Home Politics & Debate

Exxon/Bush think-tank offers cash to any scientist who denies climate change

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So what's the solution?

    Dude, if I knew then I'd bottle it and seel it to every marketing oragnisation in the world :)
    You cannot say there isn't enough information, campaigns and pledging at the moment. It's all over the place at the moment. So what will it take to change people's attitudes? More time perhaps? A few more years before the message gets through?

    I don't know.

    How many people don't realise that smoking kills and yet you will get a huge response on these board if you propose a ban, ditto on drugs.

    Information isn't enough, neither is taxation. Neither of those aspects get the individuals to "own" the problem and therefore "own" the solution. You have to get people to change their ways and as someone who does that for a living it's very difficult to achieve. Different messages for different groups, bringing the message home to them in real terms is only the start... there isn't aything tanglible and if you tell them that it's going to get hotter in the UK then sadly you are only going to give them soemthing to look forward too!
    I'm obviously hanging around with different people (and I suspect, demographics) to Fiend but I most people I know have changed their ways to some degree or other in the last couple of years.

    I agree, not many through choice though most have been forced to change and people have a natural aversion to that approach.

    I recycle now, I'd like to do more but there isn't much council support down here - e.g. Recycling collection will not take glass FFS
    Then again I don't doubt many other people don't give much of a shit so long as it doesn't cost them money...

    Even that doesn't force change as petorl and smoking have shown. It's more useful to have cheaper alternatives. At the moment there is little choice - pay more or don't do it. Well people are already use to having something and they will pay more to keep it.

    What you need, in that regard, is pay more for one system and pay less for the alternative. Ban electronics companies from having stand-by options (why on earth hasn't that already been done), force car manufacturers to have a proportion of cars sold (a high proportion) and manufactured, which use more efficient fuels leading to 100% coverage. Change legislation on MPG/engine size.

    Cut things off at source in other words.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I think a lot of progress is being made with the general population don't you? Most people I know recycle and many of them are buying energy saving bulbs.

    Most people only buy energy saving bulbs because they are cheaper, not through any concern for the environment. I recycle, and Newcastle City Council have a very good recycling programme (they take just about anything, and do it regularly), but again its because its cheaper and easier to throw my empty beer bottles in the recycling bin than it is to buy black bin bags and keep throwing them out. Because we recycle we probably only fill our wheely bin up once every three weeks.

    I don't doubt that the opposition of business leaders causes damage, but taxing people won't be the solution. Private cars are already the most expensive they've ever been but still most people drive rather than get the bus or train. People want their plasma TVs (which only use four times as much electricity as a cathode ray TV), people want their computers, and they will pay for it. All tax does is pay for Gordon Brown's overdraft, and everyone knows that, so they think the whole green initiative is a big con.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dude, if I knew then I'd bottle it and seel it to every marketing oragnisation in the world :)

    How many people don't realise that smoking kills and yet you will get a huge response on these board if you propose a ban, ditto on drugs.

    Information isn't enough, neither is taxation. Neither of those aspects get the individuals to "own" the problem and therefore "own" the solution. You have to get people to change their ways and as someone who does that for a living it's very difficult to achieve. Different messages for different groups, bringing the message home to them in real terms is only the start... there isn't aything tanglible and if you tell them that it's going to get hotter in the UK then sadly you are only going to give them soemthing to look forward too!

    I agree, not many through choice though most have been forced to change and people have a natural aversion to that approach.

    I recycle now, I'd like to do more but there isn't much council support down here - e.g. Recycling collection will not take glass FFS

    Even that doesn't force change as petorl and smoking have shown. It's more useful to have cheaper alternatives. At the moment there is little choice - pay more or don't do it. Well people are already use to having something and they will pay more to keep it.

    What you need, in that regard, is pay more for one system and pay less for the alternative. Ban electronics companies from having stand-by options (why on earth hasn't that already been done), force car manufacturers to have a proportion of cars sold (a high proportion) and manufactured, which use more efficient fuels leading to 100% coverage. Change legislation on MPG/engine size.

    Cut things off at source in other words.

    That is a very good point.

    Unfortunately everything come back to money. If somethings cheaper then people will do it. If something makes a company more profit then they will do it, no matter what the risk is.
    If you propose something to a company that is more helpful to the environment but will cut their profits even slightly, They would throw you out of the building. People don't give a flying F*** about anything unless it involves making or saving money.

    I hope whoever came up with the idea of money is being tortured in the afterlife.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It must be getting on for ten years since we were first told that we had only ten years to save the planet. I think it's self-evident now that by the time we satisfy everyone that climate change is a problem, it will be way too late to do anything about it.

    The only thing I can say about these deniers is that maybe they are great believers in capitalist 'techno-fixes' that 'necessity' will spur us to invent. You can bet a lot of people will continue to starve, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    If you propose something to a company that is more helpful to the environment but will cut their profits even slightly, They would throw you out of the building. People don't give a flying F*** about anything unless it involves making or saving money.

    I think that's very cynical, and not entirely fair. Companies do a lot to change things as an investment, not every company or every person decides to go for the most profit. Individuals are probably worse than companies at choosing cost over substance.

    I buy my electricity from a green supplier, even though they're probably more expensive than the big names. It's only a little step, but they're a good company, and I would recommend Ecotricity to anyone. The customer service is fantastic too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But for most companies environmental sense makes business sense as well. Apart from the fact where if quality and cost is equal more people are likely to buy from a 'green' business if you save energy you cut your costs, reduce waste means less raw material needed, efficient vehicles cut your transport costs etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I would recommend Ecotricity to anyone.

