# TV doesn't like TiVo ...



## Boo (Mar 3, 2003)

Hi all,

I've been using my TiVo with my old TV for some years now - no problems at all.
Recently my girlfriend moved in & we've switched to her TV - a 28" widescreen Toshiba CRT.
All seems fine as long as the TiVo is switched off. When I turn TiVo on, then after a few minutes the picture reduces to a line at the bottom of the screen. If you turn the TV off at the switch (i.e. not the remote), then on again, the picture is fine for a few more minutes.
We've taken the TV to a repair guy, who replaced something, but the problem is still occurring. So he's going to have another look, but ...

This couldn't be something to do with the TiVo could it?
After all, it's just a SCART output, so I don't see why that would cause a problem.

I know - I'll plug the TiVo SCART into the other socket on the TV.
Failing that, it might be time to get a new TV (TiVo is obviously 1st, 2nd, & 3rd priority)

Any ideas would be gratefully received ...

PS. after 5-7 years of TiVo ownership there still isn't a day goes past that I don't think how fantastic it is...


----------



## BrianHughes (Jan 21, 2001)

This is most likely the teletext bug. Some TVs object to the teletext signals that Tivo sends out. There is a fix. Contact Tivo support and tell them you've changed your TV and now you need version 2.5.5a of the Tivo software. In a day or two you should be upgraded as part of your daily call and then all will work again.


----------



## Boo (Mar 3, 2003)

Excellent - I'll give that a go
Thanks


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Be careful if you have an upgraded drive > 120gb as requesting the upgrade in that case will cause serious problems!


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Boo said:


> All seems fine as long as the TiVo is switched off. When I turn TiVo on, then after a few minutes the picture reduces to a line at the bottom of the screen.


Why would anyone switch the TiVo off? It's designed to run 24/7 with the hard drive recording all the time. Switching it off (presumably you mean unplugging it) could result in a hard drive failure at being switched off when writing to the disc, surely?


----------



## Prat77 (Apr 14, 2007)

dvdfever said:


> Why would anyone switch the TiVo off? It's designed to run 24/7 with the hard drive recording all the time. Switching it off (presumably you mean unplugging it) could result in a hard drive failure at being switched off when writing to the disc, surely?


By "off", I think he means standby. And it's used to release control of the scart socket, and to allow Tivo to tape suggestions immediately.

In addition, powering off Tivo from the plug is something the machine is designed to cope with - it shouldn't cause problems with the file system. Turning disks on and off regularly may shorten their life however - but this is something that happens every days with PCs!


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

Prat77 said:


> By "off", I think he means standby. And it's used to release control of the scart socket, and to allow Tivo to tape suggestions immediately.
> 
> In addition, powering off Tivo from the plug is something the machine is designed to cope with - it shouldn't cause problems with the file system. Turning disks on and off regularly may shorten their life however - but this is something that happens every days with PCs!


Phew! If I turned my TiVo off at the socket each night, I'd expect it to be sprouting trolley wheels and heading off to TiVo HQ to complain that it's not being used to its true purpose 

That's a good point about PCs. I never turn mine off but I know lots of people who do, including one couple who put it on for 5 minutes use, then turn it off again, and so on for whenever they need it. I've tried telling them that's not a good idea, but do they listen?!


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> That's a good point about PCs. I never turn mine off but I know lots of people who do, including one couple who put it on for 5 minutes use, then turn it off again, and so on for whenever they need it. I've tried telling them that's not a good idea, but do they listen?!


 It depends if you think it's a good idea to possibly preserve your hard disk at the expense of burning electricity 24/7. If you use your PC infrequently then turning it off is the environmentally responsible thing to do.

My Dell system uses about 200W running with the monitor and 100W without. I use it for 8 hours a day most week days and turn it off when its not used for more than an hour. I've had one disk failure in about 7 years which died in the first 6 months so probably wasn't 100% to start with and didn't fail on boot either.

If I were to run my PC 24/7 with the monitor off when I was away I'd use 3.2KW each week day and 2.4KW each weekend day = 20.8KW a week compared to the 8KW a week I use.

If you let power save spin down the disk then you might as well turn the whole thing off anyway - it's the same effect. If you think leaving a PC on means you don't need to archive and back up then you are probably going to get a rude awakening one day!


----------



## Boo (Mar 3, 2003)

What I meant by 'switch off' is hit the Standby button on the remote - I don't pull the plug.
Computers & hard disks are pretty resilient so leaving them powered up or powering them down is pretty much fine. I leave mine powered up 24x7 but that's mostly for convenience, overnight backup scripts, etc.

