Lost for words

Wanted to know what people who accept the article's arguments think

We are fucked.

Jeremy Clarkson said that the world is big enough to sort itself out.

I agree. The next ice-age/plague/global warming will sort out the human population and their work.

... which I'm sure you will truely appreciate when the time will come.

I don't think I'll have much choice really.

Guess what chaps, this is alarmist bullshit.

CO2 is not a fucking pollutant. it is the very stuff of life. Without it there would be no plant life. And without plant life there would be no animal life. The more CO2 there is the more plants there will be to absorb it. Rebranding CO2 it as "nasty poisonous carbon" is a marketing move designed to sell taxation to the guilt-ridden developed world whilst simutaneously preventing the developing world from actually developing. The Earth is an ecosystem and we as humans are a tiny stupid pointless insignificant blip on that ecosystem. Geologically we are less than a microsecond. It is nothing but hubris and self-obsession to assume we have a cat in hell's chance of affecting the climate of this planet in any meaningful way. The earth will look after itself, and if we remain viable as a species we will adapt. Coal, oil, gas, it's all exactly the same natural fuel as wood, just a hell of a lot older. We are not creating "carbon". At a simple level we are merely moving CO2 it from under the sea to above it. Releasing what was once a tree into the ecosystem so that it may be a new tree. It doesn't matter how much coal the developing world burns. Or oil. Because we all know for a fact how much oil and coal and gas humans are going to use. All of it. Every last drop. And it won't make the slightest bit of difference to mother earth. We, like King Canute, are conceited in the extreme to think that the changing the climate has ever been something in our power, or indeed that preventing climate change will ever be.

Now cheer up.

@ Rapsac, that's what I was thinking when living in Lagos a couple of years ago ... and yes, whatever the opinions, let's cheer up when it's still time ;)

Guess what chaps, this is alarmist bullshit.

CO2 is not a fucking pollutant. it is the very stuff of life. Without it there would be no plant life. And without plant life there would be no animal life. The more CO2 there is the more plants there will be to absorb it. Rebranding CO2 it as "nasty poisonous carbon" is a marketing move designed to sell taxation to the guilt-ridden developed world whilst simutaneously preventing the developing world from actually developing. The Earth is an ecosystem and we as humans are a tiny stupid pointless insignificant blip on that ecosystem. Geologically we are less than a microsecond. It is nothing but hubris and self-obsession to assume we have a cat in hell's chance of affecting the climate of this planet in any meaningful way. The earth will look after itself, and if we remain viable as a species we will adapt. Coal, oil, gas, it's all exactly the same natural fuel as wood, just a hell of a lot older. We are not creating "carbon". At a simple level we are merely moving CO2 it from under the sea to above it. Releasing what was once a tree into the ecosystem so that it may be a new tree. It doesn't matter how much coal the developing world burns. Or oil. Because we all know for a fact how much oil and coal and gas humans are going to use. All of it. Every last drop. And it won't make the slightest bit of difference to mother earth. We, like King Canute, are conceited in the extreme to think that the changing the climate has ever been something in our power, or indeed that preventing climate change will ever be.

Now cheer up.

here here

"the war against climate change"

how's that for a satan-felchingly obnoxious collection of words?

is it not completely obvious that we stand no chance here? the targets we are told about are pathetic and the chances that they will be achieved slight. If we were to level off so-called climate change, let alone reverse it, we would have to completely and fundamentally readdress the way we live our lives. I'm talking living in huts and working the land, not saving a few carrier bags a week or walking the kids to school. We are not about to kill Earth, it's more resilient than that, but we might eventually make it awfully tricky for us to inhabit it, which is probably the best thing to 'save the planet'. The truth is we're interested in saving ourselves, not the planet.

sorry for english, bit drunk.

So this chaps Anderson says that CO2 has massively risen die to coal burning in the developing world. By this I assume he means China. His solution is for the developed world to drastically cut emissions. Wouldn't the more obvious solution be to stop burning coal or am I missing something here? ( I have young children and own a bicycle)

China is developing in an incredibly fast rate since 2000, and it's still a communist country that won't have human rights (otherwise we'd be paying a lots more for certain item), the number of car has increased in a very alarming rate;

2000 - 2.07 millions car.

