Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

[hyperD]

That's fine but what evidence is there that "doing anything" will achieve anything?

Well, exporting wood from the USA to burn in Drax, not building any more coal fired base load power stations, building more ridiculous windfarms and solar panels, throwing taxpayers cash at FIT, grid instability, and to make-up for the shortfall in demand we have diesel generator based STOR, three things will be achieved:

1. High energy bills
2. Brownouts
3. Reduced wealth

[doodab]

That's fine but what evidence is there that "doing anything" will achieve anything?

A lot of people seemed to think something should have been done when the somerset levels got flooded. Were they all wrong?

I'm not saying we need to build windmills. I'm saying we will need to mitigate the effects of climate change, whether it's man made or natural, and whether we treat the symptoms or what's perceived as the cause. To that end, funding climate research is sensible, even if AGW turns out to be a red herring, because it improves our understanding of the climate. Whether the AGW consensus is wrong or right the data will eventually decide, but f you don't gather the data, you'll still be arguing about it in 50 years.

My personal feeling is that if human activity is to blame we've left it too late to do anything meaningful about it anyway, so the decision is probably moot, and we'll need to deal with the symptoms. I suspect the cost of that, and the economic cost of delaying, will make the much maligned green projects look like pocket change in comparison.

[original PM]

I do not think it would be too much to ask in the UK to...

1) Review and increase flood defences which have been shown to be woefully inadequate over the past ten years.

2) Have better surface water run off management so that any excess water is colected and used.

in terms of whether we should be doing anything to reduce polutions etc which we think cause global warming no not until the science behing it is better known.

however we should try and reduce polution anyway to improve air quality.

[doodab]

in terms of whether we should be doing anything to reduce polutions etc which we think cause global warming no not until the science behing it is better known.

What people seem to forget is that back in the 80s when this was all getting started the AGW lobby weren't listened to at all. Mrs Thatcher (who for all her sins did listen to expert advice) was actually one of the first to take the science seriously.

While there are lots of unanswered questions the idea that the science isn't well known is to a large extent the work of vested interests and powerful lobby groups, not actual experts. To some extent the induced doubt is a good thing as it forces the scientists to keep improving their models. What is potentially dangerous IMO is the degree to which it's politicised and publicised to the extent that ordinary people don't know what to believe any more despite the fact that most specialists working in the field seem to agree. The fact that most people dismiss the scientists as having a vested interest undermines science in general and I think that's a bad thing.

[vetran]

there is plenty we can do cheaply if we make it part of Business as Usual.

We can encourage low energy, low pollution living but we must combine with keeping the lights on.

[BlasterBates]

The Australians built expensive desalination plants to mitigate the "permanent drought" in Queensland.

Guess what happened?

The permanent drought ended.



I doubt there is a lot of point expending a lot of money on predictions based on "fiction". If we are to mitigate "climate change" .....fantasy predictions aren't helpful.

I mean we could spend a fortune building defences against a hypothetical alien attack. If we then successfully repel one in the long distant future our descendents will thank us for our foresight.

[doodab]

We can encourage low energy, low pollution living but we must combine with keeping the lights on.

Agreed. One big issue here is the anti-nuclear lobby IMO.

[doodab]

I doubt there is a lot of point expending a lot of money on predictions based on "fiction". If we are to mitigate "climate change" .....fantasy predictions aren't helpful.

Well it depends. If building defences based on predictions costs for example 1/5th of what the potentially avoided damage costs and you are right more than 1/5th of the time then you come out ahead even if the predictions are mostly wrong.

Ignoring the oft quoted temperature graphs used to dispute "global warming", there is little doubt that sea levels are rising for example. That can be and is measured and it presents a very real threat to a lot of people.

[DodgyAgent]

Well, exporting wood from the USA to burn in Drax, not building any more coal fired base load power stations, building more ridiculous windfarms and solar panels, throwing taxpayers cash at FIT, grid instability, and to make-up for the shortfall in demand we have diesel generator based STOR, three things will be achieved:

1. High energy bills
2. Brownouts
3. Reduced wealth

Do you have proof that this will change anything?

[DodgyAgent]

Well it depends. If building defences based on predictions costs for example 1/5th of what the potentially avoided damage costs and you are right more than 1/5th of the time then you come out ahead even if the predictions are mostly wrong.

Ignoring the oft quoted temperature graphs used to dispute "global warming", there is little doubt that sea levels are rising for example. That can be and is measured and it presents a very real threat to a lot of people.

sea defences should be built and maintained anyway as there is a quantifiable return on investment. Sticking up expensive wind farms and buying books by Al gore has no such measurable outcome.