=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Nuclear vs wind
Log In to post a reply
64 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: climate change
Nov 04, 2005, 19:11
"I don't dispute any of these facts"

In which case, are you conceding that climate change is a fact then?

It's just that you said "climate change is not even close to being an 'established fact'.", which I believe to be demonstrably untrue.

"The best way to prove you are right is to lead us to the evidence that convinced you and let it convince us as well"

Sure, I'd even go so far as to say it's the only credible way. It's just that I started from the premise that the existance and urgency of climate change were agreed upon. It was only you and hongnam questioning it that has made me start to put evidence for it.

"What I dispute is that the meltdown of civilisation within two generations is a given."

Not a given, but highly likely.

I'm very aware of numerous 'the sky is falling' claims from all quarters for assorted reasons. The Jehovah's Witnesses have made an entire religion of it.

Mostly, I'd ascribe these beliefs to wanting some sense of meaning and importance. If you tell yourself 'these are the last days' then you're living in important times and you are somehow more important. If you say 'time goes on beyond what we can imagine' it can lead to a great feeling of insignificance.

But the peak oil thing is definite. We are using a finite resource at an ever increasing rate; there will come a crunch some time. Our society doesn't just need oil, but cheap and plentiful oil. Thus, the crunch comes not when it runs out, but much sooner when a cheap, plentiful supply can't be delivered.

Wanting to make the case clear, in an article on this site I deliberatley chose a lot of evidence from well-informed people and institutions, most of whom have a vested interest in denying there's a problem.
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=53

According to all credible sources I know of, peak may have started last year, it may be anything up to 40 years away, but by far the most likely is within 20.

The US government says it needs a minimum of 20 years planning using a Crash Program approach (ie making it one of the main focuses of society) if we're to get out of it without major social problems.

So it's not that peak means meltdown is a given, but doing nothing about it far enough in advance does mean extreme social upheaval as we haven't seen before.
In reply to:
Re: climate change (Rolling Ronnie)		 Replies:
Re: climate change pt 2 (Merrick)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index