The Great Green Debate was wildly biased in favour of the so-called consensus including the panellists. There are far more climatologists disputing the present theory of manmade global warming. The latter is mentioned for less in favour of "climate change". Is this perhaps because global temperatures have moved not a jot upwards in the last ten years yet this is conveniently not mentioned? Is it conveniently not mentioned that the hottest years in the last century occurred in the 1930`s. This has been embarrassingly confirmed by NASA.
No real hard fact numbers are mentioned in these sorts of programmes because they would expose the theory of manmade global warming for what it is - the biggest politically driven scam ever perpetrated on the human race. We are being taken for a massive and very expensive ride.
There is not a scientific consensus on this subject; indeed it is an oxymoron to suggest such since science is all about questioning theories - particularly one as contentious as this.
People who talk about climate chaos make me laugh since climate is the most chaotic system known to man. To ignore chaos is fraud. To suggest that a particular weather event is somehow due to man`s output of CO2 is fraud.
May I suggest that your researchers take a long time out to look at www.globalwarminghysteria.com before you ever think of putting on another programme such as this.
What was NOT discussed on the debate was the fact that due to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the World is getting more "acid". The problems from this has been extensively reported on re sea creatures, shellfish, coral etc. What has NOT been reported is that most Virus' like more acid condistion,s 'flu and foot & mouth in particular, also SARS, Ebola and possibly the Israeli Virus now attacking Beehives in the USA.
Also CO2 is a stimulant, and is so used in resuscitation equipment. Are we all being "over stimulated" without us noticing it ?
Lucibee, as we both know this point has been done to death on the science forum but do any of the proponents acknowledge the obvious flaw in the argument - no!
Which highlights what was obvious from the programme, that sceptics in the audience will stick to their views no matter what the counter argument is from the experts. Its just boring now!
I was far more interested in what we do about AGW. I'd like to see a follow-on that explores and expands Tony Juniper's, Micheal Meacher's and Dr Penington's ideas in this space rather than bang on about how the IPCC are somehow corrupt.
I was interested also in how governments are muddying the waters by creating the impression of being only interested in revenue earning disincentives without providing incentives. Something that both Juniper and Meacher acknowledged and which underpins the layperson's sceptical view.
Damn right! Although the government are offering incentives. There are VAT free bike buying schemes, grants for renewables and insulation, cheaper tax for low emissions cars etc.
I thought the debate was a bit of a mess really. None of the points were fully answered in any way, and I'm not sure what was really achieved.
Picking up from the debate, the "UK is only responsible for 2%, what about China" argument is a bit misleading. If you take into account all the factories around the world that produce goods that we consume in the UK then the figure is much higher than 2%. Also, the Chinese have just entered (non-binding) agreement on climate change. They are worried about it, and they are doing things about it.
I can't remember the economist name, but he might as well have been Lomborg himself. Oxfam and Christian Aid have both identified climate change as the biggest threat to developing countries. If everyone in the world developed to our level (Europe and US) of resource use we would need 3 planets. That's why we need sustainable development.
I think the fear among the sceptics is that government acknowledgment of GW is going to lead to rights, liberties, and stuff being taken away from them. Some even think that things have been taken away already. I don't think this is the case at all.
The arguments all seem to revolve around having to cut back and stop consuming, but actually we need to find creative ways to change direction, and to still allow economic growth, but in completely new and exciting directions. What we forget is that technology should allow us to be more efficient, not less, and therefore to get more out of our resources. We have become somewhat lazy in this over the years. But the pay-offs we will get when we start to achieve this are potentially huge.
I actually think that ultimately countries like China, India, and Korea will put us to shame in the future. They stand to gain the most from developing such technologies, and probably have the right economic structure currently to do so. We should be doing all we can to encourage them - however I suspect there is the fear from Western governments that if we give them too much help, they will take over. Quite frankly, if they succeed, they deserve to take over!
Thankfully Channel 4 is prepared to allow for alternative viewpoints as anyone who dares query the actual impact of Carbon emmissions in global warming is judged a bit of a crank by the government, the BBC and other establishment bodies now - or an Oil company stooge.
