Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
[quote=Mr GrimNasty]The BBC article is ridiculous for all the non-fact based propaganda insertions, you wouldn't believe they were commenting on the same report as more neutral outlets.
Arctic ice seems to have stopped declining about 2006 if you ask me, and been pretty stable since.
Even more disturbing is that if the figures had been the other way around, it would have been the lead story on the evening news. This gets no mention..... strange that.
Arctic ice seems to have stopped declining about 2006 if you ask me, and been pretty stable since.
Even more disturbing is that if the figures had been the other way around, it would have been the lead story on the evening news. This gets no mention..... strange that.
Points for discussion at climate change meeting.
Agenda - Point 1. Is the Earths climate changing? Answer - Yes, it has not stopped changing since
the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago, and will always continue to do so.
Agenda - Point 2. Have humans contributed to global CO2 emissions? - Yes, but no one can put any
kind of measure on it compared to natural levels, (CO2 levels were much
higher in the past before humans arrived on the planet)
Agenda - point 3. Can we reduce humans sourced CO2 emissions? - Per capita yes, but overall no,
as we are not only increasing the global population by up to 346 thousand net
new humans per day, but also increasing the numbers of those who will live in
industrialised higher resource consuming (higher emissions producing) cultures.
So the facts seem to indicate that the Earths climate is changing, has always changed, and it will always continue to change.
Global CO2 levels were much higher in the past, before humans arrived on the planet. The Earth survived then, it will probably carry on doing so long after we are all gone.
Humans `are' adding to CO2 levels, but if we will insist on growing the population, as we are now doing, whilst at the same time rapidly `increasing' levels of resource take up, and use (by countries converting to industrialised economies) then increased overall CO2 levels is what `will'
happen in order to meet the rapidly growing demands of a never been seen on Earth before, already colossal, rapidly growing global population,(and all set against a number of finite global resources)
Some tree huggers believe humans have messed up the planet `now' but they should wait a bit, they haven't seen anything yet. Soylent Green anyone??
Agenda - Point 1. Is the Earths climate changing? Answer - Yes, it has not stopped changing since
the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago, and will always continue to do so.
Agenda - Point 2. Have humans contributed to global CO2 emissions? - Yes, but no one can put any
kind of measure on it compared to natural levels, (CO2 levels were much
higher in the past before humans arrived on the planet)
Agenda - point 3. Can we reduce humans sourced CO2 emissions? - Per capita yes, but overall no,
as we are not only increasing the global population by up to 346 thousand net
new humans per day, but also increasing the numbers of those who will live in
industrialised higher resource consuming (higher emissions producing) cultures.
So the facts seem to indicate that the Earths climate is changing, has always changed, and it will always continue to change.
Global CO2 levels were much higher in the past, before humans arrived on the planet. The Earth survived then, it will probably carry on doing so long after we are all gone.
Humans `are' adding to CO2 levels, but if we will insist on growing the population, as we are now doing, whilst at the same time rapidly `increasing' levels of resource take up, and use (by countries converting to industrialised economies) then increased overall CO2 levels is what `will'
happen in order to meet the rapidly growing demands of a never been seen on Earth before, already colossal, rapidly growing global population,(and all set against a number of finite global resources)
Some tree huggers believe humans have messed up the planet `now' but they should wait a bit, they haven't seen anything yet. Soylent Green anyone??
Pan Pan Pan said:
Points for discussion at climate change meeting.
Agenda - Point 1. Is the Earths climate changing? Answer - Yes, it has not stopped changing since
the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago, and will always continue to do so.
Agenda - Point 2. Have humans contributed to global CO2 emissions? - Yes, but no one can put any
kind of measure on it compared to natural levels, (CO2 levels were much
higher in the past before humans arrived on the planet)
Agenda - point 3. Can we reduce humans sourced CO2 emissions? - Per capita yes, but overall no,
as we are not only increasing the global population by up to 346 thousand net
new humans per day, but also increasing the numbers of those who will live in
industrialised higher resource consuming (higher emissions producing) cultures.
So the facts seem to indicate that the Earths climate is changing, has always changed, and it will always continue to change.
Global CO2 levels were much higher in the past, before humans arrived on the planet. The Earth survived then, it will probably carry on doing so long after we are all gone.
