What to do about Human Induced Climate Change

[Rhyolith]

Following on from the information discussed in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

---

I think this is the real debate. Whatever opinion you hold on HICC (human induced climate change), the action to take on it is a subject of debate.

I have a lot of opinions on this, but will not flood this first post with them just yet.

What do you think we should do about HICC based on the evidence?

[Toltec]

Wrong question.

What should we do about energy sustainability and human environmental impact?

I don't think climate change is induced by humans, though we may be influencing it. One of the main problems I have CC is that it distracts us from other pressing environmental issues.

So what we should do is address how we can sustain an increasing population why increasingly higher standards of living and HICC , if it exists, will come out in the wash.

[Silver Smudger]

Or even What to Do about the Changing Climate - Point us at the issues we will have as and when the climate changes and we can provide mitigating solutions.

Forget trying to prevent anything changing, Canute

[Simpo Two]

Reduce number of humans. Use nuclear power.

Next?

[grumbledoak]

Falsehood inherent in question. Man Made Global Warming is a huge scam. Unproven hypothesis, flawed models, failed predictions, and adjusted-to-death data.

Start a thread on overpopulation, maybe.

[Toltec]

Silver Smudger said:

Or even What to Do about the Changing Climate - Point us at the issues we will have as and when the climate changes and we can provide mitigating solutions.

Forget trying to prevent anything changing, Canute

According to some that was the point was trying to make.

[Derek Smith]

Rhyolith said:

Following on from the information discussed in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

---

I think this is the real debate. Whatever opinion you hold on HICC (human induced climate change), the action to take on it is a subject of debate.

I have a lot of opinions on this, but will not flood this first post with them just yet.

What do you think we should do about HICC based on the evidence?

It is a pleasant idea, a discussion about HICC without people taking a stand on it.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about what motivates all those thousands of scientists to conspire to lie to us all when we have Trump to point out they are all wrong.

We won't do anything about climate change until we can come up with a cost-neutral way of combating it. Then everyone will agree it is vtal for our wellbeing.

[Johnnytheboy]

Simpo Two said:

Reduce number of humans. Use nuclear power.

Next?

Plant lots of trees too.

[Kawasicki]

Derek Smith said:

Perhaps we should have a discussion about what motivates all those thousands of scientists to conspire to lie to us

lies, uncovered. why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if...

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

Perhaps we should have a discussion about what motivates all those thousands of scientists to conspire to lie to us all when we have Trump to point out they are all wrong.

Probably the same mentality that means that motorists know that very often it's safe to drive at, say, 40mph in a 30mph zone, but if you interview them they will say it's terribly wrong and kills babies. Social conditioning. And it's too much of being told what to think and what to say that that led to rebellions like Brexit and Trump.

Johnnytheboy said:

Plant lots of trees too.

Yep, trees are good.

[mondeoman]

Derek Smith said:

Rhyolith said:

Following on from the information discussed in this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

---

I think this is the real debate. Whatever opinion you hold on HICC (human induced climate change), the action to take on it is a subject of debate.

I have a lot of opinions on this, but will not flood this first post with them just yet.

What do you think we should do about HICC based on the evidence?

It is a pleasant idea, a discussion about HICC without people taking a stand on it.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about what motivates all those thousands of scientists to conspire to lie to us all when we have Trump to point out they are all wrong.

We won't do anything about climate change until we can come up with a cost-neutral way of combating it. Then everyone will agree it is vtal for our wellbeing.

WTF happened to MMCC?? That was flavour of the month a couple of years back. Or was it MGW, I forget.

If you cant even agree a name for the the alleged forecast modelling induced hysteria, then what are you really talking about?

[hairyben]

Proving it would be a great start

Google doggerland, and explain to me when all climate change/ rising sea levels is attributed to humans and our fossil fuel burning, what we were doing in 12000BC-6000BC to cause this huge land mass to be covered by ocean. Not sure they've dug up that many 9000 year old SUVs myself.

[dudleybloke]

[micky g]

mondeoman said:

WTF happened to MMCC?? That was flavour of the month a couple of years back. Or was it MGW, I forget.

If you cant even agree a name for the the alleged forecast modelling induced hysteria, then what are you really talking about?

As far as I'm aware the, (current), correct label is AGW.

Unless it's been dumbed down for our American cousins in the last few days...

[Rhyolith]

Yeah, I think I needed to make the point of this thread clearer. We already have at least 2 massive discussions on whether Human Induced Climate Change is real or not and I see no need for a third.

[Einion Yrth]

So what is the point? Before anyone can make any sane decisions as to what should be done about the rabid unicorn terrifying the residents of Golders Green we have to establish the existence of any such threat, surely?

[Rhyolith]

Einion Yrth said:

So what is the point? Before anyone can make any sane decisions as to what should be done about the rabid unicorn terrifying the residents of Golders Green we have to establish the existence of any such threat, surely?

I cannot see a realistic scenario at any point in the immedaite future where there is a consensus like that on this forum.

What I was hoping for was a discussion on what we should actaully do about HICC, with opinions based in evidence. Those opinions can be "its a scam!" or "its going to kill us all!", just so long as something backs it up.

Its a bit of a convoluted question, i kinda regret posting it without thinking it through a bit more. Feel free to ignore it... unless you see a good discussion opportunity (i think its just going to end up as another does HICC exist thread).

[RobM77]

Simpo Two said:

Derek Smith said:

Perhaps we should have a discussion about what motivates all those thousands of scientists to conspire to lie to us all when we have Trump to point out they are all wrong.

Probably the same mentality that means that motorists know that very often it's safe to drive at, say, 40mph in a 30mph zone, but if you interview them they will say it's terribly wrong and kills babies. Social conditioning. And it's too much of being told what to think and what to say that that led to rebellions like Brexit and Trump.

You seem to be confusing what politicians say with what scientists and other experts say. The 'speed kills' mantra was entirely put out by politicians (and spun up by the papers) - the data and scientific conclusions consistently showed otherwise. Likewise, climate change research shows a very clear message from the science, but this gets picked up by politicians and spun into a message that upsets the public (for example, they tell us to stop driving our cars, whilst doing little to kerb fossil fuel power generation), so they choose to start doubting scientific consensus with their own crazy pet theories.

What the public tend to do is because politicians throw spin at them they assume a 'them and us' mindset which includes scientists and experts in this ignored spin too. What needs to happen is the public need to work out who to trust. The very obvious education and intelligence divide in Brexit wasn't because of education or intelligence directly, it was because of what higher education exposes people to and schools them in: a position of ignorance where one has to find the truth in order to learn. A combination of not understanding who to trust, not knowing how to research topics properly and an arrogance that assumes one's own pet theories are comparable to years of work by experts and academics is what causes nonsense conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax, and of course Brexit.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 14th November 12:31

[AndrewEH1]

Ban consumption of beef and other red meats that cost so many resources to produce.

Ban Palm Oil.

Invest heavily in renewables, if Norway can do it so can most Western countries. (More petrol for big thirsty V8s too!)



For those genuinely interested watch the National Geographic documentary "Before the Flood" on YouTube.

[Einion Yrth]

AndrewEH1 said:

Invest heavily in renewables, if Norway can do it so can most Western countries.

Norway's mostly hydro. This is not an option in the Benelux countries.