The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Tordels, (and I'm still just playing Devil's advocate here), Human population centres cover a tiny proportion of the Earth's surface and no city is sterile of life. One might sniff at the odd urban fox or pigeon but cities are stuffed with life. Granted, if you build a city over the top of an existing ecosystem then you're going to destroy that ecosystem in favour of a new one.

.

Your shiny new city won't stay lifeless for long, though. It will soon attract plants and insects and scavengers and opportunists and pests and parasites and whatnot. Chances are that some of these creatures and plants will come from other parts of the planet and so you might find that your city ends up with a more diverse and resilient ecosystem than the one that was destroyed.  Just because there are no elephants wobbling down the street or gorillas shaking their fists at bi-planes from rooftops doesn't mean there's nothing there.

.

The influence of agricultural land is, I think, the biggest threat to other species but here, again, I find the portrayal of it as an almost sterile place is misleading. I live in a rural area and there is life *everywhere*. Again, no elephants or gorillas but plenty of species of small and domesticated animals.

.

I think that human activity can rip holes in ecosystems but they adapt. Once an ecosystem, or a part of an ecosystem is gone, the likelihood is that it's gone for good - but that doesn't mean that nothing will take its place.

[JOE SOAP]

What exactly is the sun doing differently now compared to a few hundred years ago? I wouldn't deny that that great big nuclear reactor affects the planet, but it has been doing so for the past 3 odd billion years.  What's different now?

What was it doing during the Ice-Age or when things were hotter than they are now? But nowadays it seems not much is different than a few hundred years ago.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm

[The Legendary Shark]

Tordels, I don't know what's really behind climate change. So much of the science (at least, what little of it I can understand) both for anthroproenic and heliocentric climate change just doesn't add up to may.

.

Hell, maybe the CO2 theory *is* right - but I truly don't know, and while that state of affairs exists I'll challenge anyone who just believes the official line just because a bunch of paid scientists tell them to until the cows come home. There is not a scientific consensus on climate change and for the authorities to claim that there is is misinformed at best and mind-shreddingly stupid at worst.

[Richmond Clements]

paid scientists

Sorry, but what? Does this mistrust only extend to scientists? Or do you have an equal mistrust of, say, bus drivers or waiters or surgeons who also get paid for their job?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

[CrazyFoxMachine]

I don't get paid to do anything, so by rights I'm the most trustworthy person here.

[Recrewt]

Climate change is a very tricky subject to make much sense of.  Despite what may be reported on either side of the CO2 debate - the real answer is they don't know.  I also agree that just because many scientists feel the same way, does not mean they are correct - there have been many examples of scientists who have gone against common perception, only to be prooved correct. 

Measuring the climate is difficult enough but then you have to build models that can handle all the other influences on the climate e.g. the sun - a giant ball of flame, that ebbs and flows like any fire does.  The other issue is with the quality of the data - most decent climate data has only been recorded from the last few decades - anything further back is based on data which is most likely flawed.  So, assuming the earth is 4.5 billion years old then we have accurate(ish) climate data for approx 0.000001% of the total earth time.  It doesn't sound like the solid basis for predicting future climate change like they say it is.

And yes, there are those that have used the CO2 debate to enhance their own agenda - I am continually shocked when I hear so called 'green' people talking about how Nuclear energy is the fuel of the future.  Apparantly it is better to use a method where waste has to be put in a deep hole and covered in concrete for hundreds of thousands of years rather than burning some coal.

[Richmond Clements]

Climate change is a very tricky subject to make much sense of.  Despite what may be reported on either side of the CO2 debate - the real answer is they don't know.

Wrong.

[Recrewt]

Climate change is a very tricky subject to make much sense of.  Despite what may be reported on either side of the CO2 debate - the real answer is they don't know.

Wrong.

Oh, so they do know...

the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
the amount of CO2 produced by humans?
what happenned to the difference in the level of CO2 humans apparantly create versus what they find in the atmosphere?
what effects the increased CO2 has?
what the 'breaking point is'?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Apparantly it is better to use a method where waste has to be put in a deep hole and covered in concrete for hundreds of thousands of years rather than burning some coal.

Lovely, clean, limitless coal.

[Theblazeuk]

I think Tordelbacks "Lets not kick holes in a sinking ship" is a basic point that most people who don't believe in humanity's role in climate change refuse to acknowledge.

If humans have any effect whatsoever on climate change does it matter what other factors are responsible if they are going to keep doing it and we can't stop it?

The idea that mankind has a negligible effect on the planet should have been put to bed with the industrial revolution and should have become the sole province of those who mistakenly believe in some kind of eternal cradle for mankind. If the industrial revolution didn't end it, the nuclear one should have done. At an extreme, we can turn the surface of the Earth into glass.

Wait, I just realised. Haven't you seen the cursed earth!??! Do you want the flying ratplague to eat you alive

[Dandontdare]

Pandas are just taking the piss.

A carnivore that has evolved into a picky vegan that refuses to shag. Perhaps some species are just meant to be extinct.

[Recrewt]

Apparantly it is better to use a method where waste has to be put in a deep hole and covered in concrete for hundreds of thousands of years rather than burning some coal.

Lovely, clean, limitless coal.

To quote Smithy, of Gavin and Stacey:
"Oh, let's all buy a Prius and shit in the woods".

No-one is saying coal is clean or limitless but I am amazed that people consider nuclear to be the 'green' alternative.

[The Legendary Shark]

I wonder why we can't convert some of the Earth's magnetic field into electricity? You'd have thought there'd be enough to maybe run a few street lights or something.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The Earth's magnetic field is only just strong enough to move a tiny needle in a compass, it's not going to power a dynamo.