Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News2 mins ago
Climate Change Still Not Our Fault Then
46 Answers
https:/
Cue the usual deniers who are no different to anti vaxers with their views
Is it all still caused by volcanoes then ?
Cue the usual deniers who are no different to anti vaxers with their views
Is it all still caused by volcanoes then ?
Answers
The view that the climate is changing (which I think most people at least accept) largely because of increased carbon emissions is something backed up by countless scientific studies. The idea that it isn’t seems largely based on bloody mindedness. As I’ve said before the idea it’s fixable or at least able to be regulated (which it wouldn’t be if it wasn’t due...
15:29 Tue 14th Sep 2021
-- answer removed --
No one would deny that the earth is heating up, that is a measurable fact.
What is not measurable however, is how much of that change is part of the planet's natural cycle of warming and cooling, and how much, if any, of that cycle is impacted by the effect of humanity.
It may be that humanity is influencing the climate cycle, but it may be nothing more than simple coincidence, and we are actually having no effect, we just think we are.
That is yet to be proven beyond the proverbial 'reasonable doubt.
What is not measurable however, is how much of that change is part of the planet's natural cycle of warming and cooling, and how much, if any, of that cycle is impacted by the effect of humanity.
It may be that humanity is influencing the climate cycle, but it may be nothing more than simple coincidence, and we are actually having no effect, we just think we are.
That is yet to be proven beyond the proverbial 'reasonable doubt.
oops, that answer was meant to be tongue in cheek, apologies to anyone offended.
But the answer is still China
https:/
the country so long urged by the west to industrialise. Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for?
But the answer is still China
https:/
the country so long urged by the west to industrialise. Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for?
andy-h has said it for me.
I was raised not to waste anything, turn off lights etc. and I have made efforts to avoid any harmful actions (one of the first around to give up aerosol hair-sprays etc.) because it just seemed sensible to conserve what we have, help birds/flora and fauna and not to spoil things. This still seems sensible to me.
The world does change and could well be heating up after the last little ice-age not so very many years ago. If our activities are having so much effect on top of that - well, Britain's contribution is minute. China, India etc. are doing the damage.
I was raised not to waste anything, turn off lights etc. and I have made efforts to avoid any harmful actions (one of the first around to give up aerosol hair-sprays etc.) because it just seemed sensible to conserve what we have, help birds/flora and fauna and not to spoil things. This still seems sensible to me.
The world does change and could well be heating up after the last little ice-age not so very many years ago. If our activities are having so much effect on top of that - well, Britain's contribution is minute. China, India etc. are doing the damage.
ich - // These answers all make me almost despair. //
Why?
No-one is denying that climate change is occuring, but there is nothing wrong with a few basic questions about the validity of the assumption that mankind is the cause, and in fact the only cause.
People used to accept that the earth was flat simply because it was the perceived wisdom at the time.
Because something is perceived wisdom does not automatically mean that it must be the only correct view.
Why?
No-one is denying that climate change is occuring, but there is nothing wrong with a few basic questions about the validity of the assumption that mankind is the cause, and in fact the only cause.
People used to accept that the earth was flat simply because it was the perceived wisdom at the time.
Because something is perceived wisdom does not automatically mean that it must be the only correct view.
The view that the climate is changing (which I think most people at least accept) largely because of increased carbon emissions is something backed up by countless scientific studies.
The idea that it isn’t seems largely based on bloody mindedness.
As I’ve said before the idea it’s fixable or at least able to be regulated (which it wouldn’t be if it wasn’t due to human factors) ought at least to be a cause for hope.
The idea that it isn’t seems largely based on bloody mindedness.
As I’ve said before the idea it’s fixable or at least able to be regulated (which it wouldn’t be if it wasn’t due to human factors) ought at least to be a cause for hope.
ich - // The view that the climate is changing (which I think most people at least accept) largely because of increased carbon emissions is something backed up by countless scientific studies. //
It isn't 'the' view though is it?
It's the view of people who like to preach about climate change because they can be holier-than-thou about everyone's perceived careless over-use of natural resources.
It's the view of people who are looking at the planet heating up, which it is, and increased carbon emissions, which there are, and then making the unproven assumption that the second is actually creating the first.
My contgention is that such a conclusion is not proveable, certainly not to the level where anyone is actually going to think about changing their lives to facilitate it.
As for the idea that major carbon contributors like China are going to alter their way of life - that is simply not going to happen.
It isn't 'the' view though is it?
It's the view of people who like to preach about climate change because they can be holier-than-thou about everyone's perceived careless over-use of natural resources.
