Thoughts: Lack of oil wont stop increase in motorists

greg66_tri_v2.0

Headhuunter wrote:

No I'm not really happy that we carry on heating the earth but do something else to cool it (what exactly? Big air conditioners??!). I'm sure we would probably fool up the balance between articifially heating and cooling. It would surely be tremendously difficult to measure and implement, something which nature carries out to perfection if left to its own devices.

Why not take what is likely to be the easiest route (the other being potential destruction of our own race and many other species on earth) and try to learn to live within nature's boundaries and on its finite resources?

Because we don't want to live in caves, and gather the tribe for the hunt every morning (actually, I'd be pretty amused to see the wealth re-distributors who have embraced CC left to forage for their meals. I reckon they'd be CRAP. Rubbish at hunting. Rubbish at killing. Rubbish at running a settlement. Much like the pilgrims who went to the US: would have all died but for for the locals. Underachievers don't succeed just because you change the scenery).

The something else is fire sulphates from factory pollution into the stratosphere. Basically mimicking a large volcano. Easy to turn off and easy to turn on. Neither difficult to implement or turn off. But, of course, it would avoid the need for lifestyle changes that put us back in caves, which is the real agenda.

posh_pedaller

Greg66 wrote:

The something else is fire sulphates from factory pollution into the stratosphere. Basically mimicking a large volcano. Easy to turn off and easy to turn on. Neither difficult to implement or turn off..

You shouldn't believe everything you read in SuperFreakonomics...

greg66_tri_v2.0

posh_pedaller wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The something else is fire sulphates from factory pollution into the stratosphere. Basically mimicking a large volcano. Easy to turn off and easy to turn on. Neither difficult to implement or turn off..

You shouldn't believe everything you read in SuperFreakonomics...

Hehe... Busted I am!

Actually, my favourite part was the final chapter, about the monkeys and their rewards...

Headhuunter

Greg66 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No I'm not really happy that we carry on heating the earth but do something else to cool it (what exactly? Big air conditioners??!). I'm sure we would probably fool up the balance between articifially heating and cooling. It would surely be tremendously difficult to measure and implement, something which nature carries out to perfection if left to its own devices.

Why not take what is likely to be the easiest route (the other being potential destruction of our own race and many other species on earth) and try to learn to live within nature's boundaries and on its finite resources?

Because we don't want to live in caves, and gather the tribe for the hunt every morning (actually, I'd be pretty amused to see the wealth re-distributors who have embraced CC left to forage for their meals. I reckon they'd be CRAP. Rubbish at hunting. Rubbish at killing. Rubbish at running a settlement. Much like the pilgrims who went to the US: would have all died but for for the locals. Underachievers don't succeed just because you change the scenery).

The something else is fire sulphates from factory pollution into the stratosphere. Basically mimicking a large volcano. Easy to turn off and easy to turn on. Neither difficult to implement or turn off. But, of course, it would avoid the need for lifestyle changes that put us back in caves, which is the real agenda.

Err, I don't want to "live in a cave" either. We were discussing climate change not a return to life as prehistoric apes....

Anyway, so far I can deduce that you believe that it is impossible to stop climate change (even though it's a man made process) but you have provided zero evidence for this. Further, your only reason not to live within the confines our planet has unfortunately set us, with its finite resources, is an irrational fear that we would return to living as cavemen. Riiiight....

As for the suggestions that we fire sulphate into the atmosphere. What of the huge increase in acid rain as sulphuric acid is created with all this sulphur floating around an sulphur is not exactly good for us to breath! Also what makes you think that humankind, in all his infinite intelligence, is going to be able to judge EXACTLY how much sulphur to pump into the atmostphere to balance the climate PRECISELY?

always_tyred

It is okay everyone, I'm a trained scientist and I can assure you all that the world is not dying.

All of the stored carbon in the form of decomposed dead stuff is being released back into the atmosphere and its getting more like as hot as it was when it was last all in the atmosphere and life started, but the worst that will happen is that Ignoramus Britanicus will become extinct and be replaced by something more useful - possibly a new colour of algae.

