Safe Speed Forums

I know we’ve been over this before, but I came across these links regarding climate change.

The Citizen

The Times of india

There’s big variations between the two sites so, who is telling the truth? There must be a hell of allot at stake with this climate change nonsense. It also got me thinking about the extreme weather patterns the world is experiencing. I’ve seen reports way back about cloud control and wondered to myself is it possible that they have now mastered the art of weather control, and not being a science person how can they predict weather patterns so much in advance?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

"they" cannot even predict the weather for t'mrw that well.
As for "climate change" (properly: Anthropogenic Global Warming) didn't you know that it is "mankind" that is solely responsible for the change in climate ?
The major driver behind AGW is that man is loading the atmosphere with CO2 and that is driving climate change. Nothing to do with the tens of thousands of "scientists" whose income depends on agw being true (which it isn't)
Anyway, I find this site to be useful: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
It restores balance !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

It's funny how when the climate doesn't go their way i.e. warms then a whole host of excuses comes to the fore blaming everything BUT man and we are always assured that global warming is just waiting in the wings and will resume shortly - a load of hot air if you ask me.

More extreme weather patterns are usually associated with a cooling climate because weather events are caused by the difference between temperatures at the Azores and just above Iceland or thereabouts (scientifically), and with changes in temperature the poles warm quickest, therefore the difference when warming will be less between these points; when cooling I think also the poles cool quickest so it would be reasonable to assume that cooling does cause more extreme events.

There has been warming in the 20th Century overall about 0.65oC but none really to speak of in the 21st Century. In fact between 2007-2008 there was a drop of about 0.7oC which more than cancels out the whole of the 20th Century warming.

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

On another thread, we debated at length whether selfishness can be a good thing, and the general consensus is that is can be, in certain conditions. Perhaps surprisingly, it also turned out that altruism could be a bad thing. It was an emotional debate, with much bile and energy, much like the climate change debate.

But should we back climate change proclaimers, or the climate change deniers? Which is the most altruistic course of action to adopt, for us "rich" westerners?

PS: I think this is quite an important question, actually. If it became clear that millions might die in third world countries, should we be prepared to cut our living standards in the west if necessary? And could cuts actually improve our lives? One admirable chap in the other thread was arguing vehemently for altruistic behavior, almost selflessness. Should we adopt the same policy to climate change that he suggests for drivers?

Very few in the world are able to make such a decision.
IMO the best thing we can do is back those who are open with their data and assumptions, who allow their work to be fully scrutinised and whose arguments withstands scrutiny. Unfortunately there may be a resource bias favouring one side which could give the appearance of a stronger argument; this would somehow have to be taken into account, how I don't know.

PS, an extreme few are 'climate change deniers' - practically all AGW sceptics accept the climate has always, and will always, change.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

But how should we react? Should our motives extend to protecting the whole globe, or just our own, narrower set of interests? We've already seen that altruism and selfishness are inextricably interrelated. If we preach altruism in a local domain, should we practice it in the global domain? Do we have a duty of care to people in (say) low-lying areas? Or are they so distant and remote that they should learn to fend for themselves, should the seas rise?

We need some rational principals here, with regard to economic externalities. When we are acting "selflessly" (as we "should" according to my selfless fellow poster), does that extend to foreign lands without much money or influence? Or is "selflessness" a narrower notion than I thought?

I would say that until such time as a consensus can be reached about whether the climate variation is outside that which the earth experiences naturally, about what it is that is causing it, about whether it can/should be changed, and how we can change it then there is little point in doing anything. The sky may not be falling, but even if it is we may be powerless to prevent it, even with all the flagellation we can muster.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Now this, and please don't call me an eco-fascist for saying so, is where I disagree with you. Whilst there is any reasonable suspicion that man's activity is driving deleterious climate change I think that we must do all that we sensibly can to reduce that activity . The sky may be falling in and we might or might not be able to prevent it but if it is we are not going to prevent it by doing nothing.. If we were wrong the precautions we are taking aren't particularly onerous and are often beneficial.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No sane person wants to be held responsible for, or at least be a party to, a full-on ecological Armageddon, even if it doesn’t affect them directly. Furthermore, no-one wants to leave a screwed up planet (ecologically or politically) for their children either. What does that tell you?


