h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There was a seminar today on what the swedish goverment is doing with the global warming threat. Sadly I had to do exams.

Governments tend to try to get re-elected. Putting energy costs up is not going to make this easier. In a sense, I can't blame them for this, because they just reflect our indifference and laziness. Our economy passes costs onto future generations, it doesn't make them disappear, and we don't care enough to get a consensus among politicians to take on some of the costs now.

I've been studying the oil shocks of the 70s recently. Global warming (or rather, changing to more expensive energy sources) would have a similar effect, of diminished growth, higher prices, higher unemployment, less wealth, political and social instability. You can't blame politicians for not trying to get re-elected on that platform.

No, that's logical. But they're levying *extra* taxes over and above normal purely on the strength of GW. Airline taxes for one. Fuel is taxed excessively and above inflation. They're collecting extra money .... and doing what with it?

They argue airline taxes are essential as planes cause a disproportionate pollution - then they authorise extensions and new runways for expected rise in demand. Again they say one thing and do another.

Are we not in danger of getting sucked into a morass of claim and counter-claim? None of us here can truly assess the veracity of figures after all, so we all (both sides) attack the veracity of the claimants.

Move away from the hot air and assess the actual acts of governments. Was it Singapore or Tokyo that just built a major airport on an artificial island? Who in their right mind would authorise a spend of billions on something that's about to be underwater?

Morning SWL

<< Move away from the hot air and assess the actual acts of governments. Was it Singapore or Tokyo that just built a major airport on an artificial island? Who in their right mind would authorise a spend of billions on something that's about to be underwater?>>

Interesting comment, but what are you saying?

1 The government which authorised the island airport KNOWS GW wont sink it

2 The authorising government doesn't BELIEVE it will be swamped

3 They haven't actually thought about it

Or more probably

4 They built it anyway, for short to medium term gain - until the seas rise, if they ever do.!!!

Novo

Dubai is currently building more of those palm-shaped peninsulas out into the Persian Gulf. The people who spend foolish amounts of money buying up property there should really be stopping and thinking.

<>

Here you go:

<>

Well, as I interpreted it, the implication there was: "you've fallen hook, line and sinker for Big Oil's lies, therefore you are in agreement with/have been duped by them." If that wasn’t the case then I apologise (though you’ll need to explain why it isn’t pretty thoroughly, because being so ignorant and rude I really cannot interpret it any other way), but if you are going to continue using the 'Big Oil angle' you really should provide references and sources for your claims otherwise it's going to seem more and more like a conspiracy theory.

Despite the fact I find myself disagreeing with SWL on nearly everything, he has a point. The last thread of this type I was involved in (one of SWL's ) just ended up with people posting claim and counter-claim and playing link ping-pong. I have a feeling that, despite the best efforts of science, there is too much 'belief' involved in the topic for us to debate it. Plus, since none of us are experts, we can't really discuss the science properly.

Yes I agree, not a bad dicussion though. I understand the frustartion of ethical scientists who submit to peer review via journals and conferences. I can also appreciate that securing research funding may at times be difficult and, if not a politically sexy field, some publicity could be productive.

I do worry about the increasing volume of breaking miracle cures. This mornings were: Eating cherries prevents heart attacks, eating eggs reduces cholestrol, a new cure for osteoporosis and eating soup reduces weight not bad for the Today programme on Radio 4, hardly tabloid.

I previously did provide links, and a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, explicitly detailing the link between the oil industry and the misinformation campaign about global warming.

However, I've been roundly and repeatedly criticized for using links. So nuts to that. You can check the previous thread or google "Union of Concerned Scientists" and check under global warming. But I would have to be a complete and utter moron to ever post another link on the forum after being berated so thoroughly for it.

And the WanderingAlbatross continues to ignore the incentive of the oil industry to play down the man-made nature of global warming. So Wandering, it's more believable that thousands of scientists are able to band together and maintain a secret cabal that perpetuates the man-made global warming myth, rather than a few oil executives have used their *record* profits to hire some lobbying firms to maintain a controversy that will maintain those profits.

