The Student Room Logo
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
This thread is closed

Cambridge Chat (previously New Cambridge Students Entry 2004)

Scroll to see replies

Did anyone see that story that trees worsen global warming?

Just shows - we have NO idea how our planet works. Why are we therefore trying to control it?

And notyourpunk - I know Conservatives, I have worked with Conservatives, and you, sir, are no Conservative. :wink:
I have heard about that research, that cannot be compared to climate change where there are hundreds if not thousnads of researchers who state that climate change is a danger. Using your logic here the ones we have to be careful of are the ones who say climate change is not a danger and come up with groundbreaking research to say why. This is becuase there are so few of them that their research cannot necessarily be correlated and corroborated, which was the case with the South Korean DNA researcher. He was a 'pioneer/leader' in the field which is why he got away with it. Inciidentally did you know a number of Bush adminstration officials got caught changing the wordings of scientific reports in a congressional report so that taken in that context they said that climate change was not a danger when the original research actuallly indicated otherwise.

On your points b,c, and d
a) children also get taught that pluto is the 9th planet. There is far less certainty amongst astronomists as to whether it is a planet than there is amongst environmentalists that there is climate change. Children get taught that all races are the same and we shouldn't be racist when there is some evidence that black people have lower IQs than white people. These are some of the areas where children are taught in an 'ideological manner' when there is no conclusive evidence one way or another. (NB I disagree with the evidence that suggests black people are not as clever as white people but there we go). At the end of the day the accepted scientific view is that climate change is happening. If 99% of scientists said it wasn't happening then it wuldn't get taught. And you kind of have to spell things out to a kid. The Pluto example a good example of this

b) well when there are indications that events such as Katrina, rising sea levels that are flooding many pacific islands, destruction of coral reefs, how more environmental protection of mangrove swamps could have saved thousands of lives during the south east asian tsunami

c) thats complete crap, apart from environment in the most local sense of 'do not litter, pick up dog poo' there is very little social pressure to foce people to do other things. Recycling is encouraged but when was the last time you felt bad for not recycling as much as your neighbours. As for being fashionable, enviromental concerns came something like 7th in most opinion polls as to what was the most important issue during the election (crime, health, pensions, the EU etc etc are more important to most voters). That hardly makes it a fashionable thing.

d) Can you give me an example of a company with that, as I haven't heard of it. When I see some more information i can answer this point
out of interest, are you allowed to be an environmentalist and drive a car?
musicbloke
Surely localisation is antithetical to free market economics.

MB

Its actually more of a problem for centralised bureaucratic systems often provided for by left wing options. And it isn't quite localisation in the sense I think you mean it.
A free market economist would have no problem with say wind farms and H.E.P. in scotland, while in london you might want biomass and solar panels.
Our centralised national grid at the moment is incredibly inefficient at getting energy from one point to another without losing tonnes. Localised power sources are actually cheaper in the long run, and also makes us less of a target for terrorist attacks. I don't see what a free market economist would say is the problem with this (unless obviously they don't believe in global warming) - i dare say they would come up with less issues than a one size fits all centralised economy would do

--------------

Niccolo
out of interest, are you allowed to be an environmentalist and drive a car?

personally I don't drive and I try not to fly at all, haven't for quite a while now. But yes you can, Zac Goldsmith owns a care, so do both green members of the london assembly.
i think with environmentalism you have to make the distinction between those who believe that economic growth and environmental protection can go hand in hand (ie through waste reduction, reduced energy usage, increased health) and those who believe that to save the planet means we need to take a step back in our material wealth levels. I fall into the first camp, some environmentalists would disagree
Reply 20544
Avatar for Willa
Willa
11
Camford
Group project. I mean, you can technically do everything in these 3 years on pwf. But, having a computer of your own when you are do group project gives you more flexibility on the tools you can use. I don't know how often pwf does software updates. Last time I checked, it's still using eclipse 3.0 which doesn't support java 5.

as for what I can no long do on pwf... play any games.


but eclipse 4 is just an unstable mess when i tried it (well it didnt agree with the environment which we were developing in for my job anyway).

but point taken.
definenew
Did anyone see that story that trees worsen global warming?

Just shows - we have NO idea how our planet works. Why are we therefore trying to control it?

And notyourpunk - I know Conservatives, I have worked with Conservatives, and you, sir, are no Conservative. :wink:

I think saying we have no idea is a complete complete overgeneralisation. I don't doubt there is much to be refined or even started agian. I also think that possibly 30 years down the line or whatever we might laugh at how silly we all were. But then in 30 years time if it is happening (and its not a big if) and its too late to do much about it might be somewhat cold comfort to say well we weren't sure at the time. We have to go on the precautionary principle on this one I believe
As much as a joke the Green Party is, Darren Johnson is a bloody good bloke (he's a councillor in my borough - Lewisham).

Just thought I'd add that...

