Europe: In or Out

[pastafarian]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/28/4-point-lead-leave-eu-referendum-and-support-danis/

Out 42%
In 38%
Undecided 18%
Wont Vote 2%

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

yes global warming was a hoax
climate change is different

 

[pastafarian]

View attachment 72125

140 year data and and a graph showing departure in data from 1961 doesnt really cut it.

its 26000 years the cycle of the earth isnt it? Show me figures for that timescale

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

140 year data and and a graph showing departure in data from 1961 doesnt really cut it.

its 26000 years the cycle of the earth isnt it? Show me figures for that timescale

It really does cut it.

But we can go back more than 26,000 years. Here is a graph showing greenhouse gas concentrations over 650,000 years. This is from Antarctic ice cores. CO2 levels closely track temperatures. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has never exceeded 300 parts per million over that time. We're now at 402 ppm as of January 2016. So if you want to say this is a cyclical phenomenon, well you'd be wrong, there's just no comparison to today over the entire lifetime of Homo sapiens

 

[BadFish]

This graph suggests that while we have had peaks of temperatures in the past this peak is not rescinding as quickly as usual.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

140 year data and and a graph showing departure in data from 1961 doesnt really cut it.

its 26000 years the cycle of the earth isnt it? Show me figures for that timescale

Here's one more. All CO2 levels from various sources. Remember 2016 is 402 ppm. Figure (e) suggests you have to go back 20 million years to find CO2 concentrations as high as today.

 

[5ways]

"The multi-million-pound business run by a key donor to Vote Leave – the group campaigning for Britain to leave the EU – has warned potential investors that its profits and ability to move workers and capital around the world could suffer from a British exit from the European Union.

A series of warnings about a possible “Brexit” are contained in a prospectus for sale issued by the financial trading business CMC Markets, founded and still run by the leading Eurosceptic businessman Peter Cruddas. The document, to which all directors of the company – including Cruddas – signed up last month, will be a severe embarrassment to the beleaguered Vote Leave operation."


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/brexit-chief-firm-quit-risks

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Little is a waste of time, but I certainly share your frustrations. Obviously its not easy. China is not a great example for you as they are currently engaging on a massive clean-up of their industries; their power stations and their cities - they want to develop their economy but they also want to live in an environment with clean air, clean water - economic development tends to be followed by action on environmental concerns. Its the tiger economies of SE Asia that are a particular problem as far as unchecked emissions go.

Of course emissions are not just from burning fossil fuels; its agricultural development, esp. meat production (I'm not a veggie btw); forest clearance and loss of peatlands. 2015 saw a huge spike in emissions from peatland fires in Indonesia, when the numbers are run expect to see a spike in global temperatures next year, mirroring the last single-biggest jump in global temperatures 1997-98 when there were similar massive peatland fires. Its things like this where we do have a big influence in Europe as purchasers of products like palm oil.

Just some facts and figures: The EU is the largest economy in the world and accounts for just under 25% of the World's GDP; the EU is the world's largest trading block, the largest single trader of good and services with 16% of the world's imports and exports and the top trading partner for 80 countries. Fuels excluded, the EU imports more from developing countries than the USA, Canada, Japan and China put together. So yes, there is a huge amount of influence there.

What do I think of impact of EU-inward migration on the environment? Can't imagine it will be positive in the short-term, long-term its a less of an issue because of they incredibly low birth-rates right across the EU (If birth rates stay the same as today, and there is no net immigration, the population of the UK in 100 years time will be 30 million). Like I said in my original post, there is lots I don't like about the EU, but for the environment it has undoubtedly been good. Simply looking at home, leaving the EU will remove protections on lots of important sites in the UK putting them at the risk of development by this government. I know not everyone cares, but for me this is the single reason I will vote to stay in.

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter I think China is still a very good example despite any supposed desire to clean up their industries.

In 2015, China’s coal power plant capacity increased by 55 percent in the first six months, 155 new coal-fired plants were approved, and China admitted that it had underreported its annual coal consumption since 2000.

