Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

AlekSmart

BarryD2 wrote: »

Agree to some extent with the OP, we had snowy winters, hot summers and wet summers and so on back in the 70s &80s. I don't Irish weather has changed that much in my lifetime, though it could if the predominantly westerly source of our moist and relatively warm air masses were to change.

What I do notice though is the large drop in moths, butterflies and other insects. Twenty years ago here, if you left a window open of a summers evening, the house would be full of moths. You'd often be catching butterflies and putting them out in the daytime. When you sat down outside there was a constant buzz outside of bees and other insects. You'd be cleaning off the windscreen and headlights of your car on a regular basis in summer as the country roads were thick with flying insects in evening/ night time.

These have all gradually decreased, to the point where it's quite noticeable. Whether this is to do with changing climate or agricultural sprays I just don't know.

I was in the Wesht of Ireland for the Easter weekend,and my motoring car was covered...I mean COVERED in dead insects of a huge variety...big bugs,little bugs and what looked like small birds all stuck to the front panel,grille and windscreen.

Had a job n a half cleaning them off when I got to Galway Bay,only to have to repeat the process back in Dublin.

Not proof of anything,except that there's still a lotta bugs out there.

Fast fwd to this morning,and a grand little demo in front of (a closed) Leinster House.
Sizeable crowd of noisy activisty yooths....In front of me was a Cork registered vehicle with two young ladies standing up with their heads out the sunroof,yelling and yahooing support for the protesters....

The vehicle in question was an Audi Q7 4.5 Quattro,which also had a very strident horn which the drivers was keen to demonstrate,so much so that they were unable to hear my rendition of "The Phantom Raspberry Blower of old London Town".....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwaEPTSRcSw

Yea right......:rolleyes:

hgfj

BarryD2 wrote: »

So? Perfectly normal for this type of northerly air source at this time of year. It's this type of picking random oddities in the weather and saying that it's proves climate change, that drives me nuts!

Who said anything about about proving climate change? My post makes no reference to climate change, nor does the article I linked to. Simply states that today there was a hailstorm in Carrickmines that caused collisions. That drives you nuts?

Atoms for Peace

What about the Fanny storm hitting India?

20Cent

If you want to prove man made climate change is not happening simply prove it wrong.

Also collect your Nobel prize.

BarryD2

hgfj wrote: »

Who said anything about about proving climate change? My post makes no reference to climate change, nor does the article I linked to. Simply states that today there was a hailstorm in Carrickmines that caused collisions. That drives you nuts?

It might reasonably be assumed that if post about hailstones in May on a thread about climate change that you mean it to refer to it in some way??

BarryD2

AlekSmart wrote: »

I was in the Wesht of Ireland for the Easter weekend,and my motoring car was covered...I mean COVERED in dead insects of a huge variety...big bugs,little bugs and what looked like small birds all stuck to the front panel,grille and windscreen.

Had a job n a half cleaning them off when I got to Galway Bay,only to have to repeat the process back in Dublin.

Not proof of anything,except that there's still a lotta bugs out there.

Maybe all the bugs have abandoned this side of the country (SE) and headed Wesht on their holidays so, 'cos there ain't very many of them round here. Even the little midges that'd drive you mad have got thinner on the ground.

NewClareman

Brendan Delaney wrote: »

Again no. The EUSSR is not going to compel us to stop eating beef or go vegan. We aren't slaves.

Of course it won’t compel anyone - we live in a democracy. But once people realize the health and climate benefits of a vegan diet, and the EU subsidies for beef production are removed - game over.

That’s before they start to fine us over all those farting cattle.

Spanish Eyes

The bottom line is...unless ALL countries and Governments get involved, what is the point of a piddly little country like ours making any difference?

It has to be a worldwide issue, and that is not happening AFAIS. We in Ireland can do our bit with electric cars (and carbon taxes) and so on, but if other countries deny Global Warming, what is the actual point?

Thelonious Monk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The bottom line is...unless ALL countries and Governments get involved, what is the point of a piddly little country like ours making any difference?

