Do you worry about climate change?

That's what I thought. Maybe all greens should put green in our names. Then soon would not have to search to find out that about us.

Ooh, maybe I should change my name. Whengreeniac sounds pretty good, eh? Thanks dj!

Agree with you completely, Whengreeniac.

The biggest turbine farm near here is one of the largest in the country. It's in fields of sheep who all look quite as happy as sheep without turbines in their fields.
Sheep can shelter from the wind and snow in fields of solar panels; lucky sheep. In the dales they have to build special huts for sheep to shelter.

My answer to the OP is yes, I do worry about it. I do also believe that the climate does change from time to time, but that our using of fossil fuels has speeded up the change to the point where it is causing us problems already. I worry about it for my DGC in particular. I am furious that the UK government is so keen on fracking while cutting the support for renewables, and am concerned that the Scottish government might decide to go for coal gasification instead of leaving the fossil fuels where they are.

As a "greeniac" I would point out to Teacher11 that we travel by train or bus, and the furthest the car has been for years is a 35-mile round trip for big shopping about once every 6 weeks or so. We have done 4 long-haul flights (2 return trips to America) in 41 years of marriage but we go on holiday by train. The light I am sitting with is an energy saving bulb which was fitted in 2002, and all our other bulbs are energy-saving, to be changed to LEDs as time goes on. Also I like wind turbines and am happy to see fields of solar panels - I believe that they are good places to keep sheep, and wool clothes are biodegradeable. Greeniacs of the world unite, I say!!

Wilma, how much fossil fuel was burned in the Middle Ages, compared to now?

Changes in the jet stream do not happen of their own accord, though.

The main thing about the Paris agreement is that the three main polluters have all signed up to it. The US, China and India contribute over 50% of greenhouse gases.
Why is it that people complain about China and India but not the US. They have signed up to agreements before, but not ratified them, which means they do not have to stick to them.
I think Obama will do much more good on climate change when he is no longer president, and is not tied by the senators.

Burning fossil fuels isn't the only factor Wilma Changes in the Jet Stream and the Atlantic Conveyor have a big effect on our weather.

JessM a serious question. If you think the current global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, why has the planet cooled and warmed to different degrees in the past? I remember reading a while back about mini ice ages and also warm period of several hundred years in the Middle Ages.

Philosophical techniques !!!

Bah humbug

350.org/paris/

This is what many ordinary people think all over the world.

The promises made at the Paris convention mean the temperature will heat up to another 3.7 degrees, which will destroy much of the world as we know it. Is it really better to leave it up to government or try to do what we can ourselves?

The thing about electricity rather than gas, Iam64, is that electricity can be made from gas. Gas comes from fossil fuels. Electricity is made from renewables, not gas. Gas always adds to climate change, not electricity. My central heating is gas, but if/when it comes to changing the radiators, I will change to electricity, so I can then get solar panels nad save money as well. There is no point in me getting solar panels, as most of the saving will not be mine. I have said before that it would be better to buy solar panels for our children rather than ourselves as the saving will be greater.

If you used to teach philosophical techniques then why do you play fast and loose with the word "fact" Teacher11 Because your so-called facts ain't facts at all.
Tricia no that is not the case. The earth is like a toy on the end of a string with a child whirling it around her head. (gravitational pull of the sun in one direction, centrifugal force in the opposite)
We are warming because we have been burning fossil fuels.

Sounds like I'm wrong, but I always thought that it was getting warmer because the earth is slowly getting closer to the sun (ever-decreasing circles.) But if that was the case, wouldn't the year become shorter? Or is time relative?
The farmers here (SW France) are worried about the warmer climate. It's also much drier here, and the rivers and streams are drying up. This means they soon won't be able to grow maize, which needs a lot of water.
I believe parts of Africa are also suffering from drought, and that is partly why many Africans are trying to emigrate to Europe, and will continue to do so.

