CLIMATE CHANGE
some scientists are claiming the change in the sun’s activity, hence the heating up of other planets in the solar system such as Mars (the recent thawing) and Pluto etc, is the reason for climate change, with man's contribution having little effect when compared to the sun, and certainly not the impact claimed

would they use climate change to piggy back more tax measures and otherwise hard to pass policy on us ?

The Club of Rome is a high level think tank which published a book available on amazon called; “The First Global Revolution” Pantheon Books (Sep 1991) ( www.amazon.co.uk/First-Global-Revolution-Report-Council/dp/0679738258 )

in it the Club of Rome wrote the following:

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such a motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…

Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…

Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other…

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
(page 104)

Members of the Club of Rome include:
Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates,George Soros, Maurice Strong (author of the Kyoto Protocols) oh and someone called Al Gore

interesting, no?

no doubt man's idustry does have an effect on climate, but is it to the degree they are claiming?

if we reject all of the above, last time I checked the average joe wasn't given much choice in a society dominated by oil based energy production - it hardley seems fair to put the emphasis on our behaviour without creating massive change in trillion dollar industry and energy production levels higher up first to give us realistic choices and options to adapt our behaviour.

Of course, this only works if those making the decisions to tax us furhter are not part of this industry to begin with. Or Club of Rome members, who seem to be in a 'win win' situation at our expense

(EDIT; ABC NEWS ARTICLE Tuesday, June 5, 2007 about Gore etc being members of Club of Rome;
66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ycnk7uaEhUQJ:www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1942343.htm+club+of+rome+member+al+gore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 9:30, 14 replies)

ZOMG conspiracy!!
That's a shower of arse. We'll skip over the paranoid and insane conspiracy ramblings and cut straight to the easily-clarified bit shall we? Gates, Strong and Gore certainly aren't in the Club of Rome. Members are listed on their website. Strong also didn't "author the Kyoto protocols". He was an architect in pressing for their introduction, yes, but you hugely overestimate his power and influence.
(loutre I've said too much, been too unkind, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 9:46, closed)

.
Woo, and indeed yay - more peer-reveiwed-science-contradicting fluff peddled by some twat who likes to drive his hummer around his lounge all day and thinks he should be able to.
(misanthrope is so adjective he's verbing nouns!, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 9:47, closed)

Right, well here's my take on it
Global warming is a fact. This is fairly well recognised and agreed.

Also fairly well recognised is that, were there no humans on earth, the planet would be getting warmer anyway, as we're currently coming out of an ice age.

However, it is difficult to dispute the argument that the rate of warming is accelerating, and that this acceleration is at least in part due to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, as we release millions of years of locked-up carbon into the atmosphere in only a few hundred years.

The problem lies in just how much of the increase human activities (not just vehicles and power generation, but also cattle rearing etc) are responsible for. The scientific models are getting pretty good (although no doubt conspiracy theorists will dispute this), but it is an inexact science.

But the biggest question of all - is it really going to be the disaster that the environmental scientists, and policitians, say it is?

Yes, sea levels will rise a bit, and many low lying areas will be flooded. Coral will be perhaps killed (although I'm sure it will adapt, as it's been around longer than many lifeforms), hurricanes may become more intense and more frequent, droughts may become worse and longer lasting.

But on the up side, areas of the world which are currently uninhabitable due to their being too cold, may start to be usable. We could all live in sunny Siberia! It could be that conditions there will be such that more plants will grow - and mop up CO₂.

Nobody really knows. And besides, do you see the economic powerhouse that is China giving up its monumental growth just because a few million Brits want them to? No way.

My real fear for the planet is the sheer number of humans. There are already too many of us, and the population is set to double in the next century, according to some estimates.

Just my opinion. Feel free to debate/refute/agree at will.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 9:48, closed)

and to continue....
Some people think that climate change is not as bad as we think because it hasn't warmed recently as much as they thought it would have. The trouble is all the particulate pollutants we put into the atmosphere since industrialisation have been acting to to absorb some of the suns radiation. Now that we are cleaning up our emissions there are less and less particles absorbing the radiation in the atmosphere and we are likely to see temperatures change quicker now we have cleaned up our emissions.

We are in a no win situation with any change we make now unlikely to have a big effect on what happens to temperatures in the future. We have to adapt and make our society sustainable from this point forward as the chances of changiing what has gone before us are near to impossible.

I am away now to follow the animals in committing hara-kari!!
(Studentken is looking for motivation on, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:01, closed)

Well!
I've done my bit for the population explosion by not bloody having any kids. Yay me!

On a more serious note - it cant be good pumping and dumping all that man made shit out into the earth regardless of whether its the main factor for global warming.
( girlinthehole, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:01, closed)

for loutre,
so you're saying Gates, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter aren't a members of the Club of Rome?

I'd tone down that arrogant tone a tad until you've bothered to research it, ABC news begs to differ;

ABC NEWS ARTICLE Tuesday, June 5, 2007.

66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ycnk7uaEhUQJ:www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1942343.htm+club+of+rome+member+al+gore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk


'Club of Rome' member warns against council amalgamations
A member of the world's most prestigious global think tank, the Club of Rome, has warned the Queensland Government to be cautious when considering the amalgamation of regional councils.

Dr Keith Suter shares Club of Rome membership with 100 other people including Bill Gates, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter and he yesterday visited a number of Longreach schools and was guests at a public dinner in Barcaldine.

......

EDIT: ZOMG!!..industry insiders and politicians manipulating policy to suit their own ends! wow! what a wacky outlandish conspiracy theory that is!!!!!


:0P
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:03, closed)

ahem
www.clubofrome.org/

Check the members list. I can't see them there. Course, I could be blind, or it could be another conspiracy.