Have we? Surely its one, the other or neither?


The seas have been rising for the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age (something no-one is denying); it rising now possibly isn't related to AGW at all.


I think your point might be more complicated than it needs to be. We, as in you and me, can't directly know if we're actually having a significant negative impact or not, just like our ancestors had no way of knowing the earth really was as flat as some claimed. The least selfish thing (globally or otherwise) we can do is demand the information necessary to allow people smarter than us to digest, compute, evaluate and respond accordingly; no-one on any side can confidently make an informed decision without this.
Given AGW is meant to be an issue bound by purely by science, is there a better way for us to react?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Ceasing an activity as a precautionary measure can be dangerous too. In this case it can have a significantly detrimental effect on the quality of life, perhaps not so much for us but certainly for others who don’t have it as good as us. There are potential negative outcomes whatever direction we take, each with their own possibilities and severities. This is why we have to ensure we’re confident that what we do is right.
Remember, even those who act altruistically need not necessarily be doing the right action. We need understanding and agreement, not faith!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes, there's no "flagellation" required. My esteemed friend was (only a few posts back) arguing vehemently that, if the cost is fairly low but the benefits to the community are potentially large, then he would have no hesitation at all in making the self sacrifice. Yet here we have the very same fellow arguing (let us hope not vehemently) that that the cost of saving the world would be self flagellation.

Edited to remove inflammatory remark that wasn't necessary.

Isn't it amazing how things have switched around, eh?

What has switched around? I have already stated this to you just a few hours ago, and you subsequently accepted this with your slightly twisted response of: "Good, you admit there are circumstances where altruism is the worst policy."

(although I didn't "admit" it because it wasn't a concession or confession; you asked and I gave - your continual attempts of manipulating meanings is breathtaking). Are you trying to derail another thread?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I guess it depends on what measures you are alluding to. Limiting resource use, like turning off lights when you leave a room, makes good sense and actually improves quality of life; more beer tokens after the power bill has been paid. Minimising pollution is just good husbandry; don't dump junk in your back yard. Recycling preserves limited resources, and can reduce the cost of recycled products; re-use rather than replace and you save on replacement costs, system-wide if not at an individual level. This sort of thing makes good sense as it improves/preserves the environment, and improves quality of life for those practising it.

No, when I refer to flagellation, prostrating oneself at the altar of green, I refer to things like charging extra "road tax" on "less efficient/more polluting" vehicles, paying extra for your flights to "offset your carbon footprint", and other such nonsensical measures designed to bleed people for their guilt. Doing things which reduce people's quality of life when there is no proof that there is even a problem, let alone that these measures will make any difference, makes no sense whatsoever.

Abertroll, you can't make every discussion about your own little one-man mission to get people pardoning your selfishness. I suggest you stop trying to derail other, valid, threads with your belligerent agenda.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Well, a few hours ago, RobinHorsePlonker was insisting that he is a paragon of altruism.
And now he wouldn't lift a finger to cut carbon, even when he hears the same message from
thousands of better-informed people than him. It seems that he's an armchair-altruist
(or perhaps a car-seat altruist!)

And you are not much better. You started the day saying selfishness is always good etc.
OK, you changed your tune after I beat it into you, but I've got a good supply of choice
quotes from earlier that show your previous mindset.

Neither of you have a consistent bone in your bodies.

PS: that's a bit harsh, sorry. My biggest concern is that potentially unselfish people will
delay too long before the light dawns. Fingers-crossed, that won't happen. But the
question still is - is selfishness OK?

RobinHorsePlonker, you were the "admirable chap" in the other thread who was arguing vehemently for altruistic behavior. Yet now you seem to be sloping off in the opposite direction. This is disappointing, considering that you claimed to be such a community-minded person. Would you care to explain this apparent lack of concern? You seem to have accepted that there is a chance that climate change is dangerous. Why would you be selfish to millions of unborn children?

Dixie, I'm sorry for hi-jacking your thread. I'll shutup now for a bit, now I've had my say. Good luck, let's hope it's not as bad as they make it out to be.

Lol, if you haven't the wherewithal to distinguish between driving and climate change then there's no hope for you!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Ah.. that clears it up. It's OK to be selfish, after all, just not when your driving! You ARE a piece of work, Robin. It's a belated victory, but still sweet.