PowerSwitch

Mayer Hillman is predicting the doom of the human race as well as most other life because we're incapable of doing anything at all about climate change. He's been pretty accurate in his predictions so far as can be seen in the article.

It is almost wonderfully refreshing that, in spite of the distractions, expended hot air, plethora of links and counter-links from websites I have never heard of before and backbiting on this forum about Syria, that the human race still appears to be doomed.

I have to admit I have never heard of this man before this post but at first glance he comes across as a UK version of James Howard Kunstler. Maybe he even does it without the whining New Yoyk accent.

Thanks very much Ken for informing me about this man who seems very ahead of his time.

That's OK BDU. I first heard of him quite a few years ago when he wrote a little but very informative book on climate change or similar. His name has cropped up every now and then ever since. He also spoke at an AECB AGM one year.

I agree that modern technological civilisation as we know it is probably doomed, as are many animals.

I cant see humans being wiped out though, we are too numerous, too widespread, and too good at adapting.
Sea level rise could finish off most major cities, but I doubt that high plateaus will become uninhabitable.
Rising temperatures will almost certainly make many currently temperate regions too hot for humans, but I doubt that places that currently icebound will become too hot for humans.

That however is being a bit pedantic, I agree with the broader argument that life as we know it IS doomed.

I suspect that it is already too late to take any effective action.

To take one example, consider the amount of oil fuel used for road and air transport. To DRASTICALLY reduce this would mean increasing the price to many times todays levels. Whom is going to vote for that ?

Of course we might be saved by a nuclear war ! a decent sized war would reduce the population, and the amount of smoke and dust thrown into the air would cool the world and offset global warming for a bit.

It’s questionable whether the net natural increase in global temperturers has been caused by human activity, or whether the temperatures reached by now would have been greater if it were not for the human activity. For example woud the temperature be higher if it were not for all the cloud cover generated by high altitude aircraft?

woodburner wrote:It’s questionable whether the net natural increase in global temperturers (sic) has been caused by human activity, ....

It is not questionable, Woodburner. You might find it questionable but the great majority of scientists who have any deep knowledge of the subject don't find it questionable. Could you please not in future make these grand pronouncements especially without quoting any evidence from reputable scientists in the field to support your personal point of view.

If you had said "In my opinion it's questionable ..." or "I find it questionable ...." or "There is a small body of people who find it questionable ...." or "Despite the great majority of scientists in the field believing that climate change has a human origin, I find it questionable...." those would be valid statements.

woodburner wrote:It’s questionable whether the net natural increase in global temperturers has been caused by human activity, or whether the temperatures reached by now would have been greater if it were not for the human activity. For example woud the temperature be higher if it were not for all the cloud cover generated by high altitude aircraft?

No, this is junk woodburner.

It's truly bizarre. We find ourselves living through the 'information age'. It's never been easier for lay people to educate themselves, yet many not only seem reluctant to do so but actually seem proud of their voluntary ignorance, promoting it at every opportunity.

Woodburner, you have both the education and resources at your disposal to spend an evening investigating this 'question', and yet you choose not to? Why?

Neither of you can make your “grand pronouncements� as being incontrovertible fact as you do not have an uninterfered planet to run as a control.

K-L, thank you for the English lesson, I accept your points, perhaps you should bear them in mind. If I were to say “humans cause global warming� you would no doubt agree, but I don’t have any reason for saying so other than having the information with which you agree. Because a lot of people say so, and have been able to provide information ostensibly to support their statements, it does not make it fact. I agree te climate is changing, and some things can be done to mitigate the effects on our comfort levels and immediate power requirements as a result, but when you have the holiday industry needing huge numbers of aircraft and extra runways just so people can go shopping in Dubai, and the Chinese producing insulation panels made using CFCs as the blowing agent there are more important people’s throats to jump down than mine. So kindly stop it.

The subject of these predictions came up on another forum. There were several posters who discount any evidence of man made or influenced climate change and the accuracy of predictions was questioned. One poster stated how predictions of sea level rise , drastically increasing temperatures , droughts , peak oil , doom and gloom all over including things like pandemics of bird flu or aids have failed to materialise which makes it all bunkum.
I wasn't going to get into an argument with him, wrestling with pigs and all that , but when the average man in the street sees terrible predictions and the future turns out not quite as terrible it seems to lessen the validity of such predictions at least in the public eye.

Cassandra weighs in

The current elites either don't believe that climate change is a serious problem or, if they do, they have decided that their best chance is to work to save themselves, letting the rest of us starve, sink, or burn (I call it the Kiribati Effect). In both cases, the logical strategy for them is to ignore the problem - at least in public.

RenewableCandy wrote:Cassandra weighs in

The current elites either don't believe that climate change is a serious problem or, if they do, they have decided that their best chance is to work to save themselves, letting the rest of us starve, sink, or burn (I call it the Kiribati Effect). In both cases, the logical strategy for them is to ignore the problem - at least in public.

Intelligent and thoughtful as always.

Forest fires, droughts, floods, heat deaths - they're all too localised to have a significant motivating effect.

He's repeating what I've said for donkeys' - no-one'll do anything about climate change without some huge disaster and probably not even then.