Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Sam48]

Whether or not governments are using climate change as a means to profit or not does not alter the scientific case one iota.

But why wouldn't it? The scientific case itself was derived by the government (More specifically the IPCC back in 1990). And the idea that they could profit from it was derived by there first ever report (Although stated lightly at the time). They now put it much more bluntly in their more recent reports.

I agree with Fryz that it doesn't appear to make much sense to wish to 'fix' things when the problem isn't fully understood, but it depends on what you mean by 'fix'... just as an alcoholic can be recommended to cut down his alcohol consumption rather than getting his liver replaced, there are things that can (and arguably should) be done to address the known issues before things go beyond a point where more drastic (and vastly more expensive) 'fixes' might be considered.

I honestly don't know what one means when they state we must "fix" the climate either, but in a different way. To "fix" the climate would be to do what? The climate has and always will be changing, so to "fix" it would be to stop it from changing? Impossible really, so what are they going on about? If by "fixing" they mean to lessen the effects of, we still have a problem. Because to matter which way you look at it, we're trying to re-engineer our climate to correct for something that is, according to scientists, either very significant or non-existant.

I agree, however, that government is probably the least of all possible solutions that is likely to work, but as yet, nobody has come up with any better ideas

What do you mean by "Better ideas"? If true, doesn't it seem odd that only the governments have the "solutions"?

- but one reason why governments or international organisations continue to have such a prominent role in addressing the issue is because individuals are mostly divorced from the consequences of their own consumption, and there are too many powerful people and organisations with no interest in moving away from the status quo.

I believe governments have/are trying to force businesses into contributing less in terms of emissions. The problem is they attempt to accomplish this through taxes/limits/bans/regulations, and this never works. The end result is that the business leaves and heads to a country that won't bother to get in their way.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I believe governments have/are trying to force businesses into contributing less in terms of emissions. The problem is they attempt to accomplish this through taxes/limits/bans/regulations, and this never works. The end result is that the business leaves and heads to a country that won't bother to get in their way.

How are governments meant to do it?

 

[Sam48]

How are governments meant to do it?

They aren't. The only good thing the government did in regards to air pollution was the unleaded fuel imposition. The answer is to let private companies decide what they want to do. If the market (e.i. the people) decide global warming is a serious problem, more people will buy from the "greener" companies, thereby forcing other companies to follow suit and "go green" as well (If they want to stay competitive, which, of course they will). So rather than let the government tax/limit/ban/regulate, which ultimately accomplishes nothing, let the private sector do the work as they have actual customers to satisfy.

 

[Encyclopedia]

They aren't. The only good thing the government did in regards to air pollution was the unleaded fuel imposition. The answer is to let private companies decide what they want to do. If the market (e.i. the people) decide global warming is a serious problem, more people will buy from the "greener" companies, thereby forcing other companies to follow suit and "go green" as well (If they want to stay competitive, which, of course they will). So rather than let the government tax/limit/ban/regulate, which ultimately accomplishes nothing, let the private sector do the work as they have actual customers to satisfy.

Sounds a bit utopian to me. Too many people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

 

[Sam48]

Sounds a bit utopian to me. Too many people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

Then what would you do then? We already have hundreds of companies who are now seeing profit spikes as a result of their "green" message (Through ads and what not). And as far as I'm concerned, they're just getting started.

 

[Dotini]

Too many people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

In the long term we are all dead.

 

[homeforsummer]

Then what would you do then? We already have hundreds of companies who are now seeing profit spikes as a result of their "green" message (Through ads and what not). And as far as I'm concerned, they're just getting started.

Is there anything wrong with companies making money (regardless of what the company is)? Isn't that what modern society is entirely based on?

Cars, naturally, are a good example. Even if a Prius didn't get tax breaks in the UK like it does, people would still buy it because it's cheap to run, for example. Yes, Toyota may make a few dollars from the "green" stuff, but ultimately if nobody wanted a Prius, nobody would buy one. As it is, Toyota have sold four million hybrids in the last decade.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy fuel-efficient cars/solar panels/reusable grocery bags, nor is anyone forcing people to split their home waste into plastics/glass/whatever. Ultimately, those are all still choices, and while nobody should be forced into making a choice, there are some things - like reusable bags or splitting your recycling - that are certainly better choices.

Of course, sometimes, schemes need to be put in place to enable people to make the right choice. My local council is pretty good with recycling stuff for instance, so we tend to split up our trash in our house.

Likewise, most shops in the UK now have made subtle changes to encourage people to avoid using plastic bags that end up in landfill - things as simple as asking someone whether they'd like a bag rather than giving them a bag anyway, not putting plastic bags in easy reach of customers, and putting re-usable bags next to the till encouraging people to pick them up.

The daft thing is, this sort of coercion would work on a larger scale. People drive everywhere in the UK, by and large because public transport is so awful. I guarantee the best way of encouraging people to drive less isn't to tax the bejeezus out of everything, but simply make the alternatives more attractive.

Big cities already have this nailed, to some extent. Nobody with any sense drives in New York or London because it's bloody awful and you never get anywhere. Luckily, both those cities have effective public transport solutions in place instead.

Doesn't work as much in the U.S. admittedly, but then that's why cars are getting more efficient. I never understand people who moan about it, since cars are also better equipped, faster, and safer than they ever were. If they happen to be contributing less to pollution and/or CO2 - for any reason - then that's great news as far as I'm concerned.

"Oh God, they're making it more fuel efficient, it must be awful" is representative of the sort of attitude that permeates some sub-sections of the car-buying public, but it's a bit... dumb. "Your faster car is going to cost you less to run, well done for moaning about it!"

 

[Encyclopedia]

Then what would you do then?

I don't know. Taxing is one way that does work at least to an extent. How much, I do not know. I do agree that is very singleminded to go straight for taxes instead of looking at other options, like our goverment usualy does.

We already have hundreds of companies who are now seeing profit spikes as a result of their "green" message (Through ads and what not). And as far as I'm concerned, they're just getting started.

Let's hope it's enough.

In the long term we are all dead.

Well yes. Long term is kind of vague I suppose.

 

[FoolKiller]

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that it's better to try and mitigate our impact on the basis that it's better trying to do something to find out it's not as big a problem as we expected it to be, rather than doing nothing to find out it's much worse than we expected it to be.