It has to be a worldwide issue, and that is not happening AFAIS. We in Ireland can do our bit with electric cars (and carbon taxes) and so on, but if other countries deny Global Warming, what is the actual point?

What's the point in cleaning up our own back yard? Cleaner rivers, lakes, seas. A better environment for wildlife. More trees on the land. Less cars on the road, better public transport.
I can't see any drawbacks.

Subcomandante Marcos

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

What's the point in cleaning up our own back yard? Cleaner rivers, lakes, seas. A better environment for wildlife. More trees on the land. Less cars on the road, better public transport.
I can't see any drawbacks.

gozunda

NewClareman wrote: »

Well, farmers are in for a rude awakening. Beef production will be decimated, its only a matter of time. The signs are hopeful that Leo will tackle it. If not, the EU will have to - it is simply too damaging to the environment.
The big challenge for farmers will be to come up with planet friendly crops, before they’re all reduced to growing trees.

:rolleyes:
Well we'll be all dead then. We can't eat feking trees and trendy avocados or lentils or whatever won't ever grow here. The countries topography, weather condition and soils prohibit growing many commercial human grade crops.

The carbon foot print of flying fake industrial food halfway around makes this bs. Most of the cheap food imported comes from places with few if any environmental or ethical standards.

If you really want to make a difference with regard to individual responsibility - the top (three) actions you can take to cut your own emissions, in order of impact, includes having fewer (or no) children (equaling, for someone in a rich country, an estimated 58.6 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per child, per year), living car-free (about 2.4 tons per year) and avoiding air travel (about 1.6 tons per round-trip transatlantic flight)."

Best of luck with all that.

Thelonious Monk

There are other foods apart from beef and avocados. Since when are lentils trendy? You really come across as a dinosaur old man, like Jeremy Clarkson and Piers Morgan and their ilk.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There are other foods apart from beef and avocados.

Thelonious - Im getting concerned yer following me at this stage But yeah try growing them commercially here and see how you get on...

We produce grass here better than just about anywhere on the planet. But hey let's grow bananas or whatever :rolleyes: And dont start that ilk ****e.

Spanish Eyes

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

What's the point in cleaning up our own back yard? Cleaner rivers, lakes, seas. A better environment for wildlife. More trees on the land. Less cars on the road, better public transport.
I can't see any drawbacks.

Government seem to only care about immediate benefits for their consituents.

The long term view means a roll of the eyes. Look at mass transit in our cities. Cars are king. The rest will follow in 2040 and beyond if we are still alive to see it.

Thelonious Monk

gozunda wrote: »

Thelonious - Im getting concerned yer following me at this stage But yeah try growing them commercially here and see how you get on...

We produce grass here better than just about anywhere on the planet. But hey let's grow bananas or whatever :rolleyes:

You're all over every thread that has anything to do with the environment, you are hard to avoid.

Thelonious Monk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Government seem to only care about immediate benefits for their consituents.

The long term view means a roll of the eyes. Look at mass transit in our cities. Cars are king. The rest will follow in 2040 and beyond if we are still alive to see it.

Yes we all know Governments are just concerned with getting voted in again so long term environmental projects aren't on their agenda. Isn't that why people are protesting?

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You're all over every thread that has anything to do with the environment, you are hard to avoid.

Christ I make one feking reply in a new thread and yer and the bear on my arse like a rash? I get you haven't been around long lad. But did he ever think it's cos that might be an area of interest rather than the Bingo forum or something??? You dont have to reply to me you know

Spanish Eyes

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes we all know Governments are just concerned with getting voted in again so long term environmental projects aren't on their agenda. Isn't that why people are protesting?

Well the protests I see are in Rathgar, Ranelagh, Terenure and so on.

Objecting to Bus Connects that will help everyone including them. Go figure.

They are hoping to keep their property prices high, just have to look at how Dunville Avenue objections in Ranelagh resulted in Metro ditched for that segment.

If you have a big house in a sought after area, you have a big voice.

Thelonious Monk

Yes and that's what's wrong with politics. On a positive note, the Greens did really well in the elections in the UK yesterday. So maybe people's priorities are changing.

