No such humility is to be found on YV, however. And yes - it's the Herald's fault. Asking a question like they have is like a cross between asking "Do you believe man really walked on the moon?" and "Do we need oxygen to breathe?".
Do we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% before 2020?
Helen (Onehunga): I was wondering where all my $30-'s will go too.anyhoo,let's not worry too much yet, as the government has popped in a few nice "out"clauses, requiring all the big countries to do their bit as well, which they clearly won't.Duly noted.
Thank goodness lots of people are starting to see this issue clearly, as I've never believed any warming was due to man-and-cow-made emissions but used to get scathingly shouted down by Believers till I learned to shut up.
How anybody can believe that a tax will save Earth from catastrophe is beyond me.
I'm not an actress, but I'd really like to sit down and have a cuppa and a chat with John Key too-I don't know much about Global Warming but I know what I could do with an extra $30 per week.
Pedantic (Forrest Hill): There has yet to be one single scrap of scientific proof put forward by global warming lobbys [sic] to substantiate their claims. Their MOD [sic] is, the louder we shout, the more inclined people will be to listen!
I was prepared to humour these mis-guided [sic] souls while their rantings and ravings didn't affect my daily life, however, public and corporate donations are now not enough! Now they want every living soul to pay for their madness! I draw the line! I say they should all climb back into their slimy holes where they belong.
Who is going to be retarded enough to support this proposal?
Sorry to be, erm, pedantic about your spelling. But I think I'll side with the scientific consensus on this one. Nice rant though - what were we talking about again?
But I must adieu - this data isn't going to enter itself.
Posts
Not that I'd sink to ranting on your views about it, I just occasionally rant on my blog, and apparently in your comments section.
ReplyDeleteIf you ask anybody that has studied Paleoclimatology the opinions differ. Including the leading paleoclimatologists. Climate scientists run models and look at data from the last 100 years, though I have seen a study from the last 2000 years, picture is a bit different when you go back over the last 600,000.
Anyway humanity needs to work out how to cope with climate change as it's going to happen whether we fucked with the system or not.
Also by climatologists own calculations reducing emissions at this point does nothing, so if they are correct we are already fucked.
If their calculations didn't manage to factor in all the workings of an open system like the earth's atmosphere then we are just probably heading into the next stage of a milanckovic cycle = ice age and we are also fucked.
Your views readers could take some advice from slate on how to comment - http://www.slate.com/id/2223976/sidebar/2223979/
ReplyDeleteIf there is one thing that history has shown us time and time again, it is that the vast majority of predictions are incorrect. Regardless of how much, or how little, science we throw at a problem, we wont know whether something will happen until it either does or doesnt occurr. I dont prescribe to either side of the climate change argument, mainly because both sides are just prognosticators. Sure, it might be warmer today than 500 years ago, but that doesn't have any bearing at all on how hot it will be in 500 years from now. Also, who really cares what this world is going to be like in 500 years. All I really care about is the next 150 or so- I just want the world to be around long enough so that my grandchildren are able to have a safe and happy life. Sure, it would be nice if the planet and the human race continues in prosperity, but beyond 150 years, it doesnt affect me, or anyone I know and love, or will ever even meet.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I am still a believer in many of the green concepts that are kicking around at the moment, not because we need to save the planet, but because they can benefit me and those I hold dear. Many green initiatives represent more effiecient ways of doing things, such as hybrids/electric cars, especially in a country like NZ that has significant hydro resources. Recycling- great, so long as we are putting less energy into recycling used products than we do in using raw materials. Using washing lines rather than driers, and using efficient heaters- great, puts more money in my pocket. Solar power- brilliant idea, just needs a bit more refinement to improve the reliability and reduce the rate of repayment compared to running off the grid. All these things are efficient and save money and energy. Even if we didn't need to 'save the planet', they would be good ideas.
However, there is one huge elephant in the room when it comes to the reduction of carbon emissions that greeny's are whinging about. Nuclear power. Replace our coal and gas power stations with nuclear, and our carbon emissions would drop well beyond the 40% that is being suggested. Ignore all the clean&green rehetoric that kiwis spout as soon as nuclear power is mentioned, because there is nothing clean nor green about coal or gas power plants.
Nuclear needs to enter the debate because it is cheaper, more efficient, and has the potential to benefit me now and the planet later. That is the crux of the issue, while our celebrities are clamouring to get face time in front of the media by supporting the green movement, average joe urvewz writer is not going to support anything that doesn't benefit them. I'm not going to be around in 150 years, so unless these measures directly benefit me or those I hold dear, I have a hard time supporting them.
Thank you.
Oh the stupiduty!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10590385