What so bad about climate change?
Discussion
I have asked this question many times in the global warming thread but it has been ignored.
Assuming that man made climate change is real. What is the problem?
I have been told that we are all going to die in a snowy heatwave and its the end of all life on earth. But this is blatantly b
ks.
The planet has been colder and warmer before and this is provable from fossil records.
So assuming that the warmists are right and global sea levels will rise and the UK will sweat to death under a blanket of snow could someone please tell me what is the problem apart from a lack of clogs.
I don't want to hear from the usual suspects telling me it is wrong and there is no manmade global warming as that is an entirely different debate.
Everyone is arguing about wether global warming is true or not but no one mentions any more why it is a bad thing. Even turbobloke hammers on and on about why global warming isn't happening but fails to say wether global warming is bad or not. As far as i can see by failing to tackle why global warming is bad he is agreeing with the warmists that global warming is bad.
So what is the problem if the planet gets warmer.
Assuming that man made climate change is real. What is the problem?
I have been told that we are all going to die in a snowy heatwave and its the end of all life on earth. But this is blatantly b
ks.The planet has been colder and warmer before and this is provable from fossil records.
So assuming that the warmists are right and global sea levels will rise and the UK will sweat to death under a blanket of snow could someone please tell me what is the problem apart from a lack of clogs.
I don't want to hear from the usual suspects telling me it is wrong and there is no manmade global warming as that is an entirely different debate.
Everyone is arguing about wether global warming is true or not but no one mentions any more why it is a bad thing. Even turbobloke hammers on and on about why global warming isn't happening but fails to say wether global warming is bad or not. As far as i can see by failing to tackle why global warming is bad he is agreeing with the warmists that global warming is bad.
So what is the problem if the planet gets warmer.
thinfourth2 said:
Assuming that man made climate change is real. What is the problem?
Actually the cause is irrelevant to your question, except the pre-supposition it creates just pauses me from answering it.I've had enough of ignorant t
ts pushing junk science onto me frankly, it's starting to get annoying, Particularly after the piss boiling advert for AGW called 'Horizon' presented by some fully paid up believer.The answer of course is that warming is considerably less harmful for life than cooling. Unfortunately now we are in for some cooling, which should make the warmists happy (but strangely doesn't), but is bad news for us all. Especially with the CO2 idiots trying to make us all freeze to death with their 'green' taxes on heating fuel.
There's a widespread opinion that "change is bad!" but, similarly to the OP, I've yet to see coherent evidence (well, testable predictions) given that this is the case.
For example:
More CO2 in the atmosphere is an opportunity for more plant growth so an opportunity for more farming.
Higher temps may cause some equatorial areas to become uninhabitable (or less inhabitable) but may also cause some polar regions to beome more habitable.
Humans have proven themselves to be hugely adaptable, yet there appears to be a mindset that conditions now are perfect and any deviation will be worse.
For example:
More CO2 in the atmosphere is an opportunity for more plant growth so an opportunity for more farming.
Higher temps may cause some equatorial areas to become uninhabitable (or less inhabitable) but may also cause some polar regions to beome more habitable.
Humans have proven themselves to be hugely adaptable, yet there appears to be a mindset that conditions now are perfect and any deviation will be worse.
catso said:
Bring on the warming - as long as it doesn't get any colder, I'll be happy.
Sadly it's a lose-lose for us, if it gets colder we lose - because of poor weather and heating bills, and if it gets warmer it gives ammunition for the thieving believers.At least if it gets cold we may shake off the AGW lie.
I think man's arrogance is the real problem. This belief that the world as we've known it for the last few thousand hundred years is 'the correct earth' and this is the way that it should remain. Forever. With never any change. Ever. There should be a pole at the north, one at the south, some desert, some forest and everything else in between. That the earth is constantly changing and has been for millenia seems irrevelevent.
This obsession with cutting CO2 is merely an excuse to gloss over the real issue of deforestation (whilst taxing us up the arse).
