Well, all of you seem to have physics degrees or the like. Well done. Does that mean I have to go back to school in order to learn how to live my life?
Whoopy-doo-dah-day! Global warming is bunkum. So I can dump my bike, bomb around the country in a car, jet off abroad whenever I feel like it, and get ugly, obese, and patronising like the rest of them.
Because that's what we're talking about. Lifestyles. Or am I wrong? Fine, do a programme that challenges the prevailing view of climate change (free speech and all that); but don't use as your preface, summaries, and conclusion the suggestion that we can all continue living these fast, hectic, and essentially unhealthy lifestyles. Because, by so doing the science is immediately politicised, just like the science it is supposed to be challenging.
Do I cycle everywhere because I think it's gonna impede the rise of the oceans some centuries hence? No I don't. I do it because I've got a social conscience. More pedestrians and cyclists = safer, more cohesive neighbourhood + healthier, happier individuals. Simple: didn't need a degree to work that one out.
I'm aware of the patronising and potentially dangerous effect particularly middle-class environmetalism has on majority world populations struggling to compete in an environment dominated by minority world nation states. But, again, this is politicising the science. A programme on the validity of the nation state, a concept imposed upon the majority by the minority, would be helpful. And all the assumptions surrounding industrialisation and "development" need to be explored: longevity, education, health. Is it really the model for a decent society? The effects of nationalisation upon semi-nomadic, pastoral and hunter-gatherer lifestyles should not be ignored either. The effects of a non-industrialised geographic area upon its inhabitants, highlighted very selectively by Swindle, were not dissimilar to those experienced by the new urbanising masses of Britain's factories, mines, and slums in the nineteenth century. Wey hey, so we've got it cushy as a consequence (not to mention all the slavery, and colonial exloitation), but can we simply pass off all those miserable lives as necessary sacrifices?
All I'm saying is, if you want a genuinely scientific debate (and this is to both sides), keep politics out of it. There are many good reasons to live a "green" life.
While I don't disagree with that, one could argue that we should not allow the government to continue to raise taxes based on the grounds of something that is simply not true.
But the whole subject of taxes is tied up in wider debates. Should we have taxes at all? If so, at what level and for what purpose? However, with the status quo, the plausibility of green taxation is a valid question. I just feel we sometimes allow our questions to be dictated by how things are rather than how things should be. Don't know if that make sense to you?
Of course, as Swindle mentioned, political decisions made upon the uncertain science of the environmental brigade, is precautionary, following a long, mainly European tradition. Maybe, that's why it sits so much easier with Europeans than Brits. We've traditionally been so much more empirically minded, always demanding proof for everything. We are a part of the EU, however, for better or worse (mostly worse in my humble opinion), so the precautionary principle has caught on particularly with the politically correct. It might be argued by some leading politicians, therefore, that scientific opinion being undecided on the subject of climate change does not necessarily equate to political indecision or inaction.
Personally, I think this is perhaps the one area where being a part of the EU has been to the advantage. Might as well make the best of a bad job, hey?
You're very clever, then, Spooky, and well done again! Got me down to a T. But the implication is in your mind of course. I would have told you exactly what I do think had you politely asked me what I meant by the phrase. Instead, I'll imagine that you did just that.
I believe that people who bomb around thoughtlessly in cars have little or no social conscience. If you want me to clarify any of that further, just ask, and I'm sure I'll oblige.
I agree with the original post. This programme could have actually contributed to the debate about the science of global warming if it didn't start politicising the issue so massively. There didn't need to be any mention of the Third World, or the funding of scientists - a scientist who comes out with a credible study against anthropogenic global warming is not going to find it difficult to get funding.
As for the point about environmentalists being against African development, that is a terrible argument. First of all the 'Contraction and Convergence' argument to combat carbon emissions allows Africans to substantially develop industrially. Secondly, are we supposed to believe that without the solar panel powering the fridge they showed, somehow that person would magically have access to conventionally produced electricity?
There were some small aspects of the programme that have led me to further reading, notably to the Danish study on the sun's effects on cloud formation, but on the whole it was laughably biased and hypocritical.
I did think that elements of the documentary, such as the African scenes, were not very strong, journalistically that is. However, I'm the sort to believe anything that sounds clever, and most of the science sounded clever enough to my unscientific ears. Only, I know that there will be an equally rigorous response from the "other side" of the debate, and I will be swayed again in my own opinion.
The crux of my original post was that science should not dictate the way a society lives and breathes. I fear Swindle may have done major damage to the whole "live green" cause, which is a noble one (if I may assert such a thing), and, in my mind anyway, has more to do with the immediate environment than the global one.
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: You're very clever, then, Spooky, and well done again! Got me down to a T. But the implication is in your mind of course. I would have told you exactly what I do think had you politely asked me what I meant by the phrase. Instead, I'll imagine that you did just that.