My lifestyle is possibly the most carbon neutral on the planet! I cycle, I'm a veggie, I've only been on a plane twice in my life (short journeys and only possible thanks to budget airlines), I sleep a lot, I use little gas or electricity in my home and recycle at least 60 per cent of what little I buy. I admit I do buy Fairtrade products which have travelled half way round the world, though.
Climate change is happening but the consensus that we have to fight it is ridiculous. We HAVE to conserve resources ANYWAY, it makes sense for our planet. Any Kyoto + initiatives hinder developing countries which is the biggest tragedy. Everyone on here means well and any ranting in is purely down to the way the subject has been closed to any real debate outside of the occasional fringe forum like this after a show whose raison d'etre was most probably simply to promote the Green series 'Dumped'. Ironically, I felt, it ended up failing to meet it's own challenge of seeing off the sceptics on the big issue. Pennington was impressive. I somehow think he'll not be getting an OBE at the end of his career. (Which may not be that far off).
Thanks for reading. I'll go make meself a cup of Fairtrade tea now and hope I won't be arrested or hit with some new tax that is 'good for me, good for the planet'.
Have you actually been to any "oil" (energy) company websites recently, and seen what they have to say about climate change and global warming?
Try BP, Shell, and Exxon for starters. Interestingly, BP, with all it's "green" ads and beyond petroleum statements, comes out as the most cautious on the issue, although all seem to want to have been the first to recognise that they saw it coming!
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Which highlights what was obvious from the programme, that sceptics in the audience will stick to their views no matter what the counter argument is from the experts.
Well they often have a lot more they need to change in their lives and change is about learning new things which is difficult. So the obvious place to look for comfort is someone that says they don't need to change.
quote:
Originally posted by Seskinreay: I was interested also in how governments are muddying the waters by creating the impression of being only interested in revenue earning disincentives without providing incentives. Something that both Juniper and Meacher acknowledged and which underpins the layperson's sceptical view.
Incentives are important and yes the government isn't doing enough.
Have you actually been to any "oil" (energy) company websites recently, and seen what they have to say about climate change and global warming?
Try BP, Shell, and Exxon for starters. Interestingly, BP, with all it's "green" ads and beyond petroleum statements, comes out as the most cautious on the issue, although all seem to want to have been the first to recognise that they saw it coming!
Exxon have finally seen the error of their ways, but they still have a lot to answer for. The 2007 Shulman report ("Smoke, mirrors, and hot air") found that the company had spend $16 million to spread doubt over the science of climate change. The report concluded that in terms of tackling global warming the covert activities of Exxon had set the world back a decade.
people seemed more concerned with how it affected THEM and THEIR pocket, rather than the issue which was "are we heading towards the biggest problem mankind has ever faced"!!!
COME ON GUYS!!!!!!
start talking about how to solve the problem...
stop being sidetrack by issue's which revolve around the economy and economic issues....after all, if we don't have a planet to live on, there wont be much of an economy ....will there!!!
Originally posted by Jason, Stig of the Dump: i was disappointed by the big green debate....
it seemed to turn into "a big tax debate"
people seemed more concerned with how it affected THEM and THEIR pocket, rather than the issue which was "are we heading towards the biggest problem mankind has ever faced"!!!
COME ON GUYS!!!!!!
start talking about how to solve the problem...
stop being sidetrack by issue's which revolve around the economy and economic issues....after all, if we don't have a planet to live on, there wont be much of an economy ....will there!!!
If you look back through history then any big potentially catastrophic event resulted in the same thinking!
Before the outbreak of WWII a minority of individuals through doubt onto the issue about re-arming, or other issues that would reduce their liberties and wealth.
If you read letters in magazines at the time, the issues were exactly the same then as they are now. A lot of complaining and whining! But luckily the majority do often have the sense to change.
As in most bullying there is accompanying hypocrisy. The most vocal seem to be those who drive cars. Stop using your cars now. No excuses. I don't own a car but cycle, it's dangerous but do-able.