    If everybody switched to Ecotricity - a company 'dedicated to changing the way electricity is made' and investing its customers money in 'clean forms of power like wind energy' wouldn't we a bit screwed? Trendy renewable forms of energy aren't completely reliable, they cannot be depended upon.

    Wind farms are also a cancerous eyesore on the landscape, they're responsible for enormous visual and noise pollution. And their economic value is questionable at the very least.

    Tbh I still think nuclear is the way forward, especially if there's any truth in this hoo-hah about global warming. Cleaner coal looks like it could have a big part to play too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if there's any truth in this hoo-hah about global warming.
    Nah it's all made up. The earth is also flat and dinosaur 'fossils' are plastic decoys planted by godless scientists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lol you know what I meant.

    The climate is changing as it always has. I'm just not convinced that we will significantly slow down (or halt) climate change through huge changes in human behaviour.

    I do sometimes feel like I'm the only person who isn't worrying about climate change. People should just chill out. I'm sure everything will be fine. People will come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels...Or we'll run out of fossil fuels and live in teepees (which are kinda cool anyway). Or something. It'll be okay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's worth noting that this has been the hottest January since 1914.

    Which begs the question, what was happening in 1914 which might have prompted similar temperatures? Mass use of fossil fuels...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Was 1914 a mild January? Or was it the date that records go back to?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not to do with how hot or cold it gets though. It's to do with patterns and frequencies. There have been very warm and very cold periods over the last 100,000 years. But it is the rate it is happening that is the worrying development.

    It's rather stupid to say, as some have in the past, that since the Earth will eventually go through a very warm age, it doesn't matter if it is in 5,000 years or if man makes it happen this century.

    We (or our grandchildren at any rate) are going to be extremely fucked up if we don't change our ways pretty quickly. The biggest irony of it all is that those who deny man-made global warming exists- the immense majority of which are right wing free market enthusiasts- don't realise that their precious way of life, profits and capitalist society will be as fucked as anything else by the consequences of not doing nothing. Even if they don't give a shit about the wellbeing of this planet flora, fauna, human inhabitants and natural resources it would still be in their best interests to change their ways now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I always wonder what they're getting at, when people who don't believe that man is responsible for causing global warming, claim that the "other side" have just the same amount of bias. I mean I know there are scientists that won't want to be disproven, and so might be biased, and that will occur on both sides, but I fail to see what's in it for anyone claiming that man is responsible. I mean what can anyone personally gain by making such a statement? Whereas on the other side of the fence, I see huge amounts of profit at stake, which is why it's far easier to be dubious of one set of research.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I mean I know there are scientists that won't want to be disproven, and so might be biased, and that will occur on both sides, but I fail to see what's in it for anyone claiming that man is responsible. I mean what can anyone personally gain by making such a statement? Whereas on the other side of the fence, I see huge amounts of profit at stake, which is why it's far easier to be dubious of one set of research.

    Scientists who write what the charity or government wants them to write are always in demand. If the UN or GreenPeace ask for a report about global warming there is definitely an incentive to hype up the problem, just as the Stern report did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Scientists who write what the charity or government wants them to write are always in demand. If the UN or GreenPeace ask for a report about global warming there is definitely an incentive to hype up the problem, just as the Stern report did.

    Yeah I get that, but what have Greenpeace got to gain by suggesting that climate change is caused by man? I only see potential personal gain by pushing one side of the argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I get that, but what have Greenpeace got to gain by suggesting that climate change is caused by man? I only see potential personal gain by pushing one side of the argument.

    Power, influence, donations, personal glory...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SUVs and cheap airflights are such a threat...Global warming is happening on mars AS WELL omg

    http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles/Science_Tech/science_tech__warmings_mars.htm

    those fucking evil, greedy, despicable, selfish etc cunts should be shot. they probably vote republican. and work for an oil company. :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why Minimi38 doesn't travel by sea...

    flat_earth.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't for one second think that pumping huge amounts of chemicals into the earth and air and water is good for anyone, but I think its another sign of human arrogance to assume that we can change anything and everything. The earth may well be getting warmer, and cutting down the rainforests can't be good at all, but I don't think humans have as much say as to what goes on as we think we do.

    Greenpeace's whole existence is based on making everything sound like environmental armageddon. They have been proven to be liars more than the oil companies (Brent Spar, anyone?), because environmental armageddon is how they get their prestige, power and control. The oil comanies are just as bad in reverse.

    This earth was hot, wet and swampy when T-Rex was roaming the land. we might be heading back there- though 10 years ago after three cold summers the scientists were confidently predicting a new ice age. The Earth will do what it wants, and there's not a lot we can do about it, and the unseasonable weather has far more to do with el Nino and strong southerlies blowing off the Azores than me driving to the supermarket or leaving my bathroom light on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But just because the Earth will go through warmer and colder periods doesn't mean it does not matter if we artificially greatly acelerate that process.

    The melting of the polar ice caps is not good news for anybody, humans or animals. It might well happen in 10,000 years naturally, but there is no point in making it happen in 100 through pollution and CO2 emissions anyway.

    Changes should be gradual not sudden.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Changes should ideally be gradual not sudden, but the history of the Earth indicates otherwise.

    We should be doing more for the environment, because I'd rather live in a clean world than a scabby one, but I think climate change is a bit of a red herring. It's mostly just taken as an excuse for Gordon to tax the living crap out of us to pay for his economic incompetence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that taxes shouldn't be the only answer (or in some cases an answer at all).
Sign In or Register to comment.