Figaro, it's really a question of : "Do you like the earth the way it is?". If you do, then you don't want it to change radically. Of course, the planet isn't going to go away and nature will sort itself out, one way or another. The problem is, if you do like the earth the way it is, it's probably because you like your house where it is, you like the stuff that grows around you, you like your community how it is. If on the other hand, you don't mind living in a desert instead of a green land, don't mind your house being underwater, don't care that some of the animals you at least saw in the zoo don't exist anymore, don't care that there is no longer rainforest (at least where there was) and don't mind your community being taken over with flood migrants with a different modus vivendi and religion to yours - then clearly there is no problem. However, a lot of people go to war for less than this - so don't expect them to roll over when they find they need a bit more lebensraum. To take one very trivial example, if the temp. rises and the glaciers melt and it no longer snows on the mountains, there will be no more skiing (which is sad for me at least) and entire communities will die. Multiply that at many levels and you end up with one almighty shithouse. The earth isn't in jeopardy. The earth as we know it and love it is in jeopardy. As for what is going to happen to the earth and the sun in a few billion years, I couldn't give a toss. Nothing that looks currently like the human race will be around to worry about it.
I suspect we agree on the Greens. It is odd though, that if we all agree on not trawling fish to extinction and burning down forests, why people continue to do it. And if there weren't people sticking up for the oceans and forests, there would be even less action than there now is. As for the yoghurt-knitting, bearded, sandal wearing (with socks!) strain that you describe, sure, that is part of the Green lobby - and perhaps the most vocal part. But it's a simplification and a simplification that makes being a bit environmental easy to vilify. There are those who think we are at the edge of a precipice and that it is urgent that we do something - together. That would explain a quasi religious fervour. As far as I can see, if precipice there is, we have just slowed down a smidgeon our headlong rush towards it. But we certainly aren't in reverse gear. We might only have slowed the rate of acceleration of our headlong rush.
I fully understand all of that. The difference between you and me is that you think man-made pollution has made the difference and I don't. Like Imola, I've had to sit through an f-gas course and learn about the Kyoto protocol and all that shizzle, and it just don't add up to me. No-one has so far given me any definite facts and figures to prove that man has had any impact at all on the environment. Meanwhile in Africa, very poor people are told they can't have electricity in their town cos of the baby seals, or something - there can't be any man-made CO2 above Africa cos we won't let them have a toolbox...
There you go Figaro. Short Sharp Science: 50 reasons why global warming isn't natural I'm sorry but if you want to really understand the arguments for and against, there's no point listening to me. You just have to read around the subject like anything else and draw your own conclusions. But try and start at least from an open mind about it.
Reading just a few of these 'facts', it doesn't provide any answers at all, just an opposite opinion. Read the question on why CO2 lags behind temperature rise; the author doesn't disprove that at all, just continues to assert that higher CO2 levels means higher temperatures without any attempt to prove his words. It's just an opinion, same as mine. In others it suggests that deforestation is a higher cause of climate change, rather than the burning of fossil fuels. Fine, I'm happy with that, plant more trees, job done. But that is far from definitive evidence of humans killing the planet.
I think you have to click on all the links to get the gen behind the assertions. But you're right - it only points you in a direction. Frankly for any one of these, you have to do a certain amount of reading. And at the end of the day, finding out the truth about absolutely anything is a nightmare. I spend a lot of time reading and trying to get to the bottom of all sorts of things. It's never easy. Did the US government have any responsibility in 911? Was David Kelly bumped off? What did the security forces get up to in Northern Ireland? They are all interesting questions and even after reading around the subject, you can only have suspicions about anything, but no one is going to give you a definitive answer. Theres's a good book you could read about some of this: Amazon.com: Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History: David Aaronovitch: Books Don't expect to find gospel in this either though.
Stop burning forests, stop eating methane producing meat, and if you feel really radical stop using fossil fuels. Will it help? No, there are too many people who do not think it is their problem, or who are too poor to be able to take the more expensive alternative. Let's all hope our kids are brighter than we are when it comes to finding an answer. Please note this comes from a director of the first refrigeration company in this country to fully embrace a more globally friendly refrigerant, no it is not the answer, but at least we are trying.
