Jump to content

Climate change


Recommended Posts

CliveH - 2010-01-19 2:30 PM Brian - interestingly I agree with 90% of your last two points. The only point we differ on is how on earth you can possibly come to the conclusion that following what the global warming alarmists advocate is a sensible way forward if you are unconvinced by their "science". ...............

Because my acceptance is not based on their climate change science. 

It is based on the fact that, as I see it, most of what they advocate is desirable, climate change or no climate change. 

I know some do not accept this, but I believe the world has finite reserves of most, if not all, of the resources modern industrialised economies consume.  Not just oil, but natural gas, metals and other minerals including coal, even down to humble clay for bricks, chalk for cement, silica for glass, and stone for roads and concrete. 

To me this means we need to recycle as much as possible of what we have already extracted, instead of dumping it, design for efficient recovery of all possible materials, and extract the feasible minimum of new resource.

So, for energy sources we should use renewables wherever we can, and should plan to avoid nuclear unless as an absolute last resort.  (The latter because we still have not resolved how properly to deal with the waste, and therefore cannot predict what disposal and decommissioning costs to attach to new stations, but further because we have no uranium deposits in UK, so the supply is not only politically insecure, it is also liable to exhaustion as more states go nuclear, and so is an immensely costly medium term solution.)

To achieve these ends, we need to move away from our carbon based economy, not because it is carbon based per se, but because it is based upon very valuable, but exhaustible, carbon based feedstocks.  Doing this while seeking to conserve other mineral stocks, seems to me by far the best way for us to direct our economies, and gives the greatest possibility of continuing economic prosperity.  It may mean permanently accepting lower growth rates but, it presently seems to me, it is the only way to sustain the industrial economy that so greatly benefits humanity.

We seem to me to behave very much like the North Sea herring fishers, who refused to accept they were depleting stocks until there were so few herring left that their industry collapsed.  They were warned, but would not act to prevent the disaster that eventually overwhelmed them.  The significant difference is that over time, living organisms regenerate, whereas the mineral content of the earth, in practical terms, will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply
CliveH - 2010-01-19 4:53 PM No offence was taken Brian - it just seemed very odd for an adult to start a conversation thus. But if i may suggest, as there have been a couple of instances - you may want to think before saying what you consider to be a"tease" - which, frankly I gave up doing in about year 3 junior school.

So, this reply, with its underhand and vaguely lofty implication that I am just out of rompers, is to be considered OK?  Is this then a tease, which you say you do not do, or just a good, old fashioned, "put down"?  Either way, it doesn't seem very conciliatory to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Brian


My comment was an honest appraisal of how I feel having been someone who has been on the receiving end of your "Tease".


Thus it was not conciliatory because I did not mean it to be.


Teasing someone is, to my mind, not an adult behaviour. Bullies tease children and animals. I genuinely believe that comments such as


" So here endeth my first, and I hope last, rant of 2010 - against blind, selfish, bigoted, ignorance."


and your rather bizarre reference to me as "Clivikins" have no place on a forum such as this.


I hesitate to say this but to me it indicates a desire for you to be "top dog".


Now I may be very wrong in this and if I am - I apologise. But some of your words and bizarre extrapolations such as your saying that it was I that pronounced "Financial Armageddon" when in reality I was talking opportunity cost and it was your good self that "sexed it up" to become "Financial Armageddon", do seem rather "calculated".


So I am just asking that we ALL - myself included - think a little more about what we say. I come on here for a laugh and the occasional excellent debate on a topic. I do not want a slanging match - nor to be the subject of someones "teasing", or to be totally honest – to see another poster being labelled as “blind, selfish, bigoted, ignorant”.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Clive, I'm afraid you read far too much into what I say. 

It is intended to be taken at face value: as merely representing what I think.  I do try to say what I mean, and I do at times fall short.  I respond as I read, while trying to avoid distortion, personal attacks, rudeness, put downs, and vaguely disparaging innuendo of the kind I read elsewhere.

In Martin's case, I thought what he said was as I described it.  When asked, I explained to him that was my reaction to the sentiments he had expressed, and not a judgement of him as an individual.  I still hold that view.

I do, from time to time, poke a little fun at others, and I usually manage to remember a smiley - just in case it may be taken seriously.  Sometimes I forget, and sometimes the humour misfires, so I then have to apologise.  However, it is a risk I take, to try to inject a bit of humour, though it can backfire.

Despite your advice, I shall probably continue taking the risk, but shall henceforth desist in your case.  However, I now know here I stand, so thank you, at least, for your honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

Can I just observe that from the point of view of everyone else this misunderstanding of intent from two well respected contributors is getting a little pointless?


I am quite content that neither of you set out to wind up or offend the other so may I respectfully ask that a line is now drawn under the tit for tatting please?


Thanks fellas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem for me - but if anyone calls me "Clivikins" again - I WILL spit my dummy out!! (lol) (lol) (lol)


Meanwhile in view of the recent winter weather of the last couple of years - I found this amusing:-


"Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past


Monday, 20 March 2000


According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. ”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. "




I must have a really good good imagination then.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

I've never called you Clivikins - but it does have a nice friendly ring about it - the human face of financial advice maybe!


Only joking Clive - honest - no offence intended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

  • Create New...