And that's all.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Well no one knows for sure what will occur, but inserting genes which act as pesticides and herbicides into crops are going to reduce even further natures ability to exist side by side with farming.

We will increasingly end up with hectare upon hectare of sterility, where nothing but crops, immune and impervious to insects and able to grow taller and stronger and suck more out of the soil than any other plant. What happens when these man made crops begin to spread outside fields and take space in unfarmed, natural land at the expense of natural species still at the mercy of the natural world and unable to fight off infection and predators like insects. Inevitably the new crops will simply take over, they will have no natural predators.

What happens when species of plant close to said genetically modified crops cross pollinate and these genes inserted by man start to spread to other species of plant? What happens to insect life which relies on plants which are later pushed out of the natural environment by "super crops"? What happens to further species of insect whose only food cross pollinates with a super crop and is no longer edible to it? What happens to birdlife and small mammals that live off the insects and on and on up the food chain?

Basically there are too many questions that remain unanswered and once we release this technology into the environment, that's it. There's no taking it back.

Kind of like Rhodedendrons then?

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

It is okay everyone, I'm a trained scientist and I can assure you all that the world is not dying.

All of the stored carbon in the form of decomposed dead stuff is being released back into the atmosphere and its getting more like as hot as it was when it was last all in the atmosphere and life started, but the worst that will happen is that Ignoramus Britanicus will become extinct and be replaced by something more useful - possibly a new colour of algae.

And that's all.

You may be a "scientist", but you're in a minority in ignoring the enormous changes going on in the narural world. Take a proper look around you then rethink who the "ignoramus" is... Perhaps you?

As you say, carbon sequestrated by plant life over the preceding millenia is being released into the atmosphere at an ever faster rate. The effect is environmental change at an unprecedentedly fast rate.

Comparing the modern world with that of billions of years ago when "atmosphere and life started" is ridiculous. When atmosphere was created on earth billions of years ago, it was unbreathable an no life existed beyond amoeba. God help you, me and the rest of cabon based life if that's what we're returning to!!

I can't believe a so called scientist would moot such points!

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Well no one knows for sure what will occur, but inserting genes which act as pesticides and herbicides into crops are going to reduce even further natures ability to exist side by side with farming.

We will increasingly end up with hectare upon hectare of sterility, where nothing but crops, immune and impervious to insects and able to grow taller and stronger and suck more out of the soil than any other plant. What happens when these man made crops begin to spread outside fields and take space in unfarmed, natural land at the expense of natural species still at the mercy of the natural world and unable to fight off infection and predators like insects. Inevitably the new crops will simply take over, they will have no natural predators.

What happens when species of plant close to said genetically modified crops cross pollinate and these genes inserted by man start to spread to other species of plant? What happens to insect life which relies on plants which are later pushed out of the natural environment by "super crops"? What happens to further species of insect whose only food cross pollinates with a super crop and is no longer edible to it? What happens to birdlife and small mammals that live off the insects and on and on up the food chain?

Basically there are too many questions that remain unanswered and once we release this technology into the environment, that's it. There's no taking it back.

Kind of like Rhodedendrons then?

Exactly! We have already seen examples of introduction of plants, animals and diseases to the UK an to other parts of the world and their catastrophic effect on native species. Japanese Knotweed is another example. Introduced as a decorative plant by the Victorians now classed as an extreme problem in the UK. Myxomatosis, a disease introduced in the 20th century to reduce rabbit numbers also now regarded as a mistake. Yet it appears we have not learned from these and other introductions and are keen to introduce irreversible changes to plant genes, making them "indestructable" by nature an giving them the firepower to basicaly consume the natural environment.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

It is okay everyone, I'm a trained scientist and I can assure you all that the world is not dying.

