What IS the agenda for climate change "enthusiasts"?

[Dave2002]

I have quite often seen discussions of climate change and global warming associated with suggestions that this is a hoax, and that there is a business or political agenda.

It is clear that it is possible that theories of global warming could be correct or incorrect, and similarly that assertions that any such warming, if it exists, could be significantly influenced by human acitivity could also be correct or incorrect.

What is not clear to me is why anyone thinks there is some subversive political or commercial agenda behind discussion and actions relating to climate change. Assertions about the correctness or otherwise of matters related to climate change or global warming are often accompanied by words such as "hoax", "swindle" etc.

What is going on?

[scottycelt]

With the summer we have had to date and the lack of a really hot one for some years now, is that really all that surprising?

I am no scientist and therefore in no position to dispute the idea of 'global warming' but you can hardly blame the lay person (most obviously in the UK) from being somewhat sceptical. Having said all that, I understand that extreme and unusual occurrences are part of the process of climate change and there certainly have been plenty of those in recent times

However if one is a sceptic does it not follow that he/she may then conclude that there might be 'some subversive political or commercial agenda behind it', especially the latter? After all, many companies have exploited and benefited from its promotion.

There has always been climate change in the history of the world but right now it feels more like 'UK cooling' rather than 'global warming' though I'm delighted to hear some real climate change is indeed on the way, however short-lived and temporary!

[MrGongGong]

I think you are mixing up weather and climate

[scottycelt]

I think you are mixing up weather and climate

Doesn't one affect the other ... ?

[MrGongGong]

Doesn't one affect the other ... ?

Yes of course
but if you (as one frequently hears) start going on about how global warming doesn't exist because we had a bit of snow then ...................

[Lateralthinking1]

Dave2002 - I don't think it is a hoax at all but one answer is surely 'jobs'. Every time someone says that the private sector needs to be helped to provide them, my answer is 'even if it had the money, what would it be creating?'.

I just can't see what there is for people to do. We don't have many natural resources. At least with the green agenda, you have loft and cavity wall insulation, solar panels, bicycles and quite a bit more.

I suppose some might also feel that there is also an equality agenda. Fewer flights might mean fewer flights for rich people etc though I doubt it. Those who actually have concerns about such things will provide a more convincing response.

[scottycelt]

Yes of course
but if you (as one frequently hears) start going on about how global warming doesn't exist because we had a bit of snow then ...................

I'm not 'going on' on about anything as you might have readily understood if you had bothered to read my post properly!

I merely saw things through the eyes of a 'sceptic' and made it pretty plain that, as an ignorant layperson, I can have no useful opinion on the matter of 'global warming' itself ...

No need to be so hyper-sensitive, Mr GG!

[Pabmusic]

This site has plenty of information on climate change and climate change denial. In the USA, climate change denial is an issue. Texas, for instance is making attempts to ban the teaching of climate change in schools. Those states that are against the teaching of climate change are, often, anti-evolution and Republican.

http://ncse.com/climate

[Dave2002]

Hi Again

Whoa!

I'm less concerned with the arguments "there is climate change", "there is not climate change", "global warming is due to human influences", "global warming is due to a rise in CO2" etc, but more the issue of why this might be considered some sort of political scam, or something which could benefit certain parties with vested interests. Obviously firms which deal with wind farrms or PV deployment will have interests, but I feel that these have arisen following stimulus from goverrnments and the EU. Some things may have happened accidentally, but with good intentions at the time. I doubt that the stimulus given to PV panel installers and end users who install PV panels was initially a scam, but on more recent analysis it appears that 1. the original FiTs eventually became too large, thus raising questions about whether better off sections of our society are benefitting at the epense of others, and 2. installing PV panels is not the highest priority in tackling energy/climate change problems. The more recent "shutting down" of FiTs and other incentives is, however, having the effect of dampening down jobs in a new industry sector, and may be too severe.

Is the climate change agenda simply about creating jobs, or are there other factors?

Many engineers feel that renewable energy generators are difficult to manage, because of the unreliability of supply, and this brings a need to build/install/maintain reserve generators based on conventional fuels, or nuclear power. Ignoring the energy and fuel consumption aspects, currently it seems likely that energy costs for consumers are rising partly because of a move into newer and less reliable forms of electricity generation.

One could argue that maybe the electricity grid system should be able to adapt to different forms of energy supply. Not all energy requirements are essential throughout the day, and some could be controlled using electronic management systems.

There is still significant use of gas, and burning gas either in domestic environments or in power stations simply for heating, where many houses are inadequately insulated seems like a very great waste. You wouldn't get as much heat by burning five pound notes, but nevertheless it is worth thinking about burning money. Quite likely for every pound spent on heating another pound is wasted in escaping heat, or heat which isn't really needed at all due to rooms being heated which are not used.

However, this is digression. Climate change etc. is interesting, but the issue I wanted to raise was whether there are obvious scams related to the climate change etc. I'm less interested in accidental scams which arise once the whole apparatus has been set in motion, but whether there really has been any evidence of deliberate and cynical scamming by politicians and commercial organisations, and if so, what are they, who do they serve, and how.

[ahinton]

I have quite often seen discussions of climate change and global warming associated with suggestions that this is a hoax, and that there is a business or political agenda.

