But if everyone took a pebble from the beach Candice Marie there'd be none left.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Told you I was right ,the wigged one.
(90 posts) (29 voices)
-
Oxbridge
offlineMemberImpossible to tackle climate change and the admissions policices of Oxbridge colleges at one go, without getting hopelessly twisted so I'll stick the former. But lets get a few other things out of the way first.
1) No, climate change deniers and ignorant racist bigots are not one and the same, though I hold them both in equal contempt. ArrghGarry/Malcum Eggs/Melody is quite clearly both.
2) I missed the irony in thisisalloneword's piece at first too. Genius!
3) Back on topic, I don't know if Melody was trying to pretend he isn't ArrghGarry when he quite obviously is by throwing out that challenge to ArrghGarry. If it was meant for me, I'd be happy to take him on on general knowledge, but it wouldn't prove anything would it?
Climate change is an immensely complex thing and its effects are uneven and the ultimate consequences for any one area at any one time are unpredictable. BUT there is a definite, overwhelming scientific consensus that it is real, happening already and likely to have massive long-term consequences for human civilisation. The fact that some people believe it because it suits their inherent smugness and/or greener-than-thou credentials does not change the truth one jot.
To give the best analogy I can think of, there are substantial numbers of people - mostly but not just in the US - who believe that the world was created in six days flat about 6,000 years ago. Many of these people also don't believe in climate change or regard it as irrelevant because Christ will be returning to Earth within a few years. Views that the vast majority of Christians and others regard as absurd and beneath contempt.
So do we, in the name of fairness and balance, give them a hearing too? Or do we use the brains we were given and laugh them down to the obscurity they deserve? Same answer for them and climate change deniers, IMHO.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberThis may be a silly thought but, I have a vague recollection of reading that one of the biggest causes of Climate Change, is one which will never be addressed because of the wide-reaching implications i.e. massive population growth.
Because of Western reticence to be seen as impeding developing nations in any way, no one would want to be the one who stood up, pointed a finger at, say, India, and said, "Right, that's it. Enough reproducing. You'll have to be sensible and only have 2 children."
It would fall to their own governments to impose that, in the same way as China did a while back. But it is very unlikely to happen.I do not disagree that it is vital that we find alternative energy sources, that we will very shortly begin to run out of our current favourites is obvious, but why so much emphasis on wind-generated energy?
Around my little part of Scotland, most, if not all, of our electricity is created by hydro-generators, using the vast energy of reservoirs. We also have the North Sea, which surely some bright spark could put to better use than the proliferation of frequently inactive wind-farms which are popping up everywhere?
Again, absolutely agree that we should all make our homes as energy efficient as possible, which is something that we tried to do when we built our house, but perhaps the most innovative and effective products shouldn't be priced out of the average budget, such as the German designed and built windows which store and release heat.
The biggest issue I have, is that I remain unconvinced, not unbelieving, by the 'fact' that Climate Change is entirely or even mostly man-made.
In my opinion, I feel that we are in one of the Earth's natural warming-cycles, which has coincided with an increase of man-made CO2, rather than man's CO2 increase causing the warming.I say this as a non-scientist, but as one who has followed the debate for many years.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Gerontius
offlineMemberGood to see so many taking part, even if you are all wrong.
As for you Gary - if you dropped the tiresome multiple names you could be a great addition to NB. Some of your stuff can be quite entertaining and thought provoking (like this thread) but it's usually buried under your need to be heard above the crowd
Sadly, you've let us down, let yourself down, let your family and friends down and now you've let the whole country down.
Shame on you.
I'm sure you'd beat me in a QI quiz. But I don't fly on aeroplanes, I support my local shops every day, I'm helpful to old people and I am kind to animals
Sadly, intelligence doesn't always go hand in hand with common sense.
Mind you, I don't pooh-pooh homeothapy like all you learned people do.
My health problems didn't get sorted out until I ditched the GP prescribed medication and opted for self-help and self healing....oh, and seriously strong cider.Posted 2 years ago # -
FormerlyAlOPecia
offlineMember@ronseal - don't confuse the "old paradigm" with the new. The "old paradigm" in this case was there is no climate change, and if there is it's not human induced - the skeptics are the last hold outs of the old paradigm. The new paradigm is that it's real and we did it. Don't know what the one after that will be, but we won't be going backwards.
@"melody" - I have studied 10 languages but only speak 3, as my brain was full. I can't remember how many countries I have visited (many by plane before you ask), and also set quizzes.
Why are you having so much trouble holding a job down - the last one wasn't at Sky Sports by any chance??
Posted 2 years ago # -
melody
offlineMemberDear Gerontious ,Can I call you Geri for short ? Yes ,good to see so many taking part I had to change from AG as there were restrictions on that name ,thanks for the back handed compliment .I agree that the planet maybe getting warmer ,I disagree that humans are causing it ,it was reported that the earth is still doing OKAY and managing to balance out the extra CO2 ,it has to.I am more concerned with the way that certain people are brainwashing the kids and old guys .
ALop..Nice to hear you are a Polygit sorry glot.I do wish I was Andy Gray ,$3 million and a lot more to come !
P.S. I think I know what your brain is full with .Send for a Dalit.Jeni the China one policy ,(selling all their crap to Walmarts is not working out) ,they created fat little selfish bastards ,and as the past has proved America does not like anyone muscleing in on their territory .Do you have low fuel bills BTW ,never head of those heat releasing windows .
