Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

First topic message reminder :

navyblueshorts wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov..

18-24............71-29 stay...
25-49............54-46 stay...
50-64............60-40 leave...
65+..............64-36 leave...

Agree with Tattie by all means...I'll stick with the data...

Uneducated poor people maybe less educated....But worth remembering Degrees don't give you common sense..

I work with "Educated" people every day.....Don't like all this patronising cheap-shotting.

Going on in the US at the moment with Trump...

Cheers Truss - by the way, my comment wasn't a statement to be agreed/disagreed with....it was a genuine question.

I'm always a bit sceptical with percentages. There may have been only a few thousand who voted in the 18-24 group, whereas there might have been millions in the 25-49 (which was pretty close to half and half).

Stats look good, but I'm more into real detailed analysis rather than overall figures. I've learnt that from the Global Warming (sorry....Climate Change now that the figures aren't adding up) scam currently sweeping everyone up into hysteria.

Something wrong with your head Navy?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Navy, I was just about to post that link.

So all these experts/scientists/academics can't even interpret data correctly for something so cataclysmic??

Whoops indeed.

Well, to be honest, I'd rather they were wrong initially (for a few years) and then corrected the interpretation (i.e. improve their models and did science) than simply stick their heads in the proverbial sand and claim humanity can't possibly be having an effect on the global climate. You'd rather it wasn't corrected?

I presume there were entirely sensible reasons for under-representing the observed warming - perhaps they were leaned on by persons unknown with the suggestion that they needed to make warming seem less likely? Seriously though, scientists aren't perfect. I guess if you'd been a part of one of the teams to have underestimated this in the past, it wouldn't have happened?

Unless their initial analysis was correct, but didn't fit in with the IPCCs' agenda?

'I presume there were entirely sensible reasons for under-representing the observed warming - perhaps they were leaned on by persons unknown with the suggestion that they needed to make warming seem less likely?'

Come on Navy pal - it's the total opposite if anything.

Did they check the temperature of the grassy knoll?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Did they check the temperature of the grassy knoll?

0.003 degree increase year on year since 1971 Julius.

Data being amended as we speak.

One of my questions would be why certain people WANT it to be Fact and why others WANT it to be fiction?

Let's face it, all most of us are doing is reading literature and/or looking at documentaries.  The majority of people don't have the expertise or interest to construct their own computer models or to travel to all corners of the world dropping off their sensor equipment collectors or in examining endless satellite colour coded images.  
So we pass the duty over to the scientists.  They give us the synopsis (and let's face it, no matter how detailed a synopsis is, it's still a synopsis, an overview - dispersed data boxed into a single theory.)
We're listening to theories - and as science is the foundation, theory is king.  Nothing trounces theory in science, thus why on one bright day coffee is good for you, whilst on another day it's hazardous to health.  Science moves along a line - it isn't static, it collects its bits and pieces and those bits and pieces either strengthen a theory or weaken one.  
So global warming.  It's happening?  

Well, those people who trust the theory constructers agree with them.  But they don't know that the theory constructers are right, they just think their theory sounds plausible.
Then there are the people that don't trust the theory constructers and say that in order gain the funding resources that gives these science organisations and individuals the investment, the money and the lifestyles they crave, it pays them to hoist up theories that generate 'panic' and that then motivates concerned governments and industry to dump more and more funding into an URGENT world crisis.
What climate scientist is going to yawn and say everything is fine folks, we're not doing much damage at all, it's all cyclical, we're a small cog in the Universal clock, nothing to see here folks, leave us alone and stop phoning us for interviews, documentaries and colourful charts?
Many scientists would answer: A dumb, traitorous I am a twonk of the highest order one. Stop advocating for our funding to go elsewhere!!!!!!!!!

But it's us.  We pleb citizens as usual are the problem.  We bury ourselves into our bunkers, we WANT to believe one argument or WANT to believe the other.  There is more to Wanting than just Belief.  That's when Wanting becomes a political thing.  It seems Global Warming (and specifically reasons for) is just another part of the Ideological World War that is already raging across the planet.  It's a political football - the passion to believe or disbelieve is rapped up in much more than hot summers, wet winters, dry earth and carbon sinks.  If we all admit that to each other (mostly at governmental level) then a more wholesome argument about the potential causes of global warming might actually get somewhere.  

For my part I believe global warming is mostly caused by white disaffected racist, misogynist, Nationalists.  I'd suggest burning 'em all but of course....... that's a no-no for us carbon obsessed carbon-based units.

SecretFly wrote:....Then there are the people that don't trust the theory constructers and say that in order gain the funding resources that gives these science organisations and individuals the investment, the money and the lifestyles they crave, it pays them to hoist up theories that generate 'panic' and that then motivates concerned governments and industry to dump more and more funding into an URGENT world crisis.
What climate scientist is going to yawn and say everything is fine folks, we're not doing much damage at all, it's all cyclical, we're a small cog in the Universal clock, nothing to see here folks, leave us alone and stop phoning us for interviews, documentaries and colourful charts?
Many scientists would answer: A dumb, traitorous I am a twonk of the highest order one.  Stop advocating for our funding to go elsewhere!!!!!!!!!

But it's us.  We pleb citizens as usual are the problem.  We bury ourselves into our bunkers, we WANT to believe one argument or WANT to believe the other.  There is more to Wanting than just Belief.  That's when Wanting becomes a political thing.  It seems Global Warming (and specifically reasons for) is just another part of the Ideological World War that is already raging across the planet.  It's a political football - the passion to believe or disbelieve is rapped up in much more than hot summers, wet winters, dry earth and carbon sinks.  If we all admit that to each other (mostly at governmental level) then a more wholesome argument about the potential causes of global warming might actually get somewhere.  

For my part I believe global warming is mostly caused by white disaffected racist, misogynist, Nationalists.  I'd suggest burning 'em all but of course....... that's a no-no for us carbon obsessed carbon-based units.

There may be the odd climate scientist who's that dishonest, but the idea that they're all in it together is lunacy.

Also, by "us", please exclude me. I don't want global warming and humanity's role in it to be true. Why would I? What I tend to think is sensible though is the fact that the 'experts' (i.e. 95%+ of the relevant scientists) say that it's so. Therefore, I'd tend to side with that point of view.

Oh, I forgot! We don't do 'experts' anymore in these post-Brexit days do we? Where's the local shaman? Which idiot said Earth orbits the Sun?

95% of the relevant scientists?

You have documentary evidence of this or is this another of those statistical things you'll allow yourself to believe an expert's word in?  It's been disputed - the percentage.

95% of the relevant scientists?  

'Relevant' is a quantifier.  It either quantifies scientists with expertise in climate or it quantifies scientists that happen to be relevant simply because they happen to advocate the Global Warming hypothesis?

It seems largely to date that mostly it's the latter quantifier that is used in this debate when talking about relevance of opinion on it.  

Which brings us to Al Gore.  What relevant science has he a degree on and yet I'd say he was central to starting the ball rolling on the whole gig?
If Al can pontificate on the subject, well then certainly it's then open season on any number of non-experts to have their cut at it.

It's a conspiracy I tells ya! How do I know this? Because I have an open mind.

SecretFly wrote:95% of the relevant scientists?

You have documentary evidence of this or is this another of those statistical things you'll allow yourself to believe an expert's word in?  It's been disputed - the percentage.

95% of the relevant scientists?  

'Relevant' is a quantifier.  It either quantifies scientists with expertise in climate or it quantifies scientists that happen to be relevant simply because they happen to advocate the Global Warming hypothesis?

It seems largely to date that mostly it's the latter quantifier that is used in this debate when talking about relevance of opinion on it.  

Which brings us to Al Gore.  What relevant science has he a degree on and yet I'd say he was central to starting the ball rolling on the whole gig?
If Al can pontificate on the subject, well then certainly it's then open season on any number of non-experts to have their cut at it.

Jesus wept! OK. The vast majority of climate scientists who've studied mankind's impact on the global climate. How does that sound? The fact there's a huge majority of the aforementioned who support the idea that humanity has affected the global climate isn't in doubt. At all.

