Climate Change - the Germans speak out

[toppstuff]

It seems that the Germans have decided to speak out.

Germany's major advocate has come out for the dark side and attacked the IPCC.

What is interesting is that the mainstream media have followed suit with the major German newspapers all publishing sceptical editorial.

Article here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/14/a...

If Germany is making a stand, maybe this is the beginning of the end of the crazy rhetoric and the start of a more sensible debate.

We can but hope.

[Digga]

IPCC is a gravy train, plain and simple, whether or not you agree with MMGW, Climate Chance, Faries at the bottom of the garden or whatever. I'm glad someone has spoken out.

[Aids]

Agreed. Those of a certain age such as myself will probably remember that back in the`70s there was talk that this planet was heading for another ice age! What makes my urine come to boil is that my office is situated next door the Department of Energy and Climate Change!!

[AshVX220]

Aids said:

Agreed. Those of a certain age such as myself will probably remember that back in the`70s there was talk that this planet was heading for another ice age! What makes my urine come to boil is that my office is situated next door the Department of Energy and Climate Change!!

Indeed, one of the first things that needs to be done is the seperation of that department into it's 2 seperate entities. With the climate change lot focussing on how we adapt as the climate does change, mitigating the negative effects of (natural) climate change and making use of the positive effects.

With Energy focussing on how best to meet our energy needs and export our excess abroad.

[12gauge]

Bush spoke out about the UN. Never did the decent thing and withdrew american funding causing the whole corrupt bureaucracy to collape though.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

[anonymous-user]

The way I see it, and I'm not trying to make out I know something special here, is that the hypothesis has been made that gas and oil are finite, or that the rise of the BRICS will create excessive demand for these fuels that may lead to conflict and price escalation or that the nations that currently produce, mostly seen as malign powers, will gain an increasing element of control over the rest of us.
To counter these fears our governments have to force change as, lets face it, we'd happily carry on as we are otherwise, hey we've had petroleum shortages before and have we massively changed our ways to overcome the problem? The real reasons cannot be given as that would cause panic and would make producer-client relationships awkward to say the least. So governments have to falsify a situation that we are all supposedly guilty of creating.
We are being fed lies to make us change our ways but should we fight it if the real motivations that are behind these lies are sound and just?

[mackie1]

I'm all for moving towards energy independence for economic and strategic reasons and I dare say some thought that the "green" movement was a great way to get there, however I think it's now gone too far. Stuff like shale gas, nuclear and Falklands oil should be pounced upon but instead we're squandering billions on disturbines that will do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, gas and coal.

[Aids]

mackie1 said:

I'm all for moving towards energy independence for economic and strategic reasons and I dare say some thought that the "green" movement was a great way to get there, however I think it's now gone too far. Stuff like shale gas, nuclear and Falklands oil should be pounced upon but instead we're squandering billions on disturbines that will do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, gas and coal.

Agreed. The worst thing the Thatcher government did was to close coal mines. they gave us independence on energy as well as failing to roll out more nuclear power stations. They entire " Green lobby" should be ignored and derided. Also bear in mind that the PRC are constantly opening new coal power stations, with not a word of condemnation from HMG!!

[Blib]

Mods, this thread has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the possibility that Germany, the main driver of 'Green energy' in Europe, will move away from a low carbon energy policy.

This could be a game changer in what is one of the most contentious political and economic issues of our time.

Could you return it to its rightful place please?

[chris watton]

Blib said:

Mods, this thread has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the possibility that Germany, the main driver of 'Green energy' in Europe, will move away from a low carbon energy policy.

This could be a game changer in what is one of the most contentious political and economic issues of our time.

Could you return it to its rightful place please?

I agree - I have no idea why this was moved to this section, as it most definately is about politics and economics.

[Simpo Two]

Perhaps 'climate change' should be relegated to the 'woo' department... as it does not seem to have a scientific answer.

[alock]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your proposal is for the government to force this situation early because that is better than it happening later due to market conditions? My question is why are short-term artificially high oil prices better than long-term naturally high oil prices?

[Hooli]

alock said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your proposal is for the government to force this situation early because that is better than it happening later due to market conditions? My question is why are short-term artificially high oil prices better than long-term naturally high oil prices?

I think his point is we change our dependency to a different energy source when the timetable to do so without disaster is a lot more open ended. It has an amount of logic about it.

[AshVX220]

Hooli said:

alock said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your proposal is for the government to force this situation early because that is better than it happening later due to market conditions? My question is why are short-term artificially high oil prices better than long-term naturally high oil prices?

I think his point is we change our dependency to a different energy source when the timetable to do so without disaster is a lot more open ended. It has an amount of logic about it.

But the reliance on and amount of fossil fuels available to us should not be at such a level that the government[s] should feel the need to lie to the populace because the alternative is all a bit scary (which, let's face it, it's not).

I just believe tthat our government[s] have allowed themselves to be lobbied and suckered by pressure groups. Let's face it, it isn't the only thing they allow hemselves to get lobbied (read as suckered) on.

[900T-R]

Hooli said:

I think his point is we change our dependency to a different energy source when the timetable to do so without disaster is a lot more open ended. It has an amount of logic about it.

As a government, you know how much oil we have left in a worst-case scenario. You also know (or should know) what it costs to have alternative infrastructures in operation when it finally runs out. With those 2 you know what a litre of fuel should cost and if you spend that tax money on actually developing and implementing instead of assorted gravy trains to pacify your voters and lending to countries that have a history of er, interesting bookkeeping those infrastructures - you'll have no problem.

Oh, hang on...

[Hooli]

AshVX220 said:

Hooli said:

alock said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your proposal is for the government to force this situation early because that is better than it happening later due to market conditions? My question is why are short-term artificially high oil prices better than long-term naturally high oil prices?

I think his point is we change our dependency to a different energy source when the timetable to do so without disaster is a lot more open ended. It has an amount of logic about it.

But the reliance on and amount of fossil fuels available to us should not be at such a level that the government[s] should feel the need to lie to the populace because the alternative is all a bit scary (which, let's face it, it's not).

I just believe tthat our government[s] have allowed themselves to be lobbied and suckered by pressure groups. Let's face it, it isn't the only thing they allow hemselves to get lobbied (read as suckered) on.

I agree. Its just I can see the other posters point as well.