A couple of guys at Google did a study on hard disk life (Google uses [a lot of] standard EIDE/SATA hard disks). What they found is that a few fail pretty quick (basically the duds) & the rest keep going pretty much indefinitely even if you never spin them down. So leaving hard disks powered all the time doesn't reduce their life.

So I guess the conclusion is that the choice is up to you - power down or leave yuor PC going all the time.

As far as the TiVo goes - why power down?!
I called TiVo support as suggested & now have software 2.5.5a. This meant TiVo had to restart to apply the new software - probably the first time it's restarted in 5-7 years.

Now all is fine & the Toshiba TV isn't getting upset - I'm back in TiVo heaven.

re. someone's warning on upgraded drives - I upgraded ages ago to 120GB, so I guess I get away with that one. Still got the original 40GB drive safely tucked away in the back of a drawer, just in case ...

Thanks for the help - it meant I got the TiVo back & running pronto rather than stressing over this whole issue


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

AMc said:


> It depends if you think it's a good idea to possibly preserve your hard disk at the expense of burning electricity 24/7. If you use your PC infrequently then turning it off is the environmentally responsible thing to do.
> 
> My Dell system uses about 200W running with the monitor and 100W without. I use it for 8 hours a day most week days and turn it off when its not used for more than an hour. I've had one disk failure in about 7 years which died in the first 6 months so probably wasn't 100% to start with and didn't fail on boot either.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying leaving a PC on all the time doesn't mean you don't need to back up as I do that anyway, but I use it regularly as it is.

The environment's got nothing to do with it, as any contribution mankind might be able to make when it comes to the world heating up has got nothing on Mother Nature itself, regardless of the nonsense pumped up by the media and the government with all their 'carbon footprint' nonsense that just leads to more stealth taxes.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

You're right global warming is clearly a myth - silly me.
Enjoy your electricity bill anyway.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

AMc said:


> You're right global warming is clearly a myth - silly me.
> Enjoy your electricity bill anyway.


Never said it was a myth, but the world heats up over a 150-year period and cools down over the next 150 years. It's warming up at the moment but it's part of a natural cycle. The planet is not dying, and it does not need saving.

But that isn't the kind of news that the overhysterical government and media circus want to hear, is it(!)


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

That's right, compared to cows, I contribute next to nothing to the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, but that won't stop me from trying    

Don't let cattle win the battle - [email protected] for Britain :up: :up:


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

dvdfever said:


> Never said it was a myth, but the world heats up over a 150-year period and cools down over the next 150 years. It's warming up at the moment but it's part of a natural cycle. The planet is not dying, and it does not need saving.
> 
> But that isn't the kind of news that the overhysterical government and media circus want to hear, is it(!)


That's what we need - informed debate from a leading environmental scientist.

DVDfever.co.uk - the climatologist's favourite website.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

SilkMan said:


> That's what we need - informed debate from a leading environmental scientist.
> 
> DVDfever.co.uk - the climatologist's favourite website.


It's pretty obvious when you think about it. If there really was a problem with the planet, New Labour would've made a fuss far sooner about it, but, now they've realised it's a moneyspinner with the taxes...

Live Earth? Do me a favour. If all those pop stars were really 'environmentally friendly' then they wouldn't have jetted round the world for Live 8, never mind Live Earth.

Climate change? At this point I'd use Paul Calf's catchphrase but the swear-filter would probably asterisk it out


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I have 3 PC's running 24/7 and have never lost a hard drive. The monitors are set to go into stand by after so many minutes of no activity. I just replaced a monitor 6 months ago that had been running 24/7 for 4 years. Only problem I have found with 24/7 is the amount of heat that builds up in the room. But in the winter it helps to heat the room which is on the same thermostat as the bedroom which we keep lower than the other rooms in the house.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

Scientists have been warning governments about the impact of massive increases in carbon dioxide emissions on the global climate since the 70's - ask Al Gre he's quite informed on the subject. The fact that it has taken 30 years to even start to reach the popular consiousness and make it to the global political agenda is not evidence of its insignificance but evidence of its mind blowing importance. It has been politically inconvenient as we need to make major socioeconomic changes now. As politicians live on a 4-5 year life cycle they have been hoping it will happen to the next guy but even they have finally realised that it's happening right now.

