Burn the Heretics?

[coasty]

Read this interesting article in Times online and wondered what the assembled experts here think.

Personally I am uneasy with the wholesale adoption of the Greenhouse gas issue. However I think its well overdue that mankind cleans up its act. We as a species are dumping to much onto the planet and it will affect the future generations, be that chemical pollutants or invasive species or the many other problems we create,

What does peeve me is the burn the heretic approach to anyone who doesnt just fall in with the politically correct thinking.

I thought that the article poses some interesting questions.

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change - Times Online

[muscardinus]

Interesting stuff, but then the guy who wrote this article - Nigel Calder - has a book to flog, doesn't he?

[pressld2]

Agreed, very interesting although a bit off-kilter in suggesting we should ask for a tax rebate if it turns out that man-made greenhouse gases were not that big a factor in climate change. As I've said before, the arguments over how much effect greenhouse gases are having is ultimately irrelevant because fossil fuels are going to run out one day. The most sensible looking estimates of when seem to fall into the 150 - 300 years bracket but oil and coal will get scarce before they run out leading to masively higher prices and wars fought over dwindling resources (some would argue this is already happening). Therefore developing and deploying alternative energy sources is both necessary and urgent even if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be completely wrong.

But all good food for thought so thanks for posting Coasty.

Dave P.

[RoseStones]

I've been a scientist all my life and there's never such a thing as a 100% scientific consensus. It's pointless to wait until there is one before doing anything about a problem that most scientists agree is urgent, and our fault.

All of this looking for the minority views that support the anti-argument smacks of a) deliberately countering a solid argument for journalistic 'integrity's sake and b) making excuses to carry on the way we are (notice that Jeremy Clarkson's usual knuckle-dragging rant about "leftie loonies trying to stop us having a good time" is linked off this page).

Don't get me wrong - if an equally well evidenced argument could be put forward to disprove the theory that Climate Change is being accelerated by human activity then I'd be willing to accept it. I just don't see it. The media seem restricted to finding the occasional scientist that disagrees with the widely evidenced dogma.

The article cites that one single scientist claimed he was 90% certain he'd achieved nuclear fusion (when he hadn't) many years ago. Does this mean that, by inference, we should therefore mistrust the views of several hundred scientists? I think not. The author of the article doesn't even mention if the fusion scientist in question had even released any data to support his claims - there is a massive body of evidence that has been poured over for years to show that climate change is being accelerated by our activities.

I could go on but I frankly can't be bothered. Nothing significant will get done about this problem for the simple fact that all governments worldwide are paralysed from making any significant changes to the way that we live our lives for the simple matter that is democracy. What government would politically shoot itself in the foot and enforce such tough restrictive measures? Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and I can't think of how to sugar coat the vote-losing measures that we so badly need. You only have to look at the front of the Daily Mail (or Daily Wail as it should be called) to see the media's frothing-mouth reaction to the relatively tiny, insignificant matter of switching bin collection routines Are YOU next for bin round misery? | Mail Online! Suffice to say we've not suffered vermin and the black plague as a result of switching our routine...

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by RoseStones

I've been a scientist all my life and there's never such a thing as a 100% scientific consensus. It's pointless to wait until there is one before doing anything about a problem that most scientists agree is urgent, and our fault.

All of this looking for the minority views that support the anti-argument smacks of a) deliberately countering a solid argument for journalistic 'integrity's sake and b) making excuses to carry on the way we are (notice that Jeremy Clarkson's usual knuckle-dragging rant about "leftie loonies trying to stop us having a good time" is linked off this page).

Don't get me wrong - if an equally well evidenced argument could be put forward to disprove the theory that Climate Change is being accelerated by human activity then I'd be willing to accept it. I just don't see it. The media seem restricted to finding the occasional scientist that disagrees with the widely evidenced dogma.

The article cites that one single scientist claimed he was 90% certain he'd achieved nuclear fusion (when he hadn't) many years ago. Does this mean that, by inference, we should therefore mistrust the views of several hundred scientists? I think not. The author of the article doesn't even mention if the fusion scientist in question had even released any data to support his claims - there is a massive body of evidence that has been poured over for years to show that climate change is being accelerated by our activities.

I could go on but I frankly can't be bothered. Nothing significant will get done about this problem for the simple fact that all governments worldwide are paralysed from making any significant changes to the way that we live our lives for the simple matter that is democracy. What government would politically shoot itself in the foot and enforce such tough restrictive measures? Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and I can't think of how to sugar coat the vote-losing measures that we so badly need. You only have to look at the front of the Daily Mail (or Daily Wail as it should be called) to see the media's frothing-mouth reaction to the relatively tiny, insignificant matter of switching bin collection routines Are YOU next for bin round misery? | Mail Online! Suffice to say we've not suffered vermin and the black plague as a result of switching our routine...

I agree entirely.

Matt

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I agree entirely.

Matt

yep , so do I

though i don't think burning the heretics is the way to go - ignoring them and concentrating on educating the general public, so that they appreciate the facts and ignore the heretics too , is probably a better bet

[svenrufus]

Originally Posted by eeyore

though i don't think burning the heretics is the way to go

Quite right, think of the carbon footprint!

As with the last two posts, I agree RoseStones is spot on. I had started on a draft which was expressing fairly similar sentiments earlier in the day, but not nearly as eloquently, before I decided I couldn't be bothered. Good job I stopped, you are spot on

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by RoseStones

Jeremy Clarkson's usual knuckle-dragging rant about "leftie loonies trying to stop us having a good time"

How can you saythat? Poor chap has worn his arms up to the elbows now.

[RoseStones]

Steady on chaps, my heads inflating now

Glad to hear I'm not alone in my frustration though

[petermcgain]

Yes, the point is made very convincingly by Rosestones that with the system of government in vogue at the moment there are few politicians who would be prepared to sacrifice power (can feel a pun about the reduction of power coming on here!) even over such an enormous issue. There is something fundementally unfortunate in the human psyche in that most of us are acquisitive, we WANT the gadgets that a capitalist society dangles in front of us, we WANT to travel (and when flights are cheap it's difficult to avoid jumping on a plane), we WANT a comfortable lifestyle, it's invariably pleasanter to drive in one's own car rather than use public transport. And although, as we know, the vast weight of scientific evidence suggests we are heading towards a catastrophe, governments are ultimately little more than manifestations of human greed and the I'm allright Jack attitude.

My wife and I share a little used car with a friend, we live on an organic community with 50 others, rearing animals for meat and dairy (though I'm vegetarian), we grow most of our own vegetables and TRY to life a relatively simple lifestyle. We've agreed never to fly again (we're taking the Trans-Siberian railway to visit our daughter in Japan next year, rather than fly - but I bet that uses a lot of fuel too) and use our bikes and the local bus whenever possible.

Do we despair about the future and just enjoy life for the moment, do we trust to future technology that our very consumerist lifestyle can continue? Trying to live a simpler life in the hope that everyone else will too, isn't difficult, except when I turn on the TV (yes, we've got one of them) and make the mistake of watching Jeremy Clarkson for a few minutes and wearily realise how our mindset is out of synch with so many others. I'm afraid of sounding far more self righteous than I feel ....I just hope my grownup daughters, and as yet unborn grandchildren, will not curse us for our wilful neglect of the planet.