Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

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

Roger J Smith

Is the response to "climate change" dangerous?

Recommended Posts

Is the response to climate change dangerous?

All around the world, it seems, mainstream politicians are jumping on the environmental bandwagon, endorsing the AGW theory, and starting to blame various natural events on "climate change," implying that if we can reduce our carbon footprint, these changes will become a thing of the past (in the future).

For example, the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, was heard on Canadian TV today stating quite blandly (as is his way) that recent ice-jam conditions on the Nechako River where it flows into the Fraser River at Prince George BC, was due to climate change and it was this sort of thing that was driving his government to spend twelve billion dolllars on upgraded public transit to reduce local carbon emissions.

Political opponents have pointed out that the twelve billion will reduce carbon dioxide by such a tiny fraction that we might get more bang for the buck if we installed snowmaking machines around all the shrinking glaciers in British Columbia.

However, let's suppose for a moment that political action really could reduce the global carbon footprint and return the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to something like the pre-1980 levels.

What if all of this warming recently is a natural cycle and we are about to swing into a cooling cycle in 20-30 years?

Won't this reduction just accelerate the sudden downturn in temperatures and heighten the chances of another ice age starting in 50-100 years?

Do we really know enough about this "science" of "climate change" to roll the dice with the atmosphere and proceed down this road when we can be relatively certain that we could easily manage the effects of a warmer climate?

The negative impacts of a colder climate are on balance, far worse than a warmer climate. Personally, I think the variations to date are largely natural, but that added carbon dioxide is really our insurance policy against an ice age, surely it tilts the probabilities away from one as long as we don't let it get much higher than it is today. Perhaps it would be wiser to accept the current climate and hope that it continues -- it isn't really causing half of the problems that people claim.

This particular claim about the ice jam (which has made for economic chaos in Prince George where large industrial areas near the rivers are flooded), is entirely bogus in my view. The ice jam is caused by an unusual series of recent freezes and thaws, allowing the ice to stay jammed without totally melting and running off in the rivers. This has actually been a relatively cold winter by modern standards in western Canada, and I fail to see how this event has anything to do with "global warming." Using it as an example of "climate change" is no more intellectually sound than claiming that Katrina was "caused" by global warming when similar hurricanes in 1819 and 1969 were apparently not caused by global warming.

This political movement is now becoming a danger to our future security, I believe -- it threatens to waste billions of dollars on boondoggles and economically restrictive measures, while exposing us to the possibility of catastrophic cooling if our insurance policy against an ice age is withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the warming is largely natural... I don't really get the argument, because if the warming is natural then our CO2 can't be having much of an effect, yet if we reduce our CO2 it could cause rapid cooling along with the natural cool down? It wouldn't matter much either way if our CO2 isn't having much of an effect surely?

Besides there doesn't seem to be any sign of a cool down on the way yet, whether it's natural or anthropogenic. If it is natural then we need to find either signs of a cool down beginning to signs that one is about to happen in the future. Don't see any of those now.

I do agree though that the billions being spent trying to cut CO2 emissions is largely a waste of money. As I've said before, if we reduce fossil fuel use it'll just free up more of them for other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out.

http://www.carbon-connections.org/default.aspx

I trust AGWer's all over the country will be queuing up for the privilege with the necessary £50 to hand. Personally I wouldn't go if they paid me. I've enough nonsense to endure in everyday life without wilfully shelling out for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Editor,

Absolutely. I think it is disgraceful that some people want to live in a sustainable world. I also find it shocking that anyone is even thinking about making things better for future generations. Green spaces, clean air and less pollution: what is the world coming to?

I believe we should continue to make the burning of fossil fuels and the creation of smog a top priority to ensure that we make a few thousand more species extinct. Goodness me, anyone would think that worldwide environmental damage is a bad thing....

Signed,

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quick answer to your question Roger is 'No'.

It is becoming abundantly clear that we have not only started to see the impact of our effects on climate but that we have pushed things too far already to have any meaningful impact on the future by acting now. All of this is just academic.

There is no way to halt our emission instantly and ,I believe, there is no way of moderating the developing world in their emissions.

All in all, though we know what we are doing is bad, we will not only continue doing it but also increase what we are doing.

We are 'Energy Junkies' and though we know each 'fix' may be our 'golden shot' we are not strong enough to face going 'cold turkey'.

All the talk of what we must do/will do to help us quit is just so much junky talk to pass the time and ease our own screaming consciences......for the now.

Do we really think that ,when we readily admit that the planet is far to complex to understand, we are in a position to say what to do to fix it all???

Even if we had a 'dissenters 100%' surety that we were correct in our understanding of what we must do are you convinced that there is the political will to commit to it on a scale that would prove useful?????

Every addict I've met knows they are harming themselves and will constantly lie to themselves and you on how they will 'sort it'.

We may pity the addict their situation but our energy addition has put us all in their quandary and we lie just as much as they about how we will 'sort it' (IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or worse, economics will dominate any response to a perceived national or international threat - er probably because the world is now a largely capitalist system or is that a bit obtuse?

There are a few incontrivertable facts that at present, cannot be disentangled from the AGW argument since future prediction can only be based on a balance of probabilities :-

a. Capitalist based economies need consumer demand to sustain growth;

b. The world is currently almost totally reliant on finite sources of fossil fuels;

c. Globally, energy demand will continue to outstrip supply for generations;

d. Western economies now produce less (and falling) than 20% of the global oil total, but consume in excess of 65%;

e. Following the old models for production and supply of services and goods, will continue to shift wealth away from the established western economies to the rapidly growing economies of Asia, China and Russia. With it will also shift the balance of power in favour of the new economies;

f. Globalisation means the ability to rapidly shift the centres of production and labour and hence monetary supply.

g. Military projection by both the west (Gulf-style conflicts), OPEC, Asia and China will also continue to increase as the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels make protection of these resources not only vital to global economic stability, but also to dissuade others from using military force to curtail independent development and hence reliance on the west.

These points all represent a 'clear and present danger' to western economies, which can only be adressed by significantly reducing exposure to the volatile (pun intended) reliance on fossil based fuels.

It seems to me therefore that irrespespective of the truth or otherwise of AGW and Climate-Change, Western governments can generate new ecomonic growth through inciting demand for sustainable fuels, energy efficiency and cleaning up the environment. All to alleviate the destabilising control exerted by the OPEC and potentially Russia.

To generate demand from the voting public and consumers is absolutely the key. AGW and CC will therefore be used for everything and anything and will invade every aspect of our lives and lifestyle choices. And yes of course now is a good time to jump on the bandwagon to justify expenditure of transit systems that would otherwise be impossible.

AGW and CC cannot be used directly to justify military action. However, directly related causes will; the establishment of miltary projection in the Gulf-States and using the war against Islamic fundamentalism as a justification; those who use the argument to develop nuclear technology may find themselves in direct military confrontation with the US and the west;

AGW and CC provides the demand and motivation to decouple the west from the inevitable economic crippling of fossil fuel reliance. It provides the justification to act now and before the oil runs out when it will be too late.

Is the response to CC dangerous?

Categorically yes. The alternative 'do-nothing' is unthinkable.

ffO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AGW and CC provides the demand and motivation to decouple the west from the inevitable economic crippling of fossil fuel reliance. It provides the justification to act now and before the oil runs out when it will be too late.

Pretty good assessment there FFO.

But why should the invented tool of AGW be necessary? What's wrong with telling it like it is wrt dependance on finite fossil fuels,a point I have consistently maintained? Perhaps the powers that be have decided that AGW is the friendly ,relatively acceptable face of a world collapsing in synch with fossil fuel supplies? When the bloodbath starts,how folk will wish that AGW was real and the main thing to worry about. Has anyone invented the plutonium powered road vehicle yet,or devised a way of running industrial manufacturing on wind turbines etc?

GW,I'm starting to understand your doom-laden posts and I agree totally that the Industrial Revolution was probably,nay definitely the embryo that would grow to be the end of the world! But we weren't around way back when so we can hardly accept blame for the regime and way of life we were born into. All spilt milk now,of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty good assessment there FFO.

