O/T Frack me

[ragingpup]

Of course climate scientists are going to say it's man-made and getting worse, their jobs depend on it.

It's like anti-racism/ Islamophobia campaign groups, they're always going to say racism/ Islamophobia is getting worse, if they said the opposite the government would say "well we don't need you anymore" and pull their funding.

When I was growing up these "scientists" were saying we were heading for a new ice age. Then it became clear that was happening so it became "global warming" then that didn't happen so it was changed to "climate change" to cover all the bases.

Bur the Earth has always warmed up and cooled off, before we were even on the planet.

Okies. I understand that the earth has always warmed up and cool off but usually this takes thousands/millions of year to move from one 'age' to another.

But how do you explain the graph that John posted?

Do you also dispute other scientific theories that, like human activity related global warming, have ceased to be debatable theories and instead become accepted scientific facts as scientists don't debate them anymore due to the evidence for the 'theory' being so overwhelming - gravity? evolution?

The very nature of science is to take a theory and try to disprove it, test it, look at objective evidence until all the scientists doing the testing agree that all evidence points to the theory being beyond doubt. That's how science works. Of course there will be some scientists that claim validation of a theory without due evidence but they are quickly argued down in the science community. And that's the point: 97% of scientists concerned with studying climate agree that human activity is changing the climate. That's a hell of a lot of scientists if you check out the link I posted earlier.

[KerrAvon]

Waffle waffle waffle waffle, spent ages writing that waffle mate didn't yer, please stop trying to be better than everyone and just post what you think...

I think that you are thick, but don't have the self awareness to realise it.

I am very sorry for saying that, but you insisted and maybe it was time for someone to tell you.

[millmoormagic]

I think that you are thick, but don't have the self awareness to realise it.

I am very sorry for saying that, but you insisted and maybe it was time for someone to tell you.

Haha, still chuckling here, don't be sorry fella, you've been consistently wound up the same thicko ��

[KerrAvon]

Iceland is a completely different kettle of fish. They have geothermal energy in abundance. It's a good thing they aren't trying to run their country on solar.

[WanChaiMiller]

Kerr - do you think it would be a good thing if a solar battery system in every household could take say 30% of reliance off the national grid?

The reason I think its not happening quicker is because it will take shareholder profit off privatised utility companies.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr - do you think it would be a good thing if a solar battery system in every household could take say 30% of reliance off the national grid?

The reason I think its not happening quicker is because it will take shareholder profit off privatised utility companies.

The money would be better spent making homes 30% more energy efficient, but, yes, there is a case for small scale solar, which is why I'm looking at it (though, sadly, it may involve cutting down a mature tree to the South East of my house).

I knew it would only be a matter of time before a big business conspiracy theory appeared - it's the nature of political debate on here - the Right blame immigrants for the ills of the world, whilst the Left blame the wealthy and big business. God forbid that anyone accepts a bit of personal responsibility.

How do you say the shareholders of utilities are blocking a more rapid spread of solar? There's money to be made in solar, as Bramley appears to have found to his cost. That by itself would attract operators to it, if there were much of a market.

[rolymiller]

Don't disagree that everyone has to do their bit kerr. Some scientists are suggesting the only way we can sort the problems out is for human beings to live a more minimalist lifestyle. How would that sit with the wealthy do you think? How would that sit with you? Would you be willing to live that sort of lifestyle ? It would i effect mean we would be more equal economically. A sort of environmental socialism may be the only answer. I would argue if that is true socialism has always been the answer!

[rolymiller]

Here's the idea

http://envirocivil.com/environment/h...ve-the-planet/

[rolymiller]

I think the key is to reward people who act in an environmentally friendly way and punish those who don't e.g. Through the tax system etc. If you recycle you should get some sort of perk. Another way you could do it is by allocating carbon footprint to individuals and businesses and rewarding or punishing those who don't stay within them. Probably not easy to do granted but if things becomethat serious we would have to find a way to do it. I do think that th e way people live on this planet is going to change dramatically in the next 50 years or so. It may even start before I pop me own clogs. I amintrugued myself as to what is going to happen to solve the problems and a bit gutted i won't witness it. Of course it could be nowt is done and the human species is d oomed. As the song says these are the good times - well for some - it could be all downhill steeply from he re.

[KerrAvon]

Don't disagree that everyone has to do their bit kerr. Some scientists are suggesting the only way we can sort the problems out is for human beings to live a more minimalist lifestyle. How would that sit with the wealthy do you think? How would that sit with you? Would you be willing to live that sort of lifestyle ? It would i effect mean we would be more equal economically. A sort of environmental socialism may be the only answer. I would argue if that is true socialism has always been the answer!

Of course we would need to live a more minimalist lifestyle to avoid catastrophic climate change. That's the point I was making when I referred to your 'one decent holiday a year' assertion and pointing out that many people will vote for beef and Benidorm. Are you a meat eater perchance?

I should think the majority of the wealthy would view a reduction or change to their current lifestyles in much the same way
as the majority of the none wealthy. They wouldn't like it and would put on the same blinkers that gf is wearing.

Socialism certainly leads to more minimalist lifestyles - ask the Venezuelans. The only other Socialist angle is that I suspect that more minimalist lifestyles would have to be imposed upon people by increasingly less democratic governments in much the way that Socialist governments tend to become more autocratic as they impose their theology and diktats upon the reluctant people that they govern.