Donate SIGN UP

Tackling Climate Change

Avatar Image
rov1100 | 12:19 Sat 11th Jun 2011 | News
22 Answers

Is Lord Lawson correct and a waste of money? China still turns out coal fired power stations and is the worlds worst polluter. So why are we sacrificing our economy which is just a token gesture after all?

Would our solution be to stop all this nonsense and instead put our hard earned cash into protecting any future disaster such as floods or drought? Currently we spend only £600 million in protecting our coasts and cities from flooding.

Alternatively we could carry on the way we are going and trying to act like King Canute?


1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
China produces a lot of emissions, but it is also the most populated. If you compare emissions per capita, the United States is bar far the biggest culprit.


It is not an either or question, we should do both.
A more up to date per capita list here

And the full world rankings here.

the trouble is that politicians have been terrified half to death by the eco warriors and have fallen for the world wide con that mankind has some sot of input to climate change.
The climate has been changing since the world began. Nothing we can do about it.
the climate on earth has been changing since the first nano-second after it was created. It is that way because that is the way it is.

Maybe, just maybe, modern lifestyles have hastened the change we are going through now, but nothing or no-one can stop it.

Time and energy (ooops perhaps that's the wrong word in this instance!) should be spent to find ways to live with it because we cannot fight it.
Mr Lawson’s article is very timely and follows a number of other articles in a similar vein published in the last week or two. I’m hoping, just hoping, that this might, just might, mark the beginning of a proper campaign to see an end to this ridiculous, ludicrous nonsense.

Whether climate change is man made or not is open to debate. What has not been properly discussed is how the highly impractical strategy of attempting to halve emissions in the UK (which is responsible for just 2% of the world’s emissions) will have any significant impact at all on global output. Furthermore, the tactics being employed to achieve such a cut will be extremely harmful to the UK’s economy, will almost certainly not achieve their aim and they have the potential to do huge economic damage to a country struggling to recover from near financial meltdown.

The country needs a properly devised energy policy which will ensure security of supply and which is economically sound and advantageous to householders and businesses. If we can cut down on emissions a little as an added benefit all well and good, but the strategy should be driven by security of supply and economics, not by over-hyped hysterical nonsense.
King Canute famously tried to stop the tide from coming in simply by willing it. The tide was inevitably going to come in and then go out again regardless. It is a proven scientific fact that the tide goes in and out due to the gravitational effects of the moon.

It is not a proven fact that anthropogenic climate change [ACC] is happening or if it is, that it is a danger to mankind. The media report it as though it is a fact when the evidence for ACC is not actually that great – there are a great many holes in the theory. I've debated this many times previously and right now, cannot be bothered to repeat myself, suffice to say this...

The whole ACC theory is bedevilled with deliberately falsified data, questionable statistical techniques and most depressing of all, appalling ad hominem attacks on people who do not agree with the polemic. What I find utterly infuriating is the credibility given to computer models. All of the supposed 'danger' from ACC comes from these computer generated models which even the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] admits are, “... subject to substantial uncertainty” (Climate Change 2007, Glossary 49).
While there is some uncertainty in the detail of the climate models this should not give comfort for those who want to entirely dismiss the science. While it is not perfect science there is no model that demonstrates that human activity is not having an effect.

It is convenient for those who don't want to change to ignore the science and they will do everything possible to discredit it, choosing to listen only to those reports that back their view.

The misrepresentation and the perpetrators of the statistical abuse are weighted heavily on the deniers side of the argument.

One of the popular lies is that the Earth is actually cooling. They use stratospheric temperature measurement which indeed have fallen. They have fallen because the Greenhouse effect is keeping more heat closer to the ground. When this is pointed out the deniers simply drop the subject because it doesn't fit their prejudice.

Every time the weather is cold somewhere they trot out the measurements while ignoring other locations and time periods that show substantial increases.

Computers are used to model many other aspects of our lives and are an invaluable tool. These models are responsible for the huge increase in the accuracy of weather forecasting over the past decade.

The deniers seize upon every incidence of the models being altered to better match the observations as some kind of falsification. This is how models are built and verified and why their accuracy continues to improve.
Put the word Green at the front of a name and you can then raise taxes in the name of the environment .
Maybe Cameron thinks other countries will follow our example of 'green taxes'. In actual fact, they will just shrug their shoulders and carry on as normal.
Beso -

I have to take issue with you on this one. Particularly your statement, “... It is convenient for those who don't want to change to ignore the science and they will do everything possible to discredit it, choosing to listen only to those reports that back their view.”