Don't split hairs re. my use of 'relevant'. I meant that those scientists had 'relevant' experience and knowledge to make an informed comment on the issue - as I'm sure you well knew.

I don't give a damn about Gore, I'm not referring to him and if he "got the ball rolling", all he did is raise people's awareness. It's irrelevant, completely, to whether the body of data that's been accumulated (before and since) tends to support a positive effect on human activity on the planet's climate.

Debate is about splitting hairs, navy.

You split mine and I'll split yours.  At least here we're having a debate.  Where is the one on BBC or any of the other media outlets?  

The Debate is Closed - now there's the real fire-starter for splitting hairs.

Back to the debate - Humanity probably... most probably... has affected global climate.  You only have to scan the Google Earth Globe for a few hours every week to know that Man is a Disease on the planet's surface.

But the jury is still very much out on how and where man is affecting the climate.  And the jury is also out on how much of the effect is manmade and how much is the result of a cyclical planet that has been to scalding hot (with still life flourishing) before just as it has been to frigid cold.

The jury is out - so let's all debate.  The doctrine that The Debate is Closed won't be allowed hold.  Right now it needs a good degree of bravery for non-message scientists to speak out.  You speak out, you risk your livelihood.  But just like Brexit and the US election, speaking out has become a bit of a fashion.  We'll see if the majority of scientists remained corralled in to the establishment doctrine through the next number of years

The scientists who spoke out here were brave - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740
"Members of the US House of Representatives subpoenaed the author's emails"

"If people disagree with things they should ask other scientists to look into it rather than demanding access to scientists' emails," said Zeke Hausfather.

Yes.... let us police ourselves - our morals and our goals.

Similar to the Republican Congress wanting to police its own adherence levels to something called 'ethics'.

They were forced to rethink that. Maybe Zeke needs to rephrase his attitude too?

Scientists aren't one band of corrupt people all looking out for each other, willing to back each other up against any criticism from outside.
If a group of scientists conducts a scientific study with a certain set of results, who is best placed verify/disprove it - people who aren't scientists?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Scientists aren't one band of corrupt people all looking out for each other, willing to back each other up against any criticism from outside.
If a group of scientists conducts a scientific study with a certain set of results, who is best placed verify/disprove it - people who aren't scientists?

Neither are politicians... but the point is that in all walks of life these like minded/gifted souls often DO collect together to protect their own interests/value systems.  It doesn't always have to happen but nonetheless it does happen.  The Parliamentary Labour Party for example?  The Press for example?  The Press have wanted to police themselves - no?  How do the general public generally feel on that score?

Open conversation/debate between scientists is a good one.  I guess all some of us are saying is that we want it to continue in the open and we don't want this idea that if you do mouth an opinion on data contrary to the interpretation of many of your colleagues, your career amongst them will be threatened.  
Dispute ideas in public so that we the public can follow the debates.... don't silence the debate by saying one interpretation of data (one interpretation of selective data may I say) is all that will be tolerated.

There is a fundamentalist certitude to the Global Warming story that was for a long while unsettling.  If scientists want to fight interpretations in public though, then let them at it.  But I'll say again; it's not always scientists doing the preaching... it's politicians, journalists and people like us.  If some of them believe in one god, then I'm happy to hear a bunch of other non-scientists claiming to believe in another god.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Scientists aren't one band of corrupt people all looking out for each other, willing to back each other up against any criticism from outside.
If a group of scientists conducts a scientific study with a certain set of results, who is best placed verify/disprove it - people who aren't scientists?

Quite! Most scientists are unbelievably critical of their direct competition. I don't see that in the arena of climate change, they'll be anything different.

SecretFly wrote:Debate is about splitting hairs, navy.

You split mine and I'll split yours.  At least here we're having a debate.  Where is the one on BBC or any of the other media outlets?  

The Debate is Closed - now there's the real fire-starter for splitting hairs.

Back to the debate - Humanity probably... most probably...  has affected global climate.  You only have to scan the Google Earth Globe for a few hours every week to know that Man is a Disease on the planet's surface.

But the jury is still very much out on how and where man is affecting the climate.  And the jury is also out on how much of the effect is manmade and how much is the result of a cyclical planet that has been to scalding hot (with still life flourishing) before just as it has been to frigid cold.