It's the view of people who are looking at the planet heating up, which it is, and increased carbon emissions, which there are, and then making the unproven assumption that the second is actually creating the first.
My contgention is that such a conclusion is not proveable, certainly not to the level where anyone is actually going to think about changing their lives to facilitate it.
As for the idea that major carbon contributors like China are going to alter their way of life - that is simply not going to happen.
// certainly not to the level where anyone is actually going to think about changing their lives to facilitate it. //
the level of change required, if human activity is the primary cause, will be profound. it's no good faffing about with lightbulbs or switching to an electric car. at the moment only 30% of the UK's electric energy comes from truly renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) - conventional wisdom says 43% but that figure is boosted by counting biomass, which is anything but sustainable and still involves burning something that produces airborne carbon.
no. the lifestyle changes will need to be drastic, simply because we can't at this time generate nearly enough power by non-carbon-producing means, and are unlikely to be able to come zero-carbon day.
the level of change required, if human activity is the primary cause, will be profound. it's no good faffing about with lightbulbs or switching to an electric car. at the moment only 30% of the UK's electric energy comes from truly renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) - conventional wisdom says 43% but that figure is boosted by counting biomass, which is anything but sustainable and still involves burning something that produces airborne carbon.
no. the lifestyle changes will need to be drastic, simply because we can't at this time generate nearly enough power by non-carbon-producing means, and are unlikely to be able to come zero-carbon day.
//My contgention is that such a conclusion is not proveable,...//
No it's certainly not. But even if it was, there is more to the debate than that. This country is embarking (at least for the moment) on a strategy that will near enough bankrupt it, will kill its economy stone dead and will cause harm and hardship to the majority of the population. And what for? The UK could cut its emissions to absolutely zero (not the contrived "net zero" that is bandied about) tomorrow. And it would make precisely no difference whatsoever to the perceived problem. The big producers (USA, China, India) have no intention at all of making any meaningful contribution to reductions. China is opening a new coal fired power station about every ten days, the USA burns over 700m tons of coal a year India 960m tons and China 4,300 tons. Even Germany burns more than six times as much coal as the UK at more than 250m tons (25% of which they have to cart half way round the world). Six of Europe's top ten carbon emission origins are German power stations. By contrast the UK burns 45m tons (90% imported) which is around 1% of that burned by China.
This is virtue signalling to a world that has no virtue of its own and the country's fanciful ideas that it should "lead by example" is pathetic. This country will stagnate whilst the rest of the world ploughs on. With the strategy that is proposed at present, some serious damage will result, and it won't be a half degree rise in global temperatures that the people of the UK will have to worry about.
All the world's Great and Good will jet in to Glasgow in a few weeks time, spend a few days noshing some agreeable dinners, get their lackies to draft a few "resolutions", then they will all jet back again to continue stoking their furnaces. Meanwhile we will fanny about with windmills, lightbulbs and burning wood shipped 5,000 miles across the Atlantic whilst watching our industries decline and our people become impoverished. All because it makes us look good.
No it's certainly not. But even if it was, there is more to the debate than that. This country is embarking (at least for the moment) on a strategy that will near enough bankrupt it, will kill its economy stone dead and will cause harm and hardship to the majority of the population. And what for? The UK could cut its emissions to absolutely zero (not the contrived "net zero" that is bandied about) tomorrow. And it would make precisely no difference whatsoever to the perceived problem. The big producers (USA, China, India) have no intention at all of making any meaningful contribution to reductions. China is opening a new coal fired power station about every ten days, the USA burns over 700m tons of coal a year India 960m tons and China 4,300 tons. Even Germany burns more than six times as much coal as the UK at more than 250m tons (25% of which they have to cart half way round the world). Six of Europe's top ten carbon emission origins are German power stations. By contrast the UK burns 45m tons (90% imported) which is around 1% of that burned by China.
This is virtue signalling to a world that has no virtue of its own and the country's fanciful ideas that it should "lead by example" is pathetic. This country will stagnate whilst the rest of the world ploughs on. With the strategy that is proposed at present, some serious damage will result, and it won't be a half degree rise in global temperatures that the people of the UK will have to worry about.
All the world's Great and Good will jet in to Glasgow in a few weeks time, spend a few days noshing some agreeable dinners, get their lackies to draft a few "resolutions", then they will all jet back again to continue stoking their furnaces. Meanwhile we will fanny about with windmills, lightbulbs and burning wood shipped 5,000 miles across the Atlantic whilst watching our industries decline and our people become impoverished. All because it makes us look good.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.