NIMAN

Can folk who have made changes to help in this cause tell us what exactly they did, so maybe we could all try to make the world a better place?

I do what I can. I recycle as much as I can, one of the cars is an eV. I wear my clothes til they can't be worn no more. Don't fly too often, once a year for last 3 years, before that maybe twice in 8 years.

I still heat the house with oil. No other option for now. Still eat meat, that's never going to stop, but I am already cutting back a little, more for health reasons. Is eating more fish bad for the environment too?

Any other big suggestions? Can't cycle to work.

I think if the government was to make it more attractive and easier to upgrade your house to make it more efficient, more would do it.

nice_guy80

Why isn't it mandatory to install solar panels on every new house to reduce the amount the esb have to generate

Or every new house must install rainwater harvesting tanks to use for watering, washing car, washing machine etc

NIMAN

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why isn't it mandatory to install solar panels on every new house to reduce the amount the esb have to generate

Or every new house must install rainwater harvesting tanks to use for watering, washing car, washing machine etc

Exactly.

That's what I keep harking back to. The government has the power to put these simple rules in place, but why aren't they doing it if we are supposedly on the edge of a crisis?

All new social housing getting built in Derry has solar panels. And excellent ber ratings.

And surely all new houses should have no chimneys? There is no future in burning turf, coal etc in homes surely.

Shefwedfan

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why isn't it mandatory to install solar panels on every new house to reduce the amount the esb have to generate

Or every new house must install rainwater harvesting tanks to use for watering, washing car, washing machine etc

Most new houses I see in my area have solar panels installed. No idea if for water or PV

NIMAN

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes and that's what's wrong with politics. On a positive note, the Greens did really well in the elections in the UK yesterday. So maybe people's priorities are changing.

The greens in Ireland got everyone to buy diesel cars.

NewClareman

gozunda wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Well we'll be all dead then. We can't eat feking trees and trendy avocados or lentils or whatever won't ever grow here. The countries topography, weather condition and soils prohibit growing many commercial human grade crops.

I hope that the topography and soil condition hasn’t changed to the extent that we can’t grow spuds, cabbage, turnips, sprouts, onions, beetroot, and all the other crops we grew on a farm when I was growing up. No need whatsoever to import trendy whatever’s.

There is more and more evidence that not only is meat production becoming bad from an environmental perspective, it is also bad for our health. The issue is not whether farming is going to change, because massive change is unavoidable. The only issue is whether farmers will lead from the front or be forced to change when even further damage is done to the environment.

I agree about importing food over longer distances, and the excessive use of cars. We spend a lot of time in a Kerry and buy fresh produce directly from farms, the difference in quality from supermarket food is astounding. Car use is a different issue. The problem here is all the one off housing in the countryside, rather than people living in large villages and towns, allowing cheaper transport and living options.

NewClareman

NIMAN wrote: »

Exactly.

That's what I keep harking back to. The government has the power to put these simple rules in place, but why aren't they doing it if we are supposedly on the edge of a crisis?

All new social housing getting built in Derry has solar panels. And excellent ber ratings.

And surely all new houses should have no chimneys? There is no future in burning turf, coal etc in homes surely.

Because the bulk of our politicians are only concerned about their own re-election. There’s also the issue of vested interests being allowed to overshadow sensible building and environmental standards.

Thelonious Monk

Well that doesn't affect the UK but yes Eamon Ryan is a clown but hopefully a party emerges here with better environmental strategies

gozunda

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Most new houses I see in my area have solar panels installed. No idea if for water or PV

Yeah have solar panels fitted. And use rainwater diveted from gutters to tank. Also grow rotational coppice willow. Lots of even older houses now have solar or have added external isolation.

BarryD2

NIMAN wrote: »

And surely all new houses should have no chimneys? There is no future in burning turf, coal etc in homes surely.