I'm afraid that this is simply not true as far as I am concerned. I have absolutely no vested interest in anthropogenic climate change [ACC] being false. I don't ignore the science, in fact I positively embrace it. I have read copious amount of papers and reports that support the notion that ACC is true and yet I still believe it to be false. Not because I want it to be false but because I honestly cannot come to any other conclusion, as the evidence for it being true is simply not compelling.

As I have stated above, what really annoys me is the appalling attacks on individuals who have looked at the evidence and concluded that the case has not been proven. A shocking example is what recently happened to Johnny Ball. Remember him? The mathematician and children’s TV presenter. He made the 'mistake' of publicly admitting that he didn't think that ACC was occurring. The 'believers' crucified him. The Biblical reference is appropriate as the people who believe in ACC call people who don't, “deniers”. The language is religious and fanatical, as are the tactics..


As for the computer model argument, I agree that models are continually changed and altered. This is not a flaw as you rightly point out. However, the climate modellers are attempting to model a system that they do not fully understand. Climate is the epitome of a chaotic system – the tiniest changes in the initial variables will produce massive and totally unpredictable events. Unless the model accurately replicates all the initial variables and understands the interactions between those billions (which is probably way too small a number) of variables, the model will not be an accurate representation of reality.

The scientists know this of course which is why the IPCC admit that their own models are not reliable – but this admission is buried away in the glossary of a massive report and is NEVER mentioned when the issue of computer models is brought up by scientists or the media. The models are reported by the media and presented by scientists as though they accurately represent the literal future of the Earth's climate. They do not. But the modellers have an ace up their collective sleeves – the veracity of their models won't be proved or disproved until hundreds of years in the future, by which time they will have been completely forgotten about. For the ACC adherents, this is a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario.
Ooh, Birdie seems to have swallowed a dictionary. Better look out, you religious guys.
Question Author
I think we have got beyond the stage of proving the climate is changing. We can see it all around us with the floods and severe weather patterrns such as tornados. Fortunately in Britain the worst excesses have not yet reached us but we have had enough warnings such as the floods around Tewksbury, etc.

So its not whether we believe climate change can do enormous damage its what we do to protect ourselves. Trying to be goody goody and enacting token resistance only hurts our economy. Isn;t it better to accept the fact its happening and sooner or later realise we have not put in enough money into defending ourselves by putting in bigger sea defences and also the channeling of river and rainwater into storage sinks?
Ultimately all any of us can do is set a good example and ask others to follow.
But if we were really serious about climate change we'd reduce our need for energy and garbage removal by reducing the number of folk in the system. Of course this will take generations of self restraint so I'm not holding my breath.
There were floods and extreme weather in the UK long before “global warming” was born. (Remember “Global Warming” quietly morphed into “climate change” when it was realised that the globe was not warming quite as quickly as the alarmists suggested). Events I can recall without looking them up include the flooding of Lynton and Lynmouth in Devon in the early ‘50s, persistent flooding around Lewes in the ‘60s, a waterspout in the Thames estuary in about 1959, a prolonged freeze in 1963 and a scorching dry summer in 1976.

What we have seen in the last few years is “weather” plain and simple.
they had some bad floods in 1953
“Global Warming” quietly morphed into “climate change” when it was realised that no matter how many times it was explained to them some folk would insist of saying something along the lines of, "Well if there's global warming how come it's so cold here today". A sane individual can only put up with answering that for so long before they risk losing it.
Gromit - how looking at CO2 only

I would argue that you should also look at NOxs and SOxs as well and on that the US is far leading the EU - and bear in mind we are % wise a much more driven diesel (hence NOx exposure) environment. Indeed the current US federal levels are twice what ours will be in 2014 - and NOx is one of the key compoents to the creation of O3 (ozone)....... and then one should also take into account exposure to gases like chlorine and fluorine as well as their organic derivatives. In short, you are looking very mono-dimensionally........(and dare I say Eurocentric - and in a market where we need to better understand what is short term CO2 exposure - i.e a crop grows, we use it, the rest rots and puts CO2 back into the atmosphere viz long term CO2 like burning coal.......

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Tackling Climate Change

Answer Question >>