Climate change / pollution and answers

There's absolutely no evidence that CO2 increases temperatures in the Earth's system - unless you can quote me it. Any attempts to demonstrate it (and there have been a few) have failed - except in deserts and places with zero vegetation. In all other cases CO2 has not been shown to cause warming. On the other hand if you build a town a significant increase in temperature is very easy to demonstrate - despite the CO2 level being exactly the same as in the country.

This is where the measure comes in, we can assess pretty accurately the state of repair or disrepair of the roads we have many measures that tell a tale and can supply accurate statistical details about what is going wrong and what needs to be done. Not so with AGW the only measures that are used are rife with disagreements, estimates, correction factors, assumptions and sometimes downright lies. These have been linked to on numerous occasions where doommongers tell us that X is happening when in reality X is not happening at all and the popular, and even the unpopular, press is full of such tales of woe. The tragedy is that there is now a massive vested financial interest in carbon and its control and the accent is on stopping the bulk of teh world's populations emitting much carbon at all whilst 'our betters' manage to offset their emissions by buying up land and forests that are doing that job anyway but then they claim it as theirs. To carry this on to the roads analogy it is like not worrying too much about the potholes but there being so little traffic that those of 'our betters' that do use the roads can easily drive around them.

Let's take two examples of climate change agendaism*:

Here in Londonistan we have Khan's very own ULEZ: A tax which forces people to scrap perfectly good vehicles (which are ironically then sold elsewhere in the world) in order to purchase newer, environmentally dubious electric cars when everyone knows that the greenest thing you can do with an older car is to keep it running for as long as possible and replace at the end of it's natural lifespan.

Or how about the current farming debacle unfolding across Europe: Where farmers are told to stop growing food (another of the greenest things we can do) in order that we can import it from halfway across the world.

All of course done in the name of “Climate change” and the “Environment”.

Once again it is worth mentioning the following points.

The overwhelming majority of scientists expert in the field tell us that man made emissions, if not controlled, will cause very severe damage to life on our planet. A very small number of scientists and some politicians disagree.  

If humanity heeds the scientists warnings and they are wrong, we will collectively have incurred a relatively small impact on our living standards unnecessarily.  If humanity ignores scientists warnings and they are right, the expected damage is catastrophic.

There is no guarantee that humanity collectively has the wisdom to actually take action together and there is no question that a small nation such as the UK can make a material difference on its own.

In essence then the question is 1) are we prepared to take a long odds high stakes low reward punt 2) if no is it all a little too hard anyway so WTF.



 

The biggest problem regarding buffers, is us humans keep cutting down the buffers (trees).
If we'd plant more, particularly in the tropics, it would solve the problem.

FFS........The real-life Day After Tomorrow: The Gulf Stream could COLLAPSE as early as 2025 - plunging Europe into a deep freeze, scientists warn

We should be careful about mixing topics up Dan and resist personalising discussion also.  

But if we look at your underlying point, there is something to learn here.  

When making any decision, you should consider the evidence base of likely outcomes, the potential consequences of do nothing and do something and the reversibility of the policy if you get unexpected outcomes.  

So to illustrate, in the case of climate change there is an overwhelming consensus amongst experts that we have a man made problem, the experts tell us that in their opinion the consequences of doing nothing is extreme, the costs of doing something by comparison are small and we know that if we choose to do nothing now and the experts are proven right, it will probably be too late to do anything down the road so the decision to do nothing cannot be reversed later.  

In respect of a proposal to move the reporting base for those wishing to claim asylum in the UK from Dover to Calais in exchange for an agreement that those ultimately judged inadmissable would be returned (or remain) in France, the potential benefits are clear. In opposition you are argue that instead of around 50,000 asylum seekers arriving by boat, we would instead receive many hundreds of thousands. While that seems very unlikely, if it were to unexpectedly materialise the policy could simply be reversed and the reporting centre closed so the policy is easily reversible if necessary.

Do you see the difference?