A lot of rural homes don't have access to the natural gas that urban areas have. Oil heating is common but also coal, firewood and turf. Bottled gas for cookers is also common. We use a couple of stoves burning mixture of smokeless coal and timber. I cut down trees but plant more than I cut. The eco warriors would no doubt decry the cutting of trees, but these are a much truer renewable source than the industrial wind machines and glazed fields that they propose!

mgn

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993173/Actress-Emma-Thompson-spotted-carbon-spewing-BA-plane-jetting-New-York.html

People like this makes me sick.

gozunda

NewClareman wrote: »

I hope that the topography and soil condition hasn’t changed to the extent that we can’t grow spuds, cabbage, turnips, sprouts, onions, beetroot, and all the other crops we grew on a farm when I was growing up. No need whatsoever to import trendy whatever’s.

Most small scale production is fine. Btw thats what's know as POC gardening - Potato - Onion - Cabbage. Commercial production on many soils / topography is extremly limited. A big problem atm is all the imported foods especially the highly processed industrial stuff that makes up large percentage of our food imports

NewClareman wrote: »

Theres is more and more evidence that not only is meat production becoming bad from an environmental perspective, it is also bad for our health. The issue is not whether farming is going to change, because massive change is unavoidable. The only issue is whether farmers will lead from the front or be forced to change when even further damage is done to the environment.

Only posted about this the other day. If you read on this issue - you'll quickly come to the realisation that much of the emissions , water / land / health stuff has been fueled by massive amounts of misinformation.

Globally fossil fuel use and transport are the two single biggest contributors to emissions on the planet, and only then agriculture which actually feeds people . Other misinformation we are being fed includes the rubbish statistic that agriculture was supposedly responsible for 51% of all ghg emissions worldwide. Not only has that figure been shown to have been pure codswallop by scientists and others - it has not stopped that tagline being used again and agai. As part of a balanced wholefood diet - meat and dairy are healthy foodstuffs. Figures regarding water and land are also largely based on the US feed lot system and bear little if any resemblence to reality.

NewClareman wrote: »

I agree about importing food over longer distances, and the excessive use of cars. We spend a lot of time in a Kerry and buy fresh produce directly from farms, the difference in quality from supermarket food is astounding. Car use is a different issue. The problem here is all the one off housing in the countryside, rather than people living in large villages and towns, allowing cheaper transport and living options.

Fair enough on that.. There's much that doesn't make sense with our cities and towns. The trouble with towns is that many of them dont have proper provision for sewage, water provision or even decent broadband. It also means people are limited to what they can grow or produce themselves. There more cars on the city per head of population afaik than other areas. I'll see if I can find the bit I was reading about that

Atlantic Dawn

NIMAN wrote: »

The greens in Ireland got everyone to buy diesel cars.

In fairness the amount of people they kill each year from emissions both young and old does have benefits for the planet.

Ubbquittious

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why isn't it mandatory to install solar panels on every new house to reduce the amount the esb have to generate

Or every new house must install rainwater harvesting tanks to use for watering, washing car, washing machine etc

Waste of time making it more expensive to build new houses again. It will take 100s of years before every house has solar panels by then. If they want to do it they'll have to offer a good grant for every existing house to get them

SEPT 23 1989

mgn wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993173/Actress-Emma-Thompson-spotted-carbon-spewing-BA-plane-jetting-New-York.html

People like this makes me sick.

So the plebs have to change their lifestyles and get roasted with taxes so these people can preserve their little pieces of paradise

Fcuk them

gozunda

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So the plebs have to change their lifestyles and get roasted with taxes so these people can preserve their little pieces of paradise

Fcuk them

Yer one was all over the extiction rebellion like a rash - would want to make you puke tbh. Look up the founder Hallam. He's an anarchist and apparent professional protestor wherever he can stir ****e ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/

Harry Palmr

NIMAN wrote: »

And surely all new houses should have no chimneys? There is no future in burning turf, coal etc in homes surely.

I dunno if you've noticed but there are estates being built with not a single chimney to be seen. They all use heat pumps. Condenser gas boilers are now old tech.

bfa1509

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

SEPT 23 1989

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

I don't think people have a concept of time

Some on this thread can't see it

Maybe the rest of us are cursed to see the long game

Xodar

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

Recently, on a very prominent forum I asked:

"This is quite interesting! Genuine curiosity drives me to ask:
Our ancestors were on earth about 6 million years ago, modern man has been around for 200,000 years and civilization around 6000 years, this data is for a period of 168 years (about 2.6% of the time civilization has been around).

