vikingTON Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) I'm concerned about protecting levels of resources and preventing unnecessary pollution. I'm not interested in 'stopping' climate change because there will be winners as well as losers from that. And it's inevitable. What we should be putting our resources into is adapting to that change, as well as what I'd call 'common sense' measures about not using up everything we have, not filling the place with toxins and waste products. Besides, when the next glacial period comes we'll be glad we gave ourselves an extra layer of CO2. Edited November 25, 2011 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 That pretty much covers it. Can I just say how delighted I was to read that you and VT actually disagree on something. It gave me a (global) warm feeling. I disagree with him frequently! Generally, its just minor disagreements though (for example, on Europe), rather than fundamental philosophical differences. I'm concerned about protecting levels of resources and preventing unnecessary pollution. I'm not interested in 'stopping' climate change because there will be winners as well as losers from that. And it's inevitable. What we should be putting our resources into is adapting to that change, as well as what I'd call 'common sense' measures about not using up everything we have, not filling the place with toxins and waste products. Besides, when the next glacial period comes we'll be glad we gave ourselves an extra layer of CO2. ...however, I do agree with the first part of this. It seems that climate change is inevitable, just as it always had been, so I agree with him, and I'm also a believer in minimising our impact. If we can get to a situation where man's impact on the planet is fairly minimal (in terms of pollution and resource usage), then thats all we can really ask for. In fact, to go on a brief tangent, I'm fairly ambivalent on species protection at times. There have always been extinctions and migrations due to the impact of other animals (not always man), and so sometimes in my view, we try too hard to keep some species going, when in reality, extinction is inevitable. My view changes fairly frequently on that though - I can never make my mind up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Bono made it all up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 In fact, to go on a brief tangent, I'm fairly ambivalent on species protection at times. There have always been extinctions and migrations due to the impact of other animals (not always man), and so sometimes in my view, we try too hard to keep some species going, when in reality, extinction is inevitable. My view changes fairly frequently on that though - I can never make my mind up! Like, for example, cod. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamajag Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Fact is, no one knows what's going to happen eh, may as well enjoy life rather than worrying for 80 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Fact is, no one knows what's going to happen eh, may as well enjoy life rather than worrying for 80 years. Yeah and if each new generation keeps getting shittier and shittier like they are now, I hope they step out into the sun and go on fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Some the stuff said on here is beyond belief. On guy actuall takes monktons words as credable. I think some people need to get out in the country side and experience wildlife as it seems many have never even seen anything other than fields. An awareness and apreciation of nature is vital to all beings. Ignore global warming at your peril. Its a simple common sense thing here. There is not enough resources for everyone to live quite comfortably if we keep reproducing so fast, we're are wasting so much resources and we are polluting the world. We cant only think of ourselves here. I think it's our morall oblegation to preserve the earth for everyone and anything lucky enough to experience it as it is an amazing and exceptional place. The scientific opinion is too unanamous on this one and anyway what harm will it do to preserve the earth and not think of money all the time. The technology would be there to create enegy completely cleanly if we spent the money on it instead of fucking nuclear bombs. It's time to change thing. We can't just accept and fit into line with this world of misery, conflict and hatred. Be a revolutionary and reject this rotten society. Choose instead one of love peace and happiness which lives in unison with nature, and where decision are made based on scientific opinion not on monetary gain. This is not unrealistic if each person changes themselves and actually loves instead of hates all the time. I dont know why people reject the concept of global warming and some even seem to have a lack of apreciation and even fear of nature. What a failure and missed oppertunity is would be if everyone was driven to misery because of the greed and irrationality of 1% of the population and we just let them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Take this from someone who tries too hard. You are trying too hard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Leaving climate change aside as jojo asked, the whole resource scarcity argument is nonsence. You can perhaps make a separate case for the way in which resources are directed and managed, but to say that the world's current population is unsustainable is shite. Future predictions of population doom are also very dubious, being mostly based on incorrect assumptions that current demographic trends will continue indefinitely, and there will be no advances in science of technology. People have been saying for centuries that we are at a 'tipping point', but funnily enough scientific and technological advances mean we keep on missing it. Global warming is a separate issue, particularly after shale gas and oil advances have made the resource scarcity factor of the argument redundant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 It's not a witch hunt. It's just an easy way to identify idiots and authoritarians. People who discount evidence that goes against their prejudices for the flimsiest of reasons - and even if those flimsy reasons also apply to those with whom they agree. Some doylum posted a "Lord" Monckton video earlier, for Christ's sake. And what a good video it was. The Greenpeace lady was actually squirming at her misplaced faith in the organisation that she was representing, a bit like a believer who suddely realised they had been conned into a fairy story, the punch in the guts when you are made aware that Santa isn't real. On guy actuall takes monktons words as credable. Don't shoot the messenger. Get yersel onto cryosphere today, watch the animated "ice melt" from 1978 - 2006. It just