All my electricity is renewably sourced (www.good-energy.co.uk) but I don't believe wasting it is a good idea anyway so I turn things off that aren't in use.

dvdfever - that you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not happening - I fully appreciate I'm never going to change your mind but hopefully I can at least offer a counter point to your posts.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Boo said:


> Now all is fine & the Toshiba TV isn't getting upset - I'm back in TiVo heaven.
> 
> re. someone's warning on upgraded drives - I upgraded ages ago to 120GB, so I guess I get away with that one. Still got the original 40GB drive safely tucked away in the back of a drawer, just in case ...


Yep, you will be ok with a 120gb.

I don't know why TiVo don't stick the new kernal (I understand it is already in the US software) into our Uk 2.5.5a??

Has anyone asked them?


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

dvdfever said:


> the world heats up over a 150-year period and cools down over the next 150 years.


You're right, check out this chart that confirms your 300 year cycle (oh wait, no it doesn't):












dvdfever said:


> If there really was a problem with the planet...


If there was a problem then it would show up in something like the antarctic ice core which has recorded the atmospheric conditions in the ice layers (like the rings on a tree) going back hundreds of thousands of years. It shows the CO2 levels and how they've risen and fallen with the numerous ice ages in the last 400,000 years. Check out the red line on this chart. We're now 25% higher than it's been in 400,000 years and that's through 4 ice ages:









The key phrase here is "Tipping Point". You see examples of this concept when you watch racing drivers lapping a track on the limit. Once they go over that tipping point that's too far to be able to counter the oversteer, they spin off in spectacular fashion. It only takes an effort of 0.5% more than you gave on the last lap to go over that point. That's why man's extra contribution to CO2 levels can cause dramatic effects.

I recommend you watch The Inconvenient Truth and take off the blinkers.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> Be careful if you have an upgraded drive > 120gb as requesting the upgrade in that case will cause serious problems!


I've seen this line at the bottom of my Sharp 26" Aquos LCD TV occasionally. My TiVo is never on standby. What I usually do is switch the TV back off and on and it goes away. It's a horizontal bright line at the bottom of the screen and the rest of the screen is black.

Considering that it happens once in every 50 times I turn on the TV, and I have a 250GB drive, I guess it's safer to live with it than get 2.5.5a.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

b166er said:


> You're right, check out this chart that confirms your 300 year cycle (oh wait, no it doesn't):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


eh? The temperature is varying consistently over that timeframe. There's a red line that looks pressed against the right-hand side of the graph which doesn't look real since its too sharp a climb.

Even if it was, are you assuming it's all man's contributions making that effect?



> The key phrase here is "Tipping Point". You see examples of this concept when you watch racing drivers lapping a track on the limit. Once they go over that tipping point that's too far to be able to counter the oversteer, they spin off in spectacular fashion. It only takes an effort of 0.5% more than you gave on the last lap to go over that point. That's why man's extra contribution to CO2 levels can cause dramatic effects.
> 
> I recommend you watch The Inconvenient Truth and take off the blinkers.


I suggest you stop believing what the media what you to believe, otherwise you'll be chucking out everything electrical in your house and living in a cave and if everyone did that then production in the UK would cease and we'd become a third world country.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

dvdfever said:


> There's a red line that looks pressed against the right-hand side of the graph which doesn't look real since its too sharp a climb.


You're not looking at the scale of the graph. Modern man has been in existence for such a short time, that any changes caused by him will appear as a vertical line on a graph to this scale. Pretty damning evidence of the effect of man, if the graph is accurate.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

iankb said:


> You're not looking at the scale of the graph. Modern man has been in existence for such a short time, that any changes caused by him will appear as a vertical line on a graph to this scale. Pretty damning evidence of the effect of man, if the graph is accurate.


If the graph is accurate, then the temperature variation isn't varying any differently than before. If it was proportionally higher than the CO2 has been beforehand, presuming there is the direct correlation, then we would be seeing it higher than the CO2 on the graph and the politicians wouldn't be telling us to 'act on CO2' like the dumb advert voiced by Kev from Shameless says, and how there's only "five years to save the planet", they'd be telling us to bend over and kiss our butts goodbye because the race is lost and outside the world has heated up beyond all recognition...

...except it hasn't. It's actually been rather nippy today when I've been out. Fancy.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

dvdfever said:


> If the graph is accurate, then the temperature variation isn't varying any differently than before.