But why should the invented tool of AGW be necessary? What's wrong with telling it like it is wrt dependance on finite fossil fuels,a point I have consistently maintained? Perhaps the powers that be have decided that AGW is the friendly ,relatively acceptable face of a world collapsing in synch with fossil fuel supplies? When the bloodbath starts,how folk will wish that AGW was real and the main thing to worry about. Has anyone invented the plutonium powered road vehicle yet,or devised a way of running industrial manufacturing on wind turbines etc?

GW,I'm starting to understand your doom-laden posts and I agree totally that the Industrial Revolution was probably,nay definitely the embryo that would grow to be the end of the world! But we weren't around way back when so we can hardly accept blame for the regime and way of life we were born into. All spilt milk now,of course.

My god there are some strawmen in that post.

For a start it's simply wrong to say AGW is 'invented' - and that's putting it politely. AGW is to do with basic simple atmosphere physics, stating that it's 'invented' flies in the face of that reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Daniel
Assuming that the warming is largely natural... I don't really get the argument, because if the warming is natural then our CO2 can't be having much of an effect, yet if we reduce our CO2 it could cause rapid cooling along with the natural cool down? It wouldn't matter much either way if our CO2 isn't having much of an effect surely?

Besides there doesn't seem to be any sign of a cool down on the way yet, whether it's natural or anthropogenic. If it is natural then we need to find either signs of a cool down beginning to signs that one is about to happen in the future. Don't see any of those now.

I do agree though that the billions being spent trying to cut CO2 emissions is largely a waste of money. As I've said before, if we reduce fossil fuel use it'll just free up more of them for other countries.

Well there seem plenty of killer cold else were in the world. only the U.K seems to be escaping. This may be the very first signs of a cool down. when the world cools it does not mean the U.K will cools straight a away. A global cooling might for a time cause the mild west wings to be come strong so we get milder winters. this happened just before the last little ice age began. When the arctic first cooled this caused a deep low in the north Alantic and that fed strong west winds in to western Europe. here the proof of all the cold weather in other parts of the world

http://www.iceagenow.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My god there are some strawmen in that post.

For a start it's simply wrong to say AGW is 'invented' - and that's putting it politely. AGW is to do with basic simple atmosphere physics, stating that it's 'invented' flies in the face of that reality.

Agreed sort of. The most predictable aspect of climate-change is that globally climates have and always will change. Not meaning to play with semantics, including the 'A' in AGW by definition must mean AGW is invented - but I do know what you mean! :rolleyes:

But why should the invented tool of AGW be necessary? What's wrong with telling it like it is wrt dependance on finite fossil fuels, a point I have consistently maintained?

I do believe there is truth in the AGW argument and that globally it cannot be wrong to ween away from fossil fuel reliance and become far more environmentally conscious, energy efficient consumers.

I also believe there is a fortuitious (if that is not an oxymoron) coincidence in the timing between the impact of CC and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. i.e. what if fossil fuels were nowhere near running out but we still have accelerating CC? The supply-demand economics in that scenario, would simply make the argument for costly change away from fossil fuels near impossible.

The AGW-CC argument persuasively opens a range of options from economic sanctions, increased taxes and infrastructire development (nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen etc). Military options to protect supply during the transition years must be justified in a different way and is a by-product of the war on terror. All of which would be far less palatable and again near impossible if governments were simply to say we need to go to war to protect the supply of oil.

Consistently governments have learned to use their own form of demand-supply argument to justify actions that would otherwise be unpalatable. i.e.

Create the perception of a problem to which action demanded by the public, is aligned with the policy governments have already decided they want to implement. I know, I know, that reads like a script for Sir Humphrey - many a true word etc.

Of course none of this will ever be known in our lifetimes, only when historians look back at this period of history will the truth be outed.

ffO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution, nature, cycles...technology, where will it lead us. I sit and ponder sometimes wondering why? Why all this. Can't figure it. Technology is the only way forward and to obtain technology and improve we have had to go through what we have...then I ask again why did humans have the ability to discover and use what we did? There has to be a reason, no other creature has this ability. Without dismissing it just have a think about it. We have to continue forwards and not backwards..and the technology isn't quite there yet to stop fossil fuel use. Re the climate change I see a big overriding cycle that will determine future cooling and warming and our imput is like a volcano which just nudges the climate a little here and there but does not affect the motion of the cycle.

BFTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there seem plenty of killer cold else were in the world. only the U.K seems to be escaping. This may be the very first signs of a cool down. when the world cools it does not mean the U.K will cools straight a away. A global cooling might for a time cause the mild west wings to be come strong so we get milder winters. this happened just before the last little ice age began. When the arctic first cooled this caused a deep low in the north Alantic and that fed strong west winds in to western Europe. here the proof of all the cold weather in other parts of the world

http://www.iceagenow.com

How do you explain last year being the 2nd warmest ever and 2005 the 1st warmest if we are cooling?

..

As I've said before, I believe that climate change is just another symptom of our overshoot. We are well above the carrying capacity of the Earth and the capacity is eroding every year, even as our population grows. The amount of overshoot we are in continues to accelerate exponentially anmually . Other environmental damage such as deforestation, soil erosion, depletion of water aquifiers and so on are also reducing our carrying capacity. To understand where we are going we have to look at humans at just another organism, an organism that is growing rapidly beyond its limits. We have a massive ecological debt that must be repayed at some time.

Overshoot is a basic phenomenon of biology and it states that whenever a population exceeds its carrying capacity, and goes into overshoot, the population must come back down. A combination of all sorts of factors, environmental damage and climate change being just two of them, are just more things working against us that will eventually slowly and inreasingly begin to erode at the foundations of everything. What goes up must come down and the coming down process is now starting. Slow at first but it shall begin to rapidly accelerate, just like it did for the reindeer on St Matthews island.

http://dieoff.org/page80.htm

Anyway, as I said before, our fossil fuel use is going to come down whether we like it or not as our economies get hammered due our overshoot starting to come apparrent. So even if cutting our CO2 emissions is dangerous there's I think nowt we can do about it.

The idea that we can get out of this mess by turning to solar panels or wind farms is really is very very misguided. Even if it worked, keeping our economies growing for longer would just create more and more damage, sucking more and more resources out the Earth. There's really nothing we can do, apart from find a new planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there seem plenty of killer cold else were in the world. only the U.K seems to be escaping. This may be the very first signs of a cool down. when the world cools it does not mean the U.K will cools straight a away. A global cooling might for a time cause the mild west wings to be come strong so we get milder winters. this happened just before the last little ice age began. When the arctic first cooled this caused a deep low in the north Alantic and that fed strong west winds in to western Europe. here the proof of all the cold weather in other parts of the world

http://www.iceagenow.com

Daniel,

I love the way you cling desperately onto Ice Age Now. And though I fully understand that you want it to be cold, I do worry that you actually believe what IAN persist in peddling.

The banner headline "record ice growth in one day" says it all really. If you go looking only for what you want to see, then what you want to see is all that you will find. It doesn't mean that it's all that's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty good assessment there FFO.

But why should the invented tool of AGW be necessary? What's wrong with telling it like it is wrt dependance on finite fossil fuels,a point I have consistently maintained? Perhaps the powers that be have decided that AGW is the friendly ,relatively acceptable face of a world collapsing in synch with fossil fuel supplies? When the bloodbath starts,how folk will wish that AGW was real and the main thing to worry about. Has anyone invented the plutonium powered road vehicle yet,or devised a way of running industrial manufacturing on wind turbines etc?

GW,I'm starting to understand your doom-laden posts and I agree totally that the Industrial Revolution was probably,nay definitely the embryo that would grow to be the end of the world! But we weren't around way back when so we can hardly accept blame for the regime and way of life we were born into. All spilt milk now,of course.

No dramatic hyperbole in there then. The supply of fossil fuel still stretches several hundred years, though oil and gas have shorter periods left. AGW and FF depletion may be related in that the drive towards the latter exacerbates the former, but action on GG is not related to sustaining supply, although it is a fortuitous side effect.

