biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Turn the lights off, please.
- Thread starter biffvernon
- Start date
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I have no doubt it's a good thing to have such a lot of work going on to investigate global warming. I wonder, though, if there is a similar body charged with coming up with real, practical solutions to the posited problems we face.
I don't mean at the level of 'reduce greehouse gas emissions', I mean investigating the national and international social upheavals and tensions (wars even) that are going to arise as a result of rapidly reducing our current (apparent) dependency on fossil fuels (if we actually manage it), and how we should be planning to cope with the results.
Personally, I'm pessimistic that anything meaningful will be done to reduce our energy consumption in the near future. I'm more optimistic that we'll just learn to adapt to the new weather conditions as they develop, even though it probably won't be easy at the time.
I saw one interesting, and hopeful, quote from all the recent reaction to this story : Plant breeders and the like have developed varieties of wheat, barley, sorghum, cotton, soybeans, you name it, that are using less and less water. Farmers are confident that things will evolve over time. OK maybe we will have hotter temperatures and less rainfall in 100 years' time, but if you look at the variety of crops they're growing today versus 100 years ago, they've adapted crops to suit today's conditions. I dare say they'll adapt them to suit conditions in 100 years' time. ANDREW WALKER, AUSTRALIAN GRAINS BROKER, FOX COMMODITIES
Let's hope he's right, otherwise the only thing left to ponder is what our civilisation's equivalent to the Easter Island statues is going to be for the first aliens to visit our planet in the future.
I don't mean at the level of 'reduce greehouse gas emissions', I mean investigating the national and international social upheavals and tensions (wars even) that are going to arise as a result of rapidly reducing our current (apparent) dependency on fossil fuels (if we actually manage it), and how we should be planning to cope with the results.
Personally, I'm pessimistic that anything meaningful will be done to reduce our energy consumption in the near future. I'm more optimistic that we'll just learn to adapt to the new weather conditions as they develop, even though it probably won't be easy at the time.
I saw one interesting, and hopeful, quote from all the recent reaction to this story : Plant breeders and the like have developed varieties of wheat, barley, sorghum, cotton, soybeans, you name it, that are using less and less water. Farmers are confident that things will evolve over time. OK maybe we will have hotter temperatures and less rainfall in 100 years' time, but if you look at the variety of crops they're growing today versus 100 years ago, they've adapted crops to suit today's conditions. I dare say they'll adapt them to suit conditions in 100 years' time. ANDREW WALKER, AUSTRALIAN GRAINS BROKER, FOX COMMODITIES
Let's hope he's right, otherwise the only thing left to ponder is what our civilisation's equivalent to the Easter Island statues is going to be for the first aliens to visit our planet in the future.
Perhaps they should see what can be grown in the sahara desert which could sustain humanity.
When I have the "odd" discussion about global warming with my 30+ year old "children" the response I get reminds me of the song " que sera sera", it appears that this topic of conversation will make the majority of humans bury their heads in the sand and self preservation comes to the fore. Isn't it Ironic that this is exactly what is being destroyed, preservation.
When I have the "odd" discussion about global warming with my 30+ year old "children" the response I get reminds me of the song " que sera sera", it appears that this topic of conversation will make the majority of humans bury their heads in the sand and self preservation comes to the fore. Isn't it Ironic that this is exactly what is being destroyed, preservation.
The idea that this is the most important issue today is forever pressed forth by the greenies, but the reality for much of the worlds population is something else entirely, many of whom have much bigger risks in front of their nose, such as how to stay alive another year, with enough food, medicine and so on.
Yes it matters, but at least lets be honest about perspective.
NT
Yes it matters, but at least lets be honest about perspective.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
And no 'buts' please.NT said:Yes it matters, but..
biffvernon said:And no 'buts' please.NT said:Yes it matters, but..
Too late. The reality check already slipped in there. Sorry.
NT
Johneds
Member
- Messages
- 126
- Location
- South Gloucestershire
Maybe it's current trend but my kids (11 and 16yrs) are very aware of global warming and the potential consequences. Interestingly, whilst they are keen on recycling, turning off lights and they don't complain at having the heating turned down a bit, they actually think it is all a bit futile when the major countries of the world refuse to make a contribution. Which is hard to argue with really.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
A considerable proportion of the world's population has - as you say - far more pressing priorities in the matter of simply staying alive on a day-to-day basis.NT said:the reality for much of the worlds population is something else entirely, many of whom have much bigger risks in front of their nose, such as how to stay alive another year, with enough food, medicine and so on.
Yes it matters, but at least lets be honest about perspective.
But the two problems are not mutually exclusive. The one you have highlighted doesn't mean that the other doesn't exist, no matter how you try to belittle it with terms like "greenies".
