HighPressure
-
Posts
5,044 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by HighPressure
-
-
This thread is typical of the argument on the entire subject, human nature is that of greed therefore those that seek to gain the most in the short term by doing nothing such as USA / CHINA / RUSSIA will resist anything that effects their economic growth. While countries such as the UK see it as a handy tool to do nothing but talk the talk and stop short of walking the walk because that in order to do something tangible it will have an effect on our economy too. So the idea in this country is to pretend to be doing something when in reality you are not, that way you can raise taxes under the green banner. The idea of taxing air travellers an extra £5 or £10 is designed to what? especially while you are looking to expand your existing airports and build new ones? Cars are being taxed more yet I see no alternatives being put in place. Everything we buy from Argos is made in China, there are no import restrictions, sea traffic is a bigger polluter than air yet no extra taxiation was put on that. The reality is that no government is going to put airlines or Shipping lines out of business and suffer the loss of jobs for which it will get blamed. If the world does not buy Chinese goods then they won't make them will they so why has the UK friend to the GW argument not restricted the import of the goods? Why has it not adopted a policy on not allowing new cars on the road until one has been scrapped. Quite simply with the GW argument still arguable whichever side of the fence you sit on they would just get turfed out of office if they wern't lynched first. At least nations like USA / CHINA / RUSSIA have a more honest approach however unpalatable that is.
While there is a buck to be earnt a human being somewhere will grab it at whatever the cost to tomorrows children. Sad I know and that does not make the GW agument any less valid but in the real world GW is here its not going to be influenced by man in any positive way.
-
When getting the message across I don't see why the GW argument has to be won first? as a sceptic on the impact of man on this event there is no denying its happening. There is also a valid argument for man to act responsible on all environmental issues including carbon emissions. This way you can present a case that can put both sides of the augment and still suggest that reducing emissions is just plain sensible. You only need to leave the audience with the fact that we might be, to get them thinking!
-
As part of Environment week (22 Jan) I am going to be doing a presentation where I work on GW and how best to combat it.
The audience is around 100 middle aged weathyish IT consultants, most of whom leave a very large carbon foot print.
They Fly to much, drive 4X4's or posh cars and basically don't include the environment in any of there thoughts.
TBH they are the very people who have to change there ways IF the UK is to try and cut it's CO2 emissions.
But the question is What's the best way of convincing these people to do something ?. and how should I go about doing it ?.
I am going to try and explode some of the myths around AGW and CC, probably use some of the google flood maps on here to show how there place of work and homes will be directly effected etc. But I don't think this will be enough.
I'd also be interested in hearing about the pro's and anti's so I can come up with some ideas and also possible responses to some of the more difficult questions.
i.e why should a small country like us do anything if China India etc are going to go there merry way ?.
Any help would be very appreciated. This will also take my mind of the crappy models atm.
Cheers
Matt Swift
I just said my bit on GW on the GW thread, but to take your point about convincing people like me the average joe, you need to win the argument, at this point in time I don't see it as won. You will have to get images off the the TV of Blair as pictured today standing in between a government Range Rover and government Jaguar, the one thing I don't like is hyprocracy. You will have to at some stage convince the British public that the UK cutting its CO2 emmision will make a difference, and I am afraid that agument don't hold water however valiant it is.
-
Although not very scientifically educated I have followed or tried to follow the arguments when it comes to global warming, because I genuinely would like to know if we are effecting out planets climate and if we were could we do anything about it? Quite basic questions I think almost like Global warming and man's influence for dummy's yet it appears to me that this most basic of information does not exist. There seems to me to be a massive amount of weight put behind the premise that global warming is caused by man or at least accelerated by his activities, but as think as I must be I cannot find a single shred of evidence to back this up as fact. I can find certain governments of the world putting 100% of their energies in supporting the argument one way or another and I can also predict each countries stance on Global warming and carbon emissions based on their political and taxation setup? Now I am not saying if the augment for or against is right just that it must be worrying when people sitting on Oil wells don't believe in GM, those that don't do, governments that tax heavily to support a social state Do and those that rely on an oil/enegy economy don't? Excuse me for being a little sceptical of the motives of those supporting either side here, simply if this was a court case the judge would probably chuck it out as all the main witnesses are unreliable. If you dismiss almost every government and their own government back scientists you do actually end up with a much more balanced argument as you end up with independent no axe to grind views based on what is actually known, of course those that don't support Man's influence are known as cranks in Europe or government spokesman in the US and visa versa.
