No question about it, the real problem with AGW is the messengers, bottom line, no matter what the reality, most of us do not want to surrender our destiny into the hands of these self seeking fanatics.
Even if I were to believe that AGW is the reason for warming, I would not want to sacrifice development on account of it. It sounds to me that fear of GW is simply fear of change, the ultimate Nimby cause, determined to pursue the futile cause of attempting preserve a moment for ever of a world in constant flux.
There is nothing new in this, Stonehenge, Meso-America, the Egyptians and; no doubt, countless other cultures have been typified by hierarchies that establish their legitimacies by claiming to be able to control the weather and thus deliver salvation to mankind. For a while these claims worked whilst climate maintained a status quo, sooner or later however the climate changes and “the saviours of mankind” are torn to shreds by an enraged populace. This is something AGW’ers should bear very sharply in mind.
No doubt Natural Climate change does produce many challenges, but these should be tackled as just that and targeted specifically, rather than wasting trillions trying to appease an angry Earth God.
The Earth changes and we need to get over it, yes it may mean that things change, but things are always changing and this is just a new set of variables factored into the equation.
A warmer Earth and a Higher Sea may well drown some specks, it may however also open up currently frozen or land locked deserts to temperate conditions and habitability.
We are an adaptive species so lets stop whinging and start adapting, not give ourselves over to those who propose the most regressive of policies, none of which are really new in substance and which have been proved wrong countless times throughout human history.
I observe a silence so I raise the question again. Will politicians in EU in general and UK in particular who are out to save the world will allow Bangladeshi's to come into EU without immigration controls, in case Bangladesh goes under water?
What is your view Robbie? Would you vote for such a policy and actively canvas for such a policy to your local MP? Global warming is real and so is the danger to Bangladesh so let's not skip around the issue
Originally posted by What's in your mind: I observe a silence so I raise the question again. Will politicians in EU in general and UK in particular who are out to save the world will allow Bangladeshi's to come into EU without immigration controls, in case Bangladesh goes under water?
Blimey, give us a chance. I was reading this 2004 Guardian article about that Pentagon report by a CIA consultant that predicts the effects of climate-change on US national security.
Originally posted by Sampanviking: No question about it, the real problem with AGW is the messengers, bottom line, no matter what the reality, most of us do not want to surrender our destiny into the hands of these self seeking fanatics.
Even if I were to believe that AGW is the reason for warming, I would not want to sacrifice development on account of it. It sounds to me that fear of GW is simply fear of change, the ultimate Nimby cause, determined to pursue the futile cause of attempting preserve a moment for ever of a world in constant flux.
There is nothing new in this, Stonehenge, Meso-America, the Egyptians and; no doubt, countless other cultures have been typified by hierarchies that establish their legitimacies by claiming to be able to control the weather and thus deliver salvation to mankind. For a while these claims worked whilst climate maintained a status quo, sooner or later however the climate changes and “the saviours of mankind” are torn to shreds by an enraged populace. This is something AGW’ers should bear very sharply in mind.
No doubt Natural Climate change does produce many challenges, but these should be tackled as just that and targeted specifically, rather than wasting trillions trying to appease an angry Earth God.
The Earth changes and we need to get over it, yes it may mean that things change, but things are always changing and this is just a new set of variables factored into the equation.
A warmer Earth and a Higher Sea may well drown some specks, it may however also open up currently frozen or land locked deserts to temperate conditions and habitability.
We are an adaptive species so lets stop whinging and start adapting, not give ourselves over to those who propose the most regressive of policies, none of which are really new in substance and which have been proved wrong countless times throughout human history.
I believe that we don't need governments or leaders to solve this, so agree with the shoot the messengers who want to tax us. However their message is probably true.
My dad doesn't believe any of the global warming, but he's still done a lot of the things below - as he's tight!
The message I'd like to say is don't be afraid to change a light bulb. A CFL will save £25 or more in it's life time.
Don't be afraid to switch energy provider to a green tariff. It costs little if nothing more (depending on if you switched to someone cheaper already).
Don't be afraid to get your room thermostat installed in the lounge (where you sit) instead of the hall.
Don't be afraid to install a condensing boiler when your current one packs up (but don't rush out to swap it).
Don't be afraid to cycle to work (or use your free bus pass in my Dad's case) - and potentially save loads of money (in tax) if you can get rid of the car - although if too many people get the idea they'll start taxing cycles!
Market forces are what matters, and I've changed my opinion after a good beer chat with Dad and brother last night and an article in the economist magazine. They should stop ***** around giving out grants for eco energy - it's almost cheap enough for early adopters to get on board. Their grants are distorting the market, and stopping people from buying untill they get their hands on a grant.
What you should be afraid of is greenland melting and sending northern Europe into an ice age within 10 years (of it melting - not from now). You'd need to shift most of Europe down to Africa - or Southern Spain. Maybe that's no bad thing - as it would immediately solve African's poverty problem. The influx of money would certainly get spread around a bit.
In fact Europe should start a franchise in Africa. Let us take over running a country - make it attractive to Europeans and it will become the new Costa's. I can't wait :-).
Originally posted by What's in your mind: What is your view Robbie? Would you vote for such a policy and actively canvas for such a policy to your local MP? Global warming is real and so is the danger to Bangladesh so let's not skip around the issue
Sorry, we seem to be in crossover.
Well my opinion is to combat climate change by reducing CO2 emissions thus hopefully ensuring that there isn't the kind of flooding to result in millions of climate refugees.
However if there is a catastrophe, I would hope that all countries in the world would take there share of refugees, including the UK. But I wouldn't recommend flying 40 million people to the UK would I.
But it is your science that says we may have already crossed the tipping point. Also as discussed in the forum already there is no real mechanism to control for CO2 (and if you are insisting otherwise, you are being dishonest). So according to your science Bangladesh is already doomed perhaps
So why should our politician hesitate in taking Bangladeshi's in EU? Especially as they are the ones 'leading' the fight against global warming?
Globalisation is all about the free movements of Goods, Capital and Labour. So far we have no problem with goods and Capital, but Labour has proved far more problematic, mainly due to the restrictions of the Nation State.
Now don't get me wrong, I support Globalisation and I support the Nation State, and I am the first person to admit to the dichotomy and contradictions of supporting both views. I think it is a common position for many people.
If we are seeing temperature increase and full Esostatic Sea Level Rise, then obviously people will need to move to higher and dryer ground. Under those circumstances I think our view of the Nation State would alter dramatically, after it is shown that not only can it no longer cater for our developed economic needs but also no longer able to supply our basic security needs as well.
It will be a major shift in thinking and a hard one for very many people to come to terms with. Only one thing can be held with certianty, and that is that humanity will not allow itself to drown for the benefit of artifical barriers.
Fortunatly I think we can be confident that these physical changes will occur slowly and that as some lands deteriorate and are lost that others will improve and be gained. This alone will provide a positive imputus for change just as the loss of Bangledesh and other low lying areas will provide a negative one.
Well I say let it come, our current Political model is still based in the 19th Century and supports a Political Outlook wholly at odds with the needs of 21st century citizens.
I appreciate your Gracious response Robbie, but there is little noble in my view, just an acceptance of the consequences of a changing reality.
My point though, is that I beleive theis process will be eased by addressing the problem of mass population displacement as a problem of mass population displacement, rather than by prefacing it with the accusation "its all our fault"
In short, whether we have man made or natural warming, there are enough good reasons to adopt many conservationist and economy measures, without the need of the guilt trip and gross invasion of privacy etc.
