I try to think of people as good at heart, but they insist on opening their mouths.

[cyrano]

It's my own fault for reading commentary on 'global climate change'.


The world won't come to an end in my lifetime i have no children but im sure if i did it wont come to an end in theirs or their childrens lifetime and so on for quite along while yet. So to be honest, i do not care. Im fed up of the whole talk of climate change, because quite simply i feel we the UK other paying for other countries who just dont tow the line, yes i dont mind using unleaded and not littering the place etc etc. But just feel its always just an excuse to take money from us.

I admire your conviction. You've decided that everything will be just fine, and so now you have the luxury of not caring and being fed up. Good on you!

Climate change is still mainly a luxury issue for rich countries and I don't see why poor countries such as India and China should have to limit their economic progress for the benefit of rich countries.

It's a shame, really to limit economic progress in poor countries like China and India (Poor China! Poor India!) just because they might be swamped, desertified, devastated, or other things that probably won't impact their economy at all.

How do you know how significant or irrelevant a given concentration of an agent is? If you were offered a glass of .039% of cyanide would you drink it? If you were offered a cup of tea with a nanogram of Polonium 210 in it would you drink it?

Cyanide is toxic. Carbon dioxide is naturally occuring and forms such a miniscule part of the atmophere it can have no effect on climate.

How do you know how significant an agent is? You could, I don't know, TRYING USING SCIENCE.

And then of course there's the usual flock of people who've gone from straight out denying that there is any problem directly into saying that of course there's a problem but there's nothing to be done la la la.

Thatcher's Bloody England. Is it any wonder my blood pressure is so high?

Comments

[roisnoir.livejournal.com]

Oh, the WORLD will still be here - that'll be around until the sun explodes, or some other planet slams into it.

It's civilization as we know it that's doomed. By these idiots. (It's the same sort of thinking behind creationism; the facts as science presnts them contradicts the 2000 year old text that holds all truth, so therefore, the facts are wrong. Because the industrial revolution NEVER HAPPENED. We're still living in stone huts without refrigeration or electricity.)

Enjoy it while it lasts, because it'll be kelp and krill for the lucky (?) ones that survive. Assuming that we haven't poisoned the oceans beyond adaptation by that point.

Humans won't be wiped out entirely - not unless we do something huge - but it'll be back to little tribal groups and city-states. Think of it like a petri dish that gets overcrowded, then wiped out but not sterilized.

[starherd.livejournal.com]

And I go back to thinking that a good solid zombie apocalypse plague would really do the planet some good. They keep trying, but the last several plagues have been woefully ineffective at reducing the world human infestation...

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Cyanide is toxic. Carbon dioxide is naturally occuring

...So's cyanide, last time I checked. Fucking moron. Just because something occurs in nature does not mean it's safe in large quantities. I suggest people who believe this eat as many wild mushrooms as they can find, until the idea (and their heart) stops.

[amanda_lodden.livejournal.com]

And belladonna. And foxglove, just to also bring home the idea that just because it's good for you in a certain quantity (say, if you have heart problems) doesn't mean it's good for you in a different quantity.

Water occurs naturally, too, and in sufficient quantity it will kill you. I'm not talking about drowning, either; drink too much too fast without other minerals, and you will destroy your body's electrolyte balance.

[amanda_lodden.livejournal.com]

Climate change is still mainly a luxury issue for rich countries and I don't see why poor countries such as India and China should have to limit their economic progress for the benefit of rich countries.

Okay, this has the makings of a point, if it weren't entangled with such pathetic whining. India and China got the raw end of the deal here, because we already went through and raped the best parts of the planet (of course, India was raped primarily by the British, so I think the whiny UK person miiiiight want to back down from that whole "paying for other countries that don't tow the line" bit), and now they're being told that they can't do the same.

The weirdest thing about this whine is that most green options end up being cheaper for the consumers and taxpayers in the long run. I'm just not following the whole "excuse to take money from us" bit.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Whereas my thing was "India? China? Two up and coming economic powerhouses? What about an *actual* poor country, like Zimbabwe or Canada?"

Just kidding, Canada. You know I love you.

[pielology.livejournal.com]

Plutonium forms such a miniscule part of this pie, it can't possibly have any effect on you! Eat as much as you want!

[handworn.livejournal.com]

and I don't see why poor countries such as India and China should have to limit their economic progress for the benefit of rich countries.

Uh, I don't know, maybe because they're EIGHT TIMES AS LARGE AS US, population-wise? And it's for the benefit of everyone; the whole planet heats up, not just the part over rich countries.

(What does this have to do with Margaret Thatcher, though?)

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the obscure pop culture reference. "Thatcher's bloody England" is a muttered quote from The Young Ones about the hollowness of modern life and the machinations of politicians trying to put a panglossian shine on a turd. I pretty much use it as a catch phrase any time somebody is trying pretend that the imminent catastrophe is not imminent and in fact may not even exist.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

It's exactly how imminent the catastrophe is that's uncertain, I think, and that this is the source of all the difficulties politically and policy-wise, given the relentless desire in human beings for efficiency. (That is, we want to solve the problem using as few sacrifices as are genuinely needed, and there will always be those with a financial stake in making fewer, or at least in making fewer, themselves.)

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I believe that human caused heating the the biggest climate threat.

For example, post 2000, it seems things have leveled off, that is most likely due to an unusually low sun spot level (in so far as records can be trusted) since 1700 or so.

I prefer the term catastrophic climate change. That is coming, I think, and we should be gathering better data, and testing manipulations of the climate to deal with it.

It's not about blame, but how best to manage things.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

My intent was not to place blame, and if I did so then I apologize. My intent was to throw rocks at people who would prefer we just pretended the problem doesn't exist in hopes it would go away. Because regardless of whether it was humans, farting cows, or JHVH, or all of the above who have caused this situation, we have to live in it.