Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
mondeoman said:
That doesn't answer the question. And you know it doesn't.
We thrived in the medieval warm period and who's to say that we wont thrive in warmer climes?
How does that not answer the question? It is the answer.We thrived in the medieval warm period and who's to say that we wont thrive in warmer climes?
The world's population and infrastructure during the middle ages is hardly comparable with today.
durbster said:
you are regularly attacked, patronised and personally insulted
For the record I deplore any personal attacks and absolutely defend your right to hold incorrect opinions 
If it's any consolation it's no easier being a skeptic! I made a perfectly reasonable response to Prof Brian Cox's tweet about rising temperatures (correlation ≠ causality type thing) and before you know it I get a notification that some climate activist has added me to a Twitter List called 'Total Bellends'! You can only imagine my outrage! A 'bit of a bellend' - yes fine but a 'total' bellend... well really it's all just too much. It seems said activist had identified many 100s of people like me who replied unfavorably to our Brian and classified every one of us as a 'total bellend'. Humph
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
That doesn't answer the question. And you know it doesn't.
We thrived in the medieval warm period and who's to say that we wont thrive in warmer climes?
How does that not answer the question? It is the answer.We thrived in the medieval warm period and who's to say that we wont thrive in warmer climes?
The world's population and infrastructure during the middle ages is hardly comparable with today.
"When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
mondeoman said:
The question was "the ideal temperature of the planet is xx.xxC".
"When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
Hm. "When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
durbster said:
Hm.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
I don't think a lot of today's migration is due to 'farmland changes' due to 'global warming', is it?I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
chris watton said:
I don't think a lot of today's migration is due to 'farmland changes' due to 'global warming', is it?
Er, no, but I'm not really sure what your point is.There was an attempt to link the Syrian crisis to the droughts (which was probably a factor), and therefore climate change. That seemed a bit of a stretch though.
It's ironic that a media that was totally indifferent to climate change a few years ago now seem to be desperate to link everything to it.
chris watton said:
durbster said:
Hm.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
I don't think a lot of today's migration is due to 'farmland changes' due to 'global warming', is it?I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
The question was "the ideal temperature of the planet is xx.xxC".
"When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
Hm. "When we thrive" is not an answer to that question - even in a modern day GCSE exam that would get you nil points. And ignoring the other parts of the question leads to an "F". No marks for working out either.
As long as stuff grows and we can eat it, (which requires CO2, and plants thrive in higher CO2, 1,000–1,300 ppm being ideal) then we'll continue to thrive. In fact higher temps should be better for us (see below). After temps dipping, we're now getting back to where we we can thrive even more.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
durbster said:
chris watton said:
I don't think a lot of today's migration is due to 'farmland changes' due to 'global warming', is it?
Er, no, but I'm not really sure what your point is.There was an attempt to link the Syrian crisis to the droughts (which was probably a factor), and therefore climate change. That seemed a bit of a stretch though.
It's ironic that a media that was totally indifferent to climate change a few years ago now seem to be desperate to link everything to it.
What's not to get?
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
"Britain's vast national gamble on wind power may yet pay off" And that's from the wind farm hating Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.And you still haven't answered the question(s).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/14/bri...
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
Well that would be the political debate, wouldn't it. 
Do we invest now in research to move us away from fossil fuels asap to mitigate the problem, or do we just carry on making things worse and then deal with the consequences as they happen?
mondeoman said:
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
I think I have, insofar as it can be answered.Randy Winkman said:
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
"Britain's vast national gamble on wind power may yet pay off" And that's from the wind farm hating Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.And you still haven't answered the question(s).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/14/bri...
durbster said:
Well that would be the political debate, wouldn't it.
Do we invest now in research to move us away from fossil fuels asap to mitigate the problem, or do we just carry on making things worse and then deal with the consequences as they happen?
This advancement would happen anyway, irrespective of silly hob-goblin scares. I do not believe for a second that we would still be burning fossil fuels as energy in 50 years time, perhaps less. It has nothing to do with climate change, it's how we have always progressed. (Although war usually speeds up progress many fold..)Do we invest now in research to move us away from fossil fuels asap to mitigate the problem, or do we just carry on making things worse and then deal with the consequences as they happen?
If you really want to 'mitigate the problem', surely you need to convince countries like India and China. If you don't, then any gesture we make (and let's be honest, that's all it would be) would be in vain. All we are doing right now is making businesses less competitive, due to higher energy costs.
And I do hope the windmills do prove to be profitable, because if they're nothing but an evolutionary dead end, and when the public funding dries up (which it probably will), we are going to be left with tens of thousands of rusting eyesores scarred across the land (and sea)
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
Well that would be the political debate, wouldn't it. Do we invest now in research to move us away from fossil fuels asap to mitigate the problem, or do we just carry on making things worse and then deal with the consequences as they happen?
mondeoman said:
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
I think I have, insofar as it can be answered.If you cant answer that question, then there is no purpose whatsoever in wasting billions on subsidies and follies. But then you know that anyway.
Randy Winkman said:
chris watton said:
durbster said:
Hm.
I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
I don't think a lot of today's migration is due to 'farmland changes' due to 'global warming', is it?I posted it last time this was asked but have a read of this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
It's not a question of survival. It's about not having to spend £millions reparing flood damage, or dealing with massive migration as people move about because of farmland changes. The risks are about our capacity to deal with rapid environmental changes.
You might be willing to go back to the dark ages but I'm quite happy with what we have right now.
It is estimated that there is a 3 to 4 billion population growth challenge for Africa by the end of this century. That should prove interesting.
durbster said:
Do we invest now in research to move us away from fossil fuels asap to mitigate the problem, or do we just carry on making things worse and then deal with the consequences as they happen?
Make what worse? The climate is well within natural limits of variation!The history of the success of man has been one of migration and adaptation as climate has naturally changed massively.
You can't stop climate change! Only a fool would suggest you could.
PS:
"http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/"
Oh my goodness what a load of imaginary misleading codswallop, from NASA, what an embarrassment for a once great scientific institution.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 21st August 23:19
Randy Winkman said:
mondeoman said:
How do those millions in the future compare with wasting billions NOW on windmills and solar farms? Or doesn't our current money count because its going to further the cause of wealth redistribution.
And you still haven't answered the question(s).
"Britain's vast national gamble on wind power may yet pay off" And that's from the wind farm hating Telegraph a couple of weeks ago.And you still haven't answered the question(s).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/14/bri...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff