Why global warming can't be a conspiracy... and why denial can
-
The underlying problem here is not that there is or isn't solid evidence of climate change. The first problem is in the way that the evidence is being presented to the general public who are then expected to swallow it without a murmur. Anyone that demures or questions the 'evidence' is derided and insulted becuase they plainly either haven't read or don't understand the science. The second and bigger problem is in attempting to explain climate change as something that is all mankinds fault and, therefore, only we can do anything about it. At first sight this argument has merit. After all, look at all of the pollution we appear to throw into the atmosphere. Surely that must be causing it all? Or the way that we denude rain forests and extract minerals leaving huge scars on the face of the earth. Even if it were all our fault it may be that there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Worse, if it is nothing to do with us and we attempt to reverse it that may make things far worse in the long run. Personally I am in no doubt that the climate undergoes constant change. Perhaps we are adding to that. Perhaps not. However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable then we will remain essentially deadlocked and nothing will change and no real decisions can be made. It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable
Sometimes, taking a system as complex as weather, and making it 'simple to understand', means making simplifications and generalisations.
digital man wrote:
It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
At least in part because there's vested interests on both sides, so when one side presents a simplified generalisation, the other side looks for specifics that contradict it, so they can fight it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It sounds like two things happened: 1 - the plant ceased to be profitable in operation 2 - the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme, introduced to drive down the emissions of CO2, a GHG. If, say, Tata shuts down a modern, low emission, 'Redcar' plant in Europe, it receives carbon credits from the EU for the CO2 it will no longer emit. If Tata then builds a 'Redcar' plant in India, it gets carbon credits from the UN because the emissions from the plant are within the UN's emissions target. So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Fair enough. I was asking a question, not making an accusation, thanks for the answer. So, tree ring data is another thing that shows that human activity is causing harm to natural patterns ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Could be, but given we haven't destroyed a planetary ecosystem before there's no way to be entirely sure. The biggest thing that the deniers have is that we can't be entirely sure what will happen. The facts fairly plainly say 'Something bad', but quantifying that isn't terribly easy when bad for one region cancels out another when everything is accounted for in a single number. It's a problem with the mindset that only considers what it believes to be entirely true. The likely result can be completely ignored because it isn't completely proven.
-
Could be, but given we haven't destroyed a planetary ecosystem before there's no way to be entirely sure. The biggest thing that the deniers have is that we can't be entirely sure what will happen. The facts fairly plainly say 'Something bad', but quantifying that isn't terribly easy when bad for one region cancels out another when everything is accounted for in a single number. It's a problem with the mindset that only considers what it believes to be entirely true. The likely result can be completely ignored because it isn't completely proven.
Well, the real issue is that on one side, you have people who want business as usual, on the other, you have people who would like to see a return to subsistence farming, which they've somehow romanticised. A friend said to me 'I've decided to believe in global warming, even if it's not true, why not stop pumping poison in the air'. Well, the answer is, no-one is randomly pumping poison, and pollution is the cost we pay for some of the benefits of our society. A greater awareness of cleaner options, and a discussion of how best to benefit humanity, that is, if we're going to do something about AGW, what can we do that has the best cost/benefit ratio, seems to me to be the sane approach. Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme, introduced to drive down the emissions of CO2, a GHG. If, say, Tata shuts down a modern, low emission, 'Redcar' plant in Europe, it receives carbon credits from the EU for the CO2 it will no longer emit. If Tata then builds a 'Redcar' plant in India, it gets carbon credits from the UN because the emissions from the plant are within the UN's emissions target. So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme,
Yes, but it's one step removed. If AGW is happening or not ( and it is, at least on some level ), if it's a threat to us or not, those questions are not answered by Carbon Credits, Carbon Credits are a political step designed to deal with AGW. Yes, there's a chain there, but if we did not have Carbon Credits, we would still have AGW.
Bob Emmett wrote:
So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Which is an indication of the insanity of carbon credits. But, that doesn't say much about AGW, it just tells you that people are dumb.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, the real issue is that on one side, you have people who want business as usual, on the other, you have people who would like to see a return to subsistence farming, which they've somehow romanticised. A friend said to me 'I've decided to believe in global warming, even if it's not true, why not stop pumping poison in the air'. Well, the answer is, no-one is randomly pumping poison, and pollution is the cost we pay for some of the benefits of our society. A greater awareness of cleaner options, and a discussion of how best to benefit humanity, that is, if we're going to do something about AGW, what can we do that has the best cost/benefit ratio, seems to me to be the sane approach. Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
fat_boy wrote:
Why would Tata buy british steel (Chorous) and then close it down? Wheres the profut?
Tata bought Corus early in 2007 when there was a demand for steel. Corus (Redcar) had a 10 year contract to supply 4 customers with 78% of its output, with 7 years left to run. When the global market collapsed, the 4 customers simultaneously cancelled their contracts. Wham - excess capacity of 78% overnight. Attempts were made to find alternative customers for their output, failing that, a buyer for the plant. The glut in steel meant there were no buyers for the plant or its product. Regardless of Carbon Credits, there were sound commercial reasons for buying Corus, and there was a sound commercial reason to close the Redcar plant.
fat_boy wrote:
Its in the carbon credits.
I don't think Tata bought Corus with the aim of closing Redcar, and enjoying the benefits of carbon trading. But it would be a strange company, indeed, that did not play the idiotic schemes concocted by the EU and the UN to their advantage. If the Brazilians had been successful in acquiring Corus, and, inevitably, had closed down Redcar, who in the IPCC would you have scapegoated?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Yeah, sure, lets run our industries on a short term view. We need dontneed steel this week, lets close the plant, when we do, we can just buy it form abroad! Seriously, the way countries are run today is pathetic. China, one of the few countries capable of mature thought, has been buying and stockpiling vast amounts of resources while they are cheap. OF ocurse in a few years when the market is back to normal they wil then be even more competetive. Good old UK just farts around from one knee jerk crisis response to another. Its pathetic. Look at Gordo selling off the govt shares in the banks! Why! Wait til they have gone up in value. Might even MAKE somn emoney for the UK tax payer!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It sounds like two things happened: 1 - the plant ceased to be profitable in operation 2 - the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW
Eh? You just stated ONE of the reasons is entirely to do with AGW!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
On the other hand, while NASA is (correctly) stating that some of the claims and predictions being made could well be wrong ( which is what scientists do, are they saying they are DELIBERATELY wrong ? ), the CSIRO is publishing it's data on temperature change, etc, in Australia because they are concerned that while they have been observing climate change for a long time before the debate started, it worries them that a lot of people are still debating if there is any change happening at all, when the people who have access to the data, have known without doubt that it is changing for some time. There's a gap between the people who have access to the data, and the people who want to argue the religion. I have a friend who is a CSIRO scientist, as it happens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yeah, sure, lets run our industries on a short term view. We need dontneed steel this week, lets close the plant, when we do, we can just buy it form abroad! Seriously, the way countries are run today is pathetic. China, one of the few countries capable of mature thought, has been buying and stockpiling vast amounts of resources while they are cheap. OF ocurse in a few years when the market is back to normal they wil then be even more competetive. Good old UK just farts around from one knee jerk crisis response to another. Its pathetic. Look at Gordo selling off the govt shares in the banks! Why! Wait til they have gone up in value. Might even MAKE somn emoney for the UK tax payer!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You know why that is ? Democracy. We let companies act in their own short term interest and let our overall national plan change with every election. I'm not saying I like communism, but it's getting the job done.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yeah, sure, lets run our industries on a short term view. We need dontneed steel this week, lets close the plant, when we do, we can just buy it form abroad! Seriously, the way countries are run today is pathetic. China, one of the few countries capable of mature thought, has been buying and stockpiling vast amounts of resources while they are cheap. OF ocurse in a few years when the market is back to normal they wil then be even more competetive. Good old UK just farts around from one knee jerk crisis response to another. Its pathetic. Look at Gordo selling off the govt shares in the banks! Why! Wait til they have gone up in value. Might even MAKE somn emoney for the UK tax payer!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Yeah, sure, lets run our industries on a short term view. We need dontneed steel this week, lets close the plant, when we do, we can just buy it form abroad!
That's the way the global market works, and if governments distort the market with Carbon Trading ... But you are thinking of a planned economy, perhaps? Planned by whom? Would you wish to live in a country whose economy was planned by any of our 'professional' (i.e. paid amateur) politicians?
fat_boy wrote:
China, one of the few countries capable of mature thought
So you want a planned economy run by the mafia?
fat_boy wrote:
Good old UK just farts around from one knee jerk crisis response to another. Its pathetic.
Yup. Too much notice of the media, desperate to cling to power.
fat_boy wrote:
Look at Gordo selling off the govt shares in the banks! Why! Wait til they have gone up in value. Might even MAKE somn emoney for the UK tax payer!
Should have done a Sweden on the failed banks, and cleared out their debts through bankruptcy, not bailed them out with taxpayers' money. Painful, but largely over by now.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.