The jury is out - so let's all debate.  The doctrine that The Debate is Closed won't be allowed hold.  Right now it needs a good degree of bravery for non-message scientists to speak out.  You speak out, you risk your livelihood.  But just like Brexit and the US election, speaking out has become a bit of a fashion.  We'll see if the majority of scientists remained corralled in to the establishment doctrine through the next number of years

Here's to debate and all that. You're right that opinions contrary to the majority shouldn't be shouted down simply because they disagree with the norm, but I'll come back to what I've said over and over: why is it that we think that it's not a good idea, in any case, to minimise the amount of cr.a.p we pump out into the environment irrespective of global warming, or not? I don't get those that seem to think that it's simply OK to pump out all sorts of garbage without so much as a single though as to the eventual effects. Surely better to minimise and there to have never been a problem than to keep on as is and then suddenly think..."Oh shi.....!!!"?

It's not okay to pump out garbage.  It's not okay.  
But neither is it okay to be forced to eat garbage (ie additives in food, pesticides on food, antibiotics and other even more exotic medicines in the meat we're given, chemicals added to water, soya (oestrogen mimicker) in everything, animal genes in plants, plant genes in animals etc etc.  
That's not okay either.  So lets simply drop the garbage that's being pumped into the list of all human controlled garbage that seeps into the environment (human, other animals, plants and our biosphere).  Let's stop talking about these human-created chemicals, or human-utilised elements, simply causing Global warming.  Global warming is only one of the threats and in the short term one of the less dangerous to the planet.  Why have bees been on the wane? Is it because the summers are hotter due to man's influence or because their systems have been mucked around with by man's use of chemicals in virtually everything he touches from manufacturing, to toiletries, to domestic cleaners and airfresheners, to fungicides, pesticides and fertilisers and medicines, all of which get flushed down a loo one way or another and out into the environment.

Then let's travel back more directly to Global Warming and ask more serious questions about what might be adding to the temperature.  In brief older trees take in more carbon dioxide than young trees.... yet as people are told that using wood pellets is more sympathetic to the environment, they indirectly assist the process of turning more and more areas of disappearing old forests into new 'economically viable' plantations of always young trees that are then themselves felled and processed, using tons of energy to get the trees turned into chips and delivered to homes.  You can't manufacture age.  You can't make a thousand years go by in a few years and suddenly have all these ancient trees back again just because it becomes scientifically fashionable to say the growing and harvesting of young trees is in direct competition with the importance of sustaining older tree populations.  It'll be too late when scientists finally get around to adding that 1+1 and coming up with 2.  For now, they're too busy to think about it - trees are meaningless to the debate.  We must instead keep the talk to icebergs, ice shelves, polar bears and ambitiously investable wind turbines, 'green energy' heating systems and electric cars.

Let's move on to another massive threat to nature's own super planetary carbon dioxide filter/store (trees and flora).  Let's ask why in virtually any weather chart you care to look at, the great City areas of the world are always a few degrees above the average of the country areas surrounding them?  Why?  It's simple.  Developed areas (concrete, roads and paving) absorb the radiation from the sun and then radiate it out later when the area would naturally be cooling through night.  In a very real way, urban areas are gigantic storage heaters that stop great areas from cooling and then add their heat to the rising sun of the morning.  Cities - the physical entities themselves not the excessive energy they consume - add to global warming.  And the bigger they become, the more they'll trap heat.  And the bigger they become, the less and less land is in a natural state, the more and more roads linking them, the less and less trees, the more and more goddamned wind turbines!  I'm sure there'll come a time when they stick a few of those things on the Great Pyramids, or better still, they'll tear down those pyramids to make way for a mega solar array complex.

Man won't escape his footprint by simply trying to disguise the true reasons why his presence is an issue for the planet.  It doesn't matter how 'clean' our energy becomes, how less we burn fossil fuels, we're here and you only have to look at Google Earth to see how much of the planet we are terraforming into the artificial environments we somehow have evolved into thinking more of than our natural surroundings.  And then we, the people who want high tech jobs, vibrant city living, all the creature comforts, unimpeded travel, gyms, cinemas, shopping complexes, higher tower blocks than our rivals, bigger cities than our rivals, more infrastructure than our rivals, larger wind turbine farms than our rivals.... we want it all, we want most of it easily accessible, we want ten roads to better choose the least congested one, we want trains to run on time or simply add more, we want airports to get bigger to cut waiting time, we want more entertainment whilst we wait, we want to be able to get the pint of milk at any time of the day or night anywhere in the country, coz it's a right and it's a sign of progress, and then we cough about having to do something about climate change whilst we're at it?

We're an arrogant bunch of basterds sure enough.  I like life but I think the world itself will eventually find a solution to our 'Global Warming' concerns and I think we'll be first on its list of things to do away with in order to achieve the targets.  

So ...in brief..................... if we're going to try to save the World, let's address ALL the ways we're changing it (terraforming it).  We'll quickly come to the realisation that the most damaging thing to the planet is the air we breathe in and the air we release back.  It's Catch 22, we're here.  Where are the billions of us - and more on the way - going to go?

I won't quote your post(!), given its length. I lost it at "...soya (oestrogen mimicker)..." in any case. Seriously? Is that why the Japanese (and other far eastern people) are all turning into women? What? They aren't? I am surprised! The soya/oestrogen thing is like the resveratrol/anti-aging thing - pretty much nonsense in any real-world sense.
Re. bees. Your bête noir, the EU, have been trying to outlaw neonicotinoids as a cause but our wonderful Government have been dragging their heels. Again. Certainly, some very reputable studies (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12459) would tend to support neonicotinoid use as a possible cause worth intervening on.

I don't like your implication that it's scientists who're responsible for ideas of deforestation, burning wood chips as a some sort of environmentally-friendly energy source and then replacing with young trees. That sort of behaviour (see other biofuels as well) is nonsensical and driven by politics and commercial greed. Commercial companies may very well have scientists working for them and who make crackpot statements, but any real scientist worth their salt would see their conflicts of interest for exactly what they are.

I'm not sure what you're implying re. cities as heat sinks. In the U.K., for example, urban 'great cities' make up a tiny proportion of the U.K. surface area. Same applies elsewhere. Their contribution to any sort of warming is absolutely miniscule. You're better off wondering about ocean warming, loss of heat reflective ice sheets, deforestation, release of submarine/permafrost/flatulent(!) methane etc.

Sadly, I pretty much agree with the last three paragraphs, however. Still, it's not a terribly good reason to stick one's head in the sand, while shouting 'la-la-la-la', claiming that so-called 'Global Warming' (and mankind's role in it) is some sort of conspiracy dreamed up by scientists on the take. Damn those 'experts'!

I read a book.

I coloured one in.

Well science is a process of logical deduction from the available evidence, as well as trial and error. Humans are fallible and make mistakes.

Personally I'm not sure how much humans are contributing specifically to Climate Change, but there is ample evidence everywhere that our activities have (and are continuing to harm) the environment...even completely destroying it in some cases.

However, the Earth's climate has shifted dramatically over millennia, since the planet was formed...and it will probably continue to do so, regardless of what we do, (mainly due to variations in our orbit round the sun, the planet's axial tilt, asteroid bombardment, massive volcanic eruptions etc.).

Anyway, handily I noticed the below article on the BBC website, which says new evidence has overturned what was previously thought to have been a "slow down" or "pause" in Global Warming, over the last 15 years or so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740

Apparently it has to do with the fact ocean temperature measurements used to be conducted using older, less accurate ship-mounted sensors. Modern measurements have been done for the last decade or so with more accurate buoy-mounted sensors.

One research group conducted a study, using buoy and satellite data and compared it with the data produced by NOAA (American weather / climate research organisation). They found the 3 datasets correlated pretty well.

A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research.

Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century.

But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades.

With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears.

The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years".

But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant.

Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models.

The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems.

Back in the 1990s, ship measurements made up the vast majority of the data, whereas now the more accurate and consistent buoys account for 85% of measurements.