So what do I reckon, well based on what I have seen in the way of graphs going back thousands of years, there is no doubt that the earth is in a natural warming phase. The last warm period being 10th/11th century and is backup up by entries in the doomsday book, and there was certainly no influence by man then. We had our cooling period of 16th17th century and we are now back into warming again, the earth shows a continual warming and cooling trend back as far as core samples go. So is man influencing the speed of change, well its a faster change then the last warming period but I cannot see anything abnormal when you look at the graphs over a period of thousands of years and many cycles. We would also appear to be in the early phases of this trend and based on the data so far it is surely not possible say whether man has any effect on this at all at this stage.
So if we say that lets side on the caution side and say that man is effecting his climate, what do we do about it, Charge £5 extra to take a plane and build extra airports to cope with increased demand? Now I am not very bright but I can see just a slight flaw in this plan to save the earth. Not to mention that sea traffic emits more CO2 then air traffic jet no extra taxation is to be levied on ferry or cruise liner passengers. The UK currently emits 2% of the worlds CO2 gasses and could probably cut this by up to 10% that's 0.2% of world emissions over the next 10yrs, very good I hear you say. When you then realise that China plans to commission new coal fired power stations at the rate of one per month for the next 7 years then the reality of just how futile any attempt to reverse or stop this influence is.
Although still unable to answer the basic question it does actually lead us to a conclusion that mother nature coupled with human nature is an irresistible force. This results in the fact that man is unable to effect climate change therefore he has no option but to live with its consequences. To follow this on we end up with Human nature Vs Mother Nature a contest for which there is only one winner, the earth will survive as Mother nature will take what action is required to redress the balance whether man does in another matter. For human's to believe they have influence over such a power is absurd.
-
Storm just passed over Sevenoaks North Downs so should just about be making it into Essex now!
-
A bit late I know but not a great start to August, will be warming up so I go for 17.0 deg
-
I notice the Met office have removed their severe weather warnings for the SW and Wales? There looks to be a real stonker building out west on the radar anyone out towards Pembrook might care to look to the SE
-
I was hopeless in June, so lets say 17.5oC for July a nice month but nothing special.
-
14.9C for me 0.8C above average due to a warm start followed by average mid month temps then back to above for the end of the Month.
I am feeling pretty smug with this prediction for June
-
14.9C for me 0.8C above average due to a warm start followed by average mid month temps then back to above for the end of the Month.
-
Been snowing North Downs Kent north of Sevenoaks for 45mins, settling garden and downs under a white blanket
Getting the message across
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
I entirely agree Thundery, but as I have said in a few posts on here I do not think that the capitalist setup the world finds itself in makes any co-ordinated significant approach to cutting emissions unrealistic. This is where in my view the whole GW subject just fall apart, a % of people do not accept that man is significantly influencing climate change, a % do (I am undecided). So everyone is still arguing over who started the fire, while it continues to spread, yet the most important fact is that there is not enough fire engines to put the fire out! Then the argument comes well we have to try don't we, and yes we do but unilateral action is doomed to failure as it cannot make a difference. Surely you have to look at what we can do in the way of containment and plan for the future living alongside the fire?
I do get the impression similar to World War 1 sentiment when the generals sent the foot solders over the top, probably a very worthy cause but ultimately futile. Of course in this scenario only lower ranking people starting with the poorest are expected to make sacrifices, just like the Generals not going over the top in WW1 those more wealthy in society will keep their long haul foreign holidays, there 4X4's and remain unaffected by tax rises in fuel etc.
We simply would be better off spending any environmental taxes on flood defences, coastal erosion and adapting to a warmer climate. There are many measures that a government could bring in to cut emissions but its just not going to happen, even in this country a GW leader its unlikely that anywhere near enough cuts can be made to fulfil even the UK's commitments.
On measures that can be taken, you have to ask yourself why Electric cars can only be afforded by the well off? You cannot find one easily then there are hardly any charging points? There used to be a subsidy to convert your card to LPG but that was removed? And this is from a GW world leading government while in the US 5ltr cars are still standard oil is King. I think its about time a lot of people got real woke up smelt the coffee!