Typical climate change scaremongering... - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Typical climate change scaremongering...

Ian182 Avatar
9y, 6m agoPosted 9 years, 6 months ago
Following on from the climate change debate on here a week or so ago, I thought I would post this. It is the front page of today's metro in London. This is exactly the sort of scaremongering that is seen regularly in the press nowadays. Journalists jobs depend on the myth of carbon emissions causing global warming, so every slow news day, a new "devestating" headline is brought up.

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1535284.gif

The story in full...

Climate change will create 'world of refugees'
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Land may get scarcer as sea levels riseGlobal warming will force more than 1billion people from their homes before 2050, campaigners have warned.

Climate change will create a 'world of many Darfurs' if richer countries do nothing to tackle the problem, they claim in a new report.

Average temperatures will rise by up to 3°C this century because of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists believe.

It will cause floods and famines and spark the world's largest ever movement of people from their homes.

In turn, that will fuel existing conflicts and create new ones in some of the poorest and most deprived parts of the world, according to Christian Aid.

The charity's report, Human Tide: The Real Migration Crisis, says 163million people have already been forced from their homes worldwide.

But the figure will hit 1billion in the next 40 years or so.

This includes 250million permanently displaced by climate change-related phenomena such as floods and droughts.

Another 50million will be displaced by conflict and human rights abuses and 50million by natural disasters.

A further 645million will lose their homes to development projects, such as dams, to tackle water shortages and other effects of global warming.

Low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, parts of China, the Nile delta in Africa and small islands will be threatened by rising sea levels, the report says.

Countries such as Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Ivory Coast and Colombia, where thousands of people are already fleeing human rights abuses or wars, will see even greater suffering.

Millions will be under threat in India, China, Ghana, Egypt and Sudan, from projects to stave off water shortages.

Report author John Davison called for richer countries to take action.

He added: 'We believe that forced migration is now the most urgent threat facing poor people in the developing world.

'A world of many more Darfurs is the increasingly likely nightmare scenario.'

The Department for International Development defended its record, saying its schemes, such as flood-resistant housing in Bangladesh, were helping tackle the effects of climate change.
Ian182 Avatar
9y, 6m agoPosted 9 years, 6 months ago
Options

All Comments

(31) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Must be a slow news day...

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1535283.gif
#2
The thing is that even if we stop all CO2 emmissions TODAY, it will not start reducing anything in the coming days, in fact it would take about 50 years to start seeing any sort of reduction on the emissions. So on that score anyone who thinks they are helping the future by doing this and that are clearly mistaken.

Yes we do need to recycle more but this will have little or no effect on global warming. All these so called moneies that goverments are collecting in the name of global warming are just adding further to their coffers.

For example I went and did the online form about the new HIP (Home Information Packs) that will be required by sellers from the 1st of June and I rebuillt this house about 4 years ago using the best and beyond when doing the work. When I reached the end of the survey it said I could do more and could start by changing my boiler?? it is one of the most advanced on the market still, so why would I do that. It also said I should invest in a boiler control panel, and dropping the heat by a degree. Well we only have the heat on when it is very cold and then it is put on manually, the temperture is maintained at 18.5 most of the time, so I don't think there is anyway you can be sure that each house is treated on its own measure.

Typical.....
#3
I read somewhere that if every British person started driving round in a huge 6 litre 4x4, it would only increase emissions by 0.1% - it's the Americans with thier "dont care" attitude that cause all the pollution !!

Mind you, it has been nice and warm lately........
#4
ChrisUK
I read somewhere that if every British person started driving round in a huge 6 litre 4x4, it would only increase emissions by 0.1% - it's the Americans with thier "dont care" attitude that cause all the pollution !!

Mind you, it has been nice and warm lately........


We are not adding to the problem, you have been brain washed with all the media hype ;-)
#5
stora
We are not adding to the problem, you have been brain washed with all the media hype ;-)


I'm not sure I want to wait for it to kick in fully before saying "toldya!".
I'd rather be proactive and wrong, than retroactive and right. The stakes are pretty high to gamble on it, wouldn't you agree?
#6
Scribbles
I'm not sure I want to wait for it to kick in fully before saying "toldya!".
I'd rather be proactive and wrong, than retroactive and right. The stakes are pretty high to gamble on it, wouldn't you agree?


Who's gambling? I am 100% sure that our carbon emissions dont contribute to global warming.

But dont get me wrong, I am all for recycling, turning off lights etc. I just dont buy the opinion that driving a 4x4 kills 10 polar bears for every mile you drive.
#7
Ian182
Who's gambling? I am 100% sure that our carbon emissions dont contribute to global warming.

But dont get me wrong, I am all for recycling, turning off lights etc. I just dont buy the opinion that driving a 4x4 kills 10 polar bears for every mile you drive.


No, but 4x4s kill more polar bears than Nissan Micras :)
If they use more fuel, it stands to reason that they pollute more?
Besides, 4x4s parked all over the place in leafy boroughs like Hampstead simply take up road space and slow traffic down, causing pollution as a result. It isn't as simple as A + B = C. I's more like 'A + B >(or)< C (if) D >(or)< E*4'

It's like a butterfly effect. I'll tell the truth, I don't think it can be stopped. I merely think the effects can maybe be quelled a little. We are in the middle of what i'd call a 'public misinformation exercise' to dampen any sense of mass hopelessness. Who'd want to be told that the world has no future? So we are simply told that we can make a difference. That's just govt spin speak to gain revenue. The fact is that the world is not capable of working together on anything, let alone working for the greater good of the planet :oops:
I do what I do merely so that I can say I did my bit, however little that equates to in the grand scheme of things. Even if it makes 0.000001% difference, that's still a difference. If a million people did the same, that a grand difference.
#8
Scribbles
No, but 4x4s kill more polar bears than Nissan Micras :)
If they use more fuel, it stands to reason that they pollute more?
Besides, 4x4s parked all over the place in leafy boroughs like Hampstead simply take up road space and slow traffic down, causing pollution as a result. It isn't as simple as A + B = C. I's more like 'A + B >(or)< C (if) D >(or)< E*4'

It's like a butterfly effect. I'll tell the truth, I don't think it can be stopped. I merely think the effects can maybe be quelled a little. We are in the middle of what i'd call a 'public misinformation exercise' to dampen any sense of mass hopelessness. Who'd want to be told that the world has no future? So we are simply told that we can make a difference. That's just govt spin speak to gain revenue. The fact is that the world is not capable of working together on anything, let alone working for the greater good of the planet :oops:
I do what I do merely so that I can say I did my bit, however little that equates to in the grand scheme of things. Even if it makes 0.000001% difference, that's still a difference. If a million people did the same, that a grand difference.


I think the butterfly effect will be distorted by China bringing a coal-fired power station online every week. And then there's India, and the rest of the up n coming Asian countries.
#9
Scribbles
If they use more fuel, it stands to reason that they pollute more?


I agree, but my point is that the emissions form 4x4s, nissan micras etc, are not the cause of global warming.
#10
I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination (working very closely and enjoyably with the offshore oil and gas industry sees to that) but it strikes me that there's a pretty simple mass/energy balance that is/has been being tipped out of kilter.

Just thinking about the sheer number and volume organisms that make up a barrel of oil and how much of that is extracted each day and combusted makes my head hurt. Then I look at the the millions of years that it took for the process of them becoming hydrocarbons to take place and the ~200 years we've taken to release that back into the atmosphere.

To me, it is but a hop skip and a jump to realise that, in common with the scientific patterns in chemistry, biology and physics, that there is always a balance to an enclosed system and I cannot resolve how what we do with hydrocarbons doesn't have an impact on the climate.
#11
Scribbles
No, but 4x4s kill more polar bears than Nissan Micras :)
If they use more fuel, it stands to reason that they pollute more?

Oh please, do me a favour, go and have a look at the emissions from all the vehicles you are talking about then come back and repeat that, with facts. Some of the biggest SUV's pollute less than some of the smaller cars. And don't start quoting the Pruis, how much energy and CO2 does it take to recharge the pruis? You must look at the whole picture for yourself and don't read everything they put in front of you.

I am in a hurry now but I will do some checks later and show you a selection of emissions and then you can shout about 4x4 emissions.

Wasn't having a go at ya, but I have heard that argument before with ill effect.
#12
Crazy1
Oh please, do me a favour, go and have a look at the emissions from all the vehicles you are talking about then come back and repeat that, with facts. Some of the biggest SUV's pollute less than some of the smaller cars. And don't start quoting the Pruis, how much energy and CO2 does it take to recharge the pruis? You must look at the whole picture for yourself and don't read everything they put in front of you.

I am in a hurry now but I will do some checks later and show you a selection of emissions and then you can shout about 4x4 emissions.

Wasn't having a go at ya, but I have heard that argument before with ill effect.


Sorry, but I can't accept that arguement. A 4.2l, 3.6l, whatever, 4x4 pollutes more than a 1.1 Micra, simple fact. If you want to argue apples v tomatos, then i'll accept that an 'R' reg Nissan Micra may well emit more than an 07 reg Freelander. But that is not comparing like with like.
To argue the benefits of urban 4x4s v runabouts is taking us into the realms of fantasy.
I didn't take it as a dig, but we are both allowed to defend our POVs, so i'll choose to do just that :thumbsup:
#13
Scribbles
Sorry, but I can't accept that arguement. A 4.2l, 3.6l, whatever, 4x4 pollutes more than a 1.1 Micra, simple fact. If you want to argue apples v tomatos, then i'll accept that an 'R' reg Nissan Micra may well emit more than an 07 reg Freelander. But that is not comparing like with like.
To argue the benefits of urban 4x4s v runabouts is taking us into the realms of fantasy.
I didn't take it as a dig, but we are both allowed to defend our POVs, so i'll choose to do just that :thumbsup:


But there are likely to be hundreds/thousands of 1.1 litre Micras, Corsas and Fiestas sold per 4.2L 4x4.
#14
Scribbles
Sorry, but I can't accept that arguement. A 4.2l, 3.6l, whatever, 4x4 pollutes more than a 1.1 Micra, simple fact. If you want to argue apples v tomatos, then i'll accept that an 'R' reg Nissan Micra may well emit more than an 07 reg Freelander. But that is not comparing like with like.
To argue the benefits of urban 4x4s v runabouts is taking us into the realms of fantasy.
I didn't take it as a dig, but we are both allowed to defend our POVs, so i'll choose to do just that :thumbsup:


and lets not even start on the manufacturing costs...bigger vehicle-more resources used...although I admit you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise in a Freelander, tinniest POS I've ever had the misfortune to own.

I remember seeing Mike Rutherford defending 4x4 vs cars and doing a piece to camera while flitting between driving in a 4x4 and a car saying how the 4x4 he was in was lighter on fuel than the car...what were the vehicles?
A Suzuki Jimny and a V6 Mondeo...way to go on comparing like with like there Mr Rutherford; journalistic integrity straight out of the window at that point...
#15
pingusan
and lets not even start on the manufacturing costs...bigger vehicle-more resources used...although I admit you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise in a Freelander, tinniest POS I've ever had the misfortune to own.

I remember seeing Mike Rutherford defending 4x4 vs cars and doing a piece to camera while flitting between driving in a 4x4 and a car saying how the 4x4 he was in was lighter on fuel than the car...what were the vehicles?
A Suzuki Jimny and a V6 Mondeo...way to go on comparing like with like there Mr Rutherford; journalistic integrity straight out of the window at that point...