When the researchers corrected the data to take this "cold bias" into account, they concluded that the oceans had warmed 0.12C per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as previous estimates of 0.07 degrees.

So, best keep some Factor 50, sunglasses and your favourite inflatable pool toys handy...

Three million trees planned for the Greater Manchester area.

A bloody good news story. More bloomin' trees.

SecretFly wrote:Three million trees planned for the Greater Manchester area.

A bloody good news story.  More bloomin' trees.

Great idea...should help beautify all that derelict industrial wasteland.

Seriously though, as we all know, trees are good for the atmosphere, absorbing CO2 through photosynthesis and releasing oxygen. They can also help ecosystems regenerate.

SecretFly wrote:Three million trees planned for the Greater Manchester area.

A bloody good news story.  More bloomin' trees.

Huh? What do you want? Concrete, metal, glass and tarmac everywhere?

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Three million trees planned for the Greater Manchester area.

A bloody good news story.  More bloomin' trees.

Seriously though, as we all know, trees are good for the atmosphere, absorbing CO2 through photosynthesis and releasing oxygen. They can also help ecosystems regenerate.

FAKE NEWS!!!!!!

I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

That's not a view that's going to convince China to toe the line. Probably exactly what Trump will say. How about setting an example? If the U.S. were a leader in this area, it's inevitable that more would fall into line. America could invest and lead the world in green tech etc if they got their thumb outta their arse, but no, they appear to want to stick to good old dirty crap that's a finite resource in any case. Not that the U.K. can lecture - we've more or less trashed the green tech industry in this country already when, with a bit more foresight, we could have been leading that sort of R&D.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

That's not a view that's going to convince China to toe the line. Probably exactly what Trump will say. How about setting an example? If the U.S. were a leader in this area, it's inevitable that more would fall into line. America could invest and lead the world in green tech etc if they got their thumb outta their arse, but no, they appear to want to stick to good old dirty crap that's a finite resource in any case. Not that the U.K. can lecture - we've more or less trashed the green tech industry in this country already when, with a bit more foresight, we could have been leading that sort of R&D.

Why should China not take responsibility ????......Maybe we should all set an example to North Korea...That nuclear weapons are not good by getting rid of all of ours...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

Per capita?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

Per capita?

Total emissions.......

Yes, Truss. We know.

That's the point he's making. The Americans are still, by far, the biggest polluters per capita in the world. Yet you're abdicating them of any responsibility and saying that China should make the first move.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I believe in Global warming........But when China gives a crap so will I..

Emissions are scandalous in that Country.....Nearly double the USA and 8 times greater than the next Country down the line..

That's not a view that's going to convince China to toe the line. Probably exactly what Trump will say. How about setting an example? If the U.S. were a leader in this area, it's inevitable that more would fall into line. America could invest and lead the world in green tech etc if they got their thumb outta their arse, but no, they appear to want to stick to good old dirty crap that's a finite resource in any case. Not that the U.K. can lecture - we've more or less trashed the green tech industry in this country already when, with a bit more foresight, we could have been leading that sort of R&D.

Why should China not take responsibility ????......Maybe we should all set an example to North Korea...That nuclear weapons are not good by getting rid of all of ours...

China should, I didn't say it shouldn't, but I thought America was the exemplar nation that the rest of the World was meant to admire and want to emulate? TBH though, I don't think most of America gives a sheiss (mankind's role in climate change is 'fake news' after all) and China probably doesn't either. Take your point about nukes though.

Pr4wn wrote:Yes, Truss. We know.

That's the point he's making. The Americans are still, by far, the biggest polluters per capita in the world. Yet you're abdicating them of any responsibility and saying that China should make the first move.

It's also pretty difficult to lecture those nations that haven't had their 'industrial revolution' and tell them to clean up their act when "we" have already industrialised using those lovely, non-polluting fossil fuels. Pretty hypocritical. I would suggest that nations like America, the U.K., Germany etc should be the ones to clean up first and set the example. America are missing a big trick for a supposed exemplar of capitalism - there's also money in this tech, lots of it. I'd bet China will lead on development of a lot of this even though they're polluting big time at the moment because they always seem to like to play a long game and I'm sure they're aware of the money to be made. Basically, it's the future.