The Global Warming affirmers remind me a bit of King Canute (though he was apparently being ironic.) Let's concentate on conservation of resources for it's own sake not this misguided campaign to deny an natural phenomenon. That's the only consolation I can find in the whole sad charade. Stop bullying us, you've no moral authority and dissent is the only liberty left to us in the face of your hypocritical ignorance. Oh, and in case you missed it - step one - sell your car.
soz, we're all pretty much agreed the temp's rising so we're all Global Warming affirmers - the fundamental cause is the issue. Carbon emissions or natural phenomenon. You buy the Carbon case, some of us don't. That doesn't mean we don't have green values. Sold your car yet? Thought not.
a drowning man will do everything in his power to keep his head above the water.....
we all agree there is a problem..what i dont understand is why we are not doing anything and everything in our power to solve it....
why do we have to "decide" what the single most probable cause is.....why not just get on with doing everything in our power, to not destroy the planet!
soz, we're all pretty much agreed the temp's rising so we're all Global Warming affirmers - the fundamental cause is the issue. Carbon emissions or natural phenomenon. You buy the Carbon case, some of us don't. That doesn't mean we don't have green values. Sold your car yet? Thought not.
I don't have a car to sell.
In fact no one in my closer family has a car to sell!
Originally posted by Jason, Stig of the Dump: a drowning man will do everything in his power to keep his head above the water.....
And a man who thinks his car is about to be taken off him will do everything in his power to try to hang onto it.
What we need to concentrate on is making real alternatives available first, and only then penalising people for not using them. So, for example, cities should only be allowed to impose a "congestion charge" if their public transport systems meet a certain standard, and congestion charging should be suspended in times of emergency.
Some of the problem lies in the privatisation of public transport. A lot of the integration that used to exist between buses and trains has now gone in certain cities. Councils need to be given much more of an incentive to make sure that these facilities are maintained and that private companies are obliged to fulfil them.
It's a shame we lost so many of our transport links in the sixties - I suppose the goverment was thinking forward to an age in which everyone would own and drive a car. I recently tried to do my bit by working out the most eco-friendly way to get to Bristol from mid-Wales - and failed when I couldn't even get as far as my nearest train station (25 miles away)!
i thought the great green debate was.. well..quite rubbish. was it just for that half hour live slot that the people were talking? seems to me that in the absence of our government taking any obvious kind of lead on this, its up to us to kick them up their backsides to get this shifting some.
and we need to get on the backs of big business and supermarkets until there sick of it and finally do the right thing. they could at least regulate the packaging better and they could all ban the throw away bags. get your pens out, get your keyboard out, and get writing to save yours and our life.
we at least need a full day, no, a week of people who work in the environmental field talking up what they know, including info about our own ecology on this island of ours. and we need the government to be present and we need to know whats being done now, and it all needs to be organised and coralled by fantastic comunicators who have insight into our situation enough to guide the debate.
well, what are YOU doing to make our planet, our environment a better place? do tell.
we have such amaising brains, we need to put them to best use. that being making life better for all, and not just the ones with the purse strings. ta.
I use public transport every week and when i sit waiting for the bus, i watch people that i can see will never give up their cars, without being forced to.
You can see it in their faces, they wouldn't want to have the hassle of buying real coats, proper winter clothing, using umbrellas etc.
Some probably like the idea of the UK getting warmer, so that they can wear t shirts and shorts all year round, despite some one some where else starving because of drought. Even one or two of my own work colleagues have said similar things.
Things are changing, but there is a distinct hard core of people that won't change until climate change has had a major impact on them or until they can see it isn't worth resisting anymore.
I thought the debate was all over the place. It just seemed to try to answer too many question in too short a time. I have a bad feeling that this kind of thing, while being aired with the best of intentions, may be more detrimental in the long run. To the average person it's too confusing and if people are confused they tend to do nothing and remain with the status quo.
I don't live in the UK, but I think any government needs to set out clear,simple goals for people i.e. get rid of plastic shopping bags (see my thread "would UK follow the Irish....), I don't know if you have grants or schemes for conversion to solar/wind power, etc. Anyway, I think if the government concentrated for one year on very specific things that would be "user friendly" (not immersed in red tape), that may be a step forward.
I believe that focus is the key when dealing with the public, and keep it simple, otherwise no one will listen.
As regards manufacturers, there needs to be a concerted "Euro" effort to get them to reduce their packaging. Manufacturers have a far more global impact then individual governments will ever have on the environment.
I would love to see the likes of L'Oreal for example run a campaign based on simple, less packaged products....."because we're worth it!!"....now, THAT would be a big step forward!!