Pingu,

Don't forget that a large percentage of 4x4s such as Defenders are still in daily use and therefore the lifetime costs are lower. You still see loads of old 4x4s such as Toyota Land Cruisers and Mitsubishi Shoguns in everyday use. Most superminis reach a zero value point at about 6-8 years old when a major component breaks.
#16
vikingaero
Pingu,

Don't forget that a large percentage of 4x4s such as Defenders are still in daily use and therefore the lifetime costs are lower. You still see loads of old 4x4s such as Toyota Land Cruisers and Mitsubishi Shoguns in everyday use. Most superminis reach a zero value point at about 6-8 years old when a major component breaks.


Aye, to be fair I agree with that to an extent, I think the 3 models you mentioned there though and utilitarian vehicles are the exceptions rather than the rule...and of the survivors they won't be the ones using the most up to date technology either....not a single Defender can be reliably described as fuel efficient ;-)

as i say, i'm not wholly anti them, but do question their value on the school run. Each to their own and all that, but i'm equally entitled to see kiddy winkies being dropped off at school and just think "why?" ...personally it's perhaps more borne out of a total lack of interest in them and regarding them being totally pointless as vehicles for any purpose other than going off-road; I'd sooner have a rapid, fun, good handling estate if I needed the space.


PS,i'm pingusan...lest the real pingu get offended!!
#17
pingusan
as i say, i'm not wholly anti them, but do question their value on the school run. Each to their own and all that, but i'm equally entitled to see kiddy winkies being dropped off at school and just think "why?" ...personally it's perhaps more borne out of a total lack of interest in them and regarding them being totally pointless as vehicles for any purpose other than going off-road; I'd sooner have a rapid, fun, good handling estate if I needed the space.

It's a status thing - even though most people won't admit it. Every woman has a LV/Gucci/Chanel/Prada handbag so there's nothing to differentiate except in size. Same with cars. There are only a handful of affordable premium brands (Audi/BMW/Merc/Range Rover etc) so people buy big. How do I know? Well because all my colleagues have roughly the same car allowance and there are oddballs that choose weird cars and pocket the difference - such as my manager with a Fiat Panda. Most people have a 4x4 because they want the image and are scared of being different to everyone else and not have the same type of handbag.:giggle:

That's why everyone rides in a X5 rather than a 5 series Touring.

I still wonder at the Porsche Cayenne owning mum at my daughters school. She drives off her drive about 300 yards North of the school. Because it's chokka at morning drop off time she then parks about 400 yards south the other side of the school.:? :? :?


PS,i'm pingusan...lest the real pingu get offended!!


Apologies pingusan.
#18
I am not saying that the people discussing here are, but I think a lot of the 4x4 bashing that takes place is borne out of jealousy.
#19
Ian182
I am not saying that the people discussing here are, but I think a lot of the 4x4 bashing that takes place is borne out of jealousy.


My Fiesta Si gets 35 to the UL gallon, so nope ... no jealousy here :)
#20
yup, i totally agree about the status aspect, although i'm still at loss as to why anyone would want the x5 over the estate...except for the fact that, bloody hell, they can't half shift and that is funny to watch and, to be fair, probably fun to navigate ;-)

i struggle with the image thing...as in i'll happily admit i want the (IMO) cool car but that ain't a 4by.... although i've just remembered mine is a 4x4...and italian so it's unreliable...and gets about 20mpg...i think i'll wind my neck in now :oops:

the apologies should probably be directed at pingu!

