twooks Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 David Dwight - 2007-02-07 8:24 PM Nature will take care of its self... David the gaia theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Regarding the triangular graph and slope. Yes it would deviate and is also miles longer on the down side, its only meant to cover my 80 odd years on the earth. And in particluar my reason for the sharp increase in temerature (even if there is one). Many very ordinary folk in our village who knew little of life apart from how to produce children, grow food and catch rabbits, would often say "Oh the weather was never like this before them bombs was let off" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-02-07 7:07 PM ... To that extent, the debate about the possible causes of, or veracity of, climate change, are sterile. Spot on! The global warming issue, whether of substance or not, is exposing the pernicious issue of global abuse.There is only one aspect of our humanity which will get us through the next thousand years, IMHO, and that is our ability to adapt. Generations before us learned to adapt, to hardships beyond the experience of the current populous. The world wars brought their own hardships and further pressures to adapt. And then, since WWII, for "most" of the world, hardship became freedom. We entered an unprecedented period of massive, indiscriminate expansion and consumption. It's nothing to do with nuclear bombs or any other markers. It's like someone starving, then presented with a food feast. We have filled our bellies with everything the world has to offer over the last 5 decades. Pretty much indiscriminately. I belong to a generation who needs to look up the definition of food ration in wikipedia. We all now have to adapt again, but this time it is to an intangable threat. It is clear what needs to happen when the tanks and guns are just over the hill. But how do you convince people to take on voluntary hardship with debatable scientific argument and the rantings of governments who spent their last credibility chips years ago? What lies before the human race is perhaps the greatest challenge of all time. We are being asked to fight an invisible enemy. One which might not even fight back in our lifetime. One which lies only in the domain of reason and understanding. This is trully our Gethsemane. I wonder how history will record our response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olley Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hi nicely written mom, wish I could write as well. Off course all this discussion overlooks 1 point :-D will the human race be here in a 100 years time? or will whats left care? With the prolification of nuclear and other technologies that to my mind is very uncertain. You could say spend to day, cause the ain't going to be a tomorrow. :-D Olley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-02-06 7:13 PM Similarly, if the theory is correct, and we ignore it, what is the worst that can happen? Honest answers, mind! The short answer is that we will damn near wreck our civilisation. First, the financial aspect. As recently as last night's news there was a piece about some new piece of EU anti-pollution legislation which is going to add £2000 to the price of new cars. Now, £2K may not sound like much, but multiply it by the number of cars sold in the EU, and then consider that this will apply not just once but each year for ever more. Airliners are usually amortised over 25 years. If the GW crowd get their way, hundreds of airliners with years of useful life in them will be become just so much scrap metal. Your nice new motor-home will be taxed or otherwise forced off the road. (They are already attacking the 4x4s and the SUVs, so who do you think is next?) Second, the social effect. Housewives will be reduced to long hours slaving with their hands in the sink, like their grandmothers, because they will not be allowed to have dishwashers and washing machines. Many of the pleasures of modern life will be eroded. No more winter holidays in the sun. No more out-of-season fruit. Already there has been a suggestion on this very forum that we should go back to using cart-horses and canals for transport. Thirdly, the political effect. Already we have people being fined £1000 for putting the wrong kind of rubbish in the wrong bin. We have council employees picking through our rubbish to find out details about our lives. School children are asked to inform on their parents. Our neighbours are being asked to snoop on us – I doubt Dr. Goebbels could have improved on that one. The Press ganging up on Prince Charles because – shock, horror – he flew across the Atlantic to accept an award. I am sure each of us can think of numerous other examples under these three headings. If we faced a real and immediate mortal danger, as we did in 1939, then such restrictions might be acceptable “for the duration”, but not for this half-baked Global Warming twaddle, which is little better than mediaeval alchemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 It would not be so bad Bill, if those who proposed and enforced such draconian measures had the balls to live by their own ethos? Do unto others etc etc? I worked long and hard all my working life and saved and planned ahead to get early retirement and I reckon I've earned the right to pollute the hell out of the planet in my own moderate way for a few years more yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 olley - 2007-02-07 7:22 PM Hi Brian I don't believe it can be done, all the power companies are privately owned and their only interest is to buy as cheaply as possible and to sell for as much as possible. And they are hardly likely to want us to reduce consumption. long term stratigic planning to reduce our energy use and dependance on other counties by the use of alternatives, is in the hands of the government, and in my experiance thats something that governments don't do. Olley Well, that's not the whole story, Olley. What we can each do is reduce our own energy consumption so far as reasonably possible. If we all do that we shall reduce the amounts of fuel we use and so reduce what we buy, and there is little to nothing the energy companies, or the government, can do about that.Low energy light bulbs, for example, maximum home insulation, economical cars - yes, even motorhomes, possibly greener electricity (did you know you can buy Scottish hydro electricity, for example?), well controlled home heating and hot water, would all reduce consumption of gas and electricity and, thus - to the extent they are used in electricity production - coal and oil as well.Not only does that reduce fuel consumption, it reduces the bills as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Ooops! That was two "exactly"s. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 bil h - 2007-02-07 10:46 PM Regarding the triangular graph and slope. Yes it would deviate and is also miles longer on the down side, its only meant to cover my 80 odd years on the earth. And in particluar my reason for the sharp increase in temerature (even if there is one). Many very ordinary folk in our village who knew little of life apart from how to produce children, grow food and catch rabbits, would often say "Oh the weather was never like this before them bombs was let off" But Bill, many people over many years have said similar things. I believe there are even comments from the 19C that steam trains upset the weather! However, they only relate to one individuals span of three score and ten (now plus a bit). The timescales are way too short to be significant, and the observations don't actually prove anything.There are still hundreds of fishermen around our coasts who complain the fish are increasingly difficult to find and catch, yet reject the notion that fishing itself has anything to do with it. That is not because it is untrue, it is because they don't want to face up to overfishing, meaning in turn that they'd have to find themselves another occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 breakaleg - 2007-02-06 11:39 AM they also say that the midlands were once a dessert, and been buried under a mile and a half of snow. the victorians, used to hold fun fairs and light bonfires on the thames. if you go to the roman palace at fairborne near chichester, the sea used to lap the walls of the villa, and visiting statesmen used to step of the boat and into the villa, the sea is around 4 miles away now, and the land covered in houses. i feel its just an excuse for raising revenue, if they were serious, the raised revenue, would be paying for solar panels for all our homes. pete Well, the first is due to continental drift, the second to the "little ice age" (possibly influenced by volcanic action), the third by sedimentation of the lower river valley, which affects most of the south coast rivers. None is related, however, to the present view on climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Bill - 2007-02-08 12:30 PM Brian Kirby - 2007-02-06 7:13 PM Similarly, if the theory is correct, and we ignore it, what is the worst that can happen? Honest answers, mind! The short answer is that we will damn near wreck our civilisation......... If we faced a real and immediate mortal danger, as we did in 1939, then such restrictions might be acceptable “for the duration”, but not for this half-baked Global Warming twaddle, which is little better than mediaeval alchemy. With apologies for the selective quotation.A I think you answered the wrong question!B Because the danger is less immediate, and slower to evolve, it doesn't actually make it any less real, or potentially less destructive.If they'll forgive me for mentioning it, there are contributors to this forum who have religious faith, and believe fervently that there is a God. Some of these good folk don't accept that global warming presents a threat to humanity. What puzzles me is there is little to no concrete evidence for the first, yet it is accepted as an article of faith, but ample circumstantial evidence for the second, yet it is rejected practically out of hand!Funny old lot, us humans, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Some of us are with you, Brian. Many "people who have religious faith" are 100% convinced about global warming, and plenty more, like me, listen to the arguments and feel the "balance of probability" leans that way. Personally, I believe that God gave the human race responsibility for this planet, not "ownership" of it, and that we've got a responsibility to look after it & pass it on intact. I'd better stop there - if we want to take that aspect further maybe we should do it on the "Bible" thread on Chatterbox, although so far I've tried to stay out of that discussion. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-02-08 7:24 PM Some of us are with you, Brian. Many "people who have religious faith" are 100% convinced about global warming, and plenty more, like me, listen to the arguments and feel the "balance of probability" leans that way. Personally, I believe that God gave the human race responsibility for this planet, not "ownership" of it, and that we've got a responsibility to look after it & pass it on intact. I'd better stop there - if we want to take that aspect further maybe we should do it on the "Bible" thread on Chatterbox, although so far I've tried to stay out of that discussion. Tony Yes, I confess I did have you in mind Tony, which is why I only said some - not all!I also agree with the notion that we have an obligation to future generations not to hand on to them a rotten apple.It was not my intention to begin a religious debate, just to contrast the way in which some of us accept the (logically) improbable, while rejecting the far more logically probable. However, maybe this isn't quite so illogical at it at first seemed since, in very different ways, both reactions require a certain suspending of logical reasoning! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 And now every one is softened up I read there's a tax on bags you carry about aircraft now Or did I dream this one up. (I'm getting too old for complaining any more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Its a load of hot air generated by experts!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.