All of the stored carbon in the form of decomposed dead stuff is being released back into the atmosphere and its getting more like as hot as it was when it was last all in the atmosphere and life started, but the worst that will happen is that Ignoramus Britanicus will become extinct and be replaced by something more useful - possibly a new colour of algae.

And that's all.

You may be a "scientist", but you're in a minority in ignoring the enormous changes going on in the narural world. Take a proper look around you then rethink who the "ignoramus" is... Perhaps you?

As you say, carbon sequestrated by plant life over the preceding millenia is being released into the atmosphere at an ever faster rate. The effect is environmental change at an unprecedentedly fast rate.

Comparing the modern world with that of billions of years ago when "atmosphere and life started" is ridiculous. When atmosphere was created on earth billions of years ago, it was unbreathable an no life existed beyond amoeba. God help you, me and the rest of cabon based life if that's what we're returning to!!

I can't believe a so called scientist would moot such points!

What "points" do you think I am making? I am merely pointing out that hysterical statements such as the world is dying and GM crops will result in anihilation and possibly triffids (okay, I made that up) may not be any more (or less) representative of the actual state of affairs than people who insist that global warming is nothing to do with humans.

We are in a coldish interglacial spell at the moment. I really don't think that you have to go back to the dawn of life to find a period with (a) abundant complex life on the planet which is (b) warmer than now.

The difference now is the rate of change, not the change itself.

Thus, if, for example, we as humans decide to sequester vast quantities of CO2 and reverse the warming (this all pie in the sky of course) would this be more, or less, natural than some degree of global warming?

I'm challenging the rhetoric, HH, because its not helpful; it is the flip side of the same coin you hate so much.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Exactly! We have already seen examples of introduction of plants, animals and diseases to the UK an to other parts of the world and their catastrophic effect on native species. Japanese Knotweed is another example. Introduced as a decorative plant by the Victorians now classed as an extreme problem in the UK. Myxomatosis, a disease introduced in the 20th century to reduce rabbit numbers also now regarded as a mistake. Yet it appears we have not learned from these and other introductions and are keen to introduce irreversible changes to plant genes, making them "indestructable" by nature an giving them the firepower to basicaly consume the natural environment.

Not to mention grey squirrels.

Its not ideal, I agree, but I struggle to find any fundamental difference between modifications in a lab and modifications by selective breeding to the same ends.

Its a bit like the difference between "drugs" and "natural remedies". IF they ultimately both contain an active agent which binds to the same receptor or causes a perturbation in the same pathway, what IS the difference (other than some handwavy stuff about natual things being better).

posh_pedaller

AT is right - the world ISN'T dying.
All that's happening is that it's getting warmer and, as a result, sea levels are rising.
Although many species will become extinct, there will still be life on Earth. They may even be habitats in which homo sapiens can live - just not 6 billion plus of them.
So we have to either:
a) Stop creating so much carbon dioxide/methane etc in the first place - there is a decent sized body of scientists who reckon it is too late for this
b) Somehow try and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or do things other than reduce emissions to try and reverse the current trend (geoengineering), such as dumping iron into the oceans to encourage plankton growth which will then suck up CO2, or chuck a load of sulphur into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight
c) Be OK with a greatly reduced human population - ie the death of billions
Eventually though it will be c), or maybe b), because there's never going to be any kind of global agreement on a).
And to the person who said 'well perhaps we should encourage people in the developing world to have fewer children' - the developed world creates the vast majority of the global output of CO2 but has the vast minority of its population.

verloren

Always Tyred wrote:

I struggle to find any fundamental difference between modifications in a lab and modifications by selective breeding to the same ends.

Its a bit like the difference between "drugs" and "natural remedies". IF they ultimately both contain an active agent which binds to the same receptor or causes a perturbation in the same pathway, what IS the difference (other than some handwavy stuff about natual things being better).

I think one significant factor is that changes can be much larger, and hence can avoid co-evolution. It is possible to get changes that couldn't realistically occur in nature (e.g. inserting a fish gene into a tomato), or to get changes that could arise naturally, but only over millenia. Both have the potential to massively challenge the surrounding environment, in much the same way that the introduction of a foreign species can. Native or 'natural' plants can be out-competed rapidly, because they don't have the chance to co-evolve in competition with their rival.

always_tyred

verloren wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I struggle to find any fundamental difference between modifications in a lab and modifications by selective breeding to the same ends.

Its a bit like the difference between "drugs" and "natural remedies". IF they ultimately both contain an active agent which binds to the same receptor or causes a perturbation in the same pathway, what IS the difference (other than some handwavy stuff about natual things being better).

I think one significant factor is that changes can be much larger, and hence can avoid co-evolution. It is possible to get changes that couldn't realistically occur in nature (e.g. inserting a fish gene into a tomato), or to get changes that could arise naturally, but only over millenia. Both have the potential to massively challenge the surrounding environment, in much the same way that the introduction of a foreign species can. Native or 'natural' plants can be out-competed rapidly, because they don't have the chance to co-evolve in competition with their rival.

Selective breeding isn't over the same timescales as evolution. The particular genetic changes in question can't be replicated by selective breeding, however my point is that both are artificial ways to change the genetics of a plant. It strikes me as illogical to be suddenly fearful of one, yet comfortable with the other.

Personally, I share about 60% of my genes with a banana. So, it may not much matter which organism supplies the gene in question.

verloren

Well we know that selective breeding, in combination with the rise of agriculture more generally, has crowded out 'natural' plants to some extent. But even there, you can't evolve by more than one "generation's worth" per generation. So it will take us 25 generations to get from A to Z, whereas through engineering we can get from A to ZZZ in, effectively, one generation, which is a much different proposition for the environment.

nwallace

downfader wrote:

And over-engineering of things too. Windows in cars dont always need to be electric if you ask me.

The operating gear for electric windows is also heavier than manual winders so are one of the things to be swapped out if you are trying to lighten a car. Rear seats are also unnecessary extra weight in many cars.

Headhuunter wrote:

Iceland uses a lot of geothermal power and heating. I read somewhere that central heating is more or less free in Iceland due to the proximity of geothermal energy to the surface there.

Also available in the UK if your property has land to sink a hole into, the pumps are electrically operated though, but can be used for cooling in summer.

Bikerbaboon wrote:

or as crazy crazy as it all sounds we just need less people.

China, India and South East England are certainly populated beyond sustainability.

However South East England has been engineered to be almost sustainable, all you need is more and more water and food from the areas that have a local surplus.
(Similarly Central Scotland needs the Beauly - Deny power lines to have any hope of reliance of Longannet and Torness)

always_tyred

verloren wrote:

Well we know that selective breeding, in combination with the rise of agriculture more generally, has crowded out 'natural' plants to some extent. But even there, you can't evolve by more than one "generation's worth" per generation. So it will take us 25 generations to get from A to Z, whereas through engineering we can get from A to ZZZ in, effectively, one generation, which is a much different proposition for the environment.

The crowding out thing is more to do with people deliberately cutting stuff down and planting crops than the properties of the crops themselves, I would have thought.

Yes, the changes can happen more quickly. Greater probability of a cock up on the triffid front, Regie.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

It is okay everyone, I'm a trained scientist and I can assure you all that the world is not dying.

All of the stored carbon in the form of decomposed dead stuff is being released back into the atmosphere and its getting more like as hot as it was when it was last all in the atmosphere and life started, but the worst that will happen is that Ignoramus Britanicus will become extinct and be replaced by something more useful - possibly a new colour of algae.

And that's all.

You may be a "scientist", but you're in a minority in ignoring the enormous changes going on in the narural world. Take a proper look around you then rethink who the "ignoramus" is... Perhaps you?

As you say, carbon sequestrated by plant life over the preceding millenia is being released into the atmosphere at an ever faster rate. The effect is environmental change at an unprecedentedly fast rate.