*gets coat*
notyourpunk
I think saying we have no idea is a complete complete overgeneralisation. I don't doubt there is much to be refined or even started agian. I also think that possibly 30 years down the line or whatever we might laugh at how silly we all were. But then in 30 years time if it is happening (and its not a big if) and its too late to do much about it might be somewhat cold comfort to say well we weren't sure at the time. We have to go on the precautionary principle on this one I believe


So we have to go on the precautionary principle because you and a bunch of other tree huggers say so?

One minute environmentalists are telling us to plant trees because doing so cuts global warming. The next minute we're told plants cause global warming. So what do we do now, cut them down or plant some more?

Because as far as I can see, we were planting trees to combat global warming, and now we find out that we've been (inadvertantly) causing more global warming. So, by acting on the "precautionary principle", Greg, we've ******ed up the planet even more.

But as long as you feel better I guess that's okay.
Willa
but eclipse 4 is just an unstable mess when i tried it (well it didnt agree with the environment which we were developing in for my job anyway).

but point taken.
I'm still using 3.1. I'm sure eclipse 4 doesn't exist... latest milestone release is 3.2M4.

I'm currently spending time playing with IntelliJ IDEA... It's smaller than Eclipse... but I don't like its auto-complete features. It should be better than Eclipse, the price tag says so...
Reply 20549
Avatar for Gael
Gael
8
**noooni**
Your name is Greg?!
I dont know why i always thought you were a girl.... :eek:


me too. lol.
Reply 20550
Avatar for Willa
Willa
11
Camford
I'm still using 3.1. I'm sure eclipse 4 doesn't exist... latest milestone release is 3.2M4.

I'm currently spending time playing with IntelliJ IDEA... It's smaller than Eclipse... but I don't like its auto-complete features. It should be better than Eclipse, the price tag says so...


you're right, i meant 3.1 (i use 3.0.2)
3.1 is ok, but easily eats up 130mb of memory... that's more than Halo...
I think I'm giving myself a caffeine headache and term hasn't even started.

My coffee machine is in storage in friend's room who has conveniently decided to go home. I'm definitely overcompensating with the Pro Plus...
Reply 20553
Avatar for apd35
apd35
9
where did you get it from? I couldn't find it Sainsbury's
Reply 20554
Avatar for N9ne
N9ne
7
drsmeeth
me too. lol.


Count me in on that too :redface:
apd35
where did you get it from? I couldn't find it Sainsbury's


Left over from the 96 pack I bought last term :wink:
When are you going to Hall btw?
Reply 20557
Avatar for apd35
apd35
9
Now
The problem is, the market is never going to gravitate towards sustainability on its own. Halting climate change is going to require a smaller world economy overall - far less consumption of resources, as well as a major reduction in efficiency to avoid environmental side-effects of production. The market won't do it - regulation is the only way. Probably regulation to an extent far beyond what would ever be politically and socially viable as well.
definenew
So we have to go on the precautionary principle because you and a bunch of other tree huggers say so?

One minute environmentalists are telling us to plant trees because doing so cuts global warming. The next minute we're told plants cause global warming. So what do we do now, cut them down or plant some more?

Because as far as I can see, we were planting trees to combat global warming, and now we find out that we've been (inadvertantly) causing more global warming. So, by acting on the "precautionary principle", Greg, we've ******ed up the planet even more.

But as long as you feel better I guess that's okay.

Yes because this whole saving the planet thing is just about giving me something to do. Again, paraphrasing Zac Goldmsith, if I didn't think the planet needed saving or couldn't be then I would be having a great tme.


OK a few things about the trees article:
First, you go we know nothing about the environment and now you choose to accuse me and environmentalists of ****ing it up more. You can't have it both ways. Either you don't completely agree with your statement that we know nothing about the environment or you do? Which is it? And if you don't believe we know anything then your argument from above doesn't stand.

Also its not just me and a bunch of other tree huggers, the government's chief scientist believes that global warming is the biggest threat facing us, more so than terrorism. If we look at the new scientist http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change almost all the articles talk about the threat of climate change. these are not treehuggers, these are scientists doing emperical research.

Also even if trees are causing the emittence of methane there is a cost benefit analysis needed to see how many trees are needed. By increasing forestation levels to previous rates (which incidentally also has benefits such as reduction of flooding, increasing biodiversity etc etc which the article doesn't mention) we can suck up more CO2 than at present but trees are not the be all answer here. We need to reduce our own emissions of certain gases (which incidentally include methane, if we did not produce so much then this would not be an issue in the first place)
2nd as the article points out, there is plenty of evidence for global warming. If you had asked me before the article then I would have been able to tell you trees are only part of the equation because eventually they release their CO2 and as I mentioned above we need to do other things to protect the planet.

I fully accept that we don't know everything and might on occassion do more harm than good and there are phenomena that need more investigating, ie global dimming. But just out of interest what more information do you need than the chief scientist saying its the biggest challenge that faces us, the vast majority of climatologists saying it is a major problem, government workgroups saying we have 10 years to save the planet? What would convince you that this is an issue?

Related discussions

Trending

Latest