Humans `are' adding to CO2 levels, but if we will insist on growing the population, as we are now doing, whilst at the same time rapidly `increasing' levels of resource take up, and use (by countries converting to industrialised economies) then increased overall CO2 levels is what `will'
happen in order to meet the rapidly growing demands of a never been seen on Earth before, already colossal, rapidly growing global population,(and all set against a number of finite global resources)
Some tree huggers believe humans have messed up the planet `now' but they should wait a bit, they haven't seen anything yet. Soylent Green anyone??
Good news! Increased CO2 makes plants grow larger using less water (see Dutch hydroponics industry (tomatoes) for daily proof). So problem 2 becomes the solution to problem 3.Agenda - Point 1. Is the Earths climate changing? Answer - Yes, it has not stopped changing since
the Earths formation 4.6 billion years ago, and will always continue to do so.
Agenda - Point 2. Have humans contributed to global CO2 emissions? - Yes, but no one can put any
kind of measure on it compared to natural levels, (CO2 levels were much
higher in the past before humans arrived on the planet)
Agenda - point 3. Can we reduce humans sourced CO2 emissions? - Per capita yes, but overall no,
as we are not only increasing the global population by up to 346 thousand net
new humans per day, but also increasing the numbers of those who will live in
industrialised higher resource consuming (higher emissions producing) cultures.
So the facts seem to indicate that the Earths climate is changing, has always changed, and it will always continue to change.
Global CO2 levels were much higher in the past, before humans arrived on the planet. The Earth survived then, it will probably carry on doing so long after we are all gone.
Humans `are' adding to CO2 levels, but if we will insist on growing the population, as we are now doing, whilst at the same time rapidly `increasing' levels of resource take up, and use (by countries converting to industrialised economies) then increased overall CO2 levels is what `will'
happen in order to meet the rapidly growing demands of a never been seen on Earth before, already colossal, rapidly growing global population,(and all set against a number of finite global resources)
Some tree huggers believe humans have messed up the planet `now' but they should wait a bit, they haven't seen anything yet. Soylent Green anyone??
deltaevo16 said:
Even more disturbing is that if the figures had been the other way around, it would have been the lead story on the evening news. This gets no mention..... strange that.
The Arctic Winter max. ice extent in 2015 was the lowest on record by a tiny amount for a brief moment but double peaked and recovered.The 'record' was of course instantly highlighted by the BBC, whilst ignoring that Arctic ice volume was not actually a record low, and whilst ignoring the constant record breaking levels in Antarctica. In fact the article leads the reader to believe the ice is unusually thin as well (i.e. low volume, whereas in fact multi-year ice = higher volume, was very healthy indeed). And they never updated that extent had recovered almost immediately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3197...
rolando said:
XM5ER said:
Good news! Increased CO2 makes plants grow larger using less water (see Dutch hydroponics industry (tomatoes) for daily proof). So problem 2 becomes the solution to problem 3.
Absolutely right.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.129...
Mr GrimNasty said:
rolando said:
XM5ER said:
Good news! Increased CO2 makes plants grow larger using less water (see Dutch hydroponics industry (tomatoes) for daily proof). So problem 2 becomes the solution to problem 3.
Absolutely right.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.129...
I thought that the "consensus" in the health industry was that modern growing and delivery cycles pretty much removed any useful nutrients anyway by the time the product reaches the point of consumption .... so that they may, allegedly, be poorer quality hardly matters.
Am I missing something here?
I'm amazed the the entire world is not starving to death daily. In fact .... where on earth did the supposed "obesity crises" stem from?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 23 July 23:13
robinessex said:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Really really annoying when stars and celebrities allow them selves to be hood winked into supporting a cause, without checking as whether it’s complete b******s or not. Don’t they have any advisors with a brain between their ears ? Maybe he should stick to ads with the irritating meercats instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/21...
Really really annoying when stars and celebrities allow them selves to be hood winked into supporting a cause, without checking as whether it’s complete b******s or not. Don’t they have any advisors with a brain between their ears ? Maybe he should stick to ads with the irritating meercats instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/21...
Arnie said:
This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere. The World Health Organization says that air pollution causes over 7 million premature deaths every year and all over the world we can see flooding, monster storms, droughts and wild-fires that are completely out of control.
What - THIS Arnold Schwarzenegger ?
The Green Deal is a flop and now DEAD.
As part of the continued undoing of Ed Davey damage, after backing off subsidies, now this excellent news for a ludicrously flawed scheme.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/23/a...