You guys jump to conclusions........Lead me to the post where I absolved the US of anything....

Merely pointed out that China is the biggest polluter and I'll care when they do..

Oh and er.....

The CCPI index (Climate change performance table)

1. Denmark..
2. UK....
31. USA.....

44. China.........

So the USA if more akin to China than it is to the UK.......

The CCPI index for 2017 has USA now in 43rd place and warns they'll probably drop lower with Trump at the helm.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You guys jump to conclusions........Lead me to the post where I absolved the US of anything....

Merely pointed out that China is the biggest polluter and I'll care when they do.

Thus absolving yourself.

Definitely. Just need to look at his appointments.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/15/trump-cabinet-climate-change-deniers

Hero wrote:The CCPI index for 2017 has USA now in 43rd place and warns they'll probably drop lower with Trump at the helm.

#merked

#China48..

The Greatest Country in the World ™ only aiming to beat #48?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:#China48..

So a drop of 4 places versus the US drop of 12....looks like China is doing much better (at being less worse).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:#China48..

So a drop of 4 places versus the US drop of 12....looks like China is doing much better (at being less worse).

Deary me.....

FWIW China have very recently begun to take the threat of climate change seriously and are currently investing quite heavily in renewables I believe. Just that given just how much they invested in industrialisation in the previous years and the size of the country, means it will take a while to turn around. As navy said, wouldn't be surprised to see them leading the way in green tech in the near future, they'll realise there's money in it, and they have such resources (and little in the way of protection for workers) that they'll be able to invest the money/manpower with no problem.

Back to the general discussion, I think in about 30-50 years or so, our kids/grandkids (or even greatgrandkids) will wonder how on earth the current bunch failed to act swiftly to counter climate change. "You mean you knew about it, scientists warned you about the potentially devastating consequences, and you just... ignored them? Thinking, "Nah, not enough profit to be made in saving the planet, is there?" you bunch of tools!"

Mad for Chelsea wrote:FWIW China have very recently begun to take the threat of climate change seriously and are currently investing quite heavily in renewables I believe. Just that given just how much they invested in industrialisation in the previous years and the size of the country, means it will take a while to turn around. As navy said, wouldn't be surprised to see them leading the way in green tech in the near future, they'll realise there's money in it, and they have such resources (and little in the way of protection for workers) that they'll be able to invest the money/manpower with no problem.

Back to the general discussion, I think in about 30-50 years or so, our kids/grandkids (or even greatgrandkids) will wonder how on earth the current bunch failed to act swiftly to counter climate change. "You mean you knew about it, scientists warned you about the potentially devastating consequences, and you just... ignored them? Thinking, "Nah, not enough profit to be made in saving the planet, is there?" you bunch of tools!"

It's not being ignored though MfC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678

Interesting. But really not a massive surprise is it.

Cheerio Drax Power Station.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:FWIW China have very recently begun to take the threat of climate change seriously and are currently investing quite heavily in renewables I believe. Just that given just how much they invested in industrialisation in the previous years and the size of the country, means it will take a while to turn around. As navy said, wouldn't be surprised to see them leading the way in green tech in the near future, they'll realise there's money in it, and they have such resources (and little in the way of protection for workers) that they'll be able to invest the money/manpower with no problem.

Back to the general discussion, I think in about 30-50 years or so, our kids/grandkids (or even greatgrandkids) will wonder how on earth the current bunch failed to act swiftly to counter climate change. "You mean you knew about it, scientists warned you about the potentially devastating consequences, and you just... ignored them? Thinking, "Nah, not enough profit to be made in saving the planet, is there?" you bunch of tools!"

Yep - and so the post-apocalyptic wastelands, oft depicted in sci-fi movies will come to pass.

Our great grand-kids will probably have to live in habitation domes.



I think China's actions are more influenced by the fact their cities are being smothered by smog. They finally figured out that burning fossil fuels is bad for people, as well as the environment.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: wouldn't be surprised to see them [China] leading the way in green tech in the near future, they'll realise there's money in it, and they have such resources (and little in the way of protection for workers) that they'll be able to invest the money/manpower with no problem.