That, and I prefer living in a society that strives to find solutions to future challenges than one that sits back and thinks we've already reached a pinnacle.

Yet, your theory ignore unintended consequences. It is a disturbing trend among many environmentalists of all types. Obama wanted a green economy to rebuild our economy, yet we are now looking at bankruptcies, lost money, and far more jobs lost than created.

Or when we banned DDT due to it apparently hurting some birds no one wondered about its positive effects. I spent $1200 getting rid of a bed bug infestation last year. DDT nearly wiped out the bed bug. But my personal woes pale in comparison to the millions dead due to malaria in Africa.

The newest trend is to buy local agriculture because corporate farms are large polluters. No one stopped to wonder what kind of pollution a tractor per 5 acres causes vs 5 tractors per 100 acres, or what the effect of the necessary process to grow crops outside their natural climate may be.

Too many of our green policies have been just as much of a knee jerk reaction as the practices we are trying to now stop. We push forward with policies and call any side effects to humans a necessary sacrifice. Of course, a windmill kills a few birds and suddenly it is a debate.

Sure, you could find out you are unnecessarily fighting a small problem now, but is it truly better safe than sorry to not think about new problems your actions may create?

Sounds a bit utopian to me. Too many people don't think about the long term consequences of their actions.

Which is why the far sweeping reach of government action can actually be more dangerous. If the new policy turns out to be a disastrous mistake there is no one doing something different or the old way to turn to.

Is there anything wrong with companies making money (regardless of what the company is)? Isn't that what modern society is entirely based on?

I support those companies doing it successfully due to market forces. Government incentives are just taking money from those who wouldn't buy into the new company policy and making them pay for it anyway.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy fuel-efficient cars/solar panels/reusable grocery bags, nor is anyone forcing people to split their home waste into plastics/glass/whatever.

Then how do you explain government handouts to solar companies or tax incentives to people buying hybrids? That was my money. And what do you call cities like Los Angeles banning plastic bags?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/los-angeles-plastic-bag-ban-approved.html
And that brings up unintended consequences again. Anyone remember why we started using plastic bags? Because paper bags were killing the rain forests. We saved the rain forests just to kill the planet?

Ultimately, those are all still choices, and while nobody should be forced into making a choice, there are some things - like reusable bags or splitting your recycling - that are certainly better choices.

I was told the same thing about plastic bags and trans fats 20 years ago. Careful about these sure statements.

Of course, sometimes, schemes need to be put in place to enable people to make the right choice. My local council is pretty good with recycling stuff for instance, so we tend to split up our trash in our house.

Right choice? Whose right choice? Is spending tax dollars, taken from every person, to implement a government recycling program the right choice for everyone? Or is it what you believe is the right choice?

Likewise, most shops in the UK now have made subtle changes to encourage people to avoid using plastic bags that end up in landfill - things as simple as asking someone whether they'd like a bag rather than giving them a bag anyway, not putting plastic bags in easy reach of customers, and putting re-usable bags next to the till encouraging people to pick them up.

The exact same changes that led to people using plastic bags in the first place.

The daft thing is, this sort of coercion would work on a larger scale. People drive everywhere in the UK, by and large because public transport is so awful. I guarantee the best way of encouraging people to drive less isn't to tax the bejeezus out of everything, but simply make the alternatives more attractive.

Sounds expensive. How will the government pay for it?

Doesn't work as much in the U.S. admittedly, but then that's why cars are getting more efficient. I never understand people who moan about it, since cars are also better equipped, faster, and safer than they ever were. If they happen to be contributing less to pollution and/or CO2 - for any reason - then that's great news as far as I'm concerned.

"Oh God, they're making it more fuel efficient, it must be awful" is representative of the sort of attitude that permeates some sub-sections of the car-buying public, but it's a bit... dumb. "Your faster car is going to cost you less to run, well done for moaning about it!"

Fuel efficiency always increased over time. No one complains because a Corvette with an extra 50hp gets 5mpg more than the last model. We complain when a lightweight car with a small engine gets a weight adding (isn't weight one if the biggest car design issues?) hybrid system installed and a few thousand dollars tacked on to the MSRP. But then, stating a personal belief for not buying a certain car, based on preference, is the buyer's prerogative. No different than manual vs automatic, H-gate vs flappy paddle, FWD vs RWD vs 4WD, petrol vs diesel, and so on.

Of course, in a community the attitudes of those who support certain green technologies may cause others to not want to associate with that group.


Now is one of those times when I wish Penn & Teller's show didn't violate the AUP with its title alone.

 

[Sam48]

Is there anything wrong with companies making money (regardless of what the company is)? Isn't that what modern society is entirely based on?

I'm not sure what you're on about. What do you disagree with in regards to my post? I see nothing wrong with companies making money.

Cars, naturally, are a good example. Even if a Prius didn't get tax breaks in the UK like it does, people would still buy it because it's cheap to run, for example. Yes, Toyota may make a few dollars from the "green" stuff, but ultimately if nobody wanted a Prius, nobody would buy one. As it is, Toyota have sold four million hybrids in the last decade. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy fuel-efficient cars/solar panels/reusable grocery bags, nor is anyone forcing people to split their home waste into plastics/glass/whatever. Ultimately, those are all still choices, and while nobody should be forced into making a choice, there are some things - like reusable bags or splitting your recycling - that are certainly better choices.

I'm probably the only one here who's against recycling, but that's a different topic all together. Nonetheless, I see your point. Regardless of whether a company puts out a product as "green" or not, what sells it is it's ability to preform better than the rest. Even if companies don't call it a "greener" product, it may still be more efficient as people want products that help counter the costs of our ever increasing energy bills (Petrol or otherwise).

Of course, sometimes, schemes need to be put in place to enable people to make the right choice.

This I can't say I agree with. Like I said earlier, whenever the government attempts to help people make the right choice with incentives, it always goes wrong and/or wastes our money. However, the private sector is much better at this sort of thing (Only without wasting money and messing about).

I don't know. Taxing is one way that does work at least to an extent.

No, it doesn't. As I stated before, it simply drives the company to a different country where the government could care less as to how much they "pollute".

 

[homeforsummer]

Yet, your theory ignore unintended consequences. It is a disturbing trend among many environmentalists of all types. Obama wanted a green economy to rebuild our economy, yet we are now looking at bankruptcies, lost money, and far more jobs lost than created.

You must have missed the part where I said I didn't support legislature-based changes.

