Interesting

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 13 Jan 2011, 22:56

extractorfan wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Rationally, we'd trust the climate scientists as we trust the other specialists.
No, because climate scientists are predicting something cataclysmic. That sort of prediction requires special attention. Same with peak oil.

Eh? We should trust scientists less than normal when they warn us of something particularly bad? Why? Just because it might upset us unnecessarily if they turn out to be wrong? And what if they turn out to be right and we've done bugger all about what they warned us about because we were mincing about saying, "I'm not going to believe it until I have to?"

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Jan 2011, 23:05

Cool. So per capita GDP rises from £22895 to £49812 in 2050. But I'll be 87 and too old to enjoy it.

Unless that's £1000 for me and most others and a few trillion for the Investment Banksters.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 13 Jan 2011, 23:07

This is from Hansard on 11th Oct 2010:

Code: Select all

                 2020   2030   2050   2108
				
United Kingdom   66.5   70.6   76.8   92.5
England          56.0   59.7   65.7   81.1
Wales             3.2    3.3    3.5    3.9
Scotland          5.4    5.5    5.5    5.6
Northern Ireland  1.9    2.0    2.1    2.0

Wales has a target of everyone having and ecological footprint of 1.88 global hectares per person within a generation, lets say 2050 when the population will be 3.5 million. That should be all we need to work it out for Wales!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Jan 2011, 23:10

Mean Mr Mustard wrote:Cool. So per capita GDP rises from £22895 to £49812 in 2050.

Yep, and everyone will be living to the age of 130, humans will have established colonies on the Moon and Mars, poverty will be consigned to history and intelligent life will have been discovered in Lake Vostok.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 13 Jan 2011, 23:21

UndercoverElephant wrote:intelligent life will have been discovered in Lake Vostok.

Intelligent life in Downing Street would be a start

postie · Post by **postie** » 13 Jan 2011, 23:48

UndercoverElephant wrote: There is a word for a person like this. It begins with a "c" and ends with "t".

He's a cat?

Weird...

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 14 Jan 2011, 08:30

WOW! Great thread!

Now let me see if I can find the same type of video about Peak Oil!

And although I beleive there are questions over AQW and that Peak Oil will be more damaging to the human race, if its anything like the first video I will piss myself.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 14 Jan 2011, 08:50

Ludwig wrote: Eh? We should trust scientists less than normal when they warn us of something particularly bad? Why?

No, it seems obvious to me but it musn't be. If scientisis are agreed on say, drug x is a good way of fighting depression, you may want to look at some of the studies they've done or you may not, you may be happy that the drug is being used by people that seem to not be having adverse effects. That's just an example, I'm not equating drug testing to CC. My point is that deciding if you or someone you care about should go along with scientific consensus in this way, does not have a profound effect on how you view the world or plan for your future. But if what scientists are agreed on is basically saying, if you don't change your behaviour it will be changed for you in ways that will be very painful, it is a wholly different matter.

Maybe I shouldn't use the word "you" and should change it to "we" as in, the people of the free developed world, who have the most privalidged access to information of any generation preceeding us and probably any generation in the future.

That is why "we" should not take consensus as our reasons for accepting a belief. And if that is the reason why someone accepts a belief then fine, it's a free country, but they shouldn't expect their arguments to be convincing for those with an enquiring mind.

By the way, I only read 1 book about it, it's not like I needed to see every piece of data and check its origins, just that it was a well structured theory with good reason to believe. Being called a climate change deniar was never going to do that, quite possibly the opposite.

Can't remember the name of the bloody book now either, but it will come to me.

Go for it ziggy, I really like the peak oil man video too.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Jan 2011, 11:37

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:Very few greens actually live the lifestyle they preach.
That is because they are part of The System, and there's little they can actually do about it.

True to a large extent. Choices are deliberately limited. It's a long journey.

Have a read through this. It puts it in perspective.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 Jan 2011, 15:20

All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.

George Orwell

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 14 Jan 2011, 17:51

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:Very few greens actually live the lifestyle they preach.
That is because they are part of The System, and there's little they can actually do about it.
True to a large extent. Choices are deliberately limited. It's a long journey.

Have a read through this. It puts it in perspective.

Thanks for the link. I sympathise with the views of Paul Kingsnorth.

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 14 Jan 2011, 21:13

Must be kinda embarrassing for environmentalists to have names of controversial power stations.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 15 Jan 2011, 21:57

I kind-of thought that when I first saw his name, too. Doubly so as, it appears, he's against building wind turbines on land.

Mind you I don't think the wind turbines should take it personally: he seems to be against doing anything at all except snuffing it. And writing about it, in style.