doesn't happen. Scaremongering at it's best, it even got Al Gore the nobel prize ahead of Irena Sendler. Booo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 This sums jojo up: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Leaving climate change aside as jojo asked, the whole resource scarcity argument is nonsence. You can perhaps make a separate case for the way in which resources are directed and managed, but to say that the world's current population is unsustainable is shite. Future predictions of population doom are also very dubious, being mostly based on incorrect assumptions that current demographic trends will continue indefinitely, and there will be no advances in science of technology. People have been saying for centuries that we are at a 'tipping point', but funnily enough scientific and technological advances mean we keep on missing it. Global warming is a separate issue, particularly after shale gas and oil advances have made the resource scarcity factor of the argument redundant. watch the programme you might change your mind if you knew anything about it. I don't claim to be an expert not at all, but the facts are the population is estimated to rise to 9 billion by as early as 2030. 1.2 billion people day to day struggle to get enough water. We're going to have to cut down forests to grow more crop, further worsening climate change. So many species are under threat of extinction it's scary. There simply isn't enough resources to fund our excessive lifestyle with so many people on earth, if we actuall shared world resources around fairly, but we dont. We're abusing mother earth to much and if we continue we will pay. If we dont do anything about it we'll be forced to live in a much worse world than currently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkfish Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) There are plenty of resources to go around. The 2030 population increase 'fact' is nothing of the sort. Water shortages are due to management of resources, poor infrastructures, and a host of other reasons, and do not at all indicate that there are 'too many people'. Edited November 25, 2011 by monkfish 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Leaving climate change aside as jojo asked, the whole resource scarcity argument is nonsence. You can perhaps make a separate case for the way in which resources are directed and managed, but to say that the world's current population is unsustainable is shite. Future predictions of population doom are also very dubious, being mostly based on incorrect assumptions that current demographic trends will continue indefinitely, and there will be no advances in science of technology. People have been saying for centuries that we are at a 'tipping point', but funnily enough scientific and technological advances mean we keep on missing it. Global warming is a separate issue, particularly after shale gas and oil advances have made the resource scarcity factor of the argument redundant. Don't forget that even though the UK has plenty of shale gas to extract, the green lobby have ensured that it will just have to stay in the ground and we build more windmills, Chris Huhne is toeing the shitty green line that daft wee pr1cks have been brainwashed into at school. Well done the green spacker army. We have plenty of natural resources in the UK, coal that will last at least another 400 years even using at at the rate we once did and it can all just lie there unused and unmined as we fanny around with innefficient windmill shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 For people who brand us "non believers" "morons" etc ... There are people far more knowledgable about the subject that you or I who have been researching this for a long time who believe it's all a bit of a myth We have observed the expected changes in outgoing light from the planet consistant with increased optical thickness of the wavelengths associated with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.We have observed an increase in the downwelling infrared light that would be consistant with an increase in the greenhouse effect. Dont ever try to go anywhere near the idea that an increase in infrared will not cause warming And here The stratosphere is cooling. This was predicted in the 60s as a consaquence of inceraseing the optical thickness of the atmosphere in the infrared wavelengths. The only mechanism that I am aware off that will cause both a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere is an enhanced greenhouse effect (or as sometimes refered to the Callendar effect). We know its not the sun Sea level rise due in part to thermal expansion rules out energy release from the oceans as a source of the additional tropospheric heat, although the cooling stratosphere also does that. It has been confirmed by every national science accademy in the developed world including the UKs Royal Society and the American National Accademy of Sciences. It has the support of nearly every major science body in the world. The only major dissenting voice, te American Association of Petroleum Geologists has moved to a neutral position. But hey what do I know. I am not an English Lord like monkey Monckton. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Classic case of unspeak, handy that 'climate change' sounds a lot less unsettling than 'global warming', it's almost as if the people who changed this had some shares in oil or something.......... A brief video on the history of the two terms, global warming and climate change. This was made as a response to people who claim that there was a dastardly switch to the term "Climate Change" was a recent thing by 'green' propoganda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamajag Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Don't beleive everything you see on youtube mate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 We have plenty of natural resources in the UK, coal that will last at least another 400 years even using at at the rate we once did and it can all just lie there unused and unmined as we fanny around with innefficient windmill shite. You only have your burd Thatcher to blame for that. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundermonkey Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 You only have your burd Thatcher to blame for that. The Tories could try and reinvent her as some kind of conservationist ahead of her time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 You only have your burd Thatcher to blame for that. The vast majority of miners I know blame Scargill for keeping the strike going for so long and not maintaining the pits that there was no work for the striking men to go back to when he eventually did admit he had made an arse of his men. Unlucky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.