I believe that people who bomb around thoughtlessly in cars have little or no social conscience. If you want me to clarify any of that further, just ask, and I'm sure I'll oblige.
Well as I bomb around in a car thoughtlessly and with no social conscience, as you put it. Put in in a nice box there. on the other hand, I do try not to fly if I can help it and most of my holidays (family of four) are in the vehicle to France Spain etc. So maybe I do have a conscience.
Ididn't agree with the Nazi comment perhaps Environmental fascist would have been more apt. Just because you own a bike doesn't give you the moral high ground as you seem to think. Also, owning a bike does not imply that you are more enviromentaly aware or concerned than someone who doesn't.
Sadly this seems to be typical of "fashionable" greenamaniacs.
Originally posted by jamoboggins: I agree with the original post. This programme could have actually contributed to the debate about the science of global warming if it didn't start politicising the issue so massively. There didn't need to be any mention of the Third World, or the funding of scientists - a scientist who comes out with a credible study against anthropogenic global warming is not going to find it difficult to get funding.
My impression on watching the programme was that the makers of the documentary tried to cover all their bases and anticipate any protest by proponents of the 'other' opinion.
I also thought it was very convenient to blame the environmental movement for holding back Africa, although of course it's a joke. I think Africa was placed in the position it is in long before the term 'climate change' was even coined.
The whole subject is fairly recent. Until a few decades ago nobody seemed to even be aware that our way of life had any impact on nature. I think acid rain was the first sign visible to everyone with eyes that something wasn't right. Of course, in tackling a new issue in ways that require a radical departure from the perceived truth of the day, mistakes are made. That is how humans learn. The difference is between making honest mistakes that produce undesired results and intentionally acting in a way that produces the same effect. And as far as Africa's poverty is concerned, I think it is much fairer to point the finger at GATT, at the WTO and at all those cosy Free Trade Agreements that are proliferating around the world, conceding little gains to the ACPs and LDCs of this world in return for making sure that free trade only effectively works in one direction.
Getting back to the environmental debate, doesn't anybody else think that this whole carbon-offsetting is totally beside the point? All it does again is shift the onus. It follows the time-honoured capitalist maxime that if you have the money, you pay someone else to do the hard work of changing things so you don't need to and you still get to have a clear conscience. The whole principle makes me sick although at the moment it is probably the best way to achieving anything. However, I see the danger of it becoming a permanent fixture that in the end simply shifts things around to make the books look good but doesn't make any real difference. The real perpetrators are the big companies, and they have the most money available to shift their burden onto others.
What a lark! I've told you, Spooky, what I believe is the more socially responsible way to live. I haven't passed judgement on you personally, but you've decided to wear a cap that wasn't designed for you. Not my problem. Neither is it my problem that you then procede to create a load of caps to specifically fit me, when you don't even know me. It kind of lowers the tone don't you think?
OK, so you own a car. Great, so do most of my family and friends. That doesn't make them irresponsible people. However, I would honestly have to condemn irresponsible driving such as speeding through residential neighbourhoods, splashing pedestrians (which can be avoided in rainy weather by simply slowing down), overtaking cyclists at speed and with little room to spare (contrary to the Highway Code)...
Yes, I know there's such a thing as irresponsible cycling also, before you get in there! But I hope you get my point. I never did condemn the possession or use of a car. I can and do condemn, as I hope you do too, the irresponsible use.
At the risk of again being accused of fascism (is it really any different to calling me a Nazi?) or maintaining a moral high ground, can I give you some advice?
Maybe don't assume you know what everyone is "implying". Might be nice to just ask them what they mean instead. And don't take things personally unless they're directed specifically at you. We're in virtual reality here. "den a'n bys ma" has no more relevence to the real world than "spooky060". If you take it so personally it will eat you up, and swallow you!
Don't get me wrong, I think carbon-offsetting is the only way to get some compliance with legislation, and it is cleverly based on the only language big business understands - financial incentives and penalties. It still reminds me of the medieaval absolution trade of the Catholic Church. Sin a little, pay a little, and you'll still go to heaven. Sin a lot, pay a lot, and even you will be spared hell.
Dead right about the offsetting - if you have the money you can move the problem and somebody's going to be making a lot of money out of it.
Was an article in this weeks New Scientist about this very theme - i'm always a bit suspicious of these schemes - i.e how much money goes where and to do what - it appears not to be the best way to tackle the issue from my reading of it.
i am an ecologist working in nature conservation for many years. I have been to both the Arctic and Antarctic and spoken with biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographers on the subject of climate change. The 'swindle' programme mirrors, almost word for word, the opinions exchanged between us. The idea the humans have either the theoretical knowledge or technical ability to put a stop to climate change in the face of the huge cosmological and geological forces that have controlled our planet from the start is agrrogant nonsense.