Back to the general discussion, I think in about 30-50 years or so, our kids/grandkids (or even greatgrandkids) will wonder how on earth the current bunch failed to act swiftly to counter climate change. "You mean you knew about it, scientists warned you about the potentially devastating consequences, and you just... ignored them? Thinking, "Nah, not enough profit to be made in saving the planet, is there?" you bunch of tools!"

It seems that with a workforce still prepared to be used as nothing more than drones and machines, without any real authoritative voice in their own futures - China turning more to 'green tech' wouldn''t be really much of an advance for humanity in that neck of the woods.  
China would be finally acknowledging that 'there's money in it' - yet using their old joker card and overlooking worker/citizen rights and conditions to achieve those profits from 'green tech' over and above the profits that can be achieved in societies more forcefully commanded to acknowledge the rights of their citizens.

Is China really going to become the 'model' system used to push through 'world saving' objectives over and above the rights of people to vote for their part in it or opinion on it?

Yes, I think the growing urge is exactly that China becomes a Model for the rest of the world to adopt.  "Let's save the world together, but in order that you the citizen doesn't interfere in the methods required, we're going to slyly take away your voice, your vote and your resistance - all we'll need is your work and your taxes."

And yes, there is lots of money potential in 'green tech', thus why it's being pushed so heavily by lobbyists the world over who have client lists of organisations that have already invested heavily on the gamble that world governments (i.e. China etc) will push through their 'green tech' objectives and all insiders will share in the eventual guaranteed pay outs.
You'd wonder then that some still think 'green tech' provides 'not enough profit'?  There must surely then be other reasons why certain people, who also like profit, resist the concepts of 'green tech'?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678

Interesting. But really not a massive surprise is it.

Cheerio Drax Power Station.

No, not really a surprise. Anyone with enough cells to constitute some form of brain would have known that this was a daft idea. Someone, somewhere is making money out of pushing idiot ideas like this under the banner 'green' energy, or whatever.

SecretFly wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote: wouldn't be surprised to see them [China] leading the way in green tech in the near future, they'll realise there's money in it, and they have such resources (and little in the way of protection for workers) that they'll be able to invest the money/manpower with no problem.

Back to the general discussion, I think in about 30-50 years or so, our kids/grandkids (or even greatgrandkids) will wonder how on earth the current bunch failed to act swiftly to counter climate change. "You mean you knew about it, scientists warned you about the potentially devastating consequences, and you just... ignored them? Thinking, "Nah, not enough profit to be made in saving the planet, is there?" you bunch of tools!"

It seems that with a workforce still prepared to be used as nothing more than drones and machines, without any real authoritative voice in their own futures - China turning more to 'green tech' wouldn''t be really much of an advance for humanity in that neck of the woods.  
China would be finally acknowledging that 'there's money in it' - yet using their old joker card and overlooking worker/citizen rights and conditions to achieve those profits from 'green tech' over and above the profits that can be achieved in societies more forcefully commanded to acknowledge the rights of their citizens.

Is China really going to become the 'model' system used to push through 'world saving' objectives over and above the rights of people to vote for their part in it or opinion on it?

Yes, I think the growing urge is exactly that China becomes a Model for the rest of the world to adopt.  "Let's save the world together, but in order that you the citizen doesn't interfere in the methods required, we're going to slyly take away your voice, your vote and your resistance - all we'll need is your work and your taxes."

And yes, there is lots of money potential in 'green tech', thus why it's being pushed so heavily by lobbyists the world over who have client lists of organisations that have already invested heavily on the gamble that world governments (i.e. China etc) will push through their 'green tech' objectives and all insiders will share in the eventual guaranteed pay outs.
You'd wonder then that some still think 'green tech' provides 'not enough profit'?  There must surely then be other reasons why certain people, who also like profit, resist the concepts of 'green tech'?

They're stupid? Not everyone who likes (and is successful at generating) profit is really that clever. Many tend to be dogmatic and single-minded as well. Perhaps it grates against their 'gut' feeling that global warming must be fiction, therefore they can't buy into making money from leading on the green tech front.