dunno about jealosy, i know you're saying that ain't directed at peeps here but...well....i can only speak for myself but there's nothing to be jealous of. Pity perhaps ;-); if a 4x4 driver wants to saddle themselves with lumpen "handling", sluggish responses and big bills then that's their choice, it doesn't flick my switch and didn't when i had one (company car, no choice in the matter).
#21
[SIZE=2]Oh listen to you, Mr Goodie To-Shoes and the bloke across the road, doing what the Government wants you to do - argue without thinking.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]Now lets put things into perspective - The UK's contribution to World CO2 emissions is [SIZE=3]3.5%[/SIZE] and the way you are going on you would think the end of the World is coming to the end. Vehicles contributes a fraction of that 3.5%, which is nothing.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]While it is good to talk about it, I don't think we should rush out change our live styles like now, but gradually change over to a better way of living.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Yes I agree 4x4's are driven in the main by people wanting to boost their macho image rather than having a practical purpose.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]And getting back to the main culprits in this debate - the Government. Honda have produced a car in the UK that will do 400 miles on one gallon of diesel, why have you not seen this car yet? Because the Government will not allow Honda to put it on the road because WE would use less fuel and therefore the Governments coffers would start to shrink due to the loss of excise duty collected at the pumps.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]It's good to talk but remember it is not worth making enemies here because everyone is going to be right and nobody is going to be right, therefore there will be no winners, so just bear this in mind as we still discuss the scaremongering.....:thumbsup: [/SIZE]
#22
To all who said global warming is definately not caused by us...how do you know this for sure? Are you scientists, did you do the research first hand? Have you ever bothered reading research instead of odd few articles of peoples opinions. This strikes me as very ignorant. Reducing emmissions at a cost of even 3% global GDP is worth it.

ITS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. At worst we lose 3% GDP, if we do nothing we and we're wrong we stand to lose a lot more.

I don't claim to know everything about global warming but i'd much prefer the 1st case i described to the second
#23
Crazy1
[SIZE=2]Oh listen to you, Mr Goodie To-Shoes and the bloke across the road, doing what the Government wants you to do - argue without thinking.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]It's good to talk but remember it is not worth making enemies here because everyone is going to be right and nobody is going to be right, therefore there will be no winners, so just bear this in mind as we still discuss the scaremongering.....:thumbsup: [/SIZE]


Pot, kettle and all that fella; drop the name calling as it undermines your credibility somewhat.

If you're viewing what I write as being "making enemies" may I politely suggest you grow a thicker skin? I've made pretty certain that what I've written reflects what I think, what other people think bothers me not a jot and I'm not seeking to persuade anyone of anything.

Goody Two Shoes? Far from it, i probably pay lip service to it all in the greater scheme of things but I am of the opinion that something can be done about it and I ought to try and help with that. The figures mean jack to me, i will do my bit; after all, of all the forums on the web that adhere to the "look after the pennies" adage this is surely the one? ;-)

If anything, you are the one with the bee in their bonnet about "the government" what with them being "main culprits" and "being told what to do and think" (para). The majority of us are able to make our own decisions and actions (some sections of society are less able to, not a dig) and so the culprits are us, the general population; sure a goverment can help with those decisions but don't palm off responsibility "mainly" onto them.

If you really think I'm repeating government mantra then may I, again politely, suggest you read my first post on the thread you will see where i have reasoned my beliefs and they sure don't involve any government dogma.

We're probably in agreement about more of this than either viewpoint has come across with but please don't insult my intelligence with these tired and trite arguments about "government".

Apologies if this has come across harshly, i wholeheartedly agree with your last para.
#24
pingusan
Pot, kettle and all that fella; drop the name calling as it undermines your credibility somewhat.

Apologies if this has come across harshly, i wholeheartedly agree with your last para.


Apologies accepted, it was not directed at anyone here, I used the names as figures of speech/speak, only because we are being treated like goldfish in a goldfish bowl and not looking at the larger picture of the same goldfish in the ocean.

This global warming and to a degree the 'green issue' is being rammed down our throats as a means for large corporates to scam even more money from us in the name being greener.

As I said the UK produces a little over 3% of the Worlds CO2 emissions so in my eyes we are not doing too bad in this country, if we can pull our horns in a bit more it should help out in the long run but nothing is going to be visible for a couple of generations anyway.

BTW, which name did you think I was calling you :giggle: :giggle:

aliinayat52
I don't claim to know everything about global warming but I'd much prefer the 1st case i described to the second

I don't think any of us really knows anything, I know diddley squat, but I try and take a global view of all comments, one thing I do know and that does annoy me is the USA ignoring the Kyoto agreement because they know they are up there in the top 3 of the Worlds greatest polluters and to raine their horns in would cost, big time.