There was something on the news this morning about scientific findings saying that sunblock and light clothes were inadequate protection against the sun, and that thick, dark fabrics like denim are best. People were talking about this in school today and seemed to assume that that meant that scientists had said they had to wear dark fabrics in the sun otherwise they would get skin cancer. Science does not tend to order to you do anything. It just said that, while you might think you are well-protected from the sun, you could be better-protected.

<>

Sheesh... kinda makes you wonder the point of online debating if you can't back up your side of the argument.

(any way "Union of Concerned Scientists" searched for and looked at... they do like to blow their own trumpet, don't they?)

Arnie - can I clear up the links thing as I understand it?

Previously you and I and a host of others, had taken to not only posting links to back up our arguments, but we had started to allow the link to *be* the argument. And I readily admit I had started to do that.

For those attempting to follow a debate, being forced to follow a link then read often lengthy pages was getting tiresome. Not forgetting that many people use work computers with limited access.

I presume what was being called for was something like :

Mongolian tree frogs are in danger of extinction as a direct result of Manchester United fans eating meat pies. A survey conducted by the Vegetarian Society last year found a direct correlation between the two. For more information: http://www.soupsong.com/ftripe.html

"Plus, since none of us are experts, we can't really discuss the science properly."

**EXACTLY**

So, let's listen the to experts shall we? The people who have detailed knowledge of these issues. What are these people saying? What is the scientific consensus?

Stev

That eating cherries prevents heart attacks!

Ste: I agree wholeheartedly. There is a great degree of uncertainty, but if I'm going to believe anything I'm going to believe the scientific consensus.

"Government, who have always shown a rapacious appetite for raising taxes and spending money. The Green Lobby has acquired immense political power very, very quickly."

Yes, because political parties of all shades have stopped believing what they wanted to, looked at the facts, listened to the *experts* and acted responsibly. This isn't about the "green lobby", it's about responsible people looking at facts and acting in a rational and responsible way. Incidentally, have you noticed that the British Conservative Party have taken-onboard the GW problem in spite of a longstanding opposition to tax rises?

"BSE - The cause was traced to rendering sheep carcasses at too low a temperature to kill the prions before making cattle food. But massive scare tatics supported by a majority of scientific opinion that it could jump the species barrier and cause a catastrophic CJD pandemic. Fully backed by trends and forecasts. What really happened. BSE is still endemic in some countries and the UK beef export has only just recovered and a fortune was spent on compensation. Oh CJD, err, even John Gummer's children seem to have survived.

On a similar note the same scientists would also seem to have got the Foot and Mouth tatics wrong. Immunisation rather than mass slaughter would have been more effective. How much compensation was paid, sometimes to no avail, as rural communities and smaller farmers were devastated.

SARS (Oh and lets throw in Bird Flu and the Asian Flu pandemic) - Pandemic forecast, the weight of scientific evidence, more research funding required, give your favourite vaccine manufacturer a nice cosy contract and a peerage, consultancy needed as to how we will cope. What happened nothing; but with the catch all safety net, to defer any criticism that the research funding or vaccine manufacture might have been a waste of money, it will definately happen within the next ten years. Ten years of course sees the predictor safely drawing his pension. I could predict a flu pandemic will arrive within ten or twenty years, and I don't have a PhD, simply by reading some history."

All of this is a classic case of smug-cynicism and after-the-event pontificating. What was done *at the time* and *given the available facts* was entirely responsible and sensible. The SARS issue was one government took very seriously for very very good reasons, incidentally. An avian flu epidemic was and is a huge risk even though we are much better prepared than we were during the last killer-flu epidemic in 1919.

I would argue that the political parties looked at the growth of the Green Parties and though "Oho, there's votes in this green malarkey".

And *that* is all that matters to politicians. Votes. They saw votes in environmentalism and then fell over each other to appear the greenest. The GW hysteria in the media feeds the public concern which in turn feeds the desire of grubby little oiks in cheap suits to say what you want to hear. To get your vote.

"And *that* is all that matters to politicians. Votes. They saw votes in environmentalism and then fell over each other to appear the greenest. The GW hysteria in the media feeds the public concern which in turn feeds the desire of grubby little oiks in cheap suits to say what you want to hear. To get your vote."

And I'll ask again, what about the vast majority of climatologists and their opinion?