Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is

[RMCF]

There was a guy just on Matt Cooper show (missed 1st name but surname Kerry) talking about climate change, and he was the first to really tell it like it was.

Apparently the Gov is going to spend €15 million on educating us about how bad global warming is. Now unless you have been under a rock for the last 5 or 6 years you could not have missed the amazing hype about this.

I have always said we are wasting our time (added to the fact that I think a lot of it is overhyped just to get money out of us) as long as other countries make no effort.

Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?

If the stories of our imminent doom are true (which I believe they aren't) then we are all hammered as long as these 3 nations continue their ways.

 

[Teabag]

Are you saying that India & China has no right to an industrial revolution like the west had ?
The per-capita car ownership ratio in China is currently 30 cars to every 1000 people.

 

[badabing]

There was a guy just on Matt Cooper show (missed 1st name but surname Kerry) talking about climate change, and he was the first to really tell it like it was.

Apparently the Gov is going to spend €15 million on educating us about how bad global warming is. Now unless you have been under a rock for the last 5 or 6 years you could not have missed the amazing hype about this.

I have always said we are wasting our time (added to the fact that I think a lot of it is overhyped just to get money out of us) as long as other countries make no effort.

Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?

If the stories of our imminent doom are true (which I believe they aren't) then we are all hammered as long as these 3 nations continue their ways.

We are one of the worst. We can't say we care more than China or US regardless of Kyoto, lets clean up our own mess before getting on about the others

 

[RMCF]

Are you saying that India & China has no right to an industrial revolution like the west had ?
The per-capita car ownership ratio in China is currently 30 cars to every 1000 people.

Not at all.

Let them lash away, but I was saying that there is little point in the massive drive in tiny countries like Ireland when huge countries don't care about emissions and pollution.

 

[room305]

The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough (easily recovered) oil left in the world to satisfy the global warming doomsters predictions for 50 years from now.

The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism. Hence the dismissal of carbon sequestration as a solution.

 

[Dowee]

"Be the change you want to see in the World."

- Gandhi

 

[extopia]

by the time the big countries get around to doing anything about it, we'll be having nice hot summers in Ireland, so make the most of it and worry about your own back yard!

Ireland is on a latitude with Newfoundland. Our climate is temperate, thanks to the gulf stream. The likelihood is that the gulf stream will radically change as the Arctic icecap melts, to the extent that Ireland would be in real danger of losing its temperate status.

Skiing the Sugar Loaf, anyone?

 

[extopia]

The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough (easily recovered) oil left in the world to satisfy the global warming doomsters predictions for 50 years from now.

The problem is the "tipping point" - we're at the point where there's a danger of irreversible change.

There is a long lag between oil consumption and environmental effect. The "doomsters" are not predicting anything really - the effect has been there for the last 100 years, and oil reserves have nothing to do with it.

The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism. Hence the dismissal of carbon sequestration as a solution.

That's what George Bush has been saying for years. And even he's coming around now.

In response to the other posts, the fact that we're only a small country and there's only so much we can do is obviously correct - but you could take that argument down to the micro level in any of the big countries too. ("North Carolina is only a small state, so nothing we do here will make a difference" - that kind of thinking)

It's about behaviour change on a human level, an individual level. The good news is that it's not that hard, once you educate yourself as to what's happening and what's required.

It's almost too late to fix this problem.

Almost.

 

[ubiquitous]

Significant climate change has happened in every century in the past millennium. Oil and carbon emissions were hardly the cause of climate change in the 14th/15th/17th/19th centuries - why is it being attributed as such this time around?

 

[Teabag]

Not at all.

Let them lash away, but I was saying that there is little point in the massive drive in tiny countries like Ireland when huge countries don't care about emissions and pollution.

Thats a terrible viewpoint. Shouldn't we lead by example ? We have huge largely untapped renewable energy potential in Ireland (wind, water, solar) - if we can show that these clean energy sources can work, then perhaps the larger countries will follow suit.

The likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Germany have already shown the way. Why cant we ?

 

[diarmuidc]

The global warming movement is about Marxism rather than environmentalism.

It's not a "movement" it's science, and hence any reference to Marxims, Islamism, Capitalism or any other -ism is ridiculous.

Significant climate change has happened in every century in the past millennium. Oil and carbon emissions were hardly the cause of climate change in the 14th/15th/17th/19th centuries - why is it being attributed as such this time around?

Yes, you are right, maybe we should get some people who could study the science of these climate changes, "scientists" if you will, and ask them to form some committe and discussion groups and come to some conclusion as to the cause of these climate changes.

 

[elefantfresh]

I think the point that the OP is trying to make is that it seems futile us making a change when the largest contributers in the world are seeming to make little or no change.

 

[RMCF]

Thats a terrible viewpoint. Shouldn't we lead by example ? We have huge largely untapped renewable energy potential in Ireland (wind, water, solar) - if we can show that these clean energy sources can work, then perhaps the larger countries will follow suit.

The likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland, Germany have already shown the way. Why cant we ?