Ox ,nice comment about the believers 6 days flat earthers ,did it ever cross you mind that it might not be humans causing it ?
Cider is great with Pizza or used to be .
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sinnick
offlineMemberCurious how so many correspondents on this humorous website are getting worked up about this, when none of us have the influence to solve it.
Try the following video about Climate Change and Psychology, by Prof Daniel Gilbert of Harvard (9 mins 41). Hope my instructions work ...
Alternatively,
•Within ITunes, ensure Edit, Preferences, tab General has the "iTunes U" option checked.
•If you're logged on to iTunes, click on "iTunes Store" on the left-hand-side
•Scroll to the bottom, where "iTunes U" is the last clickable item, to give the "iTunes U" home page
•At the top right of this, click on "Universities & Colleges", then select "Harvard University"
•Select icon for "Harvard Thinks Big" near the bottom
•Select video "Global Warming and Psychology" by Prof Daniel GilbertI think it explains why so many people just cannot get out of the "Denial" phase of accepting & dealing with this little problem
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oxbridge
offlineMemberRonseal: If the BBC doesn't name the scientists, it's probably because a) there's too many to name in a soundbite and b) the names wouldn't mean anything to most viewers. How many scientists can most of us name other than Stephen Hawking?
Melody: Yes I did consider the possibility that climate change is purely natural and rejected it because the weight of scientific belief is to the contrary. And because I hadn't met your mate down the pub to convince me otherwise.
I think I'll get back to the knob gags now.
Posted 2 years ago # -
melody
offlineMemberI think that Ronseal has a point ,when Newspaper Rags report a dodgy story or Bullshit they say by a Staff reporter because the writer or Editor does not want to take the flack same with the GW scientists none of them are claiming the top spot .
I could only find one guy a Dr hansen and colleagues who say it's getting warm but FF are not to blame ,on the other hand I could not find one guy who would stick his neck out ..
This guy is on my side or I on his
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties
Oxy Is that gags or gangs ? You might bump into George Michael.
Posted 2 years ago # -
wallster
offlineMemberI'd like to stick my uneducated tuppence in at this point.
Does it really matter whether the climate is changing due to human activity or some other natural, cyclical, weathery...thing?
To my tiny mind it makes sense to use renewable energy wherever possible so we don't consume all the oil and gas that could otherwise be kept more cheap for driving noisy great cars very, very fast.
And if we limit the rate at which we pump crap into the atmosphere at the same time then that's just fine and dandy with me.
Take the spots from the apples but leave me the birds and the bees. Please.
Posted 2 years ago # -
melody
offlineMemberIt matters in the sense that people are milking millions from it and blaming us humans
but I do agree with you we should stop putting the shit into the air and the rivers .There are cars that are better than the Prius MPG wise ,yet the Prius, because it's an hybrid gets the credit .Posted 2 years ago # -
and another one
offlineMemberFuck it, let's just fill the earth with shit.
I don't care if global warming is real or not, let's just pump crap into the air, and suffocate in the Tokyo smog.
In the name of global warming scepticism, let's cut down all the forests, cause huge oil slicks and give all our kids asthma.
The world of the climate change sceptic seems a bit like the world of the wiping your arse sceptic - you can make your point as forcefully as you want, but I don't want to live in your fucking filthy world.
Posted 2 years ago # -
melody
offlineMemberDid you ever take drugs ? looks like you are too easily lead,in a previous post I said we should avoid put crap into the air and rivers ,you get too excited . describe.
Were you at London uni with Ricky Gervais ? He describes you as beret wearing amongst other things.Posted 2 years ago # -
ronseal
offlineMemberThere was a big advert in a newspaper for a Solar Power Panel.
The ad claimed (misleadingly I think) that punters could generate so much electrcity they'd be able to sell the surplus back to the utility company.
They obviously would have wanted to target a newspaper readership thats fairly gullible.
Which paper did the advert appear in?
the Daily Mail.
So even NIMBY climate change deniers obviously buy into the solar power myth.
I'm told deep water turbines work though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You can make money on solar panel installations in the UK since April 2010 Feed-in Tarif introduction.
You get paid 40p for every kWh you generate, a bonus for anything you feed back into the grid.
Figures quoted on the BBC this morning were that for an investment of £10,000, you could expect an annual benefit (in income from selling electricity and in savings from electricity not bought) of £900 pounds.
They didn't say but I expect this is for a roof facing due South in the South of UK (optimum insolation)
Anyway, that's a 9% return and it's tax-free.
It's funded by people who don't have solar panels through slightly higher per unit electricity bills.
Posted 2 years ago # -
They are mostly made in China now. Suntech and Yingli are two of the biggest photovoltaic (PV) panel makers in the world (Chinese, and the latter was a world cup sponsor) and in India there's Moser Baer.
The UK feed-in Tarif scheme is based on a German scheme that has been going about ten years, and now some states (Bavaria in particular) generate about 3 to 4% of their electricity from PV.
In the beginning, the German scheme not only provided a strong incentive for individuals and small businesses to install PV, it also boosted the local PV panel industry, and panel manufacturing plants were set up especially in former East Germany.
However many Germans are now opting to buy cheaper panels from China, Taiwan and India. This has led critics in Germany to point out that they are effectively subsidising Chinese industry at the moment.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Perhaps should be pointed out that although the PV panels are still a fair chunk of the costs of that £10,000 solar array, I heard last week that the majority of the cost was now in installation and connection, which does at least create local jobs and channel the money back into the Local economy, rather than into China.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.