2007 - 8.88 millions car.

in 1990, it was under 1 millions.

coal is very cheap compared to Nuclear, and far more readily available, it's a lots easier to produced electricty from coal than from nuclear.

not saving a few carrier bags a week or walking the kids to school.

speaking of that, how are we really saving a few carrier bags when it's still being made? if they want to combat it, stop making plastic bag! forcing people to change the smallest thing (i.e. bag) would make a difference, 1 years of complaining about the lack of plastic bag, and after that they already get used to using their own bigger durable bag for shopping.

Has anyone else puked into a string bag. you only ever do it once.

My house is 52m above sea level. For the forseeable future my property atleast is safe. I'm more concerned about my job.

I think the plastic bag thing is something of an easy visible target. I'm not sure that there is any environmental plastic bag disaster looming round the corner at all. Sure they cause unsightly litter, but they must be pretty inert, chemically. Or they wouldn't last so long. Or be food-safe.

Anyway, I've been taking my own rucksack to the supermarket for years before it was fashionable ;-)

Jeremy Clarkson said that the world is big enough to sort itself out.

I agree.

Well that's alright then. Can we get Jade Goody to sort out the Middle East problem now?

Big as she is, Jade Goody can't sort herself out.

My point exactly...

The sea levels thing is a bit of a weird one. It's based on the assumption that the poles are land masses covered in ice. Which as far as I know, is still not established. If there is more ice in water than ice on land, warming seas would cause the sea levels to fall. Anyway, most data at the moment shows the earth has actually been getting colder for the last few years, (which no doubt is why "global warming" has been rebranded as "climate change"). This could itself cause sea levels to rise if the above case were true. Oh well.

The idea that we need to stop polluting or we will make our own lives unbearable is almost certainly the more likely issue. But are we as humans capable of that reasoning? After all we buy more cars until driving is a chore instead of a convenience. We build more hotels until tourist paradises become shitholes, and we want cheaper clothes but fear the economic consequences of having them made in low wage economies.

The other problem if you want to clean up our immediate environment, is that we need to stop bleating on about big targets like climate change, and stupid non-solutions like recycling paper (worse in pretty much every way than virgin paper) and building wind farms, and develop a comprehensive bullshit-free, sustainable way of living.

That means forcing employers to allow home-working, flexible working and forcing BT et al to put the infrastructure in place to facilitate it. It means cutting air traffic (which as the death of Concorde shows, can be facilitated by making business travel unnecessary). If all road and plane journeys were for pleasure, rather than business, there would be a whole lot less of them. And how about encouraging local manufacture to cut down on global shipping? Local food is easy, but what about British made clothes, toys, electrical items, furniture, cars, planes, ships, trains etc. What about British bicycles? How about taxing imports so that firms find it cheaper to set up shop nearer their consumers? Although rising fuel and materials costs may very well make this a reality anyway.

It means burning our rubbish to generate power, rather than recycling or burying it, and recycling only where there are clear environmental benefits - e.g. metals, and making the council do the work of sorting recyclables from the rest, not the householder. It means councils cleaning the streets, and grass-roots policing to keep them clean. It means encouraging and facilitating re-use and repair, rather than replacing things. If the government simply zeroed out the road tax on any vehicle over 15 years old, most people would continue to use and maintain old cars instead of causing new ones to be manufactured. This would have a huge environmental benefit. If the government banned diesel vehicles from city centers the London air quality would leap up. Imagine if every cab, bus and van was using LPG instead of diesel. What bliss. That's what happened in Delhi.

Human beings will be wiped off the face of the planet, hopefully, within about 300 years. The planet will remain. We are such an egotistical race as to believe that we hold the destiny of the planet in our hands. No , we hold the destiny of the human race in our hands. Not the planet. It was here long before us scum bags over populated it and will be here a lot long after.