My first post had, |I admit (because it was deliberate) a catchy opening paragraph but I followed it by listing in brief point form the concerns I have about the current climate debate as follows:-

"I have serious concerns about:-
- the continuing inaccurate data
- the 'dodgy' science as when scientists at UEA lied
- the fact that the world is actually cooling and threatened inundations of islands have not happened
- the fact the the green business lobby is using the movement to rip off poor people
- the fact that China, India and emerging economies will not reduce their carbon output so will render our efforts useless and redundant
- the fact that poorer countries are using the issue to extract vast subsidies from so called richer countries
-measurements of the temperature of the earth need to be taken in the context of thousands of years not decades to be meaningful. There was a mini ice age four hundred years ago and it passed
- scientific data is manipulated to look worse than it is and the public is too poorly educated to see through it and resist the hype
- the fact that conferences about green issues are always in places like Bali or Paris and delegates get flown in for a gigantic ego massaging waste- athon ( teleconferencing?)
- the fact that science is perfectly good at compensating for all sorts of changes and could be left to deal with this one as it happens. Look at the advances in low energy lighting since the first useless 'dark' replacement bulbs"

It might be said that 'giant ego massaging' is subjective but the point, that energy is wasted on travel and accommodating delegates when teleconferencing and instant messaging are available, is valid enough. That the first energy saving lightbulbs were 'useless' is a personal opinion but the point that going from instant light to waiting for up to ten minutes for maximum brilliancy in a bulb is a step backward is merely the truth. 'Dodgy' data? An emotive adjective? It was proven that scientists at UEA lied which undermined their case and suggests that all such bias-driven data should be suspect.

My point is that, actually, I can and do argue. Since I used to teach rhetoric and rhetorical techniques and also because real writers acknowledge that style is as important as subject matter I do turn up the gas for effect to get the reader's attention.

The real point is that those on one side of the debate have seized a moral high ground to which they are not yet entitled and it matters because they are causing real suffering to real people.

I really worry about climate change as our world as we know it will no longer be here for our grandchildren and great grandchildren . I worry that they will never see lions elephants and all wildlife as it's disappearing slowly . Our own little birds are diminishing and so much of our land will be underwater.
Sadly we as human beings are gradually destroying our planet .
However I am optimistic that we will wake up in time to halt the destruction .
For me having been brought up in the wilds of Lincolnshire this is so important .So the answer ladies is not to let the big greedy business boys win . She who rocks the cradle rules the world !!!

Yes but I confess, only a bit because of all the other stuff, particularly personal and family health issues.
I heard on radio 4 lunch time news, that within 15 years we'll no longer be able to buy/use gas cookers or boilers. The news article made perfect sense but I felt so sad. I did replace my gas oven with an electric one 3 years ago when we 'did ' the kitchen. I was convinced by friends as well as the kitchen chap, that electric ovens are now more efficient and I've found this to be true. I insisted on a a five burner gas hob though, rather than the new fangled electric one the fitter was pushing. I've used them in holiday homes and much prefer the gas hob.
I do try and not over use the (gas) central heating, the lights etc and have never had a long haul holiday, though we're planning one for next year.

I know it's important. Am I the only one to feel the pressure on individuals (whilst relevant) is a bit like the push to reduce anti biotic prescription whist at the same time allowing their over use in fish or meat farming. I'm not avoiding responsibility here, just making a comparison (ducks behind sofa with tin hat on)

Few people realise that even non-tropical bits of Australia like NSW have twice the rainfall of southern England - and whopping big drains to cope with it.
Yes, they are ankle breakers!
And NSW is always moaning about water shortages and wanting it piped down from NQ. They are not as organised as they like people to think they are.

^ In fact we are destroying rain forests whereas expanding them would be a better plan.^
We should be planting more and more trees wherever we can.

rosequartz - yes they were, was watching on telly in NSW. They were quite widespread and I was struck by the brave attitude of people whose lives (and sometimes families) had been devastated.
Few people realise that even non-tropical bits of Australia like NSW have twice the rainfall of southern England - and whopping big drains to cope with it.

Gillybob, Gillybob - maybe I can just respond to 3 of your points.

1. How can our tiny contributions make any difference when China and India do nothing?
We've been burning coal and other fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Its one of the ways this country got so rich. If we can't set an example how can we persuade other nations to hold back and impede their development?