I tried. I got through the first half dozen questions before realising there was no 'proof' at all, just alternative views. My issue is that I don't want to pay tax on views; if someone can actually prove without any question of doubt that my actions are damaging the planet I'd take a far more serious interest in making atonement for my sins (but they still don't need to tax me to prove the point...), but I've yet to see any conclusive proof that we are doing any damage at all. I remember twenty or more years ago scientists saying the sea levels were going to rise by 18 feet, then some time later they admitted they made a mistake and it would only be 18 centimetres. 18 millimetres would maybe be nearer the mark, and there'd still be no proof it was us causing it. The whole climate change movement has more to do with a few people acquiring power than an entire species changing their ways. Climate has become a religion, and I'm a non-believer. Mother Earth will do as she pleases, and there ain't a damn thing we can do to stop her. We are so inconsequential, yet believe we're so powerful. If a new ice age is imminent there won't be a thing we can do to stop it, the best we can hope to do is adapt, evolve. Man-made climate change, my arse.
(1) I agree. (2) I disagree. Mankind should set about devising a practical solution. That's what humans do. (3) I don't care if climate change is man-made or not - that's academic. If the climate is really changing, and if the change will be detrimental, action needs to be invented [see 2] regardless whether it is anthropogenic.
Concerning the "Poll", I have to say that straw polls are wildly inaccurate and unconvincing. Even public opinion polls taken professionally are approximations at best. If you ask a sample of 1,000 people whether they are greedy and stupid, they all answer NO, even if most of them are. Real questions are less clear-cut, of course, but the principle still applies.
If you ask 1000 people in the street what they watch on TV the answers will be Sport, News, Wildlife Documentaries. Which explains the career success of Ant & Dec and Cilla Black.
I don't expect statistically significant anything. I was just interested in where the sentiment lies vaguely on this forum. 27 answers aren't much, but they are a little better than nothing and I am surprised by that 3/4 of people don't think it's our problem. I wouldn't be surprised if those figures remained roughly similar if we asked 100 or 200 people. Polls shouldn't split %s, but they give you a general direction to work with.
I still think that we are hugely governed by emotion. People find it easier to refute climate change existing, or if it exists being a problem, because it is more comforting and cheaper that way. If it were massively good news, I bet that opinions would be a lot less sceptical. The earth though, doesn't care what we think about it, one way or the other. It is interesting how willing people are to put their faith in the status quo, rather than the fact that the world is changing. At best, they can't really think of proofs that suggest that the world isn't changing. But instead of having an open mind, they bring it all down to religion and articles of faith. it shouldn't be a matter of faith or religious certainty one way or the other. I would expect people to say more like: "it's possible, but I have yet to be convinced". That seems to me to be a more appropriate mindset than "it's definitely a scam promulgated by nefarious people for their own interests" - for which there really isn't any evidence. My own view is that on the balance of the arguments I've heard, I think that climate change is happening and we are to blame. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But if that is the reality, sitting about hoping isn't going to achieve much.
I think a lot more people would be open to the idea of working towards cleaning up pollution if it didn't hit them in the pocket at every turn.
I see this as a completely different question to the global warming / climate change debate. Polution has an enormous impact upon our environment which is increasingly being recognised and rightly factored into what we pay for our goods and services, the poluter should pay. Unfortunately it is also presenting the unscrupulous with the oportunity to rip off the unsuspecting and 'green' taxes are a classic example.
What is "pollution"? Consider the following examples of air pollutants: * unburnt hydrocarbons * carbon monoxide * oxides of nitrogen * oxides of sulphur * ozone * tetraethyl lead * CFCs These are all harmful and avoidable substances. For each of them, the harm was proved clearly, and steps have been taken successfully to reduce or eliminate the pollution - without ruining the economy of the world in the process. So far so good. IMHO trying to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant is an absurdity. You might as well say that breath, or water vapour, are pollutants.