There were a record 17 million new cars on the road in 2014, further contributing to China’s high emissions. Car ownership was up to 154 million, according to China’s Ministry of Public Security,with compared to roughly 27 million in 2004, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. Another trend compounding air problems has been the country’s staggering pace of urbanization, a national priority. The government aims to have more than 60 percent of the Chinese population living in cities by 2020, up from 36 percent in 2000 (53.7 percent of the population in 2015 lived in urban areas). Rapid urbanization increases energy demands to power new manufacturing and industrial centers.

http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-environmental-crisis/p12608

I did know the EU was a trading block with significant influence but I don't recognize the champion of the environment that you seem to suggest. But even if i'm wrong this would surely continue after we left unless you believe the British government has played a significant role in influencing environmental policy in the EU. Leaving the EU would not prevent us from signing up to European or Global environmental agreements.

Current unsustainable levels of net immigration are the reality we face with no chance of change as long as we remain in the EU. Fair play if you view environmental concerns as your motivation for staying although your reason ....leaving the EU will remove protections on lots of important sites in the UK putting them at the risk of development by this government is a hypothetical risk whereas the number one pressure and threat to important sites and numerous greenfield sites is housebuilding for (at least in part) the millions of migrants who have already arrived here and for the future projected population growth (10 million increase in the next 25 years) .

 

[JC Footy Genius]

whereas you are right to point out that Europe's contribution will have little or pretty much no affect at all i still maintain that the whole thing is nothing but a nonsensical charade anyway.
how the masses have swallowed this farcical is beyond me and to except the word of someone with some kind of importance attached to his name as credible rather than ask any questions is absolute ignorance in itself.

the man behind climate change/global warming was canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong who,was in the oil business ,allegations were put to this man over the oil for food scandal and ties to various secret organisations of which he denies all of them.. i though beg to differ.

I am a deeply cynical and sceptical soul but when the consensus of the world's scientific community tells us something I am inclined to believe it. Apparently the earth's climate is warming and we are partly responsible.

 

[beorhthelm]

"The multi-million-pound business run by a key donor to Vote Leave – the group campaigning for Britain to leave the EU – has warned potential investors that its profits and ability to move workers and capital around the world could suffer from a British exit from the European Union.

A series of warnings about a possible “Brexit” are contained in a prospectus for sale issued by the financial trading business CMC Markets, founded and still run by the leading Eurosceptic businessman Peter Cruddas. The document, to which all directors of the company – including Cruddas – signed up last month, will be a severe embarrassment to the beleaguered Vote Leave operation."


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/brexit-chief-firm-quit-risks

roll eyes indeed - this is poor, deliberatly uninformed article. share prospectus normally list all sorts of risks as a matter of routine, items as obvious as there might be competition, the law might change, etc. having a look, the prospectus for CMC also notes the risk of EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, the EU Financial Transaction Tax, and "current and proposed EU directives could restrict the Group’s business"... oh, those get forgotten about in the article. theres about 9 pages of such risks, the Grauniad has made an article based on one paragraph.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Is this a joke account?

If it isn't, can I ask why you feel the British identity should not be aligned with sustainable development?

because we've got enough people in this country already, we DON'T need anymore FLOODING in, the infrastructure in this country is at braking point already ........................ WHAT A DIN
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Hello again, you're confusing me a bit now. Are you saying that global warming is a hoax, or that it is real but caused by HAARP or volcanic pollution? You spent ages bashing scientists, especially state-funded ones, and then use a NASA-funded study on Antarctica as part of your evidence-base?

anyway, HAARP is a pretty open project (also with state-funded University partners), the power of HAARP is less than that of a lightning bolt of which there are a hundred a second world-wide. But if you want to believe the dramatic conspiracy theories and use that as your evidence for the cause of global warming, well thats up to you but please don't question the credibility of others

The West Antarctic ice shelf is thawing fast and glaciers are speeding up. In East Antarctica there is increased precipitation (because of global warming) and the increased snowfall there is balancing the loss elsewhere. Globally, sea-levels are rising and the volume of ice is shrinking.

I don't want to spend anymore time debating whether climate change is real, I would rather debate how to stop it. I will agree with you that current efforts are failing because of greed and that greed will be the destruction of this planet - or at least the part of it that is habitable to us.

what's this got to do with in or out of EUROPE FFS
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Don't waste your time mate. The man is a moron.

Gordon is a moron
regards
DR

 

[brighton fella]

I am a deeply cynical and sceptical soul but when the consensus of the world's scientific community tells us something I am inclined to believe it. Apparently the earth's climate is warming and we are partly responsible.

similar to when people were branded nutters for dare suggesting the earth was round.