Comparing the modern world with that of billions of years ago when "atmosphere and life started" is ridiculous. When atmosphere was created on earth billions of years ago, it was unbreathable an no life existed beyond amoeba. God help you, me and the rest of cabon based life if that's what we're returning to!!

I can't believe a so called scientist would moot such points!

What "points" do you think I am making? I am merely pointing out that hysterical statements such as the world is dying and GM crops will result in anihilation and possibly triffids (okay, I made that up) may not be any more (or less) representative of the actual state of affairs than people who insist that global warming is nothing to do with humans.

We are in a coldish interglacial spell at the moment. I really don't think that you have to go back to the dawn of life to find a period with (a) abundant complex life on the planet which is (b) warmer than now.

The difference now is the rate of change, not the change itself.

Thus, if, for example, we as humans decide to sequester vast quantities of CO2 and reverse the warming (this all pie in the sky of course) would this be more, or less, natural than some degree of global warming?

I'm challenging the rhetoric, HH, because its not helpful; it is the flip side of the same coin you hate so much.

I didn't say the world was "dying" or anything so uber dramatic. Of course planet Earth will continue in its current orbit aruond the sun for a few more billion years. I simply indicated that life on the surface is being affected by climatic change more quickly than at any point in the past.

As I mentioned previously, we're already seeing the beginning of climate refugees as those who can afford to, move away from areas affected by extreme climate events like drought and flooding (India and Africa as mentioned before). If we do nothing, this will surely continue unabated. As I mentioned previously, not only are climatic events causing extreme problems, death and disease for the human race, its destroying the natural world, which to a cold hard economist may not be concern, until we realise that insects like bees are dying out and without bees, what will pollenate our new and fantastic super crops?

None of the points I made were hyperbole, "rhetoric" of hysterical. These are events that are taking place there is strong evidence that if CC is allowed to continue, life on earth will have to adjust to enormous changes, including resultant death, injury and potentially war over habitable land.

As for GM, we simply don't know for sure what is likely to happen. Selective breeding is one thing, but although that generally allows plants an animals to become stronger, it doesn't instantly endow them with genes that prevent anything, ANYTHING from destroying them which they may then pass onto other plants in the natural environment.

In reality of course, the GM and climate change debates are 2 separate discussions, but the "flip side of the coin" as you term it simply appears to be to bury our heads in the sand. I sincerely believe that in a couple of generations we'll look back at the chance we had now to actually make some changes and wonder why we didn't. Just as we now look back at events at the start of the 20th century like WW1, with all the propaganda and glorification of death that surrounded it at the time and think to ourselves, what an enormous waste of life.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Exactly! We have already seen examples of introduction of plants, animals and diseases to the UK an to other parts of the world and their catastrophic effect on native species. Japanese Knotweed is another example. Introduced as a decorative plant by the Victorians now classed as an extreme problem in the UK. Myxomatosis, a disease introduced in the 20th century to reduce rabbit numbers also now regarded as a mistake. Yet it appears we have not learned from these and other introductions and are keen to introduce irreversible changes to plant genes, making them "indestructable" by nature an giving them the firepower to basicaly consume the natural environment.

Not to mention grey squirrels.

Its not ideal, I agree, but I struggle to find any fundamental difference between modifications in a lab and modifications by selective breeding to the same ends.

Its a bit like the difference between "drugs" and "natural remedies". IF they ultimately both contain an active agent which binds to the same receptor or causes a perturbation in the same pathway, what IS the difference (other than some handwavy stuff about natual things being better).

I think the difference between selective breeding and biotechnology is that introducing changes through selective breeding tend to take place on a more natural timescale and changes can only be introduced within the realms of nature. For example you can't selectively breed a deep sea fish with a cat to make the cat, in a matter of a single breeding generation, glow in the dark. The speed and realms within which selective breeding takes place gives the environment in which the newly bred plants and animals exist, a chance to adjust rather than simply face annihilation.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

I didn't say the world was "dying" or anything so uber dramatic.