It's already possible to run industrial scale production using wind turbines: the UK generates a significant amount of electricity through water and wind turbines already: for sure, not enough for every factory, but that's not because it's not possible, just because at present it's not acceptable.

Finally the same industiral revolution that might kill us all, is the one that also spawned the ability to invent, more rapidly than ever, technologies that also give us the option for the same to not happen. If we can put a man on the moon; if we can routinely transplant organs to keep death at bay; if we can engineer telescopes capable of seeing far across the universe; if we can invent beams of energy capable of cutting through metre thick blocks of iron...

Man is endlessly resourceful, and compelled more strongly than anything by the innate desire to survive. There is no reason to suppose that we will not find many answers to the problems of energy: we use carbon because it's easy, but iron age man would look at us in awe, just as in a few generations' time we would, were we still here to see it, be astonished at what our descendents had created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot the Mathusian ;)

If energy on Star Trek is as abundant and clean as portrayed, we'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot the Mathusian ;)

If energy on Star Trek is as abundant and clean as portrayed, we'll be fine.

I still remember writing essays about "The Club of Rome", all of whose analysis - albeit on a computer the size of Slough with the processing power of an 8 bead abacus - and extrapolation had mankind wiped out by 2030 or so: as I recall the villain of the piece was always pollution, though back in the 70s I don't think they were seeing GW as the issue as I recall, though I might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No dramatic hyperbole in there then. The supply of fossil fuel still stretches several hundred years,..........

The sort of dramatic hyperbole that climate change disaster peddlers never demonstrate,you mean? I admire your optimism,SF,but it is wildly misplaced. The assumption that FF's will last for 'hundreds' of years is all well and good assuming that the population remains stable and developing nations,well,stop developing. As it is,both are exploding and the dwindling cup is being emptied at an ever increasing rate. Whilst FF's have a long time (however you quantify that )to go before total depletion,it is the distribution of what is available at any given time amongst a growing consumer base that is the problem. Like having a rush on a new computer game at Christmas but the stores have sold out due to demand so you'll just have to wait 'til the next consignment arrives. Oh and because everyone wants it so badly we can charge whatever we like,we know they'll find the money.

Industrial scale production using wind turbines? Laughable really,but even if all the energy requirements could be met in this way,what would they actually make in said factories with all this lovely cheap power,considering that FF's are the foundation of thousands of chemicals and chemical processes? Like having a top of the range Aga but no food in the larder. The feats of technology that you mention (including the carbon dioxide laser ;) are,when you really get down to it,products or dependants of FF's. Our entire way of being depends on it and there is and can never be a panacea to replace FF's,especially oil. Everything else is inferior sticking plaster. As endlessly resourceful as man is,as you point out,we would quite probably be stuck in the dark ages if not for the discovery and utilisation of FF's,the magic elixir that breathed life into ideas. I may well be at loggerheads with the likes of Magpie,GW and others wrt the connection between FF's and climate change,but I concur with them completely in the observation that we are indeed stuffed. Like the last few grains of sand passing through the venturi of an egg-timer,there'll be an eerie stillness when the last one falls,to be replaced by...what? Climate change,where is thy sting! I can just see it,folk wandering around in a Mad Maxian landscape saying "gosh,it's warm today". Best case scenario,hope that's the outcome instead of cooling. Nature will decide that,not us. Oh well,off to work while it's still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a school of thought (more mind than matter) that the main driver in our minds is 'death anxiety'. As such many depressives have the clearer view of reality and the rest of us are all slightly mad. Mad in the sense that to really grasp the finite reality of existence is so disturbing to us that we all 'live in hope'. This unrealistic sense of 'hope' allows us to function without the constant crushing realisation of our situation.

I know from personal experience that even when the awful truth of a situation is spelt out for us, as clear as clear can be, we still seek to deny it and find reasons why it cannot be so.

The first recognised stage of bereavement is denial and this is but the extreme face of the 'normal' situation in which we all mentally exist.

When we are forced to accept a loved ones mortality, and their loss to us, we are put in a position of being made consciously aware of this major psychological driver ( as it is dragged up into 'full conciousness') and, as anyone suffering in this way will know, it is neither a pleasant place to mentally reside nor is it a place where we can easily focus on anything but our loss.