Edit: To clarify the above, as I've realised looking through my post it may be a grey area, I don't support active measures that impact on people, nor do I support quangos and willy-nilly taxes aimed at changing things. I do support fairly innocuous measures like those below, such as better trash collection for recycling, or edging people towards reusable bags rather than polythene ones.

Then how do you explain government handouts to solar companies or tax incentives to people buying hybrids? That was my money.

Why is this only a problem now, and not a problem given the huge subsidies the government provides to oil companies? Not that those subsidies are passed on to consumers either, who then have to pay large amounts of tax on their products.

And what do you call cities like Los Angeles banning plastic bags?

Fair enough, but does it really affect you for the worse?

There's a common sense element to everything. Personally, I'm prepared to pay a dollar per reusable bag to reap the benefits of not seeing plastic bags scattered throughout my town, nor sitting in landfill ebbing away for the next hundred years (or more).

And that brings up unintended consequences again. Anyone remember why we started using plastic bags? Because paper bags were killing the rain forests. We saved the rain forests just to kill the planet?

That's just a lack of foresight. Hence why reusable bags are better. Whatever they're made of, they aren't just chucked away after they've used energy and resources to produce.

I was told the same thing about plastic bags and trans fats 20 years ago. Careful about these sure statements.

Is recycling worse than dumping everything in landfill?

Right choice? Whose right choice? Is spending tax dollars, taken from every person, to implement a government recycling program the right choice for everyone? Or is it what you believe is the right choice?

Are you saying it's the wrong choice?

Your tax dollars pay for all sorts of irrelevant crap at the moment, just as my tax pounds do. As above, there's a common sense line which ideas cross at which point it's actually quite worthwhile to pay a little extra (that's if it even needs a little extra, so much as just better use of the money they have) to use vast quantities of household waste in a more effective way.

Edit: Incidentally, with regard to the bags thing, that didn't cost the government a penny. It was simply a raised issue and individual businesses decided to make the change themselves. Once one did it, the rest followed so as not to appear they didn't care. It's worked pretty well.

A similar system applies to trash collection. We get one extra van going around now to collect bottles, and that's it. The normal wagon takes away separate bins of stuff that we've already separated, like paper and plastic. Net difference to our council, and therefore our council taxes: Probably very little. Certainly less than our council has recently paid to move our police station to a worse location, out of town.

The exact same changes that led to people using plastic bags in the first place.

Again, that doesn't make it wrong, it just made the original decision, however many years ago, a misguided one.

Sounds expensive. How will the government pay for it?

In the UK, by not spending money on fatuous things like the Olympics, and using it for worthwhile things like improving communities.

Or, using the absolutely enormous road and fuel taxes we have to pay over here.

Fuel efficiency always increased over time. No one complains because a Corvette with an extra 50hp gets 5mpg more than the last model. We complain when a lightweight car with a small engine gets a weight adding (isn't weight one if the biggest car design issues?) hybrid system installed and a few thousand dollars tacked on to the MSRP.

That assumes that the hybrid system isn't providing measurable benefits, which they do.

And yes, weight is a major issue in car design, but to reduce it in any meaningful way will certainly cost more than the price increase of adding a hybrid system. There's only so much you can do with high-strength steels before you have to start using aluminum and carbon fiber.

Alternatively, cars can always ditch all the gadgets and safety features people now demand. That's the easy way to do it.

But then, stating a personal belief for not buying a certain car, based on preference, is the buyer's prerogative. No different than manual vs automatic, H-gate vs flappy paddle, FWD vs RWD vs 4WD, petrol vs diesel, and so on.

Never said it wasn't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Of course, in a community the attitudes of those who support certain green technologies may cause others to not want to associate with that group.

You're using the South Park episode to illustrate a point? It's funny, but it's about as pertinent as using Clarkson's opinion on why a car is the best... in the world.

 

[Encyclopedia]

No, it doesn't. As I stated before, it simply drives the company to a different country where the government could care less as to how much they "pollute".

Not necessarily no. At least not here in Sweden. But we are obviously a lot more positive towards taxes than American people.

It does happen though.

 

[FoolKiller]

You must have missed the part where I said I didn't support legislature-based changes.

And as you later point out, not all the negative unintended consequences I pointed out came from regulated policies.

Why is this only a problem now, and not a problem given the huge subsidies the government provides to oil companies? Not that those subsidies are passed on to consumers either, who then have to pay large amounts of tax on their products.

Surely, you aren't talking to me? Maybe you don't see my comments in threads that are more US-based. I don't approve of corporate welfare or subsidies of any kind. It was a problem then and is still a problem now. Free market, libertarian, yadda yadda yadda.

Fair enough, but does it really affect you for the worse?

Does it restrict my choices?

There's a common sense element to everything. Personally, I'm prepared to pay a dollar per reusable bag to reap the benefits of not seeing plastic bags scattered throughout my town, nor sitting in landfill ebbing away for the next hundred years (or more).

That's just a lack of foresight. Hence why reusable bags are better. Whatever they're made of, they aren't just chucked away after they've used energy and resources to produce.

And you are sure there won't be an issue in 20 years? I mean, we've gone from paper and glass to plastic everything. Only now that's bad and leeching chemicals into us. God only knows what is in a reusable bag. Are they all made the same way with the same chemicals that we know for sure won't do something to us 20 years from now?

Of course, there is the bacteria issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2012/04/26/bacteria-in-reusable-bags_n_1455723.html
Good thing we can just wash them, using more water, electricity, and leeching detergents into the groundwater. Oh, and wrap your meat in plastic bags.

But no possible unintended consequences in a reusable bag world, right?

Is recycling worse than dumping everything in landfill?

I don't know the energy use and pollution stats to say either way. But on individual programs it can be, like my municipality uses a bunch of numpties that dump half my recyclables all over my yard. I live across from a feeder stream to a major river. My garbage guys only manage to put my garbage can in the center of my drive. So after two tries with our local recycling program I now toss everything in the garbage.

Are you saying it's the wrong choice?

Am I paying for it unwillingly?

Your tax dollars pay for all sorts of irrelevant crap at the moment, just as my tax pounds do. As above, there's a common sense line which ideas cross at which point it's actually quite worthwhile to pay a little extra (that's if it even needs a little extra, so much as just better use of the money they have) to use vast quantities of household waste in a more effective way.

