Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?


West is Best

Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. AGW = Anthropocentric Global Warming, in other words that humans are contributing to climate change

    • It is making me think about the issue again
      17
    • It is making me think there might be something in it afterall
      13
    • It's changed me from a sceptic to thinking humans are partly to blame
      17
    • It has made little or no difference: I already believed in AGW
      70
    • It has made little or no difference: I don't believe in AGW
      29


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
To be clear, I DO get your point - we can say it's increased by x% if you have a base - I agree.

I'm just asking another (yes, periferal) question, which is kind of 'what is 100% on the Kelvin scale?' we don't know. Thus if Earths temperature was 13C and it rose by 1 C that's more in % that if it were 20C and rose by 1C.

But, again, I DO and accept your point.

The 100% would be whatever temperature you take to be your average at a given time - if we take the average January CET to be 4°C, this is 277.15K. A 4°C rise on top of this is 1.443% increase on the average. The Kelvin scale itself doesn't require an upper limit to make quantitative assessments, just a baseline.

If you notice, a 1.443% increase in the January CET worked out at 4°C, but a 1.443% increase in the July CET worked out at 4.17°C, which is slightly higher - this is due to the fact that the July CET is a bigger 100% than the January CET (being some 12°C higher).

Hope this clarifies it for you B) I'm always happy to field questions (especially if I know the answer!)

Cheers

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I see the IPCC has upted the assesment of how much humans have contributed to Global warming over the last 50 yrs.

In 2001 they put a figure of 66% on how certain they were that humans are causing/fueling the change they are now 90% sure that it's us that are responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
...

EDIT - Your point about accepting Man's ability to cause a 1% change in temperatures is a valid one, but my main argument against that point has always been basically one of the tolerance of the system (and I mean tolerance in the scientific sense). If we take the average extremes of UK temp (just the UK for now!) as being -10°C and 30°C (these figures are not etched in stone, just representative) that's a 40°C margin. 40°C is about 13.2% of the range from absolute zero to 30°C. Now you're talking about the 1.443% increase on the baseline scale as equating to a 10% change in our tolerance margin. EDIT - (1.443% increase in baseline temps is 4°C... 4°C is 10% of 40°C.) This may sound a little contradictory, but we've actually swapped the temperature percentage for a tolerance percentage, which is valid in this case. If the climate system's tolerance to change is 10% or greater, therefore, then a 1% overall change by Man's activity will have little or no effect on the overall system. That's what the debate - to my mind - is really all about.

:)

C-Bob

Erm, no, becuase you quoting weather tolerance and then equating that with a change of climate of 1C? Since the last ice age global climate was 5C or so colder 1c warming could be said to be a 20% change.

But, this is getting confusing B) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I see the IPCC has upted the assesment of how much humans have contributed to Global warming over the last 50 yrs.

In 2001 they put a figure of 66% on how certain they were that humans are causing/fueling the change they are now 90% sure that it's us that are responsible.

Interesting that the opposition has been more vocal in the last year yet their certainty has increased... Hmmmm.......

:)

C-Bob

Erm, no, becuase you quoting weather tolerance and then equating that with a change of climate of 1C? Since the last ice age global climate was 5C or so colder 1c warming could be said to be a 20% change.

But, this is getting confusing B) .

Yes, it is getting confusing isn't it?! But, no, I'm quoting temperature tolerance and equating it with a change of temperature - climate is recognised these days as being the "average weather" over a given period of time, so the percentage temperature change over a given period of time is directly related to the climate. (In fact the CET is basically a measure of climate, not weather, as it is an average over a given period of time of around thirty days - short term, but still climatic by definition.)

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Interesting that the opposition has been more vocal in the last year yet their certainty has increased... Hmmmm.......

B)

C-Bob

But then it is easy to become 'sensitised' to your own needs and see only that that you have 'trained' yourself to see (was it Mondy who posted a link regarding a Russian who disagreed with both Global warming and CO2 being part of the issue whilst every other article on the link was highlighting the 'hot' winter in Russia?). I only say that because I feel they (the IPCC) are a little late in producing the figures as, for at least the past 2 yrs, we've heard nothing but 'global warming' (but then I'm 'sensitised in another direction!)