The sea levels thing is a bit of a weird one. It's based on the assumption that the poles are land masses covered in ice. Which as far as I know, is still not established. If there is more ice in water than ice on land, warming seas would cause the sea levels to fall. Anyway, most data at the moment shows the earth has actually been getting colder for the last few years, (which no doubt is why "global warming" has been rebranded as "climate change"). This could itself cause sea levels to rise if the above case were true. Oh well.

I'm afraid you're a bit misinformed BQ. It is very very well established that the majority of Antarctica is a land mass covered by 2 very large bits of ice. If one were to melt the sea level would rise by something like 10 metres, if the other went, it would be 70m. This is as near to a fact as anything that humans have knowledge about.
As for the old 'global warming rebranded as climate change' argument put forth by the likes of Nigel Lawson it's an argument put forward by those who have no other decent arguments. If you were to read any scientifc literature at all you would see that 'climatic change' has been used since the beginning, at least 30 years ago. 'Global warming' was a phrase created by, and for the use of, the press and the layperson.

Oh and the bit about 'more CO2 = more plants' is fantasy.

What about the majority of the Arctic?
What about all the floating ice?
What about the fact that the earth isn't getting warmer anyway?
What about the fact that humans are responsible for a tiny proportion of CO2 output?
What about the fact that CO2 barely registers on the scale of greehouse gases.
What about the fact that the "greenhouse effect" is a fantasy that has never been proved?

Guess what chaps, this is alarmist bullshit.

CO2 is not a fucking pollutant. it is the very stuff of life. Without it there would be no plant life. And without plant life there would be no animal life. The more CO2 there is the more plants there will be to absorb it. Rebranding CO2 it as "nasty poisonous carbon" is a marketing move designed to sell taxation to the guilt-ridden developed world whilst simutaneously preventing the developing world from actually developing. The Earth is an ecosystem and we as humans are a tiny stupid pointless insignificant blip on that ecosystem. Geologically we are less than a microsecond. It is nothing but hubris and self-obsession to assume we have a cat in hell's chance of affecting the climate of this planet in any meaningful way. The earth will look after itself, and if we remain viable as a species we will adapt. Coal, oil, gas, it's all exactly the same natural fuel as wood, just a hell of a lot older. We are not creating "carbon". At a simple level we are merely moving CO2 it from under the sea to above it. Releasing what was once a tree into the ecosystem so that it may be a new tree. It doesn't matter how much coal the developing world burns. Or oil. Because we all know for a fact how much oil and coal and gas humans are going to use. All of it. Every last drop. And it won't make the slightest bit of difference to mother earth. We, like King Canute, are conceited in the extreme to think that the changing the climate has ever been something in our power, or indeed that preventing climate change will ever be.

Now cheer up.

Well, this would be a nice summary, were it not for the fact that we have cut down all the trees to raise cows to make burgers to feed fat americans, the most of that released CO2 is not now being soaked up and there is also all the extra methane from cow-farts added to it.

We're all going to hell in a handbasket. The world will still be here, but I doubt we will - at least not in the way we are now.

Damn scaremongers
The world will sort its self out. Humans are a parasite, at worst we destroy the natural world around us. at best we will start taking better care. but it is too late and nature will sort it out

China is developing in an incredibly fast rate since 2000, and it's still a communist country that won't have human rights (otherwise we'd be paying a lots more for certain item), the number of car has increased in a very alarming rate;

2000 - 2.07 millions car.

2007 - 8.88 millions car.

in 1990, it was under 1 millions.

coal is very cheap compared to Nuclear, and far more readily available, it's a lots easier to produced electricty from coal than from nuclear.

Do you think that China could perhaps afford to invest in 'clean coal' technology? After all they spent enough on 'biggin up China' at the Olympics - being a world player requires taking on world responsibility - I don't drive a car - I ride a bicycle like wot the Chinese used to -

Once the fish is eaten, and so on, up the food chain, the PCBs concentration increases, eventually leading to toxic affects, such as hormone disruption, which, if eaten by fella, will give him tits. Tits, I tell you.

Perfect. If we all had our own tits we'd never leave the house, thus eliminating transport pollution.