. If there is a buck to be earn't by jumping on the latest bandwagon people will, although Darkman's earlier post does not mean GW is not happening it does suggest why folk are sceptical over the subject. If we apply the rule of science to past reliability of politicians to first deliver the truth and secondly deliver a solution, the result would not be positive for AGW supporters. Look at Al Gore a washed up second rate US politician who enjoys the limelight, Noddy has more credibility than that guy?

In answer to a direct question Do I think that AGW was invented to stop poorer nations from developing NO

Do I think it will be used to do so YES I DO

If AGW was on trial in a court of law and the Jury got to hear the witnesses background and previous cases, a muggy caught red handed in daylight and on cctv would have a good chance of getting off. I just cannot understand why many are so blinkered and just can't see it?

Are you not missing the point somewhat? the recent Ozzie elections must show us that GW is an issue that'll win/loose you an election.

To wait for govt. to wipe your bum for you (and then bemoan the 'nanny state' is ludicrous. In the 80's we coined the phrase 'think Global, act local' and that just about sums it up. If we ,the voters, show our will to do what we can the politicians will 'woo' us by showing how much 'greener' they are than we ,the voter.

The political system is there and so you have to 'work with what you have got'. Politicians may be strange and damaged beasties but they do control the countries spending and surely it is up to us to point their 'spending power in the right direction.

Sadly voters can be just as strange and damaged (in different ways) as the politicians and it is the 'Apathy'/lack of political will of the voters that allows our current situation to maintain.

We have seen in other countries what 'people power' can achieve but what would it take to motivate the British 'Joe public' to take direct action????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have seen in other countries what 'people power' can achieve but what would it take to motivate the British 'Joe public' to take direct action????

I feel at the moment the British public is too sedated by consumerism, partying and drinking (etc) to care. However, when the economy starts going to the dogs and they're out of work, their money isn't worth much, they have trouble getting petrol and can't afford to go partying on the town and buy plasma TV's and leather sofas from DFS anymore... that'll get them worked up believe you me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel at the moment the British public is too sedated by consumerism, partying and drinking (etc) to care. However, when the economy starts going to the dogs and they're out of work, their money isn't worth much, they have trouble getting petrol and can't afford to go partying on the town and buy plasma TV's and leather sofas from DFS anymore... that'll get them worked up believe you me.

mmm, although historically the relationship between ecology and economy is direct. I.e. the better off we feel, the more concerned we can afford to be re the environment. In the early 70s there was a dramatic fall in support for ecological issues and foundations in the US that occurred in conjunction with the oil price spike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil price spike?? they were charging around calling it a petrol crisis when prices were 7p per litre lower than today's price and nobody blinks???

Never mind our 'predicted road use growth (and the demand for fuel this will necessitate) what of the swathe of Chinese/Indians who are becoming motorised for the first time??? what of their continued impact as their nations 'wealth' increases and their populations are able to act more 'materialistically'.

What Magpie says, and has been saying on many threads (with linked support for his position), is spot on. We are already in a place that we should fear. Not enough fuel to go around and demand snowballing. £1.05 a litre from 95p must impact all commodity prices and force global inflation (and the interest rate rises to try and control it leading to the increase in home repossessions/bankruptcies).

Have a very merry christmas folks, if your plastic can bear it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Magpie says, and has been saying on many threads (with linked support for his position), is spot on. We are already in a place that we should fear. Not enough fuel to go around and demand snowballing. £1.05 a litre from 95p must impact all commodity prices and force global inflation (and the interest rate rises to try and control it leading to the increase in home repossessions/bankruptcies).

Have a very merry christmas folks, if your plastic can bear it!

I don't disagree, but what you describe is called a recession and we have been there many times before haven't we?

US slow down = Global slow down = reduced demand for commodities because the buyers don't have the money to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree, but what you describe is called a recession and we have been there many times before haven't we?

US slow down = Global slow down = reduced demand for commodities because the buyers don't have the money to spend.

Yup!

But then Vesuvius has erupted before but the impacts when we have another AD 79 type blast will be much more devastating to humanity (in the area) than ever before.

The Wall street crash occurred when there were 2 billion of us, there are now 6.5 billion of us. Can you really draw direct wisdom from the past or merely 'frames' in which to place your projections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup!

But then Vesuvius has erupted before but the impacts when we have another AD 79 type blast will be much more devastating to humanity (in the area) than ever before.

The Wall street crash occurred when there were 2 billion of us, there are now 6.5 billion of us. Can you really draw direct wisdom from the past or merely 'frames' in which to place your projections?

That rather assumes that we don't detect it coming - which we might. Pompeii was devestating because people had no meansd of fleeing quickly from the nxious gases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That rather assumes that we don't detect it coming - which we might. Pompeii was devastating because people had no means of fleeing quickly from the noxious gases.

There are millions now nestled at the base of Vesuvius as opposed to the thousands in A.D.79 (being my 'point' initially) and ,no matter how much 'advanced warning' they recieve the logistics of rapid evacuation is a problem.

In reality many folk did flee the eruption in A.D. 79 and Pliny the Elder was on another rescue mission when his son (Pliny the younger) saw him wiped out by the first major pyroclastic flow.

In A.D. 0 we estimate that their were 300million humans globally. We now stand at 6.5 Billion folk globally. Can we really draw comparisons by looking back to such sparesly populated times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...