Climate change is forcing this 'death anxiety' further and further into our conscious being and none of us like it much .

Some folk cope better than others with it (as with any type of bereavement) and some spend all of their time in a state of 'splendid denial' becoming ever more agitated with anyone forcing them to face the grim reality (which is why I'm ever more want to label this 'persona' as 'denialistss') until they eventually disengage from the situation which is causing them to focus on the uncomfortable visitor in their consciousness (take their bat home with a final flourish of 'it is all because of them that I have to go!') .

I label folk 'denialists' ,not because they deny AGW, but because I view them as the personality type most likely to deny the reality confronting them ,and seek logical reasons why it is 'not so' to legitimately support this 'denial' of reality (we are none of us 'thick' and so must seek to logically explain ,to ourselves and others, why we do not accept the grim reality as some kind of a 'personal comforter').

This being so the global debate is not about science (though we all resort to it to back up our stances) but about the human condition. The debate is heated because it is personal to us all (in terms of our individual continuation) and so we endlessly run around in circles with the denialists constantly seeking to calm their inner dread and the clear sighted becoming ever more frustrated as the apparent irrefutable evidence of change ,and our part in it, amasses around them.

The world and it's leaders are as affected by this mental condition as any of us are but are in position where they feel 'expected' to be able to 'make a difference/save the world' so their rhetoric continues so as to fulfil this 'obligation/role'.

These noises are all just the parental 'there there's' that they ,folk in positions of power/public office, feel are expected of them and nothing more.

Any glance at the developing world will confirm that it's consumption still increasing year on year (and with it wishes for increases in our individual 'personal home comforts') with no realistic plans for this to change (look at car ownership/air travel for a start point).

Any glance at the developing nations will see that their expectations for development (into developed nations, with all that that entails) and the emissions rises they currently enjoy are in no way tempered by our global position.

Yes, it would be yummy if we could use 'technology' to dig us out of this ever deepening hole but without greater commitment and funding we will not have the time to achieve this and, seeing as the world is in denial of it's terminal position, this 'hope is yet another 'paper tiger' for us all to attempt to hold onto.

Sorry to be so bleak but I am becoming overly tired of reading the 'same old, same old' from folk who have not yet understood that which motivates them...................

................the human mind eh? what a fantastic piece of kit it is......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five stages of grief - Elizabeth Kubler Ross - adapted for AGW

Denial: It's not happening. We have not got warmer. The temperatures have not risen.

Anger: Yes it is. Yes we have. It's all our fault. Wake up and see what's happening, look what you're doing.

Bargaining: Let's all switch to low energy light bulbs. Ban the plastic bag. Build a windmill. Turn that bl**dy light off!

Depression: Oh my God, it's never going to snow again!

Acceptance: We've been quite warm before, shall we have a look and see what happened after that, did the world end then, did the seas swamp the Earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Five stages of grief - Elizabeth Kubler Ross - adapted for AGW

Denial: It's not happening. We have not got warmer. The temperatures have not risen.

Anger: Yes it is. Yes we have. It's all our fault. Wake up and see what's happening, look what you're doing.

Bargaining: Let's all switch to low energy light bulbs. Ban the plastic bag. Build a windmill. Turn that bl**dy light off!

Depression: Oh my God, it's never going to snow again!

Acceptance: We've been quite warm before, shall we have a look and see what happened after that, did the world end then, did the seas swamp the Earth?

Well done that Girl! you've just about included everyone on the board (IMHO!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know from personal experience that even when the awful truth of a situation is spelt out for us, as clear as clear can be, we still seek to deny it and find reasons why it cannot be so.

The first recognised stage of bereavement is denial and this is but the extreme face of the 'normal' situation in which we all mentally exist.

When we are forced to accept a loved ones mortality, and their loss to us, we are put in a position of being made consciously aware of this major psychological driver ( as it is dragged up into 'full conciousness') and, as anyone suffering in this way will know, it is neither a pleasant place to mentally reside nor is it a place where we can easily focus on anything but our loss.