They (the IPCC) have called for an 'Urgent meeting' this year to start to 'globally assist' in cleaning up our emmisions. They see this year as a 'crunch year'.

I thought the IPCC was a multi-discaplinary, multi-national think tank on the state of the planet so I don't think they have any 'axe to grind' or need to scare folk unduly.

I believe that 'time will tell all' and sooner rather than later (no 50yr wait in my understanding/witnessing of what is occuring.....) so I (and the IPCC) won't have long to wait for my 'definative answer'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I believe that 'time will tell all' and sooner rather than later (no 50yr wait in my understanding/witnessing of what is occuring.....) so I (and the IPCC) won't have long to wait for my 'definative answer'.

Quite so, Gray-Wolf. The frustrating thing for us who challenge the AGW position is that a particularly steep rise over x number of years will (for most people) clinch the debate in favour of AGW, whereas a small rise, or no trend, or even a downward trend over the same period would not clinch the debate against AGW. Pro-AGW people have a "definitive answer" to wait for, but Anti-AGW people have no such definitive answer. (Let's be honest - even if next Winter gave us two months of continuous arctic weather it would be regarded as a statistically likely blip, and not challenging to the GW debate in the slightest.)

As for the IPCC, although they are regarded as truly independent they are, at the end of the day, a governmentally approved body (admittedly approved by multiple governments from many countries) established by the UN. I have my reservations about the UN's various motives - here's an organisation that draws a line in the dirt and tells an evil dictator "you must not cross this line." He crosses the line and what do they do? They take a step back and draw another line. This happens several times until finally someone stands up and says we should do something about the evil dictator and then what does the UN do? "We oppose your actions - peaceful means are the only viable approach."

So, when it comes to international security the UN is remarkably good at rolling over and playing dead, and they take a lot of flak for it. How can they redeem themselves? Well, they set themselves an objective of tackling and solving the "biggest threat to human survival" - wars are as nothing compared to the threat of extinction by global warming... So, it could be argued that the IPCC is little more than a huge PR exercise which, to sufficiently quell the doubts of others, aims to prove GW, enforce the ways of "curing" it, and take all the credit when the Earth is finally "healed".

This bout of rampant cynicism has been brought to you by...

C-Bob

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Birmingham, West Midlands.
  • Location: Birmingham, West Midlands.

Yes, this mild winter has convinced me that AGW is real. Seeing the famous "hockey-stick" graph with solar/volcanic and carbon emission data superimposed reinforced this for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Yes, this mild winter has convinced me that AGW is real. Seeing the famous "hockey-stick" graph with solar/volcanic and carbon emission data superimposed reinforced this for me.

Ooh, don't get me started on the hockey-stick graph! :D

C-Bob :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Lots of snow, lots of hot sun
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL

Any nay-sayers convinced by this ->

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

or is this just another bunch of enviro-nazis out to impose their hidden agenda sandals and flowers version of human existence on us all ???? (I don't think so)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Oi, get your own word or phrase!! Environazis is mine. So too is Fundamentalist Environmentalism.

And for all the nay-sayers, there's doomsayers :huh:

I've read it, the first of four to be issued this year, and i honestly can't be arsed discussing the whole report. It's not worth the hassle. I give myself a near heart attack and we all evidently go round in circles. However,

IPCC PROJECTIONS

Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C

Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C

Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm

Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century

Increase in heatwaves very likely

Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

If's, but's and maybes - nothing is gospel in any of it.

I might pop my head in later, but i'd much rather not get involved :D;);):drinks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Any nay-sayers convinced by this ->

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

or is this just another bunch of enviro-nazis out to impose their hidden agenda sandals and flowers version of human existence on us all ???? (I don't think so)

I'm not surprised in the slightest by the IPCC report - they were hardly going to turn around and say "Oops! Sorry! The TAR was completely wrong so we're going to do some furious back-pedalling now." (I'll probably get shouted at for saying that, but ho-hum...)

But as a perfect example of how the IPCC like to fuzz the edges of the climate debate, they start out by saying that it is "very likely" that humans are causing GW, and they say that "very likely" corresponds to a 90% certainty. However, later on they say that the evidence is "unequivocal". Here's what unequivocal means:

un·e·quiv·o·cal; adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous.

How can it be both "Unequivocal" and only 90% certain? This is not just a somantic argument, it's a case of serious misrepresentation of the evidence. So, am I swayed by the 4AR summary? No more than by the TAR.

:drinks:

C-Bob

Hey Mondy!

Oi, get your own word or phrase!! Environazis is mine. So too is Fundamentalist Environmentalism.

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but Michael Crichton used "Fundamentalist Environmentalism" in a speech to the US Senate a while ago. ;)

But "Environazis" is a great word! :D Nice one!

C-Bob

PS - Note to all and sundry: I am not necessairly calling any Pro-AGW people Environazis, either on this board or in the world at large, but I find the structure and sound of the word especially appealing. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I'm not surprised in the slightest by the IPCC report - they were hardly going to turn around and say "Oops! Sorry! The TAR was completely wrong so we're going to do some furious back-pedalling now." (I'll probably get shouted at for saying that, but ho-hum...)

But as a perfect example of how the IPCC like to fuzz the edges of the climate debate, they start out by saying that it is "very likely" that humans are causing GW, and they say that "very likely" corresponds to a 90% certainty. However, later on they say that the evidence is "unequivocal". Here's what unequivocal means:

un·e·quiv·o·cal; adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous.

How can it be both "Unequivocal" and only 90% certain? This is not just a somantic argument, it's a case of serious misrepresentation of the evidence. So, am I swayed by the 4AR summary? No more than by the TAR.

:drinks:

C-Bob

Hey Mondy!

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but Michael Crichton used "Fundamentalist Environmentalism" in a speech to the US Senate a while ago. ;)

But "Environazis" is a great word! :D Nice one!

C-Bob

PS - Note to all and sundry: I am not necessairly calling any Pro-AGW people Environazis, either on this board or in the world at large, but I find the structure and sound of the word especially appealing. :huh:

I really think we can do without words like 'environazis' besides being very insulting (I suppose the equlivalent might be, ...well, I better not eh?) it's all just tooo obviously Goodwin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
I really think we can do without words like 'environazis' besides being very insulting (I suppose the equlivalent might be, ...well, I better not eh?) it's all just tooo obviously Goodwin.

I said that I wasn't using it to describe anyone, just that it was a pleasing piece of wordplay. Some people are so touchy! :drinks:

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

We'll see just how 'Touchy' when folk get to grips with some of the language coming out of Paris regarding the position of denialists in light of the current depth of evidence to the contrary.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I said that I wasn't using it to describe anyone, just that it was a pleasing piece of wordplay. Some people are so touchy! :drinks:

C-Bob

Yeah, people saying such things allways say that. My experience is when the boot on the other foot the reaction is 'somewhat' different and just as 'touchy'. I could try an experiment, but I better not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Yeah, people saying such things allways say that. My experience is when the boot on the other foot the reaction is 'somewhat' different and just as 'touchy'. I could try an experiment, but I better not.

But I never did say such a thing, and I wouldn't as I always try to keep my posts as rhetoric-free as possible. Slogans, slang and catchphrases do neither side of the debate any good. I also try to keep a good humour about things - I do not advocate the use of the word "Environazis", and I would never myself use it, but it is kind of funny-sounding (I'll probably get shouted at for the now: "Oh, so you think nazis are funny, do you?!").

One thing that strikes me is how little attention seems to be paid to my posts (except by such good people as Gray-Wolf and P3) until I say something in jest - then everyone (you know who you are) jumps down my throat. The day the human race loses its sense of humour is the day we sign our own death warrant (forget Global Warming - Over-seriousness is a much greater threat to our continued survival on this planet).

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
We'll see just how 'Touchy' when folk get to grips with some of the language coming out of Paris regarding the position of denialists in light of the current depth of evidence to the contrary.......

I'm hoping(!!) that the thread I've started about the IPCC report will feature sound sensible debate. I am usually an optimist so hope springs eternal that people can agree to differ in a friendly fashion.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
But I never did say such a thing, and I wouldn't as I always try to keep my posts as rhetoric-free as possible. Slogans, slang and catchphrases do neither side of the debate any good. I also try to keep a good humour about things - I do not advocate the use of the word "Environazis", and I would never myself use it, but it is kind of funny-sounding (I'll probably get shouted at for the now: "Oh, so you think nazis are funny, do you?!").

