Global Warming

If this is global warming I don't see any problem with the earth's temperature raising another two degrees celsius.

This weather is a result of global warming. I dont know jack about weather systems. Ive just watched The Day afer tomorrow.

Read yesterday's Hansard and John Redwood's question re this.

I kinda lost track of them after 'Mmmbop.'

its a myth

Big problems ahead for the UK whether or not people believe in global warming. Fact is our winters are cold, fossil fuels are running out, and with our rising population and consumption levels we can't meet the demand.

The conservative estimates are that energy bills will rise about a third in the next 10 years, which is going to put a lot of pressure on people from low and middle income households.

After that things will get even worse the market will naturally start rationing, because they will just put prices up more and more so poorer people have to live without heating and only the well off can afford to have warm homes.

When the climate change deniers say "see, we told you the world was getting colder not hotter" its not going to cheer people up when they are sat in freezing homes. It's going to take a while to get renewable energy sources to a point where they can replace fossil fuels, so if we don't make a start now, we're just going to be left in a situation where we don't have enough supply to meet the demand.

One small point to start - I don't like the way that anyone who disagrees or feels that the evidence is unproven to justify some of the kneejerk completely proposterous measures suggested in the name of global warming is a 'denier' - putting them on the same level as those that deny the completely undeniable evidence that the Jewish holocaust occured. Global warming is not proven to any level of scientific authority and therefore there is nothing to deny. The 'deniers' are questioning and looking for evidence. I'm open minded on it and I think recycling etc. is just a sensible thing to do as is conserving energy (but mainly for reasons of lack of supply and being reliant on Russia / 'rogue' states for our supplies.)

However, energy is a major issue for this country - not that you'll hear any of the major parties discussing it in the election. It's a massive issue and Sally is spot on - if we're not careful we'll have to turn power off as we won't have enough to supply the whole country - within the next 20 years or so. Nuclear is the only real option and we've procastinated on that decision for too long - we're now doing it but are reliant on France to fill any shortfall before we will be fully sufficient again. Wind power (apologies to our club sponsor) is completely unsuitable for this country and will in no meaningful way fill any energy gaps. Tidal power as an island nation is a much more justifiable bet and path to take (in my opinion). Having our own nuclear option creates less emissions and also reduces our reliance on Russia / CIS for gas.

It's all part of global warming, if it is real, the riduculous highs and subsequently the riduclously lows. More rain, more snow it's all thrown in there!!!

I do agree that any debate whether scientific or historical, is never "closed", it is always open to new evidence, so I don't like the castigation of sceptics and deniers in any form. I think the reason why there is a hostile reaction towards climate change sceptics, is because the main proponents of climate change are basically arguing for something we need to be arguing for anyway, which is that we need to move away from burning fossil fuels, and onto to using renewable energy and have a more sustainable lifestyle. Their CO2 argument is that humans are producing so much CO2 through burning fossil fuels that it is creating global warming and we are on the verge of catastrophic climate change.

The problem with this is that if the argument for moving towards a sustainable model is based solely on the theory of climate change, then if you disprove that, it makes people think it was all a fuss over nothing and we don't need to change our lifestyle. The ones who are castigating the climate change sceptics are doing it because - rightly - they argue that the "carry on as we are doing" approach is leading headfast into disaster.

It's good that environmental issues are now coming into mainstream political debate rather than being left to fringe movements and hippies, but I think they would have been far better dealing with the basic issue of fossil fuels running out, because whether or not the climate is changing, we have got a serious energy problem coming up which is going to lead some countries (like Russia with gas, and increasingly some of the dodgy Middle Eastern states with oil) are going to be able to have the rest of the world by the balls as resources become more scarce. I think Copenhagen should have been less a conference about climate change and more one about sustainability. You wouldn't get sustainability deniers like you do climate change deniers because virtually nobody thinks that the forms of energy we are using, at the rate we are consuming it, is going to last past a generation or so, the debate on that is whether we are going to run out in our lifetimes or in our childrens'.



