Active discussions

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

Talk
News
Original poster

I agree with Jeremy Clarkson - climate change is rather boring

82 replies

ABetaDad · 03/10/2009 17:31

I have never met Jeremy Clarkson but I feel a kinship to him. We were born within a few miles of each other, we both lived in the Cotswolds, we wear jeans are middle aged blokes and even tried to buy the same house once. I also agree with him in this article that the evidence for climate change is rather slim and it is "all rather boring".

As for the young women dumping manure on his drive ... well you tell me he is wrong in his opinion of them and on climate change.

Now before you all go foaming at the mouth. I have not driven a car in 20 years, took one flight this year and work from home. I just think the waffle about climate change is nonsense - very few people or indeed any Govt have the slightest intent in doing anything about it in their personal lives and are raher bored with the whole thing.

OP posts:
KayHarkerIsKayHarker · 12/10/2009 09:21

I rather think the man-made bit is a red herring, gven that most people who are saying it's manmade are also saying there's very little to be done about it without humans returning to the stone age.

I think what's important is putting our efforts into how we deal with and exist in a climate that has changed, tbh.

Restrainedrabbit · 12/10/2009 09:24

Thanks Cortina

This is the IPCC summary, note the tables showing a general upward trend in global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution (so the start of emissions).
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

I'm working today so have to be brief but will find some more evidence to add!

Restrainedrabbit · 12/10/2009 09:27

More on global dimming (why temps may have gone down slightly)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

WinkyWinkola · 12/10/2009 09:28

I believe Jeremy Clarkson has constructed a extra persona especially for T.V. and books. He is mildly amusing but mostly a knob.

I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to climate change issues. And let's be honest, Jeremy Clarkson really isn't an authority of any kind on this issue.

Even if human activity is not affecting the world as much as some scientists claim, there is no harm and a lot of benefit to be found in moderating our consumption and pollution.

LadyoftheBathtub · 12/10/2009 09:41

I don't like Jezzer much, he seems a bit obnoxious, but I think it's true that climate change bores people. A lot of it is because it's so negative. No one wants to be told to do this and do that or we're all going to fry, over and over again - it becomes like anti-smoking warnings - people don't care. It's also very hard to do everything you're supposed to when you live in a culture where people still have to get to work, we're given endless disposable tat everywhere we go etc. It's far more effective to make new laws stopping companies from doing polluting/wasteful stuff and to invest in new greener technology that people want and that inspires people, and it would be good to encourage more companies to let people work at home, reduce pointless business meetings etc.

I don't think I'm a climate change sceptic - I think a lot of the evidence really is worrying. But I am sceptical about a great deal of the "green" stuff that we as individuals are supposed to do that seems dodgy to me. How many millions of huge strong re-usable bags are being manufactured now that never get re-used because people forget? Eco lightbulbs are horrible, crap, ugly and full of dangerous heavy metals that pollute the environment. For example. It's no wonder people get tired of it all, I know I do.

sarah293 · 12/10/2009 09:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Bleh · 12/10/2009 11:20

As much as I hate Jeremy Clarkson and all he stands for, I do agree with him on this. There is little evidence that humans are entirely responsible for this, or that changing our behaviour will effect much change. The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling - it did so a couple of centuries ago when there was a mini Ice Age. I also thought that one of the main reasons for increased CO2 emissions was farting cows.

twirlymum · 12/10/2009 11:36

I am a sceptic.
I believe the climate is changing (notice how it's no longer called global warming?) but I don't think man is responsible for it.
The earth has been warming up and cooling down for millennia. The human race is a blink of an eye in the history of the world.

KayHarkerIsKayHarker · 12/10/2009 11:46

yes, but even if you don't believe in man-made climate change, action still needs to be taken because the climate is changing.

Bleh · 12/10/2009 11:58

But if the climate is changing because of natural cycles, and this has been going on for millenia, why does action have to be taken? It's like King Canute trying to hold back the tide.

KayHarkerIsKayHarker · 12/10/2009 12:03

Well, if the climate is changing to cause say, more flooding in the UK, we need to be spending on flood defences. If it's going to cause droughts in other places, we need to think about artifical irrigation etc.

Cortina · 12/10/2009 12:05

I've heard it said that many have a vested interest in peddling the lie that man is to 'blame' for climate change.
Over the last 2 years over 31,478 American scientists signed a petition to that end.

Tens of thousands of scientists from other countries, do not believe there is any evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming. The statement that there is a consensus is a lie. The claim the science is settled, is a lie. That the majority of scientist agree in man-made global warming is a lie.

