Baron von Lotsov

Well it would loose my support if it did this. I'd consider it another Cameron kind of party which says one thing and then when it comes down to it, they don't have the balls. This CO2 scam is about the biggest threat currently facing the world. The UKIP are right to expose it and it's not dogmatic, we are talking science. The people who propel the scam are the only dogmatic people, creating a kind of cult of nutters. Either you deal with the scam or its back to the Stone Age. If this is what you want you can vote Nu Labour.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

TomPhil

I'm no scientist, so I really can't pass judgement on whether global warming is happening or not, and whether or not it's down to human carbon emissions. However, I think that there's a very simple way to look at this.

There are a number of possibilities:

1. Human carbon emissions are causing climate change, and this climate change will have serious consequences.
2. The climate is changing for some other reason, largely or entirely unrelated to human carbon emissions, and this will have serious consequences.
3. The climate is not going to change much in future, and any changes will have no consequences of any significance.

Now, we can't know for certain which of the above is true, but we have to choose how we deal with the potential problem of climate change. We have two primary choices:

a. Try to stop climate change by cutting carbon emissions

We cannot unilaterally stop climate change. Even if we are to agree that carbon emissions are entirely responsible for climate change, and that massively cutting carbon emissions would keep the climate static, we would somehow need to persuade China and India to abandon their push for industrialisation and improved living standards and position in the world. Without their full co-operation, anything we do is pointless. The UK could completely stop producing carbon dioxide, and within a few years, China would have made up the difference.

Even if we could get all the major carbon producers to agree to act, we're not talking a few energy saving lightbulbs, or a few less foreign holidays. The cuts that would be required to reduce carbon to the levels deemed necessary to keep the climate steady would mean the complete abandonment of our current economic system and way of living. We're talking a complete revolution. What are the chances of every major carbon producer agreeing to and actually implementing such a change?

b. Adapt to meet the challenges potentially posed by climate change

Adapting to climate change can be done unilaterally. We can quite happily make changes here in the UK to adapt for climate change without any need to persuade any other country to do anything themselves. We can also provide aid to other countries that cannot afford to make the changes themselves to help them make the necessary changes. Yes, of course some people will suffer, but others will benefit. A few more may die of the heat in the summer (although we can take many steps to keep this number very small), far, far more will survive the winter who otherwise would not have done.

The best choice?

Let's go through the three possibilities outlined above and see what is the best choice.

1. Human carbon emissions are causing climate change, and this climate change will have serious consequences.

If this is the case, then option a would work only if we could get all the major carbon producers to massively slash carbon production. We would then avoid the downsides of global warming, but would miss out on the potential benefits of global warming, and would also have to live with the massive changes that would have to be implemented.

Should the attempts to cut carbon emissions fail, maybe because of the refusal or failure of the US, China, India, or some other country to successfully cut carbon emissions sufficiently, then as well as having suffered from the major changes that would have been forced on us, we would then suffer again from the implications of global warming, including (pick to your taste) floods, disease, heatstroke, mass population movement...

However, if we had chosen b, then it wouldn't matter whether carbon emissions had been successful cut. We would have made the necessary changes to cope with the change in global temperature conditions. If this was avoided through massive cuts in carbon elsewhere in the world, well, no problem, at least we took the precaution. But if it wasn't, then we'd still be fine.

We would also be able to reap all the benefits of global warming, as well as having not suffered any of the problems, expenses and restrictions on freedom caused by taking measures to reduce carbon emissions.

The climate is changing for some other reason, largely or entirely unrelated to human carbon emissions, and this will have serious consequences.

If we picked option a, to try to cut carbon emissions, then this would be an absolute disaster. Our measures to cut carbon emissions, while extremely expensive in terms of cost and freedom, would have done nothing to avert the problem, and on top of the suffering arising from the misguided measures to cut carbon, we would then be hit with the full force of global warming.

Option b - preparing for global warming - does not discriminate between causes. We wouldn't even need to know what was causing the global warming. We would have taken sensible measures to avert the dangers of the global warming, and of course could enjoy the full benefits that global warming would bring.

The climate is not going to change much in future, and any changes will have no consequences of any significance.

If this is the case, then neither approach would make any real difference, although I firmly believe that in terms of cost both financial and to our freedom, option b would be by far the most preferable of the two options.

Conclusion

Whatever is happening, option b - adapting to cope with climate change - is far preferable to option a - trying to fight it. If carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change, then it is foolish to rely on powers such as China and India who are highly unlikely to abandon their quest for advancement by vastly cutting carbon emissions. We have to be able to guaruntee our own safety by doing the thing that we can do unilaterally - adapting to cope with climate change. As we can't say with 100% certainty that it is human produced carbon dioxide causing climate change, then logically we should take approach b - the one that works whatever is causing climate change.

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

rjt

Well on your last point that is fair enough, we shall see over tme, I have only been in the job four months. However as you know it is important to me that this debate continues and even though I accept your view will most likely prevail it is also important to me that any policys put in place do not adversely effect the taxpayer as they have have been doing.

Of course the debate will remain losed alll the while the europhile elite remain in power.

__________________
'And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying " Glory to God in the highest, And on the earth peace, goodwill toward men".
Luke 2: 13-14.

Clippo

Jeff wrote:-
Typically the view of a gormless 'nutter' that I referred to previously.

Clippo

Just seen this advertised:-

Tomorrow evening, 9.00pm BBC2

Earth:the Climate Years - Dr Iain Stewart's definitive history of Climate Change'

- go for it and challenge your prejudices !

SponPlague

Alas - I live in Switzerland, so can't receive BBC2... - not that I hold the BBC in high esteem on these matters, either

HM

There's always BBC iPlayer

__________________

• Respice post te; hominem te esse memento!