I'm open to be swayed on the nuclear option but I do worry sometimes that the nuclear power industry has an unhealthy influence and IMO is partly behind the climate change debate, especially as it suits proponents of nuclear power for everybody to become obsessed with cutting CO2 emissions. I just don't think nuclear power is cost effective. The input costs at the start are so high, you can't leave it entirely to the private sector because nobody will be able to make their money back unless they charge ridiculously high rates to consumers for the energy produced, so nuclear energy is always based on big state subsidies which are going to come from high 'green taxes' which we are all going to have to fork out to pay. Then when the plants reach the end of their productive life, they carry on running up costs for years because of the processing of the radioactive waste, which again comes out of the taxpayers' pocket, whilst its not actually producing any energy. Nuclear power to me produces a kind of pension problem in the energy industry, you produce plants to produce energy, then you retire them off and they keep drawing money, so you need to build more plants to produce your energy, which means more end up being retired off and costing money....over time you just end up with higher and higher costs and where does it end...?

i agree with most of what you say but i don't believe the middle east will ever have "the good ole us of a" by the balls hence why they are in the middle east at the moment

The reason they are in is because the Middle East, or specifically Saudi Arabia, does have the USA by the balls, and everybody else by the balls, but the USA is the biggest consumer so it would stand to get hit quickest. This is the reason why the Saudi regime, which is brutal, repressive, has no respect for women and a shocking record on human rights (weren't those given as reasons for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan) gets the red carpet treatment when they come to the UK....if the Saudi's turn the tap off, then Western economies hit the skids. It has been like this for a while, which is why when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, the US sent troops straight away to secure the Saudi oil supplies and stop Saddam going in there. They said it was in protest against Saddam's illegal invasion, but they didn't mind when he invaded Iran in 1980 and was at war there for 9 years...in fact they funded him and sold him arms during that war, but when they saw how easily he'd taken Kuwait and realised he could march straight into Saudi Arabia and their army wouldn't be able to stop him, they made sure they got in there straight away.

The current Saudi regime, bad as it is, is unlikely to turn off the taps because they are mainly concerned with making money....and they make themselves lots of money by supplying the rest of the world with oil, however, there are a lot of Saudis who would fancy taking control of that country themselves, including the Bin Laden family, and if Al Qaeda led a coup which toppled the Saudi regime and put Bin Laden in charge, then he might well turn off the taps and watch the fun as the US and the UK economies spiralled into massive hyperinflation and collapsed, with no oil. The risk of Saudi Arabia falling into anti-Western hands, is too big a risk to bear, because we would all be shafted, and to an extent when the cynics say "these wars are all about oil", well its a necessity because of the type of economy we have, it relies on energy security.

Energy from waste is the future

Just a few things for the global warming enthusiasts;
1/ the average annual temperature of the earth has altered by only 0.02 % in the last 100 years.
2/ Parts of lake Baikal in Siberia stayed frozen for the whole of last year.
3/ Polar bear numbers are at a record high in the last 50 years.

Global warming is just a universal smokescreen for the introduction of more world-wide taxes.

On the plus side for global warming. If the experts are correct the, East Anglia, Hull, London and Blackpool will be submerged.

So its not all doom and gloom

What a surprise you're on that side of the debate.

why is lee briers not training?

Why would the multi-billionaire Bin Laden family want to control Saudi?

Fossil fuels are running out hrrrmmm when I was at school over 20 years ago my geography teacher said in 10 years time we will have run out of fossil fuels..... Well I said it at the time what a load of~~~~ & I'll say it again thats what they want you to believe... Dont be sucked in global warming is a smoke screen to tax us more

I agree. Although one day fossil fuels will run out and we should be looking towards alternative methods of energy. Coal, gas and oil will last for a lot longer than what the scientists and world leaders are telling us in my opinion so in the meantime we can perfect solar, wind and all the other alternative sources.