As part of the continued undoing of Ed Davey damage, after backing off subsidies, now this excellent news for a ludicrously flawed scheme.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/23/a...
Silver Smudger said:
robinessex said:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Really really annoying when stars and celebrities allow them selves to be hood winked into supporting a cause, without checking as whether it’s complete b******s or not. Don’t they have any advisors with a brain between their ears ? Maybe he should stick to ads with the irritating meercats instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/21...
Really really annoying when stars and celebrities allow them selves to be hood winked into supporting a cause, without checking as whether it’s complete b******s or not. Don’t they have any advisors with a brain between their ears ? Maybe he should stick to ads with the irritating meercats instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/21...
Arnie said:
This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere. The World Health Organization says that air pollution causes over 7 million premature deaths every year and all over the world we can see flooding, monster storms, droughts and wild-fires that are completely out of control.
What - THIS Arnold Schwarzenegger ?The day all of the luvvies and their hangers-on lock up their mansions and move to small apartments, adopting walking or, at a pinch, cycling as a means of transport will be the day that they start to achieve any form of credibility. Even then it may not count for much.
nelly1 said:
Now there's a surprise. NOT!
Conservatives suggest a bit of economic common sense regarding Climate policy.
Friends Of The Earth and Greenpeace throw their toys out of the pram.
Which side do you reckon Auntie Beeb is on?
Clicky...
It's Harrabin at it again, what a shock!Conservatives suggest a bit of economic common sense regarding Climate policy.
Friends Of The Earth and Greenpeace throw their toys out of the pram.
Which side do you reckon Auntie Beeb is on?
Clicky...
article said:
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd will say measures to curb rising temperatures are about ensuring economic security.
What rising temperatures? A 19 year-old speech maybe, she was clearly planning ahead.OK our views aren't entirely aligned, but this Amber Rudd is turning out better than I'd hoped!
BBC heads are going to explode!
http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-agenda-dictated-by-...
BBC heads are going to explode!
http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-agenda-dictated-by-...
Mr GrimNasty said:
OK our views aren't entirely aligned, but this Amber Rudd is turning out better than I'd hoped!
BBC heads are going to explode!
http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-agenda-dictated-by-...
“the economic impact of unchecked climate change would be profound”, bringing “lower growth, higher prices, a lower quality of life”.BBC heads are going to explode!
http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-agenda-dictated-by-...
Taking action against global warming is therefore the “ultimate insurance policy” to ensure economic security."
The arrogance is still there that We can change climate change, that We can stop global warming. We cant, we have to adapt to the planet. Be efficient, use renewable yes but to have the agenda and naivety to say we can stop climate change is delusional. What will they do ask God for help?
turbobloke said:
article said:
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd will say measures to curb rising temperatures are about ensuring economic security.
What rising temperatures? A 19 year-old speech maybe, she was clearly planning ahead.Here we have Amber Rudd associating herself with the control of both "Climate" and "the economy".
Amazing.
These self promoting people (for why else would they be in modern day politics?) must by now understand that they can control neither. Even "the economy", where they would seem to have a better chance of influence, is something that is too complicated for the simplistic tools in their workbags. Even then, as the EZ vs Greece saga has readily illustrated, whatever they are able to influence is all about politics and thus entirely self referential to the benefit of no one except the politicians involved.
I think we should propose Bank Pay theories for these people.
Most of their pay should be frozen and regarded as payable in the future should any of their statements and actions prove to be reliable. (An alternative would be to pay them now but have a right to forfeiture of assets at any point in the future.)
As a secondary incentive to be realistic any income they may make after outside their political career's direct responsibilities, including careers after political involvement has ceased, should also be considered as available for forfeiture in compensation for any misleading statements or actions and downright bad decisions with which they have been involved.
This should be effective for a period of, say, 100 years after retirement from any position in politics based on claims against their Estate if necessary. This long period reflects the need for extended analysis of both climate and economic changes in order to better understand the effect of regulation and the resulting outcomes.
Part of their pay, the equivalent of the minimum wage requirement, would be exempt from reclaim except in the case of outright fraud in terms of, for example, non-attendance at parliament or committees and improper expenses claims.
These arrange should apply not only to domestic politicians but also to any external agencies having a direct influence on local policies. The EU and UN are current examples. Perhaps the USA too since they seem rather keen on one way "compensation" and retrospective legal responsibility at this time.
It would surely be interesting to see who would say what if such arrangements were passed into law.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff