Climate change

  • Thread starter Villan Of The North
  • Start date
V

Villan Of The North

Guest
Is it real?

If it's real, is it negatively affected by man?

Regardless of our affect so far, can we do anything to slow down or reverse the damage?

Do we have a moral obligation to try to make a change?



Thoughts folks.

My immediate answers are as follows:


Yes

Yes

I hope so

Yes


I reserve the right to change these answers should good contrary arguments be made.


 
Villan Of The North - 29/1/2015 10:14

Is it real?
Click to expand...

Yes

If it's real, is it negatively affected by man?
Click to expand...

Yes

Regardless of our affect so far, can we do anything to slow down or reverse the damage?
Click to expand...

Lots of methods to slow it down. Carbon capture, renewable energy sources, efficiency savings, etc. In terms of reversing it there's geosequestration of co2.

Do we have a moral obligation to try to make a change?
Click to expand...

The best change we could make is to reduce the worlds population.
 
I think if I'm honest VOTN, you're asking the wrong questions there.

Firstly, even if it isn't real (I do believe it is), we have to look at our climate differently now, there are so many humans on the planet to support, that we overuse our ecological supplies by about 4 months -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day

More relevant questions could be -

We know that we chop down too many rainforests, why?

We know that fossil fuels are bad for the environment so why do we continue to explore fracking rather than renewable energy?

If we know for certain that we are on a course of tipping climate change to an unrecoverable position, why aren't we more urgently making changes?

The answer to the first is simple, money! There are companies that profit hugely from deforestation, from drug companies to crisp and soap manufacturers. This is the advert Doritos don't want you to see -

http://youtu.be/VPlxNhEc2lA

China have made a positive step in this area with the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, where they plan to plant 50 billion trees to prevent the ever invasive Gobi Dessert, but the effects to help combat climate change are positive, the link about that is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program


The answer to the second question is sadly similar to the first, money! There is no money in renewable energy and while that is the case there will be no major plans to change fracking plans. I understand that fossil fuels run virtually everything, without oil at this moment in time we'd be screwed, but one day, we will be without oil, even if it's 150 years from now, that's not a lot of time to have an entire planet up to speed with new technology.

Solar power seems to be the most popular, but why aren't the government paying to have these put on peoples houses, they could then take reduced cost benefits, there are enough of these farms going up, so why not use peoples houses?

The final question is the most confusing, if we really are on a collision course for disaster, in a scenario where billions will die of starvation, disease and inevitable anarchy, why aren't we doing more? Are you just ignorant? Is it a human instinct to just say, we'll sort it out when we come to it, or is it not quite as bad as we're being told?

I'm sure you could ask a million questions but those would certainly be my main ones, I have the questions but not the answers I'm afraid.
 
thefacehead - 29/1/2015 13:13

I think if I'm honest VOTN, you're asking the wrong questions there.

Firstly, even if it isn't real (I do believe it is), we have to look at our climate differently now, there are so many humans on the planet to support, that we overuse our ecological supplies by about 4 months -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day

More relevant questions could be -

We know that we chop down too many rainforests, why?

We know that fossil fuels are bad for the environment so why do we continue to explore fracking rather than renewable energy?

If we know for certain that we are on a course of tipping climate change to an unrecoverable position, why aren't we more urgently making changes?

The answer to the first is simple, money! There are companies that profit hugely from deforestation, from drug companies to crisp and soap manufacturers. This is the advert Doritos don't want you to see -

http://youtu.be/VPlxNhEc2lA

China have made a positive step in this area with the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, where they plan to plant 50 billion trees to prevent the ever invasive Gobi Dessert, but the effects to help combat climate change are positive, the link about that is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program


The answer to the second question is sadly similar to the first, money! There is no money in renewable energy and while that is the case there will be no major plans to change fracking plans. I understand that fossil fuels run virtually everything, without oil at this moment in time we'd be screwed, but one day, we will be without oil, even if it's 150 years from now, that's not a lot of time to have an entire planet up to speed with new technology.

Solar power seems to be the most popular, but why aren't the government paying to have these put on peoples houses, they could then take reduced cost benefits, there are enough of these farms going up, so why not use peoples houses?

The final question is the most confusing, if we really are on a collision course for disaster, in a scenario where billions will die of starvation, disease and inevitable anarchy, why aren't we doing more? Are you just ignorant? Is it a human instinct to just say, we'll sort it out when we come to it, or is it not quite as bad as we're being told?

I'm sure you could ask a million questions but those would certainly be my main ones, I have the questions but not the answers I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I agree with you except that you are assuming that climate change is real and that it's man made.

Now whilst I believe this to be the case, a recent vote in the US senate shows that this is clearly not the case for everyone and whilst many of the nay-sayers are Republicans, worshipping the almighty dollar, it's far from exclusively a party political issue.

The points you raise are interesting to discuss but before doing so there must be general agreement about the reality and causes of the problem in the first place.

Add to this the fact that it's not just politicians, whom obviously have their own agendas and political/monetary motivations, many scientists disagree with this issues laid out as a basis for Kyoto and other such summits, and we end up with a very unclear image. For info on scientists that are not convinces, see this wiki page - I expect it's not an exhaustive list but gives a good indication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 
See I don't think you've read properly what I have written. I didn't say it was man made, it could be a natural occurrence, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As I said, you are asking the wrong questions! Here are the real issues to be dealt with -

we are devastating rainforests on the planet, eco-systems not only home to billions of animals but also have the ability to control weather patterns on different continents, yet there is no slow up in deforestation trade, why is that?

We are running out of fossil fuels, we will one day run out completely, there is no sustainable alternative in place right now, why not?

Both these issues are intertwined with climate change, and both are issues that can and should be addressed. Arguing over whether climate change is man made or natural is an absolute waste of time and resources, and therefore a pointless discussion!
 
