John Lennon On the Myth of Over-population

Cardew

dixie_dean wrote: »

There's no point replying to these idiots. The fact is that the debate is over and won by the truth that climate change is real. The vast majority of the world believe this and until there is any reasonable evidence to the contrary (rather than ignorant, conspiracist tripe) this will continue to be the dominant view.

I really do find it sad how polarized this debate has become.

On this most complex of issues, that someone can claim that “the debate is over and truth has won” and at the same time dismissing any opposition as idiots, is extraordinary.

What is the Truth?

That the temperature will rise by ?? degrees C in ???? years?

That Man contributes ???% to this change.

The effect will be?

How do we stop climate change?

Nobody disputes that there is a consensus of opinion amongst scientists that climate change is happening, and that Man makes some contribution.

However there is no consensus amongst scientists on the degree of change, time scales, Man’s contribution, the effect of these changes and above all what measures to combat any detrimental effect will be acceptable to the political masters in all Nations.

Nobody should also doubt that there is a sizeable body of scientists who believe that the mainstream theories(and that is what they are – theories) are wrong/exaggerated and/or the proposed solutions will be unnecessary/impractical.

Of course there are vested interests – albeit on both sides!

Kill the unbelievers!!

patman99

Can I just point-out that in 1472 it was noted in a weel-known journal (pepys diary I think), that the author was enjoying a glass of wine from the vineyards of Yorkshire. For this to be the case, it must have been at least 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

The planet is currently suffering from severe over-population, however, this will sort itself out when we finally run out of oil and uranium in the next 100 years. With no power, we will be unable to produce enough food, and wide-spread famine will decimate the population to the point at which the world can sustain it.

dixie_dean_2

There are commercial vineyards in yorkshire now for what it's worth.

Cardew

dixie_dean wrote: »

There are commercial vineyards in yorkshire now for what it's worth.

Its called planning ahead!!!

RAS

patman99 wrote: »

Can I just point-out that in 1472 it was noted in a weel-known journal (pepys diary I think), that the author was enjoying a glass of wine from the vineyards of Yorkshire. For this to be the case, it must have been at least 2 degrees warmer than it is now.

Wrong. Not Pepys as he was 17th century. Or it could be the old one about Alcuin in York?

And wrong about the temperature. As pointed out there are two commercial vineyards making wine in Yorkshire, plus a host of individuals who have been successfully growing vines for personal wine-making since 1980 to my knowledge. I harvested the first tiny bunches of eatign grapes off my outdoor vines in Yorkshire last year and have higher hopes for 2010.

waqasahmed

Like Ive said before, climate change or no climate change all developed countries will push for higher efficiency, low cost products as they know fuel is running out soon, but an economy needs people to buy. With high efficient products, manufacturers can then think of ways to reduce the power(like in netbooks) so that the countries demand for energy can finally be provided by renewable energy sources. Thats my opinion anyhow-BTW, I do believe in man made climate change

yakky58

IMO I think climate change debate should actually be renamed energy production debate. Its clear that the finite resources to produce power are becoming scarce. The 'west' has less control over those resources and an ever increasing demand for power due to the boom in consumerism, eg 20 years ago no PC's, mobile phones, multiple TV's, microwave ovens etc.

How do we maintain our standard of living? Well we have a need to control the access to power production. So we see two ways currently, become efficient within our own economy through insulation and devices that consume less power. Secondly, deny those access to power so as to maintain supply to the hungry rich nations.

Trouble is you can't say to countries you ain't developing cause we need the resources. So the best way is to disguise that fact via the climate debate. The only trouble is that we the west are asking those developing countries to stop producing CO2 when the west are the worst offenders.

By products of this debate are that our leaders get top travel all around the world deciding nothing and enjoying the travel, which creates further C02. The 'green' people have a whole new industry that generates jobs that actually don't really contribute to the economy in real terms. I qualify this as the number of employed in the 'green' world to the revenue generated to GDP, so ask this question what does Greenpeace contribute to UK GDP.

It has opened a whole new realm to Governments for TAX revenue, CO2 emissions on cars, TAX on air travel, London's congestion charging and scope beyond belief for the future. As I quote to my sons, two things are free sunlight and fresh air...but they will be taxed soon.

If we are to be credible in climate change/energy debate I'd like to see a government come up with a credible energy plan. One that commits long term spending on power production in the most efficient way to guarantee load and supply. This should be in line with efficiency reduction for home owners and industry. Namely, a tax break to insulate your house or business. Additionally, should you choose self generation then a tax break for production and say a reduction in council tax for the property, ie a reverse of the current philosphy of pay more if you improve your property.

However, as a keen follower of the energy planning in the last 20 years, I have seen 8 govt white papers under NU Labour none of which have been turned into a credible plan. The last announcement of a £75bn spend on offshore wind is a joke. The estimate of 9 gigawatts will not work as the transmission loss over the distance will significantly reduce that.

Climate change, is media hype and a way under which we get taxed more. Politicians work on the basis of a microgram of image is worth far more than actually producing anything.

Do not believe that manufacturers will produce goods that consume less power. They are driven by creating goods cheaply and selling at the highest price they can get. If the cost of being energy efficient is too high they simply won't do it. Who measures how much power these devices use in their homes anyway? Which also brings up the question why does a government need to spend £20bn on supply smart meters to every home? If two very efficient power plants cost £20bn isn't that money well spent. I would probably look at my smart meter for a month and then never again.