Totally agree with "so is it true?" about the offsetting farce. So basically a lot of mostly white "Westerners" and a few black elites have all the mobility and power of gods and goddesses, while the majority world stays put in their godforsaken lands, cooing with delight at Madonna & Co when they're not rubbing their hands raw with hard labour. Sick. I don't even think it's a temporary remedy. Lets face it, the foundations of our success are rotten. The structure needs complete demolition. Then we can start over. Impractical? Maybe. But so is living in a house that shows every sign of imminently toppling on your head!
Originally posted by myktaylor: i am an ecologist working in nature conservation for many years. I have been to both the Arctic and Antarctic and spoken with biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographers on the subject of climate change. The 'swindle' programme mirrors, almost word for word, the opinions exchanged between us. The idea the humans have either the theoretical knowledge or technical ability to put a stop to climate change in the face of the huge cosmological and geological forces that have controlled our planet from the start is agrrogant nonsense.
I'm glad you posted that - real world opions count for a lot.
den a'n bys ma
One Permutation you omitted was splashing cyclists. you make the propect Unexpectedly appealing
It's good to get some real facts from someone who knows what they are talking about, rather than gibberish from folk with a political angle to grind.....
Originally posted by den a'n bys ma: Totally agree with "so is it true?" about the offsetting farce. So basically a lot of mostly white "Westerners" and a few black elites have all the mobility and power of gods and goddesses, while the majority world stays put in their godforsaken lands, cooing with delight at Madonna & Co when they're not rubbing their hands raw with hard labour. Sick. I don't even think it's a temporary remedy. Lets face it, the foundations of our success are rotten. The structure needs complete demolition. Then we can start over. Impractical? Maybe. But so is living in a house that shows every sign of imminently toppling on your head!
Originally posted by myktaylor: i am an ecologist working in nature conservation for many years. I have been to both the Arctic and Antarctic and spoken with biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographers on the subject of climate change. The 'swindle' programme mirrors, almost word for word, the opinions exchanged between us. The idea the humans have either the theoretical knowledge or technical ability to put a stop to climate change in the face of the huge cosmological and geological forces that have controlled our planet from the start is agrrogant nonsense.
You seem to be implying that we can't stop climate change in the face of (because of?) cosmological and geo forces ? Are you denying that its man made or not ? If you accept it is man made then there are a whole suite of responses available to the world to act upon. If not - well i think you're plain wrong.
I would just like to add that the single most important thing we can do for the environment and life on this planet is to stop doubling our population every 50 years or so.
Originally posted by myktaylor: i am an ecologist working in nature conservation for many years. I have been to both the Arctic and Antarctic and spoken with biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographers on the subject of climate change. The 'swindle' programme mirrors, almost word for word, the opinions exchanged between us. The idea the humans have either the theoretical knowledge or technical ability to put a stop to climate change in the face of the huge cosmological and geological forces that have controlled our planet from the start is agrrogant nonsense.
You seem to be implying that we can't stop climate change in the face of (because of?) cosmological and geo forces ? Are you denying that its man made or not ? If you accept it is man made then there are a whole suite of responses available to the world to act upon. If not - well i think you're plain wrong.
My point is that climate change is a natural process and tha human activity has little or no influence on that. the history of our plants teaches that environments change, species adapt or die out. We should be concentrating on adapting to it, not a futile attempt to stop it.
Originally posted by myktaylor: I would just like to add that the single most important thing we can do for the environment and life on this planet is to stop doubling our population every 50 years or so.
Unless we find a reasonable to do this, everything else we do will be a waste of time.
I have studied a little about population growth ands it is posited that world pops will peak at approx 9 to 12 billion people - there are more than enough resources - if used sensibly - to support that level of population.
Originally posted by myktaylor: i am an ecologist working in nature conservation for many years. I have been to both the Arctic and Antarctic and spoken with biologists, geologists, meterologists and oceanographers on the subject of climate change. The 'swindle' programme mirrors, almost word for word, the opinions exchanged between us. The idea the humans have either the theoretical knowledge or technical ability to put a stop to climate change in the face of the huge cosmological and geological forces that have controlled our planet from the start is agrrogant nonsense.
You seem to be implying that we can't stop climate change in the face of (because of?) cosmological and geo forces ? Are you denying that its man made or not ? If you accept it is man made then there are a whole suite of responses available to the world to act upon. If not - well i think you're plain wrong.
My point is that climate change is a natural process and tha human activity has little or no influence on that. the history of our plants teaches that environments change, species adapt or die out. We should be concentrating on adapting to it, not a futile attempt to stop it.
Ok thats fine - i just wasn't sure if you were saying that it was man made or not. Having looked at some of the evidence and studied it in some depth - i'm confident the rise in CO2 and temperature is man made.