Government waste or misuse does not justify further waste or misuse of funds. I've said this before, just because it is a good idea doesn't mean government should do it. If I feel it is worthwhile and a good idea let me pay for it. If not then let me not pay. If you think I am wrong then educate me, but don't force or tax me.

Edit: Incidentally, with regard to the bags thing, that didn't cost the government a penny. It was simply a raised issue and individual businesses decided to make the change themselves. Once one did it, the rest followed so as not to appear they didn't care. It's worked pretty well.

I never said it was a government program. Although, I did get a good brainwashing in my public school. Unintended consequences occur with everyday people with good intent just as often as it does with government.

A similar system applies to trash collection. We get one extra van going around now to collect bottles, and that's it. The normal wagon takes away separate bins of stuff that we've already separated, like paper and plastic. Net difference to our council, and therefore our council taxes: Probably very little. Certainly less than our council has recently paid to move our police station to a worse location, out of town.

Does the extra vehicle per route run on rainbows?

Seriously though, you should you tube for penn & teller global warming. They actually tested a 10 container recycling program and even though no one could sort their trash properly they all sounded just like you, talking about how it was worth it.

Again, that doesn't make it wrong, it just made the original decision, however many years ago, a misguided one.

That took 20 years to be noticed as a problem. To ignore that lesson with every new policy or activity today is ridiculous. They are called unintended consequences for a reason. Don't believe you can predict them.

In the UK, by not spending money on fatuous things like the Olympics, and using it for worthwhile things like improving communities.

Or, using the absolutely enormous road and fuel taxes we have to pay over here.

So, you support government spending when it supports issues you care about? Even if it is misguided?

That assumes that the hybrid system isn't providing measurable benefits, which they do.

Lot of good it does the guy who can't afford the extra cost.

And yes, weight is a major issue in car design, but to reduce it in any meaningful way will certainly cost more than the price increase of adding a hybrid system. There's only so much you can do with high-strength steels before you have to start using aluminum and carbon fiber.

Who said you needed to reduce weight? I just don't want added weight and cost on a car I already enjoy. Even if the fuel efficiency of the hybrid outweighs the effect if the weight, additional weight still affects the car.

Alternatively, cars can always ditch all the gadgets and safety features people now demand. That's the easy way to do it.

You mean the regulated safety features?

Never said it wasn't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Then what was your point about people complaining about cars becoming more fuel efficient.

You're using the South Park episode to illustrate a point? It's funny, but it's about as pertinent as using Clarkson's opinion on why a car is the best... in the world.

Because South Park was never used social commentary to mock real things. I guess the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry David portrays himself as being similar was purely farcical as well. And I guess my brother, who even once told me terrorists attacked us because we pollute and waste, and ordered a first-gen Prius, waited 9 months to get it, paid a huge markup, and refuses to buy a newer more efficient model, even the battery died, because this shows he was forward thinking is an exception to the rule?

I hate to tell you, but the stereotypes of hybrid drivers were brought on by the outspoken of the group. Sure it isn't all of them, or even the commonplace thing now that they have gained large acceptance, but in the early days, oh boy. I'd post videos of hybrid drivers at their worst, but most aren't AUP friendly.

 

[homeforsummer]

Surely, you aren't talking to me? Maybe you don't see my comments in threads that are more US-based. I don't approve of corporate welfare or subsidies of any kind. It was a problem then and is still a problem now. Free market, libertarian, yadda yadda yadda.

I can genuinely appreciate that, and understand why you feel like that. Being among people who feel the same way is one reason I'd quite like to live in the U.S. myself.

However, that viewpoint does assume that all corporate welfare and subsidies are automatically bad. I'm not saying they're all good, but having them there as a means to an end isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Does it restrict my choices?

Technically yes, but objecting to it on principal seems daft if it's not actually something that negatively affects your life.

And you are sure there won't be an issue in 20 years? I mean, we've gone from paper and glass to plastic everything. Only now that's bad and leeching chemicals into us. God only knows what is in a reusable bag. Are they all made the same way with the same chemicals that we know for sure won't do something to us 20 years from now?

Of course, there is the bacteria issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2012/04/26/bacteria-in-reusable-bags_n_1455723.html
Good thing we can just wash them, using more water, electricity, and leeching detergents into the groundwater. Oh, and wrap your meat in plastic bags.

But no possible unintended consequences in a reusable bag world, right?

I'm not dead yet, so I guess it's okay.

I don't know the energy use and pollution stats to say either way. But on individual programs it can be, like my municipality uses a bunch of numpties that dump half my recyclables all over my yard. I live across from a feeder stream to a major river. My garbage guys only manage to put my garbage can in the center of my drive. So after two tries with our local recycling program I now toss everything in the garbage.

That's not a fault with the concept, it's a fault with the monkeys they're hiring to do the job.

Am I paying for it unwillingly?

Technically, yes.

Government waste or misuse does not justify further waste or misuse of funds. I've said this before, just because it is a good idea doesn't mean government should do it.

I agree. But in my view, I'm prepared to pay something that's beneficial, given that it's such a miniscule quantity of the taxes I pay.

If I feel it is worthwhile and a good idea let me pay for it. If not then let me not pay. If you think I am wrong then educate me, but don't force or tax me.

As before, I do agree, and I admire your views. But given that you do pay for all this stuff, is it not better that your money is used wisely?

Does the extra vehicle per route run on rainbows?

Seriously though, you should you tube for penn & teller global warming. They actually tested a 10 container recycling program and even though no one could sort their trash properly they all sounded just like you, talking about how it was worth it.

Thanks for assuming I hold my views based on nothing more than what the green fairies tell me to do.

Or that I'm incapable of separating steel from aluminum, paper from plastic and general household trash from compost.

I can't watch the video right now, but I hope it's not as condescending as your posts.

That took 20 years to be noticed as a problem. To ignore that lesson with every new policy or activity today is ridiculous. They are called unintended consequences for a reason. Don't believe you can predict them.

I'm happy to assume they've learned from one mistake before implementing something else that could cause its own problems. Naive perhaps, but then there are other benefits for me. I prefer carrying a reusable bag with nice, wide handles, than a dozen polythene bags cutting off the blood to my fingers. It wouldn't at all surprise me to find out that's the reason they're so popular over here at the moment.