Actually, from this graph, neither of us has any idea what the temperature variation was during the last (and most-significant) plot, since the red line overlays the blue line, and the temperate variation could be anywhere between -3 and +3.

However, what this graph does show is a statistical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature variation. So, if the CO2 has gone up, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the temperature variation to go up as well. It might even be that there is a slight lag between the cause and effect and, in the scale of this graph, this might cause the effect to apply for many future generations.

I find your objections to the proposed evidence to be remarkably unscientific, and worthy of the 'let-me-disagree-without-thinking-and-then-somehow-try-and-win-the-argument' type of discussion that one gets down the pub after people have had a few pints. By all means provide some contradictory evidence, but there is no point in countering scientific evidence of something that occurs over hundreds of years with today's weather.

Global-warming does not necessarily mean that every part of the planet is going to get warmer weather. Western-Europe gets much-warmer weather than places in the Americas on the same latitude because of the effects of the Gulf Stream. If the melting of the ice caps were to deflect the Gulf Stream farther south, we could actually get colder weather. Unfortunately, the global effects would far outweigh any localised effects; especially if the melting of the ice caps were to reduce the UK's land mass.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

I may have countered the graphs more with my own personal reaction than anything else, but even if any of what I say is regarded by some as claptrap, it's nothing compared to the mad images I see on TV with the likes of Ariel telling me to wash my clothes at 30 degrees because it'll make the polar bears happy as it'll make all the temperature gauges on the ice turn down.

And if the politicians really think they've got a problem that can be solved, then find a way to do it without it automatically being a way that's going to financially cripple the electorate yet again.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Erm, turning down the temperature of your wash doesn't financially cripple you. It does the opposite 

It aint that hard to reduce the power consumption in your home, though, if you put your mind to it, without reducing your quality of life or spending a fortune. We've cut ours by about 30% in one year. That doesn't financially ruin us, either; it does quite the opposite.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

The graph of the last 400000 years, shows a incline over the last 20,000 years, am I being silly, but what was causing the CO2 levels 10,000 years ago, cows wind??

Also the CO2 levels rose like mad about 4 times in the last 400000 years??. I assume the chimps had all left the lights on and air conditioners on?
The CO2 levels naturally rise, mans addition is so minimum so I feel saving a little fuel, or turning down the washing temperature will make no difference..

I assume that the trees and plants turn CO2 into O2 which is great, just turn the heating up and plant a tree.

Don't get me wrong, I am not just using energy and creating CO2 for the sake of it, and I will do anything I can to try and decrease CO2. I rarly have my heating on, drive a eco(ish) car. Hate driving for the sake of it... I could go on and on, but I don't feel we have much or any say in this??


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

Crikey, that's depressing.


----------



## Mark Bennett (Sep 17, 2001)

Try consulting some Astronomy papers...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121
and similar - oh look - the Earth gets cooler and hotter every 100,000 years or so...


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

On the Live Earth concert (which was worth watching even if you didn't agree with the message) someone said something that was really worth taking away.

I can't be bothered to scan through about 22 hours of TiVo recording to find it, but the upshot of it was ... "what's the worst that can happen by lowering your energy usage at home and when travelling - you save a bunch of money"


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

Mark Bennett said:


> Try consulting some Astronomy papers...
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121
> and similar - oh look - the Earth gets cooler and hotter every 100,000 years or so...


The earth does get hotter and colder every 100,000 years ago - you can look at the graphs above to see that. It is also highly likely that we will have another ice age in the Northern hemisphere in the next 10,000 years.

The big difference about the current situation is the rate of change over 10, 50, 100 years, not 10,000. What we are witnessing at the moment is accepted as due to human activity by nearly every scientific society in the Western world, apart from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - surprise, surprise.

What is so depressing is the number of people who seem to think it is all some sort of conspiracy designed to personally make their life a misery, simply because they can't be ars3d to turn the temperature down a degree or two, or put a light out when they're not in the room. Maybe arguing about the facts stops them feeling guilty about their current lifestyle, I don't know, but I can't see the harm in at least trying to reduce the energy we use.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 28, 2005)

SilkMan said:


> It is also highly likely that we will have another ice age in the Northern hemisphere in the next 10,000 years.


So if global warming is going to melt the polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise, causing mass flooding, but the coming ice age will freeze the polar ice caps and presumably cause sea levels to fall, the net effect should be equilibrium. 
So if we carry on doing nothing, everything will be alright.    :up:


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Hell, this is so off-topic I may as well join in...