I would like to know more but when you are only given one sided views, your judgement is only one sided, for example why are London's black cabs exempt of the congestion charge along with the buses?? Where exactly does the money collected go??
1 Like #25
aliinayat52
To all who said global warming is definately not caused by us...how do you know this for sure? Are you scientists, did you do the research first hand?


No I am not a scientist, and no of course I didnt do the research first hand, but that hasnt stopped me researching the facts and forming a balanced opinion based upon them, as most people do. I assume you have done this too? To try and discredit my view by asking if I conducted the research myself is pretty pathetic.
#26
I am not trying to discredit you...sorry if it came across that way..also its true about doing the research yourself..that's not credible but maybe you should read actual research papers and look at their conclusions...on for example google scholar..see how many you find that say there is NO evidence that we are the cause.

I agree that we MAY not be the cause but why take such a risk? The consequences are so great!!

I totally disagree with the USA's view on this topic..a beacon of freedom..surely they should take an interest in the plight of the whole world. If they fight all these wars for the sake of democracy and freedom..why not take the lead on this issue...It COULD be a far far greater threat!!
#27
Think about this...you can find evidence that suggests near enough everything is a conspiracy theory...even 9/11..doesn't mean we shouldn't take action...you should act just in case..otherwise Britain would not need an army...what would be the point...we probably won't get attacked...but if we did it would be too late to react then..its a similar thing with this issue
#28
I don't think there is much debate on whether climate change exists. The debate revolves around the question of 'did we do it?' and 'should we try to stop it?'
I think we would be derelict in our duty if we ignored it, that is my ultimate opinion on he subject.
#29
Scribbles
I don't think there is much debate on whether climate change exists. The debate revolves around the question of 'did we do it?' and 'should we try to stop it?'


The earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. It never stays constant. From massive hot periods to ice ages. It has been a lot hotter than it is now, it has also been a lot colder than it is now.

Unless the dinosaurs were driving around in 4x4s, I am confident that we are not to blame.
#30
Ian182
The earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. It never stays constant. From massive hot periods to ice ages. It has been a lot hotter than it is now, it has also been a lot colder than it is now.

Unless the dinosaurs were driving around in 4x4s, I am confident that we are not to blame.


I'm reminded of the great line from 'The Last Train' ...

"The dinosaurs got a million years, we get a few thousand"

I'm also sure that climate change wasn't the cause of an asteroid falling on them, and ultimately an asteroid falling on them WAS the cause of the ice age that wiped them out ;-)
Anyone seen the interesting Horizon episode 'Snowball earth'?

Carl Sagan also provided some insight into it. He proposed that a little greenhouse effect is a good thing. Too much, however, can be disasterous. He cited that venus is a good example of this. Carl Sagan had all this stuff pretty much sussed. A man way beyond his time.
#31
Looks like we only have 5 years to live. Make the most of it!!...



'Five Years Left To Save The Planet'
Updated: 12:30, Tuesday May 15, 2007

Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe - but can still be saved, according to a new report.

Planet is five years from disasterThe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) warns governments have until 2012 to "plant the seeds of change" and make positive moves to limit carbon emissions.

If they fail to do so, the WWF's Vision For 2050 warns "generations to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by their inability to act".

"We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years," James Leape, from the WWF, said.

"We cannot afford to waste them. This is not something that governments can put off until the future."

Between now and 2050, the world's energy needs are expected to double.

But the Climate Solutions document says technologies already available could be harnessed to produce enough sustainable energy to power the planet while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80%.

The WWF report also states that nuclear power is not necessary to cut carbon emissions.

The finding is in stark contrast to the UK Government's insistence upon the need to go nuclear.

Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK's climate change programmes, said: "This report shows that although the scale of the climate change challenge can seem daunting, it can be tackled provided we act with real urgency.

"We can slash carbon emissions and meet global energy demand without resorting to the red herring of nuclear power.

"The big question is whether the world's statesmen will have the strength and vision to make this happen - and Britain will be key to that."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1265731,00.html

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!