So, you support government spending when it supports issues you care about? Even if it is misguided?

a) I don't believe it's misguided
b) Better the spending being spent on any issues (ones I directly support or otherwise) rather than a sporting event that brings zero benefit to anyone outside of a ten-mile radius of West London. And screws up the daily commute for anyone within the ten-mile radius.

Lot of good it does the guy who can't afford the extra cost.

Lots of people can't afford lots of things. But for someone cross-shopping a $22k Prius and a $22k something else, the benefits are demonstrable.

Who said you needed to reduce weight?

isn't weight one if the biggest car design issues?

...I was just responding to that in the affirmative...

I just don't want added weight and cost on a car I already enjoy. Even if the fuel efficiency of the hybrid outweighs the effect if the weight, additional weight still affects the car.

I had to double-check as I actually didn't know, but a typical hybrid - the Prius - weighs around 3,000 lbs. A typical compact (actually less spacious inside, as the Prius is classed as a midsize by the EPA) - the Chevy Cruze - weighs 3,100 lbs.

I'm sure the Prius could be lighter without its batteries, motors etc, and might even get better highway mileage as a result... but then it wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient in the city, and probably worse overall.

I'm not saying every car should be hybrid, but people do seem to have an awful lot of misconceptions about them. Even if we're talking about atypical hybrids (BMW ActiveHybrid 5, for example), you have a car that performs better and gets better gas mileage than the non-hybrid equivalent.

Costs more, of course, but a car is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.

You mean the regulated safety features?

Some are regulated, others aren't. A car doesn't need a dozen airbags by law. I've not checked, but I'd be surprised if it needs more than just the driver's airbag. Companies fit them because they can't be seen to be making a car less safe than their competitors.

Same goes with it, sound deadening material, and umpteen other things cars are filled with.

Then what was your point about people complaining about cars becoming more fuel efficient.

Essentially, that someone who'd actively not buy something (or simply scorn something) for being more efficient than its predecessor is an idiot, provided they've not lost out in any other area (performance, kit, handling etc).

If, on the other hand, a carmaker makes their vehicle more efficient and it spoils the car, then I'd be in full agreement.

Because South Park was never used social commentary to mock real things. I guess the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry David portrays himself as being similar was purely farcical as well. And I guess my brother, who even once told me terrorists attacked us because we pollute and waste, and ordered a first-gen Prius, waited 9 months to get it, paid a huge markup, and refuses to buy a newer more efficient model, even the battery died, because this shows he was forward thinking is an exception to the rule?

I hate to tell you, but the stereotypes of hybrid drivers were brought on by the outspoken of the group. Sure it isn't all of them, or even the commonplace thing now that they have gained large acceptance, but in the early days, oh boy. I'd post videos of hybrid drivers at their worst, but most aren't AUP friendly.

Yes, and all Americans from the south are rednecks, all Jews are tight, and all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

Those stereotypes all undoubtedly exist for a reason, but if I say them with any conviction in polite conversation it makes me sound like an ignorant dick.

But maybe greens are an easy target.

 

[Keef]

I agree. But in my view, I'm prepared to pay something that's beneficial, given that it's such a miniscule quantity of the taxes I pay.

How many more miniscule quantities of your income are you willing to pay toward various other government services? Surely you realize that miniscule quantities are small parts of a whole.

 

[homeforsummer]

How many more miniscule quantities of your income are you willing to pay toward various other government services? Surely you realize that miniscule quantities are small parts of a whole.

Absolutely. And the less the better. But if they were going to get rid of some of those miniscule quantities, I'd prefer the ones that go towards the conspicuous wastes of money (and there are plenty of those in the UK...) than something innocuous and useful like recycling.

 

[Keef]

An orderly process for removing the garbage would be nice but in the end I think we're dealing with a matter of principle. It is human nature to seek power and control over others. You've heard the phrase, "Give them and inch and they'll take a mile," and it's absolutely true. People placed in positions of power must be scrutinized constantly because they will attempt to increase their control. Any leeway you give just adds to their argument for more. Slippery slope, etc.

 

[homeforsummer]

Also agree, and as I mentioned to FK before, I certainly appreciate why you feel it's a matter of principle. The inch/mile thing is exactly why they're currently investigating half of the executives in UK banking...

I guess that ultimately, I'm a little more optimistic over certain things, and while I object to say, the fact we get taxed three times on the same gas over here (in the name of (apparently) being "green"), I don't object to being taxed in order to fund recycling schemes (in the name of... being "green").

I think, unfortunately, people see the whole green/global warming/hybrids thing in such a negative light because of political spin on the matter, which ends up rather spoiling any genuine motives behind any green movement.

Edit: I suppose, I broadly agree with you and FK, but I object to the assumption that anything remotely "green" is always done for the wrong reasons.

 

[FoolKiller]

However, that viewpoint does assume that all corporate welfare and subsidies are automatically bad. I'm not saying they're all good, but having them there as a means to an end isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Taking money from you and giving it to corporations that can't make their green initiatives financially sustainable is a good thing?

Technically yes, but objecting to it on principal seems daft if it's not actually something that negatively affects your life.

It wouldn't be a principle then. Or I would be a hypocrite. Either way it would be daft for me to act differently.

I'm not dead yet, so I guess it's okay.

Can I use that line on all environmental policies or would that be making a straw man?

I agree. But in my view, I'm prepared to pay something that's beneficial, given that it's such a miniscule quantity of the taxes I pay.

Minuscules add up. I don't want to be nickel and dimed to death.

As before, I do agree, and I admire your views. But given that you do pay for all this stuff, is it not better that your money is used wisely?

Considering how many medical issues I have, I have more important things to use my money on. As I earned that money from my work it shouldn't be anyone else's decision as to how it is most wisely spent. It definitely shouldn't be the decision of guys with generations of history of more screw ups than positives. Or even that of an administration that has had their investments go bankrupt on multiple counts.

Thanks for assuming I hold my views based on nothing more than what the green fairies tell me to do.

Or that I'm incapable of separating steel from aluminum, paper from plastic and general household trash from compost.

I can't watch the video right now, but I hope it's not as condescending as your posts.

It was stuff like feminine pads and dirty diapers in the red container, cans with paper labels in the white can, etc. One woman even said that she liked it because she felt bad that someone else had to separate all this stuff.

As for condescending, the show is called Bulls---. But they also have things like the founder of Greenpeace explaining that he left because the environmental movement was hijacked by political agendas.

