Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Back in the 16th century it could be claimed that most of the 'scientists' believed the world was flat. Who were these 'scientists'? Well they were the authority at the time. You see the proof was overwhelming, huge numbers of treaties had been published to honour this creed. Who could argue when so many distinguished people had 'proved' it'? Look back at that time and many other strange ideas were also in vogue. Right up to when the steam train was invented when one authority claimed that travelling over 30 miles per hour would be damaging to the body. Unfortunately our scientific establishment, with its government grants is little different to the church, which were the authority and the one with all the money at the time. Have fun on your environmental science theology degree.
|
| |
|
|
GLobal Warming is a very useful smokescreen to divert the publics attention from the pressures and strains of Globalisation (rapid inflation and of and competition for energy reserves) and massive social dislocation and re-adjustment. Only by calling it AGW the politicians can both claim massive power for themselves and blame us for the problems.
Incidently, the majority og Global Warming proponets tend to be theoretical scientists and computer model programmers, whilst the scepticla scientist are the feild workers and proxy experts. They report very little long term increase in the troposphere and nothing out of the ordinary in todays climate.
They also point out that modern records began in 1874, which just happened to be the trough of the coldest phase that the climate has had for the last 10,000 years. Thus rapid warming since can hardly be a surprise.
AGW = Smoke, Mirrors, Bad Science and Political Convenience.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
Don't you think identifying the causes of global warming is useful science.
Not really. No. IF man made factors are contributing to climate change - then you already know it. If not - who will believe the findings if you are so convinced? Minds are made up What new solutions do you think they will find? quote: Or is it 'useless' science because what they are saying is what we don't want to hear...
Its useless because it has no usewe know fossil fuels are running out - so the call to use 'less of em' is hardly news is it? How many diseases could be cured, how many advances in electric car technology, how much useful stuff could be discovered by all these numpties jumping on the funding bandwagon. Here's an idea - 1. cancel all future climate change conference (let em video conference - save all those jet trips) 2. use the money saved as an annual PRIZE fund for the best energy efficiency ideas. Offer a first prize of a million quid - how much great garden shed science could we benefit from? There you go - a concrete suggestion that decreases carbon emmissions and guarantees a lot more minds finding SOLUTIONS to problems. You can't want more climate change conferences instead can you? What about all that hot air?  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol:
We know the oil is running out (our greatest challenge)
Thats what the BNP say. I find this brainwashing of blaming humans for the earth "dieing" very annoying. Why is petrol legall? Surely we'd be better off with horse n cart than destruction of the earth? |
| |
|
|
quote: Thats what the BNP say.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.  Morning MrG, still banging the drum for the blacksirts I see. Its a free country. |
| |
|
|
From what I can make out, the BNP is skeptical on man-made global warming. Another conspiracy no doubt.
|
| |
|
|
Probably still looking for evidence that its not the white man's fault.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mark2391:
From what I can make out, the BNP is skeptical on man-made global warming. Another conspiracy no doubt.
GW means the planet is warming up, the BNP agree with that. What is the main cause, its certainly not human CO2, 50% of it lept into the sea over the last 200 years. God is the main contributor to GW. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode: quote: Originally posted by Mark2391:
From what I can make out, the BNP is skeptical on man-made global warming. Another conspiracy no doubt.
GW means the planet is warming up, the BNP agree with that. What is the main cause, its certainly not human CO2, 50% of it lept into the sea over the last 200 years. God is the main contributor to GW.
The standard proof for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is IPCCs third report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis If that's what most scientists agree, then it's good enough for me. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
This is a pretty comprehensive site answering all skeptical views on climate change. Also allows views from readers on the articles. Should answer any question skeptics have out there.
Do you have a link? |
| |
|
|
If the science is strong enough....
Shouldn't we stop looking for problems and use all this money and scientific knowhow to look for SOLUTIONS?
we KNOW the problems
can't we pay people to find ways to manage without fossil fuels?
For a start we should ban climate conferences - let em webcast.
How many million airmiles are chewed up for these things?
I don't want to spend a billion to find out whether the estimated rise is 2 degrees or three degrees over the next hundred years.
What use is that?
I want better lighter batteries so we can get more electric cars like that one built in a lotus chassis.
You know - science - not prophesies of doom.
|
| |
|
|
the crazy thing is that if we all took the idea of being eco-freindly to hand, it would liberate us from the financail slavery we are being sold. community micro power generation and provition of utilities could help to reform once broken communities.
plus the fact that people would be doing it for themselves would mean a massive paradigm shift from the child like acceptance of world events that we have now.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mark2391: The standard proof for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is IPCCs third report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis If that's what most scientists agree, then it's good enough for me.
When will zombies wake up? The IPCC is biased government "scientists", payed up tax funded people who file reports to help government tell us were "bad", and that we have to do what government say so they can charge us massive tax. GET SOME NEUTRAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by the majority of the beast: the crazy thing is that if we all took the idea of being eco-freindly to hand, it would liberate us from the financail slavery we are being sold.
Wouldn't that simply enslave us to the land - only this time without the fertilisers and air ambulances? Financial slavery has its advantages - not dying in a drought springs to mind.... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mistergoode:
The IPCC is biased government "scientists", payed up tax funded people who file reports to help government tell us were "bad", and that we have to do what government say so they can charge us massive tax.
GET SOME NEUTRAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS!!
Can you provide some "neutral scientific reports"? Please note that any report that has been authored by anyone with connections to the oil, nuclear or gas industries are not neutral! |
| |
|
|
read some buckminster fuller, a resource is whatever the mind can conceive. i'm not saying you have to give up your ipod. think about it like this, how much better off would you be if you diddn't have to pay water gas and electricity bills. also considering the hikes in prices recently how much better off do you think you would be in the future...? if we sort this problem ourselves we will be far better off for it. economically, socially, politically and evironmentally.
peace, love, etc.
|
| |
|
|
We know fossil fuels are running out.
Can't we get science doing something more useful that arguing about things that are going to happen naturally anyway?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by the majority of the beast:
read some buckminster fuller, a resource is whatever the mind can conceive. i'm not saying you have to give up your ipod.
progress is what we do. yes it can be tempered with commo sense - but the wasteful society generates huge ammounts of spare resources that can be used for many wonderful things. I will listen to any argument that includes the provision for anyone to collapse in the street and be in the middle of half a million pounds of heart bypass operation within an hour. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raoul Duke 303:
Can you provide some "neutral scientific reports"?
YES! Our God the Sun is evidence enough of the main contributor to climate change. When its cloudy (june and july), it was cold, now theres no clouds its warm to flipping hot again. There, a scientific report on GW. If we have to be taxed on petrol because were destroying the earth, why is it legal at all??? |
| |
|
|
i think we should move towards preventative medicine. it'll reduce the number of people collapsing in the street and save us a few squid.
peace, love, etc.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by the majority of the beast:
i think we should move towards preventative medicine.
it'll reduce the number of people collapsing in the street and save us a few squid.
yes - i agree But just as with GW - prevention is fine - but without a well developed cure, thigs get worse -not better. Personally i want to see more science and progres - not less. |
| |
|
|
we are energetic beings, physical illness is a manifestation of blockages in the energetic body. we should in most cases with proper diet, excerise and education be able to stop illnesses before they get so severre. again, it is down to us. we are now the only checks and balances...
peace, love, etc.
|
| |
|
|
science is great as long as it is free, how many have died because their ideas went against the status quo...?
peace, love, etc.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol:
Personally i want to see more science and progres - not less.
GW appears a done deal with no place for we heretics. That cannot ever be conducive to more or proper science. It's unscientific indeed. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raoul Duke 303:
| |