I've just been reading up on it all, it's very interesting. I had no idea.

Bleh · 12/10/2009 12:06

Ah, I get you now. I thought you meant the usual switch off lights stuff.

KayHarkerIsKayHarker · 12/10/2009 12:11

No, turning off lights is just sensible frugality what my muvver taught me. Trouble is, the powers that be are promoting stuff like that as the key to solving climate change, when they should be thinking about the bigger picture measures.

There's nothing wrong with being reducing power consumption and looking for alternate sources of power etc. I just don't think it's all that's neccessary in the face of climate change. No one seems to have the gumption to say it, though.

Restrainedrabbit · 12/10/2009 12:17

THe fact of the matter is whether you believe in climate change or not certain issues are real for example natural fuel sources WILL run out i.e. coal and gas so turning lights out etc makes sense - dull as that is. As kay rightly points out whether you believe (wo)man is the cause of climate change (it's not called global warming as much because that hides the numerous other results of climate change i.e. increased rainfall causing flooding) or not flooding from increased rainfall is a problem that we in this country will have to face so we need to consider how we manage that. I prefer to talk about man-made environmental change as I think this sums up many of the problems we are facing.

Tortington · 12/10/2009 12:20

agree re sensible:
same with recycling - tis only sensible imo.

not a big believer in climate change.

EdgarAllenPoo · 12/10/2009 12:23

YABU - it is not rather boring. It is extremely boring.

proving human-caused global warming is happening is hard - proving it will result in catastrophe is harder.

thousands of people die every day from real, preventable, undeniable causes. That is where, if someone has the energy to make a difference, they should direct their energies.

don't give me that twaddle about 'extreme' weather being a 'climate change' issue - that is controversial even amongst the environmenalist lobby.

twirlymum · 12/10/2009 12:25

I would just like a stop to all the alarmist reporting. Those new ads really piss me off.

Jack and Jill went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water
well, no they didn't, there was no water due to climate change yadda yadda yadda

By action for co2 or something?

Along with a drawing of two frightened looking children.

sarah293 · 12/10/2009 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

EdgarAllenPoo · 12/10/2009 12:38

ah but Riven, 95% of scientist would include people like my big sis, who is a scientist...but not one who has anything o do with climatology. Climatology is a relatively recent science, and only part of it is devoted to studying long-term climate as opposed to jst 'weather'. surveying those few specialists one would probably find a range of opinion.

i find it hard to believe, on the other hand, that human activity would have no affect at all...but what affect it does have is very hard indeed to predict. much is made of computer modelling, but then those models do not have the full range of information...because there is so much not yet understood about the processes in oporation in the global climate.

Niecie · 12/10/2009 13:04

I have trouble getting interested in it too.

I have no real knowledge of what is supposed to happen wrt climate change - we are apparently it has already started and will give us warm wet winters and hot dry summers but that hasn't happened in the last 5 yrs so when is this going to kick in?

As others have said, climates change naturally and I do wonder what effect we can really have on it, even if everybody signed up to try and change the situation which they haven't.

More of a concern is the fact we are running out of the world's finite resources and we do need to find alternative forms of energy to replace them. If we can find some that are also gentler on the planet then that is a bonus.

There was an article about this in yesterday's Sunday Times Review which I don't seem to be able to find on the Times website. Did anybody else see it?

Restrainedrabbit · 12/10/2009 13:21

'Green fatigue' is a real problem, I did a research paper last year that touched on this subject. People get desensitised to a risk when bombarded with information daily, panic occurs (i.e. in the case of Piggy Flu) when new information is presented quickly and dramatically. We have been drip fed information for a good ten years now without people seeing significant changes so the perception of the risk has lessened.

The other problem is the risk is not immediate, more of a drip feed that will affect future generations. So there is a feeling of why be bothered to make changes that have no bearing on your life.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/30/climatechange.carbonemissions

SomeGuy · 12/10/2009 13:44

The problem is the amounts of money being spent on it are vast, they are talking about several percent of GDP, and it's far from proven that it will do any good.

Restrainedrabbit · 12/10/2009 14:00

oooh just seen this on the BBC website now - just for you UQD

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

LolaAnn · 12/10/2009 14:08

This thread is gold. Cortina you are my hero. I have more facts to add later, and whoever said that the scientists are 95% - 5% for-against "Global Warming" has been very mislead.

The fact is, the government is so desperate to act concerned about global warming that they are only giving research grants to scientists that have some kind of climate change agenda on their projects. I know lots of scientists that are forced into say adding a bit about climate change into their studies so they can get funding.

RIDICULOUS.