I'm happy to assume they've learned from one mistake before implementing something else that could cause its own problems.

Have they learned? It isn't like the paper/plastic thing was the first or last. Some of those mistakes have costs millions of dollars and human lives over the years. And they rarely reverse any decisions, allowing human lives to continue to be lost to their conceit.

Naive perhaps, but then there are other benefits for me. I prefer carrying a reusable bag with nice, wide handles, than a dozen polythene bags cutting off the blood to my fingers. It wouldn't at all surprise me to find out that's the reason they're so popular over here at the moment.

If it is preferable to you then do it. But don't push for cultural and/or policy change and act like its for the best so I shouldn't complain.

a) I don't believe it's misguided
b) Better the spending being spent on any issues (ones I directly support or otherwise) rather than a sporting event that brings zero benefit to anyone outside of a ten-mile radius of West London. And screws up the daily commute for anyone within the ten-mile radius.

A) if it takes 20 years to find out how do we know if it is misguided or not?
B) Why spend it at all? Why not let the individuals choose their own way?

Lots of people can't afford lots of things. But for someone cross-shopping a $22k Prius and a $22k something else, the benefits are demonstrable.



...I was just responding to that in the affirmative...

I had to double-check as I actually didn't know, but a typical hybrid - the Prius - weighs around 3,000 lbs. A typical compact (actually less spacious inside, as the Prius is classed as a midsize by the EPA) - the Chevy Cruze - weighs 3,100 lbs.

Apples and peaches.

Civic Sedan: 2608 lbs $15,955 28/36mpg
Civic Hybrid: 2853 lbs $24,200 44/44mpg

I picked the cheapest version of each. I didn't expect the fuel efficiency to be better, as that would negate the purpose. Will 250 lbs (10%) affect anything other than fuel efficiency? Does $8,000 make a difference in affordability? Personally, if I had $24k I'd rather get the Si and spend the $2,000 difference I saved from the hybrid and add it to my daughter's college fund.

Some are regulated, others aren't. A car doesn't need a dozen airbags by law. I've not checked, but I'd be surprised if it needs more than just the driver's airbag. Companies fit them because they can't be seen to be making a car less safe than their competitors.

Ah, so they're meeting a consumer demand? Ok. That's better than regulated fuel mileage.

Yes, and all Americans from the south are rednecks, all Jews are tight, and all Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

Those stereotypes all undoubtedly exist for a reason, but if I say them with any conviction in polite conversation it makes me sound like an ignorant dick.

And if they're popular stereotypes some people will avoid being associated with those groups. I know of Jews who hid their heritage from their kids to save them ridicule. My brother forced himself to speak very proper English because we come from a southern "redneck" town and he didn't want to be seen that way when he got to college.

So, yes some people don't want to be seen as smug, self-fart smelling hybrid drivers that get visibly angry at SUV drivers and set Hummer dealerships on fire, so purposely avoided the hybrid market when it was niche market and buy them now not out of some concern for the environment but as a long term investment that will eventually save money in gas.

But maybe greens are an easy target.

No more than the religious groups.

Edit: I suppose, I broadly agree with you and FK, but I object to the assumption that anything remotely "green" is always done for the wrong reasons.

The only reason I think is wrong is to push others to pay for and follow an agenda that they did not choose. Everything else is personal. But don't expect me to not question the actual effectiveness and possible unintended consequences of something before I jump on board.

I should point out that I am not some anti-environmentalist. I was president of the Students and Teachers Opposing Pollution club in my high school, used fundraising to create a community recycling event, and boycotted Fruit of the Loom when they were found to be dumping chemicals in a local river. I tried using my local recycling program twice, despite having a negative experience the first time.
But I do not support using tax dollars and legislation to force or coerce people to follow my path.

 

[homeforsummer]

Taking money from you and giving it to corporations that can't make their green initiatives financially sustainable is a good thing?

Depends on the time period. Something that isn't financially sustainable now may be in the future.

It wouldn't be a principle then. Or I would be a hypocrite. Either way it would be daft for me to act differently.

Perhaps, but that's where I'd personally come to a point at which I'd say "What? It doesn't actually affect me? Okay, I'll let it slide".

Can I use that line on all environmental policies or would that be making a straw man?

Use it where you like. The point I was making is that I'm more likely to be run over by a car on my way to the local shop than I am to die as a result of bacteria in a reusable bag. And in the meantime, while I'm not dying of unforseen circumstances, I'm happy knowing I'm not contributing to un-biodegradable landfill.

And not making my fingers go purple with uncomfortable plastic bags.

Minuscules add up. I don't want to be nickel and dimed to death.

I can appreciate that.

However, it's not the nickels and dimes that personally affect me. It's the briefcases of notes I pay in one go, like road tax.

Considering how many medical issues I have, I have more important things to use my money on. As I earned that money from my work it shouldn't be anyone else's decision as to how it is most wisely spent. It definitely shouldn't be the decision of guys with generations of history of more screw ups than positives. Or even that of an administration that has had their investments go bankrupt on multiple counts.

I don't know enough about U.S. politics to comment, though in U.K. politics they're all about as bad as each other. Voting is like deciding which testicle I'd like forcibly removed as all parties are equally likely to screw up.

That, incidentally, includes the Green Party. They may well have some good ideas but any party that wears its heart too much on its sleeve probably isn't broad enough to successfully tackle wider issues.

As for condescending, the show is called Bulls---. But they also have things like the founder of Greenpeace explaining that he left because the environmental movement was hijacked by political agendas.

I'll check it out today. Interestingly, I know someone who left Greenpeace due to their immovable stance on nuclear power - as you may expect, Greenpeace want plenty of renewable energy, but since this is somewhat unrealistic right at the moment nuclear is the next best option - only they don't see it like that.

If it is preferable to you then do it. But don't push for cultural and/or policy change and act like its for the best so I shouldn't complain.

Hypothetically, where am I going to get the money from? Recycling shouldn't be limited to only those who can afford it.

The only way I can see it working is with some sort of "optional" fee that individuals pay if they want their stuff recycled. Since only those that want things recycled are paying for it, it's entirely fair, but presuming that only 50% of people on each street are willing to pay, it'd be both a logistical nightmare (recycling collectors have to make sure they get the right houses) and a waste of resources (having to drive 100% of a street to pick up 50% of the trash... and then sending another truck for the other 50%).

Or, there's the method that you (rightly) object to on principle, but seems odd when it works in practice, where a miniscule proportion of taxes are allotted to a system that serves everyone. And since that service is in place, people actually use it, and it ends up being a success.

Even if I didn't have any "green" leanings I'd still split my trash if the option to do so was being presented to me. I've not even had to pay for all the receptacles - at the start of the scheme they dropped off different boxes and bins for the different types of waste. It works pretty well.

A) if it takes 20 years to find out how do we know if it is misguided or not?
B) Why spend it at all? Why not let the individuals choose their own way?

I honestly don't know. But in my view, many of the tax-based systems seem to work okay, and I couldn't see it working the same way were they not in place.

Apples and peaches.

Civic Sedan: 2608 lbs $15,955 28/36mpg
Civic Hybrid: 2853 lbs $24,200 44/44mpg

I picked the cheapest version of each. I didn't expect the fuel efficiency to be better, as that would negate the purpose. Will 250 lbs (10%) affect anything other than fuel efficiency? Does $8,000 make a difference in affordability? Personally, if I had $24k I'd rather get the Si and spend the $2,000 difference I saved from the hybrid and add it to my daughter's college fund.

You're assuming that people cross-shop cars with an $8k price difference. And who is to say that someone with $26k to spend wouldn't buy a Civic hybrid and then spend their $2k on their daughter's college fund?

People see benefits in different things. Would the "joy" you get from the Si outweigh the fact that over a couple of years you'd potentially saved even more for your daughter's college fund by driving the hybrid? Particularly as gas prices are only likely to go one direction (hint: It isn't down).

Ah, so they're meeting a consumer demand? Ok. That's better than regulated fuel mileage.

Why is fuel mileage regulation a problem, given that we've already discussed how cars are offering everything the consumer wants and still meeting mileage targets?

Still comes back to the "They're giving me everything I want with this new car, but I wish they didn't keep making the damn thing more efficient".

And if they're popular stereotypes some people will avoid being associated with those groups. I know of Jews who hid their heritage from their kids to save them ridicule. My brother forced himself to speak very proper English because we come from a southern "redneck" town and he didn't want to be seen that way when he got to college.

So, yes some people don't want to be seen as smug, self-fart smelling hybrid drivers that get visibly angry at SUV drivers and set Hummer dealerships on fire, so purposely avoided the hybrid market when it was niche market and buy them now not out of some concern for the environment but as a long term investment that will eventually save money in gas.

I'd personally prefer not to be associated with the group that ignorantly holds on to these stereotypes long after the reality has passed.

No more than the religious groups.

If you're Fox news perhaps, or touring comedian, but it certainly seems less frowned upon to beat down any green movement than it does to take the piss out of Muslims, for example.

The only reason I think is wrong is to push others to pay for and follow an agenda that they did not choose. Everything else is personal. But don't expect me to not question the actual effectiveness and possible unintended consequences of something before I jump on board.

Fair enough 👍 I wouldn't be discussing it with you if I ultimately wasn't interested in hearing what you thought.

I should point out that I am not some anti-environmentalist. I was president of the Students and Teachers Opposing Pollution club in my high school, used fundraising to create a community recycling event, and boycotted Fruit of the Loom when they were found to be dumping chemicals in a local river. I tried using my local recycling program twice, despite having a negative experience the first time.

Glad to hear it. And for the record, I'm not an out-and-out environmentalist. I like V8 engines, I have a massive "carbon footprint" from all the driving and short-haul flights I do, I've never driven a Prius (lots of other hybrids, but as yet no Prius), and I definitely don't like the smell of my own farts. My diet rather precludes that.

However, I do want to change some of those things (not including giving up V8s or starting to sniff farts), and I'm glad I live in a place where something like a recycling service is provided to me in exchange for an unnoticeable proportion of my taxes.

But I do not support using tax dollars and legislation to force or coerce people to follow my path.

Fair enough 👍

 

[Famine]

Perhaps, but that's where I'd personally come to a point at which I'd say "What? It doesn't actually affect me? Okay, I'll let it slide".

First they came for the drug users, but it didn't actually affect me so I let it slide.

Then they came for the smokers, but it didn't actually affect me so I let it slide.

Then they came for the drinkers, but it didn't actually affect me so I let it slide.

Then they came for the gamblers, but it didn't actually affect me so I let it slide.

Eventually they came for me. But there was no-one left it affected, so they let it slide.

Or near enough.

 

[homeforsummer]

Or near enough.

I understand the sentiment, but it's all a bit tinfoil-hat for me I'm afraid. I don't believe we're on anywhere near a slippery enough slope to constantly worry about everything. As mentioned above, pennies on the pound are less important to me than the briefcases of money they take by other means.

And since we were talking about plastic bags in the particular quoted instance, I'm even less fussed. If all the polythene bags were taken away tomorrow, I wouldn't really care. I'd just use the reusable bags I've been using for years (and not contracting food poisoning off).

 

[Famine]

In our case it's fine - supermarkets (businesses) are voluntarily responding to market pressures and customers are voluntarily paying.

The problem is when legislation occurs to force it. But the original point should not be lost - paper bags were bad because paper needs trees to be cut down and that kills rainforests (apparently - ever tried making paper from tropical trees?), so plastic bags. Which don't biodegrade and just kill the rest of the planet. In order to save the Earth from one problem, legislators created a much, much bigger one.

This point should be least lost on environmentalists. 1993 was an important year in the UK for motoring and the environment. That was the year that catalytic convertors were made mandatory equipment on cars. Why? Because car engines were dirty and incomplete combustion would result in large quantities of unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide and catalytic convertors turned it into harmless components of normal air - nitrogen and carbon dioxide. We all have a legislated box on the bottom of our cars which prevents localised air pollution and extends our lifespans marginally while apparently killing all animal life on Earth.


Education is good. Free market response to an informed populace is good. Legislation, particularly legislation that generates income for legislators and unintended consequences - is bad.


Ultimately if you want it, you pay for it. If other people do, they will too - businesses will cater for you because they're evil and greedy and want your money... Don't require other people to pay for something you want - and don't turn a blind eye because it doesn't really affect you.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ultimately, it comes down to no one can say exactly how to "solve" climate change, assuming it needs to be, and there is too much of a history of unintended consequences (children dying of malaria) and financial failures and losses of taxpayer money (Solyndra) in the name of environmentalism for me to support these policies even if I were a socialist.

But I'm not a socialist or even a liberal. I don't believe a select few should determine the direction we should all go. I want a shower that will blast off my skin, a toilet that can flush a dozen golf balls, and lightbulbs that get very bright immediately and don't contain toxic chemicals.

If I think something seems like a good idea I will do it, like the G Diapers we used for my daughter. I saw one full diaper pail and realized normal disposables were a horrible idea. But I will always stand by the notion that just because something is a good idea it does not mean the government should do it.

And I will always fear the slippery slope. We've already gone too far down it in my opinion. I won't wait until I'm about to crash into a tree to care.

 

[Famine]

Which shouldn't be read as "environmentalism is bad" or "environmentalism caused these things", rather "people acting in the name of environmentalism can cause these things". It's an easy banner to float and a tough one to invoke sensible discourse against once the card's been played - you're objecting to it because you don't care about the planet!

Citing green credentials is not something that should automatically grant an undebated, unscrutinised free pass to legislature. But sometimes it is. It's these sometimes that are bad.

a toilet that can flush a dozen golf balls

You're right. We do have very different bathroom routines...

 

[homeforsummer]

Which shouldn't be read as "environmentalism is bad" or "environmentalism caused these things", rather "people acting in the name of environmentalism can cause these things". It's an easy banner to float and a tough one to invoke sensible discourse against once the card's been played - you're objecting to it because you don't care about the planet!

I think, if I have any problem at all, it's that so many people are fed up with the government that anything environmental - no matter how noble - will attract resistance, which is obviously no good for anything.

A hypothetical case study:

Let's say that CO2 from transport causes global warming, and that there's a large body of evidence to that effect. The ideal thing to do would be to cut down CO2.

The ideal ideal thing to do would be for carmakers to take the initiative themselves to build cars that produce less CO2, and since the buying public could freely access the conclusive evidence that we're all going to drown unless CO2 is reduced, they buy the cars that produce CO2. Since carmakers want customers, they produce cars with lower CO2, and it's a virtuous circle. Cars get cleaner, carmakers make more money.

Of course, this would probably happen anyway even if nobody had even heard of CO2, since the price of oil is going up, gasoline is getting more expensive, and people are buying cars that use less fuel. Less fuel used = less CO2.

The above is what I'd call the ideal scenario (from an individual and a business standpoint, rather than an "I'd like global warming to get worse so cars get cleaner" standpoint), and I assume you'd agree with me.

What's actually happening:

A body of evidence suggests that CO2 from human activity is contributing to climate change. It's inconclusive, but the scientific community errs more towards the pro-AGW than anti-AGW (in so far as I can tell).

The ideal thing to do would be to cut down on CO2. In the hypothetical scenario, that wasn't a problem. The evidence was out there, it was fairly conclusive, and customer demand pushed the industry into making improvements.

However, in this scenario, there's resistance, and it's ultimately the government's fault.

Rather than delving deeper into the issue to find conclusive evidence, they decided to take action and that action involved slapping enormous taxes on everything that produced CO2. This annoys people, because they're being penalised for buying the products they want to buy. Manufacturers reduce the fuel consumption/CO2 of their cars, but people don't like this either because they only see it happening to meet the legislation they're being taxed through the nose for.

Toyota makes a hybrid vehicle and calls it the Prius, to meet newfound demand for people who want low fuel consumption/CO2. Becomes the poster child for people who want to reduce CO2, and becomes a target of ire for everyone else because it represents (justly or unjustly) the governmental system that everyone already dislikes. There's nothing wrong with the car itself and certainly nothing wrong with using less fuel, but it gains a love/hate reputation that exists solely because of the world it's being produced in.

So there's resistance. There's nothing wrong with cars getting more efficient, but people dislike it as that too is representative of a system that screws them financially.

Back to the hypotheticals:

Let's say that now the scientific community reaches consensus on AGW, like it did in the first scenario, but with the second (actual) scenario having taken place.

Reducing CO2/pollution/whatever would be the right thing to do, but public resistance formed from government mistrust is now holding this back. People are less inclined to do the right thing because they now believe it's for the wrong reasons, even if it will ultimately benefit them and the generations to follow.

So...

Am I making any sense here? I guess I'm describing a scenario somewhere between the reality and the second hypothetical scenario... we're at a point where even if the scientific community came forward tomorrow with a clear consensus that AGW existed, people would simply ignore it because they've become so jaded by governments making decisions on their behalf.

Really, I'm a fence-sitter on AGW. It's too inconclusive at the moment. Politically and environmentally I'm somewhere in the middle. On GTP I'm often the one defending hybrids and electric cars, and in my professional capacity I spend most of my day responding to comments on articles that I'm anti-electric car, anti-hybrid, anti-green.

I've been led to believe that if I'm taking flak from both sides, I'm probably treading the right balance on a topic

And ultimately, though I have green leanings, I agree with all you guys that taxing the bejeezus out of us isn't the right way of going about it. I just object to resistance for resistance's sake

 

[Keef]

...the scientific community errs more towards the pro-AGW than anti-AGW (in so far as I can tell).

What percentage of them get funding from governments?

Also, you've used the phrase "global warming". I have to assume the recent tree ring study has been shared in this thread already?

 

[homeforsummer]

What percentage of them get funding from governments?

Probably a similar percentage to the anti-AGW scientists get from oil companies [/itsaconspiracyitellsya]

Also, you've used the phrase "global warming"

I did yeah, is this not the right thread for it?

 

[Keef]

Probably a similar percentage to the anti-AGW scientists get from oil companies

It's a legitimate consideration. If your career depended on it wouldn't you tend to appease the people who pay you? If you have a job then you already do that.

I did yeah, is this not the right thread for it?

I was looking for acknowledgement of new evidence showing that the planet has been cooling down steadily for thousands of years.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's a legitimate consideration. If your career depended on it wouldn't you tend to appease the people who pay you? If you have a job then you already do that.

If that's the case, then we're in a situation where we can't trust the "pros" nor the "antis" since both are on someone's payroll. That being the case, we're back to analysing the evidence again.

I was looking for acknowledgement of new evidence showing that the planet has been cooling down steadily for thousands of years.

I know, I was just being flippant. On my phone at the mo so will check out the link tomorrow.