What do we know about the fluctuations in temperatures in any 168 year period in the 200,000 years prior to 1850? And how do we know that the temperature fluctuations are extraordinary relative to a randomly selected 168 year period 125,000 years ago (or even 1 billion years ago)?

This subject really is fascinating."


The response received was:
"Core samples I believe"

Now, I'm not a scientist or very intelligent and do not pretend to understand everything - how can we trust that this is unnatural ?

From my tiny little brain it seems like the fluctuations in temps over a time period that most cannot comprehend really cannot be determinate of weather what we are experiencing now is out of the ordinary for the time range that the earth has been inhabited.

That being said, I'm sure there will be many more people on this thread that will prove me very, very wrong (with core samples)

Canis Lupus

Xodar wrote: »

Now, I'm not a scientist or very intelligent

I guess this is the 'core' issue.

stefanovich

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes and that's what's wrong with politics. On a positive note, the Greens did really well in the elections in the UK yesterday. So maybe people's priorities are changing.

The greens here are less about environment and more about progressive politics.

Atoms for Peace

NIMAN wrote: »

The greens in Ireland got everyone to buy diesel cars.

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Wanderer78

Atoms for Peace wrote:

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Politics has fallen into the trap of, let's tax everything to solve our problems, this won't work on its own, there's a strong backlash with this approach, and understandably so

M.T. Cranium

Over long periods of time, climate shifts can be related to changes in latitude, as continents drift around on the planet.

Glaciation of polar regions can vary for a number of reasons including those identified by Milankovitch, orbital variables of the earth, but also the distribution of land and sea in high latitudes can play a role.

As to the original theme of this thread, I think the situation is partly political and partly scientific, with one concern driving the other, and that the political process will sort out the relative priorities, with each voter having the responsibility to balance the economic and scientific claims and concerns. It won't be an easy process but by the time it is sorted out there may also be new technology that makes the debate somewhat irrelevant. My own opinion is that the "hysteria" as it is called is somewhat alarmist and that the reality is perhaps more subdued than the worst case scenarios. We are already three or four decades into this period of "catastrophic climate change" and we are seeing only subtle changes. But there's no guarantee that will continue to be the case.

Shefwedfan

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Not really

The tax didn’t increase on older cars. The issue was a 2 let diesel was 600-700 in tax in 2007 and suddenly was 300 in 2008. The 2007 car was still the same price as before

Irish people decided they didn’t care what they bought as long as they got cheap tax so the ass fell out of the second user market for cars older than 2008

Insurance didn’t increase either, that’s only a recent thing brought in my insurance companies

listermint

The common factor with threads like this is science, well researched research's. Years and decades worth of data all goes out the window.

Because someone had their own opinion backed up by nothing.


Everyone knows that in today's internet world where you can literally find all the research in the world and drill down into studies yourself , opinion > facts.



Sure the absolute decimation of fish and wildlife doesnt factor in opinion world

pjohnson

Theres an extremely amusing overlap of people who dont believe in climate change and people who are anti-vax.

Education is bad.

nice_guy80

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Waste of time making it more expensive to build new houses again. It will take 100s of years before every house has solar panels by then. If they want to do it they'll have to offer a good grant for every existing house to get them

Not for private houses though.
That's why I was in favour of water charges after a certain level.
It would force people to use the rainwater and conserve water.

By installing solar panels and rainwater harvesting you should be able to claim the cost off the VAT of building a private house

Xodar

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I guess this is the 'core' issue.

jackboy

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Not for private houses though.
That's why I was in favour of water charges after a certain level.
It would force people to use the rainwater and conserve water.

By installing solar panels and rainwater harvesting you should be able to claim the cost off the VAT of building a private house

Rainwater harvesting is cheap and simple technology. It should be compulsory for all new builds.