Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
I don't think anyone loves it; the whole thing is a fucking catastrophe for humanity.
But the amount being made, whilst plenty for some people to make millions, is still just pennies compared to the money made by the 'other side'.
I didn't want to stray unduly into the area of man-made climate change; we've all done it to death already and this thread is supposed to be about
politics, and specifically, political debate. However, I see that discussion has moved elsewhere
, so hey ho...
Briefly, where is this "fucking catastrophe for humanity" now, exactly? I'm not talking about stuff like China choking on fumes produced by its myriad of coal-burning power stations and suchlike. That is simply
pollution, a very well understood principle (see 1950s London smog etc.), nor indeed climate change per se (which has always occurred since the Earth's climate is dynamic and complex without any intervention from us), but actual, irrefutable and
catastrophic, man made climate change? Seems to me all we actually have is a bunch of models and predictions which inarguably have not, and do not, even remotely fit with actual, empirical data - the planet has not even warmed at all since 2001, yet I clearly remember being told I'd be up to my knees in polar ice meltwater by now.
Climate change
per se is indeed occurring, to a degree. It has always occurred, it will continue to occur, and no-one - least of all me - has ever denied this basic fact of life. But it certainly is not occurring even remotely in accordance with predictions (so confidently and arrogantly asserted), does not (at the moment) constitute a "fucking catastrophe for humanity", and as for it definitely and absolutely being attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Any fair-minded, reasonable person would concede that, in the face of our complete and demonstrable failure to model/predict what is actually happening, this assertion is at the very least highly debatable/unknown at present. (Don't even get me started on the laughable, derisory record of the Met Office to predict even the next weather season, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years hence).
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees? Did people argue against the cessation of CFC use (despite this being a nightmare 'commercially', with these things ubiquitous as refrigerants, propellants in aerosols etc.), when the scientific community produced clear, concise, demonstrable science showing the depletion of the ozone layer? No they did not; the use of these chemicals was stopped almost overnight, at great cost (entirely passed onto consumers), and yet everyone applauded.
In my profession, I have to produce detailed, 3D environmental models, as based on very expensive, proprietary modelling software that took many, many years to develop, but is ultimately based on a series of sound, absolute, irrefutable
and demonstrable scientific laws. Let's suppose someone commissioned me to do this, the project was built - and the predictions of my model turned out to be not even remotely correct? Apart from being sued, do you think anyone would take me seriously? Could I thump my fist on the table and accuse my detractors as being "deniers"; that I had used the "best science", even in the face of a total failure on my part to even remotely predict the required parameters? Of course not. And yet, in my case, the total liability might even be a few million quid - but the liability in the case of man-made climate change would run into
trillions. Ultimately, for me at least, this is about
credibility, or demonstable lack thereof. As I said the other day to a bunch of baying science-types on another board, come back to me when you've actually
validated your model(s), yeah?
One final point, I think you seriously underestimate the amount of money involved, one way or another, in the whole man-made climate change business, carbon credits, subsidies, expensively engineered cars and all the rest - all of which
we, ordinary people and consumers (most visibly in spiraling, crippling energy costs) have to pay for.