 

[brighton fella]

Hello again, you're confusing me a bit now. Are you saying that global warming is a hoax, or that it is real but caused by HAARP or volcanic pollution? You spent ages bashing scientists, especially state-funded ones, and then use a NASA-funded study on Antarctica as part of your evidence-base?

anyway, HAARP is a pretty open project (also with state-funded University partners), the power of HAARP is less than that of a lightning bolt of which there are a hundred a second world-wide. But if you want to believe the dramatic conspiracy theories and use that as your evidence for the cause of global warming, well thats up to you but please don't question the credibility of others

The West Antarctic ice shelf is thawing fast and glaciers are speeding up. In East Antarctica there is increased precipitation (because of global warming) and the increased snowfall there is balancing the loss elsewhere. Globally, sea-levels are rising and the volume of ice is shrinking.

I don't want to spend anymore time debating whether climate change is real, I would rather debate how to stop it. I will agree with you that current efforts are failing because of greed and that greed will be the destruction of this planet - or at least the part of it that is habitable to us.

it's clear you put your trust in crooks like maurice strong, god help us.
ive already told you once, where money is concerned people will spout all sorts of nonsense, ..

 

[brighton fella]

Gordon is a moron
regards
DR

bed wetters.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

it's clear you put your trust in crooks like maurice strong, god help us.
ive already told you once, where money is concerned people will spout all sorts of nonsense, ..

so who's paying you?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter I think China is still a very good example despite any supposed desire to clean up their industries.

In 2015, China’s coal power plant capacity increased by 55 percent in the first six months, 155 new coal-fired plants were approved, and China admitted that it had underreported its annual coal consumption since 2000.

There were a record 17 million new cars on the road in 2014, further contributing to China’s high emissions. Car ownership was up to 154 million, according to China’s Ministry of Public Security,with compared to roughly 27 million in 2004, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics. Another trend compounding air problems has been the country’s staggering pace of urbanization, a national priority. The government aims to have more than 60 percent of the Chinese population living in cities by 2020, up from 36 percent in 2000 (53.7 percent of the population in 2015 lived in urban areas). Rapid urbanization increases energy demands to power new manufacturing and industrial centers.

http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-environmental-crisis/p12608

I did know the EU was a trading block with significant influence but I don't recognize the champion of the environment that you seem to suggest. But even if i'm wrong this would surely continue after we left unless you believe the British government has played a significant role in influencing environmental policy in the EU. Leaving the EU would not prevent us from signing up to European or Global environmental agreements.

Current unsustainable levels of net immigration are the reality we face with no chance of change as long as we remain in the EU. Fair play if you view environmental concerns as your motivation for staying although your reason ....leaving the EU will remove protections on lots of important sites in the UK putting them at the risk of development by this government is a hypothetical risk whereas the number one pressure and threat to important sites and numerous greenfield sites is housebuilding for (at least in part) the millions of migrants who have already arrived here and for the future projected population growth (10 million increase in the next 25 years) .

Sure, you're right, China is a very large emitter, the point is more that its not unchecked in China and the nature of their government means they are changing very quickly. But yeah, development is global and the whole world has to do their part, which is the point of meetings like the recently concluded COP21 in Paris. and no, I'm not confident about it, but the strongest voice in COP was that of the European block.

Locally, the EU does have stronger environmental regulations that individual countries, thats a simple fact. The Common Fisheries Policy is critical in preventing collapse of fish-stocks and the Habitats Directive adds layers of protection that we don't otherwise have. SSSI's can be easily developed by the British Government, but when they get European protected habitat status they are virtually untouchable. Its clearly not a hypothetical risk if houses have to be built for all the migrants already here. I'm not saying the EU system is perfect, though, obviously.

of course if you want to say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket then I'm hardly going to disagree with you, but it doesn't mean I won't keep fighting. But when you've got lots of people still denying even the reality of global warming, let alone doing anything about it., when CO2 levels are 30% higher than they've been in a million years or more, well its going to be a rough ride for our kids.

 

[brighton fella]

so who's paying you?

luckily for me i have found myself in a position where i do not have to rely on money but when i did i never sunk as low as to be brought by someone.

 

[looney]

I am a deeply cynical and sceptical soul but when the consensus of the world's scientific community tells us something I am inclined to believe it. Apparently the earth's climate is warming and we are partly responsible.

Maybe you should take a closer look how the consensus was cobbled together.Oh and then explain why temperature rises have levelled of even though more and more Carbon has been puked out.