Sorry but although I realise your argument is all very admirable, the likes of China and India couldn't care less what small countries do, even if we set great examples. They are going to batter on building coal-fired power stations whether anybody likes it or not. And thats not my viewpoint - its whats actually happening now, every single day.

So if the likes of Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Finland etc have already shown the way, then why isn't the big polluters sitting up and taking note?

And by the way, where is all the solar potential in Ireland - I never see much of it

 

[RMCF]

Ireland is on a latitude with Newfoundland. Our climate is temperate, thanks to the gulf stream. The likelihood is that the gulf stream will radically change as the Arctic icecap melts, to the extent that Ireland would be in real danger of losing its temperate status.

Skiing the Sugar Loaf, anyone?

There is a possibility that you may be correct, but the effect you talk about (if it ever happens) will not happen over the next decade or two - it will take hundreds of years.

I have seen several very good documentaries that counteract all the doom and gloom stories, and basically the planet has cycles that happen over THOUSANDS and TENS OF THOUSANDS of years. Many very clever scientists believe that we are now just entering another cycle. And bear in mind that this cycle is incredibly gradual - it will take hundreds of years to show, so us and all our children and children's children will be long gone.

I think that too many people believe all the hype and scare stories that they are told too easily. Personally I think it is being hyped so much because of one simple thing -there's money in it !!!!

I have always had this thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if 'An Inconvenient Truth' is correct (and all the scare stories we are told) and the planet faces a pivotal point in the next 50 years, then why aren't draconian measures being taken RIGHT NOW to save us all? Why aren't all cars above 1.1 being banned from being produced, why are producers still allowed to fly spuds around the world when we can buy them locally, why are buildings allowed to be lit up like Xmas trees when empty ..... I could go on. Some will say "but you can't force people to drive small cars" etc, but if the future of this planet depended on it in the next 50 - 75 years, YES YOU CAN.

And thats why I believe the Gov's let us continue, but just to tax us more on our SUVs, our petrol, allow us to fly to Pargue for a weekend to get taxes off us, etc.

 

[annR]

Think how small Ireland is. And we have the likes of the US, India and China who couldn't care less about climate change. I read that China finish a new COAL powered power station EVERY DAY. How will anything small countries do change if the BIG countries continue to do whatever they want?

That's like saying who cares if I litter, there is so much litter around what difference does it make.

I would prefer to live in a country which takes responsibility for itself. I would prefer to take responsibility for myself.
Even the big countries could sit back and find some excuse to do nothing, let's hope they don't take that attitude.

 

[ubiquitous]

It's not a "movement" it's science, and hence any reference to Marxims, Islamism, Capitalism or any other -ism is ridiculous.

Oddly enough the link you quote says "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena."

How then can its work be classed as science?

Yes, you are right, maybe we should get some people who could study the science of these climate changes, "scientists" if you will, and ask them to form some committe and discussion groups and come to some conclusion as to the cause of these climate changes.

If this analysis hasn't already been done (and I have yet to hear any satisfactory account that it has) it really makes one wonder about the anount of "science" behind the IPCC.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

science

sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

[MOB]

This debate is not going to change the view of either side, but here's my tuppence worth anyway:

1. The existence of Global warming may now be said to be an agreed mainstream scientific consensus.

2. The IPCC is a scientific body; it does not carry out research; it does, among other things, review and evaluate scientific research carried out by others. I think its work can be classed as science, but I don't see that anything hangs on it. Its work is well known and easily researchable.

3. What - if anything - we can (or should) do to stop or moderate Global Warming is a far more vexed question. In a world where a substantial minority still dispute its existence, we clearly have a long way to go.

 

[ubiquitous]

In a world where a substantial minority still dispute its existence, we clearly have a long way to go.

I don't think it is true that a substantial minority dispute the existence of climate change. I certainly don't, even though I am strongly sceptical of what I see as the climate change industry. It is an accepted fact that the earth is currently getting warmer. What tends to be missed is that the earth is continually either getting warmer or colder, and that nature adapts accordingly. The big concern in the 1970s was the perception at the time that the earth was getting cooler. Temperatures have fluctuated so profoundly in Ireland during the last 500 years that it is hard to understand today how Oliver Cromwell could have died in the 1650s from malaria that he contracted in Ireland. If current global warming trends continue to the extent that malaria returns to Ireland, we will still only be at the same point of the cycle that we were at in 1650.

 

[MOB]

Sorry - I should have been clearer about what I meant. What I intended to convey is that there is a substantial minority who do not agree that the current warming is something outside the parameters of the 'normal' cyclical and other fluctuations which have occurred in the past, and who do not agree that it is of a wholly more serious nature.

 

[michaelm]

I don't think it is true that a substantial minority dispute the existence of climate change. I certainly don't, even though I am strongly sceptical of what I see as the climate change industry.

Ditto. Apparently Mars is warming too, without help from us. I find the ice-core data interesting - it apparently shows that there is a definite correlation between carbon levels and temperature, but that fluctuations in carbon levels lag about 400 years behind fluctuations in temperature.