2 There have been ice ages/floods in the past so how can we be sure that "this" too will not pass?
No it won't pass. All that fossil fuel (coal, gas, oil) consists of carbon that was once in the atmosphere. Then. over millions of years, it became part of living things and got buried in the earth in the form of coal, oil and gas. (Hence "fossil" ) There is cast iron science to show that when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature on earth was a lot higher than it is now. It would take many millions of years to get that carbon back into an inert form under the earth. The natural systems we have today cannot possibly re-sequester carbon as fast as it is being released. In fact we are destroying rain forests whereas expanding them would be a better plan.

3 The Greens would use any "green issue" to create a new tax. Mainly effecting those who can least afford it.
That is unjustified. So called "green taxes" are an obligation on the energy companies to do their bit to reduce emissions. The energy companies lobbied heavily to reduce these because its a nuisance to them. An important part of their obligation is to insulate and improve the energy efficiency of houses in which poorer people live. When Cameron reduced them he knocked a few meagre pounds off our energy bills but deprived a lot of people of free insulation or new boilers that they desperately needed and could not afford. Subsidies for wind and solar also added a very small amount to energy bills. The idea of these subsidies was to stimulate the industry so that prices would come down and "to create green jobs". As a result of government policy hundreds of this jobs have been lost. And we are slipping back in our progress to reduce carbon emissions.
To make matters worse they have been lying about this and saying we are still on track:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/09/energy-minister-expects-uk-to-miss-renewables-target-leaked-letter-shows

Not sure what other so-called "green taxes" you are referring to?

Yes, but the Chinese delegate to the conference (I think it was he), when interviewed on television, said that their pollution would carry on rising until 2020 then would level out.

I wonder just how much these and other conferences generate in the way of greenhouse gases.

I don't worry about myself- but I am truly concerned for our grand-children, and their children. I find it very upsetting when people say- why should I do anything, because many others are worse - sincerely.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/12/14/i-want-to-believe-that-the-paris-climate-change-agreement-will-work/

Some people will always say why should we do something when China and India do nothing.
That just isn't true.

'In 2011, China's plan was to have 100 GW of grid-connected wind power capacity by the end of 2015 and to generate 190 terawatt-hours of wind power annually.[6] It achieved the capacity targets early and expects 120GW of capacity at the end of 2015.[7] The 190TWh goal may be more of a stretch because of connectivity and grid problems.[citation needed] China added 23GW of wind power capacity in 2014, and plans to add more than 100 GW of capacity during the thirteenth Five-Year Plan period (2016 to 2020).[8]'

China has more wind power than nuclear power. India has more wind power than the UK.

For teacher11's information I consider myself quite green. My passport is over ten years out of date, and I have only ever flown four times in my life, three times to Greek islands, and once to Jersey.
I do hope you are vegan.

I was in Australia once when there were bad floods
Were those the Brisbane floods just a few years ago, JessM?
They were devastating, luckily our young relatives had just moved two weeks before to a house on higher ground.
There was some mumbling at the time of someone making a mistake with the management of a huge reservoir upriver, I don't know whether there was any truth in that or not.

Of course, the amount of rain that falls in some areas of Australia on land that has been very dry causes terrible flooding; not far from DD the highest rainfall was 45 inches in one day.

Perhaps you should read Gily's post and adopt her as a role model.

She's totally wrong of course but presents her case rationally at least.

Yikes teacher do you not know how to put forward your arguement without resorting to insulting language, hyperbole and overuse of emotive adjectives.

I have to admit (ducking under desk) that I do share some of Teacher11's concerns. In particular;

Why hold "climate change" conferences all over the world? So the delagates can have a very expensive jolly? Why not talk via video conferencing?

How can our tiny contributions make any difference when China and India do nothing?

There have been ice ages/floods in the past so how can we be sure that "this" too will not pass?

The Greens would use any "green issue" to create a new tax. Mainly effecting those who can least afford it.

Those politicians (and royals) who bleat on about global warming etc. the most are probably the ones with the highest carbon footprints (running their fleets of cars, jetting around the world, private planes, helicopters etc.)