Forgive my apparent thickness GW,but I can't work out if the quote extracted from your post above is aimed at me or not! I'd like to point out though,that even though I am an unashamed 'denier' of AGW I am no stranger to bereavement;indeed I have been to the 'other side' myself. I can truthfully say that death holds no fear for me,other than the implications for my dependants. How this ties in with your psychological analysis, (either of AGW denialists or the revelations to come concerning our utter dependance on FF's )I'm not sure. Y'know,this may sound simplistic but I look forward to the day when life becomes slower,less driven,money orientated,all that stuff. I'm sick of it.There's nothing there for me to deny,so bring it on! It's the transition from our way of life as we know it now to whatever it becomes that's,ahem,daunting. Huge changes are-a-coming,and that's a given. As an individual I have no power to alter the course of future events,just make plans to ride the coming storm on a personal level. Meanwhile,billions are being spent on climatologists to keep telling us we're doomed when what they should be doing is feeding the world's hungry. All that money recently given by us taxpayers (our money!) to India and China when they do not need it. Personally I think that's an insurance policy to ensure that those soon-to-be superpowers are on our side when nuclear conflict over fossil fuels erupts between them and the US. Just my opinion mind,but it ain't rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic acceptance, well done that man! You have come to realise that your personal input to the situation is neither solely to blame nor wholly responsible for the future. You have done what you can change your way of life so that it is the least damaging that you can manage without removing yourself from reality and day to day living. You are prepared to face any challenges which come your way as a result of this situation, with a stoical fortitude and practical aptitude.

Sounds like a good plan to me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think it is dangerous, even if we accept without question that GW is substantially man made (which I don't) AGW supporters have yet to answer:

What exactly they want to change the CO2 content of our atmosphere too, in otherwords when do they stop?

What climate are they aiming for and to for whos benefit?

Do they then take on the permanent management of the Earths climate for eternity? (they may have too, you may not just be able to put it down again afterwards).

In a nutshell most AGW supporters run around like headless chickens shouting 'cut cut cut' without a clue where they want to go, or if they do then not a clue of how to get there! I have never seen one chart of the reduction in warming caused by our impending reduction in CO2 emissions, so where's the plan guys? Oh yeah, and that old chestnut that we can't do nothing gov can we does not hold water I am afraid because if you don't know what you are doing you should leave alone until someone comes along who does. Simply because you think that the machine is not running properly does not mean you can take it apart and fix it without fully understanding otherwise you might break it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The quick answer to your question Roger is 'No'.

It is becoming abundantly clear that we have not only started to see the impact of our effects on climate but that we have pushed things too far already to have any meaningful impact on the future by acting now. All of this is just academic.

Strongly disagree with that Gray-Wolf.

There is no doubt that we have impacted the climate to a certain degree but acting now would be much better than doing nothing and things getting a lot worse further down the line for future generations.

Defeatist attitudes do people no good and you are just helping to perpetuate that with your constant useless pseudo-malthusian rhetoric.

I've donated to charities, spread awareness, written to politicians. What have YOU done?

:wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, as I said before, our fossil fuel use is going to come down whether we like it or not as our economies get hammered due our overshoot starting to come apparrent. So even if cutting our CO2 emissions is dangerous there's I think nowt we can do about it.

The idea that we can get out of this mess by turning to solar panels or wind farms is really is very very misguided. Even if it worked, keeping our economies growing for longer would just create more and more damage, sucking more and more resources out the Earth. There's really nothing we can do, apart from find a new planet.

I don't really agree this post.

You were going so well wrt the problem of overshoot and carrying capacity being breached...but I suggest you ponder the following: -

1. There is no set linear path to 'development' or economic maturation.

2. Developed societies have slower growth rates and sometimes death rate can even exceed birth rate in aging populations.

3. Technology and ingenuity and increased wealth will give lower impetus to have children and a smaller population.

What we need to do is not only employ technology; but also have a change of mindset in terms of our attitude to economy and the impetus for continued profit margins. There is too much waste and overproduction, and that needs to be reduced.

True it is that our current way of life is not sustainable. Its all about combining a gradual shift in philosophy with the new technology to mitigate the worst impacts further down the line.

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...