I worked at Friends of the Earth between 1990 and 1999.

During that time, I had access to lots of interesting publications
(Civil Engineering Magazine, anyone?), and research.

The case for climate change due to global warming caused by human activity had a consensus amongst scientists by the end of the 1980's.

During the 1990's, American oil companies sought out and funded the few scientists who took the opposing view; they then promoted this opposing viewpoint to try and cast doubt on the case for climate change.

In 2000, two Big Oil men, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, took over at the White House.

Some time later, a White House official *altered policy papers on climate change* to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

I guess what I saying is that, if people are less certain about climate change than they were a decade ago (and I think they are), it's because of a concerted campaign by American oil companies protecting their interests and not because of any new evidence.



dvdfever said:


> It's actually been rather nippy today when I've been out.


And do you expect to be rather nippy in July? 

The clue's in the name: Climate Change.


dvdfever said:


> The planet is not dying, and it does not need saving.


I agree.

The planet is becoming more unpleasant, unsafe and uninhabitable for humans, but The Earth would cope without us just fine.

Even if you dismiss the floods in Hull, Sheffield and other parts of Yorkshire as freak events, take a look at *Australia, which is enduring a terrible drought* that will push up the cost of grain world-wide.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

ericd121 said:


> And do you expect to be rather nippy in July?
> 
> The clue's in the name: Climate Change.I agree.


It's not that, it's that all the media and politicians were telling me the world was heating up and that we'd have another heatwave summer, etc.

Not from where I'm sitting at the moment.

Seems more like Climate Change As Often As A Woman Changes Her Mind 

(dodges rotten fruit) Thankyou. I'm here all week...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Well I must congratulate everybody on undoubtedly the most completely Off Topic discussion that I have ever seen in a Tivo thread, even though it is a jolly interesting subject.

The rise in carbon dioxide graphs prove nothing as we know the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going up but what we don't know is what this may do to temperatures or the climate pattern (if anything). Those who believe carbon dioxide rise is bad have already assumed the problem exists and are merely looking for confirmation of their prejudices rather than looking for evidence that other adverse symptoms are developing.

There is no doubt that it is now politically correct to believe in climate change. For instance we have a few days heavy summer rain flooding a mere few thousand homes and the government suggests its all the fault of climate change and not its bad strategic planning.

Coming back to the thread if ozsat could spilt off the climate change bit and put it in UK General Chit Chat I'm sure it would be appreciated by all. As I didn't start the Off Topicness no doubt calls for a public hanging over the matter will be suitably muted..........


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Pete77 said:


> Well I must congratulate everybody on undoubtedly the most completely Off Topic discussion that I have ever seen in a Tivo thread, even though it is a jolly interesting subject................
> 
> ............Coming back to the thread if ozsat could spilt off the climate change bit and put it in UK General Chit Chat I'm sure it would be appreciated by all. As I didn't start the Off Topicness no doubt calls for a public hanging over the matter will be suitably muted..........


Kettle

Black

Pot

Calling

..........Rearrange as you see fit.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Well I must congratulate everybody on undoubtedly the most completely Off Topic discussion that I have ever seen in a Tivo thread, even though it is a jolly interesting subject.






> The rise in carbon dioxide graphs prove nothing as we know the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going up but what we don't know is what this may do to temperatures or the climate pattern (if anything).


Actually we do know what it will do to temperatures, as that's just basic physics. Climate patterns are unpredictable, sure.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Actually we do know what it will do to temperatures, as that's just basic physics. Climate patterns are unpredictable, sure.


Actually there does seem to be a dispute about the science though.

The politically correct mob claim that everything will heat up and hell and damnation will ensue but the scientists who are being silenced by the media maintain that extra carbon will simply encourage more plant growth which will compensate.

Don't forget that most of Greenland was inhabitable and not covered in ice when it was first colonised in the middle ages (1400 or 1500). So the idea that it has always been colder in the past everwhere just isn't true.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> ... extra carbon will simply encourage more plant growth which will compensate.


It would have great difficulty compensating for the immense amount of the rain forest that Man has destroyed, let alone increase growth beyond that.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

iankb said:


> It would have great difficulty compensating for the immense amount of the rain forest that Man has destroyed, let alone increase growth beyond that.


The big problem is the now 6 billion size of the world's population and the capitalist consumerist model spreading to the rest of the globe.

Given the above the rest of the process such as the destruction of the rain forest and the emission of more greenhouse gases is really almost inevitable.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> The politically correct mob claim that everything will heat up and hell and damnation will ensue


I've yet to hear a credible scientist who claims "everything will heat up". Credible scientists are claiming climate *change*, not global warming; the latter was an oversimplification of the science in the 80s and 90s. As more is known it's realised that it was dramatically over simplistic.


> but the scientists who are being silenced by the media maintain that extra carbon will simply encourage more plant growth which will compensate.


Difficult, as has been said, with the amount of concrete that's been poured over the possible planes.


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

dvdfever said:


> It's not that, it's that all the media and politicians were telling me the world was heating up


It is.


> and that we'd have another heatwave summer, etc.


We will (just not this year).


> Seems more like Climate Change As Often As A Woman Changes Her Mind


Well, it's actually Climate Change To A More Extreme Weather Pattern.

More CO2 = More heat = More energy in the atmosphere = More chaotic climate = More Weather Extremes (i.e. Floods and Heatwaves).


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

I think you will find the climate of the earth was a lot more extreme a couple of billion years ago with volcanoes going off all over the shop and the single continent Pangea splitting up rapidly and all that stuff. But no humans then to be affected by it.

The real issue is that mankind now lives in cities either on the coast or on major rivers (by and large) that are inherently the first places to suffer any minor impact of climate change and changed water levels. And then we expect to behave like King Canute and keep water levels just where they have always been, whereas the whole history of the world shows this just doesn't happen.

The big problem is 6 billion people in the world and the fact that this is unsustainable. Global warming and all the rest of it then merely follows.

As it isn't acceptable to talk about culling humans all we can hope for is to ensure that all our third world neighbours get their unsustainable birth rates (which are resulting in huge population growth rates in their nations for all the reports of AIDS and famine that we hear) under control before it is too late. And in the long run they ought to have a 1 child per head family policy like China for at least a couple of generations to get things back under control.

Increased carbon emissions is only a symptom of the problem. The big problem is far too many humans in the world to be sustainable.


----------



## Lysander (Sep 18, 2003)

Are these experts who, after 30 years of the world getting hotter are claiming we are heading down the path of destruction and woe the same experts that in the 1970s told us we were heading for an ice age, because it was getting progressively colder for the preceding 40 years?

May as well put a "World is ending" sandwich board round their necks.

I am all for energy efficiency. Anything that saves me money each month on my gas and electricity bills. But come on, if I pay green taxes to this government, will it save the planet - or just replace the revenue from the North Sea oil fields which the government has milked over the past 40 years and is now drying up?


----------



## ericd121 (Dec 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I think you will find the climate of the earth was a lot more extreme a couple of billion years ago with volcanoes going off all over the shop and the single continent Pangea splitting up rapidly and all that stuff. But no humans then to be affected by it.


So what? When you were 6 months old, you could barely walk and talk.

Hey, look; I made a pointless observation. 

Oh, and congratulations, Pete; you've managed to make an off-off-topic remark! 


> The real issue is that mankind now lives in cities either on the coast or on major rivers (by and large) that are inherently the first places to suffer any minor impact of climate change and changed water levels. And then we expect to behave like King Canute and keep water levels just where they have always been, whereas the whole history of the world shows this just doesn't happen.


That is an issue; it's not the only one.


> The big problem is 6 billion people in the world and the fact that this is unsustainable. Global warming and all the rest of it then merely follows.


I agree.


> As it isn't acceptable to talk about culling humans all we can hope for is to ensure that all our third world neighbours get their unsustainable birth rates (which are resulting in huge population growth rates in their nations for all the reports of AIDS and famine that we hear) under control before it is too late. And in the long run they ought to have a 1 child per head family policy like China for at least a couple of generations to get things back under control.


Alternatively, the developed nations could massively invest in sustainable technologies, making them so cheap that they could be sold at cost, or donated, to developing countries so that those countries would have less need for older, unsustainable technologies.


> Increased carbon emissions is only a symptom of the problem. The big problem is far too many humans in the world to be sustainable.


The big problem is that the culture that has won out globally is not used to husbanding its resources; if this could be changed, the population problem becomes less pressing.


----------



## dvdfever (Jun 2, 2002)

ericd121 said:


> The big problem is that the culture that has won out globally is not used to husbanding its resources; if this could be changed, the population problem becomes less pressing.


Sadly, modernising the drainage systems in a lot of places would've been a good use of resources.


----------

