Blue Planet in Green Shackles

[Lucy]

God knows why I am defending Baggy - but it seems there is more original thought from the so-called "lefties" on this site than the gut reaction, default positions that most others take.

Pull the other one.

[Bagpuss]

Don't go there, he doesn't understand that politics is not linear.

He only understands right and left.

That's classic comming from you!
As long as we remain reliant on oil we will be cap in hand to the OPEC countries. I can't see how that fits in with your liberty/freedom/and the American way mantra. Those most strongly opposing change do so because they have a vested interest in burning oil. We have or could have the technology to move away from being OPECs puppy and environmental bully, so what is the problem? We should be forcing governments to give resource or encourage R&D in these areas, not stress about a ludite tecnology dependant on a resource that is running out.

[DodgyAgent]

God knows why I am defending Baggy - but it seems there is more original thought from the so-called "lefties" on this site than the gut reaction, default positions that most others take.

What is interesting is that between you and Baggy you have managed to marginalise certain individuals as being "far right", so therefore if any of them disagrees with your views you can neatly avoid explaining them

[tay]

That's classic comming from you!
As long as we remain reliant on oil we will be cap in hand to the OPEC countries. I can't see how that fits in with your liberty/freedom/and the American way mantra. Those most strongly opposing change do so because they have a vested interest in burning oil. We have or could have the technology to move away from being OPECs puppy and environmental bully, so what is the problem? We should be forcing governments to give resource or encourage R&D in these areas, not stress about a ludite tecnology dependant on a resource that is running out.

Why if you are sceptical of the current green (red) movement are you anti change? That is just a massive leap in logic based on nothing. I am not anti change, I would love to severe the reliance on oil. I want as much R&D as possible, I want freedom of research. To blanket one side of this debate as 'anti-change' is just lazy analysis. We are just anti the change that is being enforced and suspicous of its motives.

[ace00]

Sideways

Don't want to distract too much from the general, "I know you are, but what am I?" level of debate, but has anyone ever seen any science behind the global warming, no sorry, climate change, no I meant isn't it wet today theory? As you might guess I think it's a crock, but that's irrelevant. Show me the science and I will change my opinion.

I've tried looking but just get overwhelmed by a deluge of graphs and models, neither of which have any more than a circumstantial relationship to scientific analysis. I did find out that there's about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, unspecified carbon sink capability, and human contribuiton (1990) of about 7.1 gigatons p/a (0.23%). The lifetime of CO2 is I think 12 years, but of course the atmosphere is very dynamic. Also, sun activity is increasing, and 500m years ago there was 20x the CO2 content...

[oracleslave]

Don't want to distract too much from the general, "I know you are, but what am I?" level of debate, but has anyone ever seen any science behind the global warming, no sorry, climate change, no I meant isn't it wet today theory? As you might guess I think it's a crock, but that's irrelevant. Show me the science and I will change my opinion.

I've tried looking but just get overwhelmed by a deluge of graphs and models, neither of which have any more than a circumstantial relationship to scientific analysis. I did find out that there's about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, unspecified carbon sink capability, and human contribuiton (1990) of about 7.1 gigatons p/a (0.23%). The lifetime of CO2 is I think 12 years, but of course the atmosphere is very dynamic. Also, sun activity is increasing, and 500m years ago there was 20x the CO2 content...

You are Michael Crichton and I claim my 5 free copies of 'State of Fear'.

[TimberWolf]

Don't want to distract too much from the general, "I know you are, but what am I?" level of debate, but has anyone ever seen any science behind the global warming, no sorry, climate change, no I meant isn't it wet today theory? As you might guess I think it's a crock, but that's irrelevant. Show me the science and I will change my opinion.

I've tried looking but just get overwhelmed by a deluge of graphs and models, neither of which have any more than a circumstantial relationship to scientific analysis. I did find out that there's about 3000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, unspecified carbon sink capability, and human contribuiton (1990) of about 7.1 gigatons p/a (0.23%). The lifetime of CO2 is I think 12 years, but of course the atmosphere is very dynamic. Also, sun activity is increasing, and 500m years ago there was 20x the CO2 content...

The good science is the historical data (obtained from ice cores etc), the bad all the rest, i.e. interpreting that data and the predictive models. The whole thing is poorly understood, but looks bad in parts. Especially if you live near a coast. CO2 has been way higher than current levels in the past for example, but is rising faster now than seen ever before in ice cores. Polar ice sheets are receding, but we’re in an ice age. For most of Earths history there was no ice, even on mountains. It’s getting hotter, but we evolved when it was much hotter than today. The climate is almost certainly changing because of mans activities (farming, etc) and always has for one reason or another.

[BrilloPad]

The whole environment debate has been hijacked by the left exactly as the Czech president describes. The left have always wanted to restrict individual enterprise and economic progress. No better bandwagon to jump on now that socialism has well and truly been nailed as an evil destructive ideology.

So by default many on the right now take the view that the "green debate" having been hijacked by the left is no longer to be taken seriously. The environmental debate has, to further complicate things for the rest of us, also become a focus of one upmanship amongst the scientific and political communities around the world.

Is that what the original post was trying to say?

You should write a book DA...

[sasguru]

The good science is the historical data (obtained from ice cores etc), the bad all the rest, i.e. interpreting that data and the predictive models. .

Please can you explain more about why you think this?

[TimberWolf]

Please can you explain more about why you think this?

It's the way science works?