I know you didn't. I didn't direct that at you. Shame you got so upset about it really.

None of the points I made were hyperbole, "rhetoric" of hysterical.

As for GM, we simply don't know for sure what is likely to happen. Selective breeding is one thing, but although that generally allows plants an animals to become stronger, it doesn't instantly endow them with genes that prevent anything, ANYTHING from destroying them which they may then pass onto other plants in the natural environment.

:? That's not hysterical either.

In reality of course, the GM and climate change debates are 2 separate discussions, but the "flip side of the coin" as you term it simply appears to be to bury our heads in the sand.

If you were debating it, I would agree. The essential element missing from your non-hysterical hyperbole are shades of grey and tolerance of dissent. You seem to think that if anyone knocks out one or more misconceptions you may have, they disagree with you entirely.

I think that may ultimately be dangerous for the very causes you believe in. Look at the reactions to the email leak from UEA - the world is waiting for a reason not to trust what the science is saying.

So be careful what you attribute to the science. The reality is bad enough without non-hysterical hyperbole to sex it up a bit.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

I think the difference between selective breeding and biotechnology is that introducing changes through selective breeding tend to take place on a more natural timescale and changes can only be introduced within the realms of nature. For example you can't selectively breed a deep sea fish with a cat to make the cat, in a matter of a single breeding generation, glow in the dark. The speed and realms within which selective breeding takes place gives the environment in which the newly bred plants and animals exist, a chance to adjust rather than simply face annihilation.

Look, I may be wrong, but I think that the changes induced by selective breeding do NOT allow the surrounding flora and fauna to evolve to adjust, which is the crux of your argument.

Take that out, and the only discinction you make is that the changes themselves are less natural. I'd argue that this down to the degree of unnatural, since neither type of change would arise natually.

When you look at the basic chemistry which has taken place, there is very little difference. The selective breeding changes are more subtle, in that you aim to change one characteristic and you end up changing several, whereas the genetic modifications permit changes to be made selectively. But that's about it.

What concomitant genetic happens in subsequent generations of GM plants as a result of the "hard-wired" changes introduced intially, I don't know. Are those changes natural?

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I didn't say the world was "dying" or anything so uber dramatic.

I know you didn't. I didn't direct that at you. Shame you got so upset about it really.


I didn't get upset, I was just saying that I didn't use the word "dying" as you and others did.

None of the points I made were hyperbole, "rhetoric" of hysterical.

As for GM, we simply don't know for sure what is likely to happen. Selective breeding is one thing, but although that generally allows plants an animals to become stronger, it doesn't instantly endow them with genes that prevent anything, ANYTHING from destroying them which they may then pass onto other plants in the natural environment.

:? That's not hysterical either.


No, not hysterical. GM plants are bred to be completely pest resistant (in some cases), so they have no natural predators at all, and worse actually eliminate species of insect (pest) from the natural cycle. "Pests"/insects which provide food for other creatures (birds, small mammals etc).

In reality of course, the GM and climate change debates are 2 separate discussions, but the "flip side of the coin" as you term it simply appears to be to bury our heads in the sand.

If you were debating it, I would agree. The essential element missing from your non-hysterical hyperbole are shades of grey and tolerance of dissent. You seem to think that if anyone knocks out one or more misconceptions you may have, they disagree with you entirely.

I think that may ultimately be dangerous for the very causes you believe in. Look at the reactions to the email leak from UEA - the world is waiting for a reason not to trust what the science is saying.

So be careful what you attribute to the science. The reality is bad enough without non-hysterical hyperbole to sex it up a bit.

I don't agree that it is "hyperbole". In my view, climate change poses one of the, if not the greatest threat to life on our planet in the long term. A far greater threat than terrorists who may bring down the odd airliner, take out a few commuters on a train etc. Far greater than the possible collapse of the banking system.