One thing that strikes me is how little attention seems to be paid to my posts (except by such good people as Gray-Wolf and P3) until I say something in jest - then everyone (you know who you are) jumps down my throat. The day the human race loses its sense of humour is the day we sign our own death warrant (forget Global Warming - Over-seriousness is a much greater threat to our continued survival on this planet).

C-Bob

Bit unfair, I paid quite a lot of attention to your '% of degrees' stuff in another thread, and I agreed with you :) . Besides, (way OT) I've been known to end up in a semi hysterical gasping for breath state at the best of Tom and Jerry, W.C. Fields ('Pool Sharks'? I think), or Monty Python :)

Serious is serious though - imo.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Bit unfair, I paid quite a lot of attention to your '% of degrees' stuff in another thread, and I agreed with you :) . Besides, (way OT) I've been known to end up in a semi hysterical gasping for breath state at the best of Tom and Jerry, W.C. Fields ('Pool Sharks'? I think), or Monty Python :good:

Serious is serious though - imo.

Fair play to you Devonian - that much is true :rofl: (Well, I don't know about the Tom & Jerry stuff, but...you know what I mean! :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I'm not surprised in the slightest by the IPCC report - they were hardly going to turn around and say "Oops! Sorry! The TAR was completely wrong so we're going to do some furious back-pedalling now." (I'll probably get shouted at for saying that, but ho-hum...)

But as a perfect example of how the IPCC like to fuzz the edges of the climate debate, they start out by saying that it is "very likely" that humans are causing GW, and they say that "very likely" corresponds to a 90% certainty. However, later on they say that the evidence is "unequivocal". Here's what unequivocal means:

un·e·quiv·o·cal; adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous.

How can it be both "Unequivocal" and only 90% certain? This is not just a somantic argument, it's a case of serious misrepresentation of the evidence. So, am I swayed by the 4AR summary? No more than by the TAR.

:drinks:

C-Bob

Hey Mondy!

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but Michael Crichton used "Fundamentalist Environmentalism" in a speech to the US Senate a while ago. :D

But "Environazis" is a great word! :D Nice one!

C-Bob

PS - Note to all and sundry: I am not necessairly calling any Pro-AGW people Environazis, either on this board or in the world at large, but I find the structure and sound of the word especially appealing. :D

A couple of thoughts. I guess I can see your point regarding "unequivocal" and "90% certain"; my take would be that it is unequivocal based on the evidence available, yet there remains a not altogether inconsequential chance that somewhere in the science another as yet unknown force is at work.

I do find the search for certainly amusing. Some of my public sector clients ponder at why the private sector achieves things much more quickly and efficiently. It is largely because the public sector is full of the search for certainty, just in case anything goes wrong - we are "after all" spending the public's money. What amuses me is that thay are also spending my money sitting on their bottoms making no forward progress whatsoever.

Put on a crude balance I think even my 11 year old daughter would know which pony to back in a two horse race if the evidence for one was unequivocal and / or 90% certain.

Re the "environazis" comment, which I know you have "corrected" elsewhere, slurs like this are the resort of the playground gang who have little going for them other than to seek to discredit the other side by labelling that plays to the stupidity of the thug.

Edited by Stratos Ferric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Put on a crude balance I think even my 11 year old daughter would know which pony to back in a two horse race if the evidence for one was unequivocal and / or 90% certain.

Re the "environazis" comment, which I know you have "corrected" elsewhere, slurs like this are the resort of the playground gang who have little going for them other than to seek to discredit the other side by labelling that plays to the stupidity of the thug.

Just a quick response to your last couple of comments - I do appreciate that 90% certainty does give a big bias in the direction of the pro-AGW argument but, firstly, the AGW debate is significantly more complicated than a horse race and that 10% uncertainty can have a big impact, and secondly, it comes back down to the validity of the assumptions of the pro-AGW argument. The argument as presented may be 90% certain, but if one, some or all of the assumptions are flawed then that certainty plummets.

To your second comment, I agree entirely that phrases such as "environazi" should not be used in a rational debate and that it amounts to little more than school playground dirt-kicking and name-calling. However, despite "Environazi" being a much stronger term, I feel it belongs to the same group of words as "nay-sayer". Many a time has the word "nay-sayer" been used as basically a derogatory term for anyone who is skeptical about AGW. Although "nay-sayer" doesn't conjure up such vivid imagery as "environazi" it is still a deliberately dismissive (and, in certain contexts, almost abusive) word. I am not defending the word, but the argument works both ways... :)

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Just a quick response to your last couple of comments - I do appreciate that 90% certainty does give a big bias in the direction of the pro-AGW argument but, firstly, the AGW debate is significantly more complicated than a horse race and that 10% uncertainty can have a big impact, and secondly, it comes back down to the validity of the assumptions of the pro-AGW argument. The argument as presented may be 90% certain, but if one, some or all of the assumptions are flawed then that certainty plummets.

To your second comment, I agree entirely that phrases such as "environazi" should not be used in a rational debate and that it amounts to little more than school playground dirt-kicking and name-calling. However, despite "Environazi" being a much stronger term, I feel it belongs to the same group of words as "nay-sayer". Many a time has the word "nay-sayer" been used as basically a derogatory term for anyone who is skeptical about AGW. Although "nay-sayer" doesn't conjure up such vivid imagery as "environazi" it is still a deliberately dismissive (and, in certain contexts, almost abusive) word. I am not defending the word, but the argument works both ways... :drinks:

C-Bob

That 10% also leaves room for my more extreme Scenarios too! I honestly feel that the report will alter radically in it's next incarnation and part of that will be a more robust appraisal of Ice shelf ablation/Glacier melt and what we will witness over the next 5 years or so (enough new data to properly appraise their condition/future).

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
And the evidence you present is? Well, to be convincing you'll need to re write atmopshere physics!

No offence meant to anybody here; but surely a prerequisite to such a monumental feat of science, would be an understanding of the laws of physics, as they currently stand??? :rolleyes:

If people don't accept the science/mathematics/statistics of GW/AGW/GHE, then let them put-together an alternative (better?) set of tools used for improving our collective understanding of things atmospheric?

ITMT, empty rhetoric and often vacuous acts of disparagement will not do...Understanding physics and chemistry etc. takes time and effort though; so beware! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
Just a quick response to your last couple of comments - I do appreciate that 90% certainty does give a big bias in the direction of the pro-AGW argument but, firstly, the AGW debate is significantly more complicated than a horse race and that 10% uncertainty can have a big impact, and secondly, it comes back down to the validity of the assumptions of the pro-AGW argument. The argument as presented may be 90% certain, but if one, some or all of the assumptions are flawed then that certainty plummets.

To your second comment, I agree entirely that phrases such as "environazi" should not be used in a rational debate and that it amounts to little more than school playground dirt-kicking and name-calling. However, despite "Environazi" being a much stronger term, I feel it belongs to the same group of words as "nay-sayer". Many a time has the word "nay-sayer" been used as basically a derogatory term for anyone who is skeptical about AGW. Although "nay-sayer" doesn't conjure up such vivid imagery as "environazi" it is still a deliberately dismissive (and, in certain contexts, almost abusive) word. I am not defending the word, but the argument works both ways... :wallbash:

C-Bob

Fair points both, however, I think in arriving at the 90% let's assume that the knowledgeable experts involved are pretty sure of the science they ARE asserting. I suspect the 10%, as G-W suggests, really reflects the possibility that something else is at play - and it might be, that much I concede. My however is that I think we're past the point of debating whether man is having an influence, the question is how much. That latter maters a lot because if we are influencing then we can also choose to stop doing so, particularly if to stand idly by might lead to future undesireable consequences.

We cannot know for sure, but I do know this. History offers no forgiveness for passivity; if we sit now to wait and see, then we just slide further down the slope so that IF we suddenly recognise the need to respond, we might actually be past the point of no return.

I remember amusedly watching some skiers from a mile or so away in a back bowl at Whistler a few years back. They were side slipping along a convex slope towards a 100' cliff face, and rapidly reaching a point where climbing back safely was no longer an options. Alas, mountain resuce heliciopters aren't going to arrest climate change; just now we're not at that point, but we might be soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...