Keith Suter is indeed the secretary of the Aussie branch of the Club of Rome, the others aren't.
(loutre I've said too much, been too unkind, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:07, closed)

Lotre some reading for you;
The First Global Revolution (1991),

page 104;
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ...
All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev, Club of Rome member,
State of the World Forum, 1996

;)

EDIT: PJM couldn't agree more with your points (below) and i'd add to your point about the taxes that it seems they're also using climate change to impose their policy on us too in ways that further consolidate their wealth and power
(The Goat www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:26, closed)

Hmmm... Tricky
I'm not sure I buy into the conspiracy theory per se, but if Climate Change really is caused by human activity (which MIGHT be a contributing factor - given the sun hasn't exactly pumped out heat at a constant rate for the last 4.5billon years) then our government's goingn about trying to solve the problem in a totally arse-about-face way. Why?

1) Air Travel.

See that fuck off great Boeing 747 taking off from Stansted Airport? Well according to our government that 747 and the CO2 it's pumping out doesn't exist. Nada. International flights aren't included in our carbon output statistics (however domestic air travel is).

Meanwhile, Stansted and Heathrow are vying for new runways, which of course won't affect Britain's official CO2 stats one iota.

To get a rough idea, it should be noted that a Boeing 747 flying from London to New York will burn as much fuel as your two litre Mondeo will in 124 years.

2) Power Generation

A growing population needs more electricity. Nuclear power is controversial, wind power is inefficient and costly, wave power ditto. So what do we do? Build more gas fired stations. Or better yet, become a net importer of electricity and let some other bugger worry about carbon quotas.

3) Taxation

There is a veritable army of taxes being unleashed and waiting in the wings to penalise the public for using our carbon emitting transport. However, we have yet to see an improved infrastructure for public transport, which is escalating in cost with no tangible improvement in frequency or efficiency. Indeed legislation actually exists to prevent train companies and bus companies integrating timetables.

4) Propaganda

Next time you see your self righteous and smug neighbour getting into their Honda Insight or Toyota Prius - and paying no congestion charge and much reduced road tax - you might remember that over the course of the Hybrid vehicle's life it will cause more environmental damage than your Ford Mondeo. Why? The energies used in the construction and subsequent disposal of said Prius is one factor. The toxicity of the materials used is another. So tell the sanctimonious cunt to switch to a turbo diesel supermini instead.

There is a worrying degree of misinformation out there, which is verging on the irresposible. I wonder how much carbon Al Gore has unleashed when he flies around the world telling everyone to stop burning fossil fuels?

In short, although I accept climate change is real, I don't believe for one second that our governments are trying to minimise carbon emission effectively. They've seen the dollar signs and are going to use it as an excuse to raise taxes in the name of self-righteousness and that my friends, sucks long time.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 30 Nov 2007, 10:31, closed)

list of things that bother me:
1. climates change, that's what they do.
they were doing so long before we arrived, and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

we may be having some effect on that, we may not.

2. the focus on CO2 emissions and reducing them.
as someone rightly pointed out, one single international flight produces more than a car would in over £100 years.

I forget where I got this next nugget, but apparently the world's volcanoes produce more CO2 in a year than the sum total of the whole of human industrial history. Does that not give things a bit of perspective?

3. Reference to global climate models.
I make and run computational hydraulic models for a living. These are as accurate as we can make them given the lack of calibration data available, and the amount of assumptions that have to be made.

to base anything on a model of something as complicated as global climate, and to make predictions on the back of it is terrible scientific practice.

There is no way that all the factors that affect something that complex can be included in a model, and no way it can be calibrated to give results in which any faith can be placed.

as for Al Gore and his sensationalist, blockbuster science, the less said about that the better

I don't dispute that the climate may be changing, and it is obviously a good idea to do what we can to change our behaviour, but the more pressing concerns, in my view, are providing enough power for the years to come, and what we are going to do when the oil runs out.

Reducing my "carbon footprint" is not one of my concerns.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 12:08, closed)

Currently
We seem to be in a race to see if we can raise global temperatures or burn all stored fossil fuels more quickly. I'm hedging on fossil fuels running out first - www.theoildrum.com/node/3001 amongst other reports. Ironic that the country demonised for its consumption is the only one to have addressed consumption head on - STOP RUTTING YOU FUCKERS AND PUT A NODDER ON!! Easy innit.
(Countryslicker, Fri 30 Nov 2007, 12:26, closed)

now
Who shall I believe?

(a) random people on the internet

(b) industrialists

(c) climate scientists

Ooh, that's a tricky one.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Sat 1 Dec 2007, 15:06, closed)

I'm so bored of "global warming"
I don't claim to be a serious and respected scientist, but I did write a 20,000 word dissertation on climate change with the help of some much more intelligent proffesors and none of us believe in global warming in the way it is presented to the public.

The version banded about the world is the almagamation of pseudo science (theorectical at best), sensationalist journalists who now no longer have to go outside a find a story when Global warming can be endlessly rehashed and politicians with agendas other than that of saving the world.

It's fashion nothing more, a good cause to get you brownie points, another chance for a moral tax and it works perfectly because a) nothing can be proved so fear can drive the campaign b)people opposed to the idea of GW are treated like holocaust denyers so stay quiet.

Once again QOTW has made me angry, why can't we all write about poo again?


EDIT: haberman, yes climate scientists are the people to listen to, but why not try and make an educated decision by listening to both sides of the argument and not just the one you want to believe in, you may get a clearer picture.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 4 Dec 2007, 14:37, closed)

Stop bickering about what is causing climate change. It's too late anyway. It's changing whatever we do.
The real questions are:

1: What problems will it cause us?
2: How do we deal with them?
(Musuko, Tue 4 Dec 2007, 16:49, closed)