I don't see why 'warming' to an extent (clearly not to Venus like levels) would be a huge problem. As pointed out, more CO2 equals more plant food. The more plant food then the better for vegetation on this planet. Assuming we don't just hack it all down. Previously uninhabitable areas would become habitable, and those places that are currently stholes would simply become bigger stholes. And people with beach views might find themselves living in a new coral reef.
Cooling on the other hand, I see as a bigger issue. But 'the consesnus' don't seem to give a st about that.
This obsession with cutting CO2 is merely an excuse to gloss over the real issue of deforestation (whilst taxing us up the arse).
I don't see why 'warming' to an extent (clearly not to Venus like levels) would be a huge problem. As pointed out, more CO2 equals more plant food. The more plant food then the better for vegetation on this planet. Assuming we don't just hack it all down. Previously uninhabitable areas would become habitable, and those places that are currently s
tholes would simply become bigger stholes. And people with beach views might find themselves living in a new coral reef. Cooling on the other hand, I see as a bigger issue. But 'the consesnus' don't seem to give a s
t about that.The problem with the whole climate change bordocks is the assumption that a change in climate is a BAD thing. It's not, it's just a DIFFERENT climate.
People adapt to different climates (that's why they wear jumpers in Aberdeen and t-shirts on the Costa Del Sol).
Things change and people adapt, there is no (and never has been a) "status quo" with climate (and anything else for that matter).
People adapt to different climates (that's why they wear jumpers in Aberdeen and t-shirts on the Costa Del Sol).
Things change and people adapt, there is no (and never has been a) "status quo" with climate (and anything else for that matter).
Dracoro said:
The problem with the whole climate change bordocks is the assumption that a change in climate is a BAD thing. It's not, it's just a DIFFERENT climate.
People adapt to different climates (that's why they wear jumpers in Aberdeen and t-shirts on the Costa Del Sol).
Things change and people adapt, there is no (and never has been a) "status quo" with climate (and anything else for that matter).
The counterpoint to that argument is that much of our infrastructure and such-like have been built in the last 100 years, with inbuilt assumptions about the "status quo" - river levels, rainfall levels, tidal ranges, hurricane-protection etc etc.People adapt to different climates (that's why they wear jumpers in Aberdeen and t-shirts on the Costa Del Sol).
Things change and people adapt, there is no (and never has been a) "status quo" with climate (and anything else for that matter).
If (and it's a big if as the models can't predict accurately) the climate changes sufficiently for "weather events" to fall outside those assumptions on a regular basis, then it's going to be expensive to modify our human environment to cater for that.
"The world is going to end" propaganda is rubbish, life will go on.
"We might have to spend extra money (from where?) to cater for a changing climate" is, I suspect, the real worry for governments.
So, no there is no concept of a status quo over long timescales, but over short, modern human-civilisation timescales, much of our "stuff" is built with assumption of a status quo.
Ozzie Osmond said:
thinfourth2 said:
What is the problem?
In this particular corner of PH by far and away the biggest issue will be the City of London being under several metres of water.Gives a whole new meaning to "bailing out the banks"!
Is this a problem it could do with a good wash.
thinfourth2 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
thinfourth2 said:
What is the problem?
In this particular corner of PH by far and away the biggest issue will be the City of London being under several metres of water.Gives a whole new meaning to "bailing out the banks"!
Is this a problem it could do with a good wash.
TEKNOPUG said:
During the middle ages, the temperature in the UK was considerably warmer than it is today. Result = far more crops being grown, lots of vineyards and the peasants had so much time on their hands that they built some spectacularly impressive cathedrals and such like.
That's the problem, though. The people that pretend to believe in this (Medieval) nonsense do not like the Human Race that much - better living conditions and more food that would come from a warmer climate would be catastrophic to their idiological beliefs.thinfourth2 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
thinfourth2 said:
What is the problem?
In this particular corner of PH by far and away the biggest issue will be the City of London being under several metres of water.Gives a whole new meaning to "bailing out the banks"!
Is this a problem it could do with a good wash.
When ice floating in water melts, the water level remains the same - Archimedes law. It will however continue dipping, the whole of the south of the UK has been sinking since the retreat of the last ice age, there are old trees under the solent even. Conversely the north has been rising a bit, and it will continue to do so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff