Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints:
If I could take action that might make the storm less destructive then that's what I'd do, but then I would need to understand the storm and what had caused it.
'Fiddling while rome burns' seems to be the apposite cliche. We KNOW the earth is heating up from naturally and man made factors (though we don't know who is doing what) We KNOW the fossil resources are running out. So why not use some of these politically assignable research billions into something USEFUL? Eg, better batteries, more efficent AC units, wind and wave tech, biofuels... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by legjoints:
If I could take action that might make the storm less destructive then that's what I'd do, but then I would need to understand the storm and what had caused it.
quote:
'Fiddling while rome burns' seems to be the apposite cliche.
Yes, for the action that we as a society are currently taking and the action that our government appears to be taking. Looking at the Department of Environment website it seems their main initiative has been to set up an online carbon footprint calculator. (Meanwhile they're expanding airports and runways and passenger numbers are set to double by 2030.) quote:
We KNOW the earth is heating up from naturally and man made factors (though we don't know who is doing what)
Man made factors: our excessive emissions of greenhouse gases. By reducing these we can reduce the severity of the storm. quote:
We KNOW the fossil resources are running out.
Yet another reason to cut back on our burning of them. quote:
So why not use some of these politically assignable research billions into something USEFUL?
Eg, better batteries, more efficent AC units, wind and wave tech, biofuels...
I totally agree we need to switch to renewable and non-polluting forms of energy, and funding for research into the things you mention needs to be increased, though as you suggest we need to act quickly and even with sizeable budgets new technologies tend to take time to be developed and to become efficient. I used to be against nuclear power but was recently persuaded by reading James "Gaia" Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia" in which he argues that we need to build a new generation of nuclear power stations since that's the only way we're going to be able to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels quickly enough. Wind, wave, solar and fusion may be there in the next 20 - 40 years, but right now those technologies aren't ready. Regarding the research "billions" being spent on climate change research, this article from last December suggests the Met Office is having its research funding slashed. I don't know what the actual spending figures are, but I think research into our world and how it works is always worth doing. For instance, without the work done on electromagnetism by Maxwell in the 19th century, which at the time had no immediate practical use, we wouldn't have errrr... pretty much all of modern technology. Pure research and research into new techologies go hand in hand. If you need to get extra funding from somewhere, get them to scrap the airport expansion programme and divert the funds from that into your research. I reckon that would give you a lot more money than if you were to take it from climate change researchers. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
AGW is yet another scam in the age of scams that so obviously following the agenda of fear mongering on a global scale (the war of terror is the other major one).
Think of our childrens future they cry,when we know they don't give a stuff about them.
All you need to do is look up at the sky and observe all those trails of pollution left by jet aircraft everyday,most do not dissipate over a few minutes but linger,spread out and merge with the cloud cover.
These are not contrails of mostly water vapour,
these are chemicals sprayed into the air above us and are known as Chem Trails AKA Chemical trails.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon as they are occuring over most of the planet,and are seen in sattelite images.
Google 'Chemtrails' and observe.
..Google Video and Youtube are excellent sources too. It a very late post last night,some may have missed it. I noticed Bio was quick with his tfh dismissal  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde: quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
AGW is yet another scam in the age of scams that so obviously following the agenda of fear mongering on a global scale (the war of terror is the other major one).
Think of our childrens future they cry,when we know they don't give a stuff about them.
All you need to do is look up at the sky and observe all those trails of pollution left by jet aircraft everyday,most do not dissipate over a few minutes but linger,spread out and merge with the cloud cover.
These are not contrails of mostly water vapour,
these are chemicals sprayed into the air above us and are known as Chem Trails AKA Chemical trails.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon as they are occuring over most of the planet,and are seen in sattelite images.
Google 'Chemtrails' and observe.
..Google Video and Youtube are excellent sources too. It a very late post last night,some may have missed it. I noticed Bio was quick with his tfh dismissal
I did as you suggest, thinking perhaps you were making a serious point about emissions from the avaition industry, but I reached a Wikipedia page talking about the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I haven't looked on the video sites because I find them to be a haven of conspiracy theory nutters. Sometimes it can be quite entertaining, but ultimately it's a distraction from what's really happening which is actually very serious. It sounds like you also believe global warming is a conspiracy, and yet you've not presented any evidence as to why. Is it just because it's more entertaining to believe that the world is filled with conspiracies which only you enlightened few are wise to, thus making you feel superior to the rest of us whom you class as dupes? |
| |
|
|
Thing is - while the focus is on problems - noone is being given money for solutions.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde: I noticed Bio was quick with his tfh dismissal
I was quick to find wiki.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bacchus:
Wouldn't it be better to improve public transport before forcing people out of their cars?
Who said anything about forcing people out of their cars? I think it would be good to improve public transport, and to make it cheaper. It's crazy that taking the train from London to Edinburgh can cost more than driving or flying. With buses in London though, they would run a lot more quickly if there weren't so many cars on the road, particularly cars parked in or driving in bus lanes. ANd then you hear parents saying they would let there kids walk or cycle to school but the roads are so dangerous now with so much traffic, so they drive them to school. You need to break the vicious circle and make walking, cycling and public transport more attractive than driving. How do you do it? Perhaps increasing road tax, particularly on fuel inefficient cars, and increasing tax on petrol, and using the revenue to improve and subsidize public transport and cycling. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron:
Maybe because you stuck a link with it. Don't be too suprised if C4 remove it. I got banned for posting a link because I broke policy.
Saw the above documentary. It is very well presented and factual and puts together a good case for 'non human' factor. Though the evidence in it is very compelling, it still falls short, because it doesn't seem to put forward whether there is climate change or not.
On one hand, the programme presents a good case no warming nor sea level rise, yet also says the warming is part of a cycle of moving from the end of our cooling period and moving into a warming period.
Good programme, but lacking a central message and leaves the viewer asking whether the skeptics believe the globe is heating or not? And if the globe is heating, what is non-human factor causing it?
My personal opinion is that it will just keep on going up and down. Freak weather is the norm. We had it in 1976 with a seriously hot summer. During the same time I remember in the 70s playing in my garden with over a foot of snow as the norm in winter, and now we don't get any snow. We had freak gales at the end of the 80s and freak flooding this year with double the average rainfall consistently for three months. Next it will be something else. Maybe some giant hailstones or something like that. It's what makes life interesting and people's reaction is that of pussies and control freaks. You simply cannot do anything about the weather. There is no ministry of weather you can complain to, this global warming stuff is as much as a psychological problem as anything else. The desire to control something that cannot be controlled. Also it is a confusion over scale. (If I leave my tap on will it add to the problems of flooding!) |
| |
|
|
and in the meantime - where is the real, practical science on telly?
Remember 'the great egg race'?
Tomorrows world?
Heck - even robot wars got the lights of shed brittania burning bright with ingenuity.
|
| |
|
|
A friend of mine ran this technology company. They invented these robots with artificial intelligence that vacuumed your floor. They learnt where all the furniture was and on Tomorrows World they demonstrated it cleaning their carpet. On the same programme the Japanese rival robot demonstrated it could crack the top off a hard-boiled egg and the entire egg was obliterated by it!
Do you want to know where they are now? Well the robotics section ended up making a few for educational establishments and then closed. They make their money by designing government websites. That is what has happened to your superior British technology. Designing spam.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.:
My personal opinion is that it will just keep on going up and down.
That's not the opinion of most scientists, who base their opinions on evidence. What is your opinion based on? quote: Freak weather is the norm. We had it in 1976 with a seriously hot summer. 1976 was a warm summer in Britain, but 2006 was Britain's warmest year. Of the top ten warmest years in Britain, 9 of them fall within the last 18 years (the sole exception is 1949) - see Met Office: Warmest years in Britain When you look at the global data the trend, due to the larger sample size, is even more striking. The climate is clearly warming, and as a result incidents of extreme weather have increased. Freak weather used to be freak weather, now freak weather is becoming the norm. [QUOTE] During the same time I remember in the 70s playing in my garden with over a foot of snow as the norm in winter, and now we don't get any snow.
I have similar memories, and each winter the school would be closed for at least a couple of days because the heating pipes had frozen, or because the snow was so thick that no one could get to school. I used to wonder whether it was my memory playing tricks on me, that I was just remembering the few days when there was snow and forgetting all those days when there wasn't. But I think you're right, there is definitely less snow in winter now. |
| |
|
|
Its not as if we won't see snow again - the one thing about the global temp graphs is that they are always changing.
|
| |
|
|
Likewise I remember much colder winters in the Seventies.
SO question, if we started getting them again, would this be presented as a return to normal or as more freak weather?
|
| |
|
|
Probsbly - don't care.