Climate change will affect the likes of you and me only slightly. But our grandchildren and their grandchildren will suffer devastating effects, if we just do nothing.
Penners said:NT said:the reality for much of the worlds population is something else entirely, many of whom have much bigger risks in front of their nose, such as how to stay alive another year, with enough food, medicine and so on.
Yes it matters, but at least lets be honest about perspective.
A considerable proportion of the world's population has - as you say - far more pressing priorities in the matter of simply staying alive on a day-to-day basis.
But the two problems are not mutually exclusive. The one you have highlighted doesn't mean that the other doesn't exist,
yes, of course. I'm not saying it doesnt exist, just trying to get the discussion a bit more honest.
[quote no matter how you try to belittle it with terms like "greenies".[/quote]
I think youre confusing 2 things there. The greens dont own the climate change problem, nor the solution. Saying greenies is not commenting on the problem one way or another.
Its simply pointingn out the reality that those that call themselves green dont have or control the solution as they like to imagine they do.
I'm not belittling the climate problem at all, just getting real about it. One cant solve a problem if one begins with a bunch of untruths.
Climate change will affect the likes of you and me only slightly. But our grandchildren and their grandchildren will suffer devastating effects, if we just do nothing.
Without getting into that one, whichever way we go there will be consequences down line, our task is simply to try to understand what are the real positive moves, what are phoney greenwash, and what are actually counterproductive.
NT
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Sorry, NT, but that won't wash. Your use of the term "greenies" is pejorative. It carries the implication that climate change is a somewhat laughable idea, being foisted on the world by a lunatic fringe.NT said:Saying greenies is not commenting on the problem one way or another
Penners said:Sorry, NT, but that won't wash.NT said:Saying greenies is not commenting on the problem one way or another
We'll see.
Your use of the term "greenies" is pejorative.
yes
It carries the implication that climate change is a somewhat laughable idea, being foisted on the world by a lunatic fringe.
Ah no, that was inferred not implied. I already explained what I meant.
NT
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
In the late 1970s, when I taught secondary school science, I included a topic on the climate changing effects of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. My head of department thought the idea laughable and that I was a fully paid up member of the member of the greenie lunatic fringe.
I hear the government is now going to insist that the topic is included in the National Curriculum. Pity they're a quarter of a century late.
I hear the government is now going to insist that the topic is included in the National Curriculum. Pity they're a quarter of a century late.
Johneds
Member
- Messages
- 126
- Location
- South Gloucestershire
'a fully paid up member of the greenie lunatic fringe' eh. High praise indeed.
Around the time I bought the house I currently live in (1988) I remember watching an Open Uni programme (yea, ok, I know) in which some fully paid up member of the greenie lunatic fringe said that the area of the Severn Valley we were considering houses in would be under water within 20 years. Well, it was enough for me and we decided to move up the hill.
Turns out he was being a bit conservative. (small c I would guess) It was actually under water in 2000 - and again in 2004. And nearly again the week before last. All these were 1 in 150 year events. (Wot, 3 in 7 years I here you wonder? Shurely Shome Mishtake)
Nice and dry up here though.
Around the time I bought the house I currently live in (1988) I remember watching an Open Uni programme (yea, ok, I know) in which some fully paid up member of the greenie lunatic fringe said that the area of the Severn Valley we were considering houses in would be under water within 20 years. Well, it was enough for me and we decided to move up the hill.
Turns out he was being a bit conservative. (small c I would guess) It was actually under water in 2000 - and again in 2004. And nearly again the week before last. All these were 1 in 150 year events. (Wot, 3 in 7 years I here you wonder? Shurely Shome Mishtake)
Nice and dry up here though.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I'm not sure that example is anything to do with global warming though, more like a good example of the stupidity of building new houses on flood plains.
Rivers have always flooded periodically, and always will. Building in such areas is asking for trouble.
Rivers have always flooded periodically, and always will. Building in such areas is asking for trouble.
There are actually ways to build successfully in these regions, but theyre not adopted. Sellers prefer the denial approach.
Way 1: Make the ground floor the garage, accom above.
Way 2: Turn the land into a giant ploughed pattern, with houses & roads along the ridges, and let the gardens take the flooding.
etc
Really houses should not be permitted to be built unless they have some reasonable means of staying dry during flooding.
NT
Way 1: Make the ground floor the garage, accom above.
Way 2: Turn the land into a giant ploughed pattern, with houses & roads along the ridges, and let the gardens take the flooding.
etc
Really houses should not be permitted to be built unless they have some reasonable means of staying dry during flooding.
NT
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Congratulations on your long life, John. 450 years must be some sort of record.Johneds said:Turns out he was being a bit conservative. (small c I would guess) It was actually under water in 2000 - and again in 2004. And nearly again the week before last. All these were 1 in 150 year events.