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

I think humankind forgets sometimes that it is a part of the natural web that keeps this planet ticking and if it collapses, our complex encomomies, science and GM food is not going to save us... AFAIC you and others here and elsewhere just don't get it.

davmaggs

I think it would be interesting to mention the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager at this point.

What is really interesting is that the doommonger won international acclaim and awards from global bodies even after being proven wrong (I'm not talking about the bet). There seems to be a tendency to want to believe the disaster scenario and to think that whilst all the historical claims to doom were obviously wrong this one, whatever it happens to be, is now the one that will take us all out.

I also chuck in the thought that some posters seem to think that people will change because its the right thing to do (assuming agreement on what is right). That's madness, it doesn't happen.

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

I also chuck in the thought that some posters seem to think that people will change because its the right thing to do (assuming agreement on what is right). That's madness, it doesn't happen.

Too right. I haven't done enough digging to make up my own mind either way on CC/GW. But I do know that I can't be bothered to recycle. I'm not going to buy a hybrid, and buying 'local', low carbon-footprint goods isn't going to happen until they're cheaper than ones from further away.

I know that my efforts alone won't 'save' the planet/mankind, equally, my lack of effort won't condemn us all to a fiery death. So why should I bother?! The natural response is "If everyone thought like that then we'd be in real trouble". Well, there's nothing I can do about everyone else, so I either put myself out, dig through my rubbish to recycle, don't have as much money because I'm buying more expensive local stuff and make no difference at all. Or I carry on quite happily as I am, and make no difference at all. Either way, I'm totally dependent on the actions of everybody else (assuming mankind is responsible for/can stop/reverse CC).

Headhuunter

davmaggs wrote:

I think it would be interesting to mention the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager at this point.

What is really interesting is that the doommonger won international acclaim and awards from global bodies even after being proven wrong (I'm not talking about the bet). There seems to be a tendency to want to believe the disaster scenario and to think that whilst all the historical claims to doom were obviously wrong this one, whatever it happens to be, is now the one that will take us all out.

I also chuck in the thought that some posters seem to think that people will change because its the right thing to do (assuming agreement on what is right). That's madness, it doesn't happen.

I would happily be proven wrong on this but it seems increasingly that evidence points to the disaster scenario being more likely than we all get a bit more rain, it gets a bit warmer, Britain becomes like the Cosa Del Sol and we all live happily ever after scenario...

I don't assume that people will change because it's the right thing to do. A certain sector of society will do, but the vast majority will simply bury their heads in the sand or disbelieve the evidence. What we need is firm leadership and politicians/business leaders to address the issue. Instead we get disastrous conferences like Kyotio in 1997 and Copenhagen last year which achieve nothing.... Without that, I fear we're all stuffed

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't agree that it is "hyperbole". In my view, climate change poses one of the, if not the greatest threat to life on our planet in the long term. A far greater threat than terrorists who may bring down the odd airliner, take out a few commuters on a train etc. Far greater than the possible collapse of the banking system.

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

I think humankind forgets sometimes that it is a part of the natural web that keeps this planet ticking and if it collapses, our complex encomomies, science and GM food is not going to save us... AFAIC you and others here and elsewhere just don't get it.

Well, hyperbole was your choice of word, HH.

What makes you think I disagree with you? I don't think I agree with your assessment of the extent of the changes. Estimates are just that and my hunch (although it is only a hunch) is that the reality will be towards the lower end of the estimates.

I do have a problem with the "you are either with us or against us" mentality, though. It ought to be possible to point out that hyperbole relating to planetary death and anihilation due to GM crops are just a little off the mark, without the rabid assumption that I don't understand global warming and that I am a "scientist".

Is everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say on this topic misguided and ignorant of the facts? Don't you want to know any more, or is that too threatening to the absolute views you have formulated?

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

I think it would be interesting to mention the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager at this point.

What is really interesting is that the doommonger won international acclaim and awards from global bodies even after being proven wrong (I'm not talking about the bet). There seems to be a tendency to want to believe the disaster scenario and to think that whilst all the historical claims to doom were obviously wrong this one, whatever it happens to be, is now the one that will take us all out.