The problem is any serious carbon reducing efforts by governments will have a big effect on short/medium term GDP, which is all those fuckers actually care about so no serious effort will be made to stop it. Few governments if any would upset the economy now and spend $billions to solve a problem decades in the future when they are no longer around.

An "invonvenient truth" is the perfect description of this problem.
 
thefacehead - 29/1/2015 15:03

See I don't think you've read properly what I have written. I didn't say it was man made, it could be a natural occurrence, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As I said, you are asking the wrong questions! Here are the real issues to be dealt with -

we are devastating rainforests on the planet, eco-systems not only home to billions of animals but also have the ability to control weather patterns on different continents, yet there is no slow up in deforestation trade, why is that?

We are running out of fossil fuels, we will one day run out completely, there is no sustainable alternative in place right now, why not?

Both these issues are intertwined with climate change, and both are issues that can and should be addressed. Arguing over whether climate change is man made or natural is an absolute waste of time and resources, and therefore a pointless discussion!
Click to expand...

They are only real issues if you believe that we can change things and / or that we have already had some sort of negative impact. Some people deny that we are significant enough to have any real impact.

Regarding destroying the habitats of other species and the point about sustainable energy sources, you are correct but this thread is directed at climate change based on the recent US senate vote on the matter.

Our ecology is, agreed, a very important point but does not directly link to the issue of climate change unless you believe that our actions that cause deforestation and the destruction of biological diversity can effect climate stability. You are assuming that this is obvious, and to be frank, it seems pretty obvious to me so we agree on these points, but sadly some refuse to acknowledge these points, let alone conceded them.


 
97% of climatologists (those best qualified to judge) believe human activity to be the most significant contributor to climate change. Many of those who have spoken against it have been discredited, due to oil company funding or other vested interests.

Not sure it costs as much in the medium term as you suggest David. Renewables need to be subsidised to get the technology off the ground and into mass production certainly. Once this happens costs greatly reduce. Over a quarter of a million people are currently employed in renewable energy in the UK, with that expected to rise to half a million by 2020, so it's a considerable industry already with the bulk of the cost being borne by customers. A significant part of energy bills are invested in renewables.
 
Villan Of The North - 29/1/2015 14:50

They are only real issues if you believe that we can change things and / or that we have already had some sort of negative impact. Some people deny that we are significant enough to have any real impact.

Regarding destroying the habitats of other species and the point about sustainable energy sources, you are correct but this thread is directed at climate change based on the recent US senate vote on the matter.

Our ecology is, agreed, a very important point but does not directly link to the issue of climate change unless you believe that our actions that cause deforestation and the destruction of biological diversity can effect climate stability. You are assuming that this is obvious, and to be frank, it seems pretty obvious to me so we agree on these points, but sadly some refuse to acknowledge these points, let alone conceded them.
Click to expand...


Well now you're changing the origin of the thread, nowhere do you say about senators or votes etc.

My point is that it's a pointless argument to go on about whether it's happening or not, because A. deforestation WILL affect the human species if it carries on at it's current rate, and B. Fossil fuels WILL run out, and DO need replacing.

So inadvertently addressing both of these subjects, arguably the biggest causes of climate change, is a necessity for the long term survival of the human race. Reducing both should have a positive affect on controlling climate change as well, but even if they didn't, and it was proved to be a natural phenomenon then there is absolutely nothing humans can do to prevent it anyway.

Therefore arguing about an irrelevant issue is a waste of time.
 
My aim was to guage people's beliefs regarding climate control, if you want to have a different debate that's fine but it doesn't negate this one.


 
thefacehead - 29/1/2015 15:03

See I don't think you've read properly what I have written. I didn't say it was man made, it could be a natural occurrence, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As I said, you are asking the wrong questions! Here are the real issues to be dealt with -

we are devastating rainforests on the planet, eco-systems not only home to billions of animals but also have the ability to control weather patterns on different continents, yet there is no slow up in deforestation trade, why is that?

We are running out of fossil fuels, we will one day run out completely, there is no sustainable alternative in place right now, why not?

Both these issues are intertwined with climate change, and both are issues that can and should be addressed. Arguing over whether climate change is man made or natural is an absolute waste of time and resources, and therefore a pointless discussion!
Click to expand...


I'm confused. The two real issues you mention sound pretty man-made to me.

 
Beovilla - 29/1/2015 22:42

thefacehead - 29/1/2015 15:03

See I don't think you've read properly what I have written. I didn't say it was man made, it could be a natural occurrence, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

As I said, you are asking the wrong questions! Here are the real issues to be dealt with -

we are devastating rainforests on the planet, eco-systems not only home to billions of animals but also have the ability to control weather patterns on different continents, yet there is no slow up in deforestation trade, why is that?

We are running out of fossil fuels, we will one day run out completely, there is no sustainable alternative in place right now, why not?

Both these issues are intertwined with climate change, and both are issues that can and should be addressed. Arguing over whether climate change is man made or natural is an absolute waste of time and resources, and therefore a pointless discussion!
Click to expand...


I'm confused. The two real issues you mention sound pretty man-made to me.
Click to expand...

OH FFS, if you are going to criticise me at least read the whole thread and then make an informed opinion, rather than jump in half way through a conversation!!!

YES they are man made, but VOTN was actually referring to 'Climate 'Change' which was the disputable claim, if you'd read the whole thread, rather than just jumping in where you felt like, you'd know that!!
 
Is climate change real? Yes we can see that around us. However climate change has always happened throughout the life of the earth. Do I believe we as humans contribute to it. Yes. We need to play our part in not making it worse.

To summarize: I am in the middle with it. It's both
 
You must log in or register to reply here.