What i want to know is who is developing the high capacity battery i need to convert the capri to leccy power.
Its not climate scientissts on their gravy train.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints: quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde: quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
AGW is yet another scam in the age of scams that so obviously following the agenda of fear mongering on a global scale (the war of terror is the other major one).
Think of our childrens future they cry,when we know they don't give a stuff about them.
All you need to do is look up at the sky and observe all those trails of pollution left by jet aircraft everyday,most do not dissipate over a few minutes but linger,spread out and merge with the cloud cover.
These are not contrails of mostly water vapour,
these are chemicals sprayed into the air above us and are known as Chem Trails AKA Chemical trails.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon as they are occuring over most of the planet,and are seen in sattelite images.
Google 'Chemtrails' and observe.
..Google Video and Youtube are excellent sources too. It a very late post last night,some may have missed it. I noticed Bio was quick with his tfh dismissal
I did as you suggest, thinking perhaps you were making a serious point about emissions from the avaition industry, but I reached a Wikipedia page talking about the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I haven't looked on the video sites because I find them to be a haven of conspiracy theory nutters. Sometimes it can be quite entertaining, but ultimately it's a distraction from what's really happening which is actually very serious. It sounds like you also believe global warming is a conspiracy, and yet you've not presented any evidence as to why. Is it just because it's more entertaining to believe that the world is filled with conspiracies which only you enlightened few are wise to, thus making you feel superior to the rest of us whom you class as dupes?
Er..no you didn't go to Google. What's with you guys and Wikipedia there other search engines you know! As a reply I'll just say, I so wish you are right,BUT evidence to the contrary from multiple sources is more convincing than the Official Conspiracy Theories, be it about AGW, 9/11 or the war of terror BS. Hi Bio,I guess if I weren't already I'm on your "inform me when this member posts" list! Do you get a bonus when you get controversial threads deleted?   |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
BUT evidence to the contrary from multiple sources is more convincing than the Official Conspiracy Theories, be it about AGW, 9/11 or the war of terror BS.
Can ypu give me a keyword for a site with evidence - eg analysis of samples of fuel, list of flights that can be traced etc. Ther's a lot of nutcase stuff about, implicating disney etc. quote: Hi Bio,I guess if I weren't already I'm on your "inform me when this member posts" list!
Can you do that? can't say's i do much stalking quote: Do you get a bonus when you get controversial threads deleted?
I hate it when threads get removed. Especially the funny conspiracy ones |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol:
Probsbly - don't care.
What i want to know is who is developing the high capacity battery i need to convert the capri to leccy power.
Its not climate scientissts on their gravy train.
If you are not already aware of it, there is a documentary called "The End of Suburbia" that I think you will find very interesting. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
BUT evidence to the contrary from multiple sources is more convincing than the Official Conspiracy Theories, be it about AGW, 9/11 or the war of terror BS.
Can ypu give me a keyword for a site with evidence - eg analysis of samples of fuel, list of flights that can be traced etc. Ther's a lot of nutcase stuff about, implicating disney etc. quote: Hi Bio,I guess if I weren't already I'm on your "inform me when this member posts" list!
Can you do that? can't say's i do much stalking quote: Do you get a bonus when you get controversial threads deleted?
I hate it when threads get removed. Especially the funny conspiracy ones
Yeah know what you mean,like when you go to work tomorrow don't look up or you might find something streaking across the sky leaving quite a lot of residue behind. Don't worry though,you can just chuckle to yourself and call it a tin foil hat illusion. Thanks for that Sampanviking I'll be sure to check it out on Google and not Wikipedia cos if it's controversial and they don't want too many to know about it,it will most definately not be on there. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Greying Blonde:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by legjoints:
Er..no you didn't go to Google.
What's with you guys and Wikipedia there other search engines you know!
I did go to Google, entered "chemtrails", and a link to the Wikipedia conspiracy theory page is at the top. But then almost whatever you search for a link to a Wikipedia page appears within the top 5 (must be a conspiracy in there). So what is your theory about climate change? Why are all these scientists and governments saying it's happening and that we are the main cause of it? |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I just Googled 'climate change' I know what all the others are saying,but disturbingly it took 7 pages to get to this article,thus is the power of the AGW industry when politically driven: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.eceAn experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. Background ‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’ No excuse for soft climate change laws Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob Related Internet Links New Scientist on Climate Change So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, an | |
