Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

we have all been 'had' re global warming

257 replies

howmuchdidyousay · 18/11/2009 19:25

To think its the biggest conspiracy theory of all time ?

OP posts:
Remotew · 18/11/2009 22:30

I will continue to switch lights off and turn the gas down for the reason that I cannot afford to keep it on. Reckon we are being taxed heavily in some way just to try to keep warm. Green issues probably. Same as driving to work to afford to be able to feed ourselves. It's a joke isn't it?

snorkie · 18/11/2009 22:30

So why are we being 'had' over this, if indeed we are? Is it because we have passed peak oil and rather than having mass riots and power cuts etc, governments are trying to engineer widespread reduction in demand?

Just not sure I understand the reasons behind the conspiracy theory.

dizietsma · 18/11/2009 22:31

I don't think politicians were ever able to control the populus with religions anyway, that's a really weird assertion that I'd love to see evidence for.

Remotew · 18/11/2009 22:34

dizietsma, Relgion has controlled the masses for centuries, kept the peasants petrified.

dizietsma · 18/11/2009 22:36

Agreed, but how did politicians use this?

madamearcati · 18/11/2009 22:38

'I don't think politicians were ever able to control the populus with religions anyway'

What about the Taliban ? You don't think they have used religion to control a populus ? Or really any Muslim country

In the middle ages if you were excommunicated from the catholic church ,no-one would employ you, house you or trade with you.You were expelled from society.

TheCrackFox · 18/11/2009 22:39

The crusades caused a fair bit of mayhem.

Remotew · 18/11/2009 22:48

Yep, the monarchy and the government were all seen to be terribly god-fearing. Did attrocious things in the name of religion.

dizietsma · 18/11/2009 22:49

I think it's rather fatuous to compare UK politicians addressing climate change with the Taliban and the fecking crusades. Let's keep some perspective people!

Remotew · 18/11/2009 22:51

X post was going to say that me binning some of my numerous wine bottles instead of recycling isn't going to get me hung! At least not yet.

Remotew · 18/11/2009 22:59

Snorkie, yes I think the conspiracy is to get us to preserve fuel resources. Price it too high to waste. After all the west want the oil, hence the wars etc. They know it's going to be a while before they get control of it.

onebatmother · 18/11/2009 23:04

those nice climate-change denier guys

snorkie · 18/11/2009 23:07

Ah, OK then.

Well if that's the case, then I agree with it anyway - we do need to reduce demand, the average first world person has an outrageously high and unsustainable energy habit and generations to come will probably find it inconceivable that we burned oil so liberally.

But, I actually don't believe the scientists are in the governments pocket enough to go along with such a deception, so on the whole I think they're probably right.

Remotew · 18/11/2009 23:22

Ok that's fine shall we reduce it to the level of my childhood. Big victorian terrace with one coal fire down stairs, that was it. Ice on the inside of windows, washing in cold water and a hot bath on a Sunday night.

That wasn't that long ago and didn't prevent climate change. Brrrgh I wouldn't want to put my DC through that. We were a typical family from what I can gather from mumsnet.

snorkie · 18/11/2009 23:41

Hugely better housing regs and insulation grants already go a long way to preventing that scenario abouteve, though to be honest cold bedrooms (maybe not that cold) don't trouble me personally.

But the uncomfortable truth is that it's our driving & air travel habits that most need to be curtailed. Maybe legislating against gas hungry cars & improving public transport infrastructure would be a good first step?

Remotew · 18/11/2009 23:50

It's happening already under the guise of green politics. As someone pointed out earlier the taxing of cars/heating effects low income groups more than anyone even though we still need to get to work and keep warm no matter what we earn. That's the part of the 'conspiracy' I resent.

snorkie · 18/11/2009 23:53

that's why I favour saying no more cars that consume more than x mpg to be sold after y date, rather than sliding tax scale. Just ban them. And make the alternatives (public transport) more attractive.

Rollmops · 19/11/2009 07:18

"I don't think politicians were ever able to control the populus with religions anyway, that's a really weird assertion that I'd love to see evidence for."
This must be the most naive or ignorant statement on these revered boards yet.
The history is riddled with the very practice and if one only bothered to have a peep at the current world politics, one would see plenty of the "weird assertion" taking place

[Rollmops needs a very large tea after this]

cloudspotter · 19/11/2009 07:49

Ironic to see this on the day that I read this in the Independent.

I find it really sad that as a species we are facing the biggest problem to ever come our way, and yet more and more people are denying that it is happening.

Understandable I suppose, but sad.

throckenholt · 19/11/2009 07:57

I have only waded as far as MrRoolmops first post - but felt it warranted a response.

In short, it's bolleaux. There is no allowance made in any of the climate models for the increased absorption of CO2 by trees and marine algae. They increase their metabolic rate in response to improved growing conditions. Why is this ignored, well reduced predictions equals reduced research funding equals reduced reasons for taxes equals reduced control of a gullible population who will fund governments to pursue the aims of the politicians etc. etc. etc.

Such things may not be in the first generation of climate models - but they are definitely being worked on by the next generation of models - not just the statistical ones but the physics/chemistry/biology based ones that try to understand the processes and use that to replicate past situations, and then build into predictive models.

I know this personally because I know a lot of people who are doing it. They are not particularly political animals - but they are beavering away in their little bit of the research and when you stand back from it and look at all the evidence - on balance it looks like there is at least a good chance that we (humans) are a large contributing factor in current changes.

Even it is wrong - it can't do us any harm at all to review our use of scarce resources and destructive activity and cut back on it. Modern humans as a general rule to very little to enhance our environment on any level - we would all benefit from curbing our behaviour a bit.

And bottom line with taxes - they go to fund (mostly) services that we all use - health, education, defence, infrastructure etc etc etc. Not paying taxes is not an option.

And just because the politicians and top managers have screwed up the initial response to tackling global warming with carbon trading and other economic tools, does not mean the underlying problem is not there and we should ignore it. It seems to me this is suffering from the general sceptism about politicians.

Sad that after years of trying to get the politicians to listen and understand what the scientific evidence suggests, that now that they are finally beginning to do that coincides with the time people think politicians are a bunch of lying schemers.

throckenholt · 19/11/2009 08:20

and a solution - would be turn back the clock 50 years of so.

Wear a jumper rather than have the thermostat turned up high. Buy locally grown seasonal food. Go to work near where you live (how can it be sensible on any level to commute for a long time ?! It wastes so much of your life).

EdgarAllenPoo · 20/11/2009 14:49

bows<

my point was that fuel taxation disproportionately affects low-income families. if you want a fairer tax, tax income. I agree tax still needs to be raised.

peer-reviewed research - tends to have a conculsion like - man-made climate change may increase the temperature by 0.5% in 1000 years, though it is possible for it to start having an affect immediately, and a sharper affect...the headline for such a report however would read 'Earth to burn' - governments react more to headlines than to peer-reviewed research unfortunately...

the internal combustion engine would cease to be used one day whether or not there was a green lobby in existence - like the steam engine, the waterwheel and drayhorse before it.

AbricotsSecs · 20/11/2009 15:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

flockwallpaper · 20/11/2009 15:12

I want to see the scientific evidence presented clearly, but I honestly don't have the inclination to trawl through the primary literature of a field that I'm not trained in.

Can anyone link to a good scientific review paper that covers the debate? They must exist?

policywonk · 20/11/2009 16:11

I'm going to post up some links to science forums that are discussing this issue:

UK Skeptics (sic - they use the US spelling to be more easily Googleable)

James Randi Educational Foundation

science blogs