It is clear that it is possible that theories of global warming could be correct or incorrect, and similarly that assertions that any such warming, if it exists, could be significantly influenced by human acitivity could also be correct or incorrect.

What is not clear to me is why anyone thinks there is some subversive political or commercial agenda behind discussion and actions relating to climate change. Assertions about the correctness or otherwise of matters related to climate change or global warming are often accompanied by words such as "hoax", "swindle" etc.

But surely that, too, could be "correct or incorrect", at least in theory, could it not? Frankly, however, I doubt it very much and I've seen little reliable evidence in support of that.

[Lateralthinking1]

I can say with hand on heart that those I know in Whitehall have been very serious indeed about climate change policy, that the policy has been pursued for environmental reasons, that there has been considerable frustration about the often lukewarm response internationally and that all of these things have applied either side of the last election.

Having said as much, attitudes vary. I knew Meacher just a tiny bit. He was pretty staunch. But there was, and is, quite a distance between him and someone like Blair. There was also a change of emphasis with the Coalition. That much of the work did still continue was down to Cameron's stated green agenda, now subsiding, and the Lib Dems.

Plus being 'very serious indeed' needs defining. The UK pushes on it but it isn't exactly Caroline Lucas. It always had the economy uppermost in its mind. There is an awful lot of playing around with numbers to find the kind of balance I wouldn't be seeking, eg carbon trading. And currently it is probably a case of "the economy is all".

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

one can hardly be for or against climate change .... if it is the case then it is an implacable fact of nature .... i do believe that it is fact on the basis of the evidence that i have studied and also i do think that Prof Stern took a balanced, objective and intelligent view of it .... but possibly too complacent for such as Lovelock .... the argument it seems to me is about many things but two core issues are can the human population survive major climate change of the kind predicted in the next one hundred years [or sooner] without staggering death rates and secondly can civilisation survive and or recover from any such catastrophe .... a further issue is can any effective action be taken in a timely manner .... ???????

if i am convinced of the case and the seriousness of the threat i am unconvinced that anything much can, or more importantly will, be done to avert it .... such things that might be done inevitably require a major reduction in demand and the power of major capital and its coteries of alpha males resent the intrusive constraints on their wealth opportunities ... not to mention the state capitalist China and India Brazil etc that think it is all the West's fault ....

of course if the population is decimated by climate catastrophe and rising sea levels etc it will in the end be self correcting eh?

[Dave2002]

.... a further issue is can any effective action be taken in a timely manner .... ???????

Yet another issue is "who cares?". If I'm a jet setting millionaire (I'm not), I might really not care a toss about whether other people are going to suffer as a result of my actions as I fly around the world using up resources. I may not care how much electricity, oil, gas etc. I use in my everyday life. Not all millionaires are like that, and some are really concerned about the possibility of environmental damage. In fact it may often be the millions of "ordinary" people who are complacent about their everyday lives who are causing the most damage - if indeed there is any damage.

People who insist on driving to work, having 2 or more holidays in foreign parts each year, having a nice family life with more than 2 kids, etc., etc., etc.

I care if I get too hot, too cold, and I also care if I can't breathe due to pollution or other atmospheric borne problems - such as pollen.

Personally I do care about the influence my actions might have on others, but there are many who are either ignorant or complacent who do not seem to care about their own interaction with the environment and the impact this may have on others. It seems likely that anything we do or do not do today is unlikely to have an immediate effect, but this may not mean we should ignore possible influences.

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, yes. What I notice among those who are professionally serious about the matter is that they vary considerably in their private practice. Brown and Cameron were both annoying in making much of their British holidays and yet also going elsewhere.

Without wishing to sound like Rowan Williams, I think it can come down to simple things. If on your final day, you can feel content that you did enough to your own satisfaction, then to me that's fine. It's realistic, we won't ever fully know the outcomes, we didn't even have a say in where we were born, but at least there is a question being asked and one that is comfortably answered.

I am sure that when I look at my final reckoning, I am going to be very dissatisfied but I know that I would get an A on this one. Part of that is down to my values and a part of it down to my circumstances. In another situation, I'd be happy on a scale of A to E with a B.

[Flosshilde]

I have quite often seen discussions of climate change and global warming associated with suggestions that this is a hoax, and that there is a business or political agenda.

It is clear that it is possible that theories of global warming could be correct or incorrect, and similarly that assertions that any such warming, if it exists, could be significantly influenced by human acitivity could also be correct or incorrect.

What is not clear to me is why anyone thinks there is some subversive political or commercial agenda behind discussion and actions relating to climate change. Assertions about the correctness or otherwise of matters related to climate change or global warming are often accompanied by words such as "hoax", "swindle" etc.

What is going on?

I think that it's the 'climate change deniers' (or deniers of any human influnce in climate change) who have the political agenda & try to create the belief that governments have some hidden agenda, with accusations of climate change theories being a hoax. As Pabmusic says, in the USA they tend to be Republicans, and also part of, or supported by, the fossil-fuel industry - who obviously have a very clear agenda in opposing actions designed to reduce the human impact on climate change. It also requires government 'interference' in peoples' actions, which they are also opposed to.