I also chuck in the thought that some posters seem to think that people will change because its the right thing to do (assuming agreement on what is right). That's madness, it doesn't happen.

I would happily be proven wrong on this but it seems increasingly that evidence points to the disaster scenario being more likely than we all get a bit more rain, it gets a bit warmer, Britain becomes like the Cosa Del Sol and we all live happily ever after scenario...

I don't assume that people will change because it's the right thing to do. A certain sector of society will do, but the vast majority will simply bury their heads in the sand or disbelieve the evidence. What we need is firm leadership and politicians/business leaders to address the issue. Instead we get disastrous conferences like Kyotio in 1997 and Copenhagen last year which achieve nothing.... Without that, I fear we're all stuffed

You know, I like Dennis Quaid's films as much as the next guy, but The Day After Tomorrow was FICTION, okay?

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't agree that it is "hyperbole". In my view, climate change poses one of the, if not the greatest threat to life on our planet in the long term. A far greater threat than terrorists who may bring down the odd airliner, take out a few commuters on a train etc. Far greater than the possible collapse of the banking system.

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

I think humankind forgets sometimes that it is a part of the natural web that keeps this planet ticking and if it collapses, our complex encomomies, science and GM food is not going to save us... AFAIC you and others here and elsewhere just don't get it.

Well, hyperbole was your choice of word, HH.

What makes you think I disagree with you? I don't think I agree with your assessment of the extent of the changes. Estimates are just that and my hunch (although it is only a hunch) is that the reality will be towards the lower end of the estimates.

I do have a problem with the "you are either with us or against us" mentality, though. It ought to be possible to point out that hyperbole relating to planetary death and anihilation due to GM crops are just a little off the mark, without the rabid assumption that I don't understand global warming and that I am a "scientist".

Is everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say on this topic misguided and ignorant of the facts? Don't you want to know any more, or is that too threatening to the absolute views you have formulated?

As I said, I would love to be proved wrong, but I haven't really seen any evidence out there that global warming isn't happening or that it's not man made. As to the medium to long term effects of climate change, I have read pretty clear explanations of the various knock on effects of acidifcation of the seas, rise in water leves, desertification of Africa etc but I would be interested in the "third way". What do yuo expect to occur with the onset of climate change?

DonDaddyD

Haven't read the many posts. But I'll say simply this.

I don't think it is right ethically or otherwise to force people from using a motorised vehicle as a primary means of transport when there isn't an alternative equal to using a car.

Society has built itself around the womders of the combustions engine to remove its usefullness would be detrimental. However if the car was to evolve and remain a car but be powered through other means (hydrogen fuel cell - springs to mind - has anyone seen one of those blown up) then I would be in full support of it.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

As I said, I would love to be proved wrong, but I haven't really seen any evidence out there that global warming isn't happening or that it's not man made.

You just can't get my point. You seem to believe that unless someone employs the same rhetoric, they disagree with you. It is what makes the climate change debate more like a religious following than a discussion relating to science.

As I said in my previous post - what makes you think I disagree with the above premise?


(Incidentally, if you haven't seen any evidence that global warming isn't happening, then you haven't objectively looked at the evidence. It is true to say that there is a preponderance of evidence that it is, but not true to say that there is none that contradicts the notion.)

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

Climate change could utterly alter the way we live across the globe, cause some land masses and parts of countries to disappear underwater and create mass movement of populations as areas previously populated become uninhabitable.

Isn't that just the natural progression of the planet though?

Land masses sinking moving etc.

Land mass on the Earth didn't always look the way it does now and it previously changed, long before we could blame ourselves or supposedly do anything to be blamed about.

I think half the fear is bought about because we are aware of changing climates, moving land masses and what could potentially cause it.

I had this debate at work. I just don't see how my recycling and re-using a plastic bag could is going to help stop a Island from sinking. Butterfly's don't cause hurricanes.