J9withdogs Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The Met Office have issued a plea to the media to stop misleading the public regarding climate change. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html Just who do we believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 J9withdogs - 2009-02-22 4:57 PM The Met Office have issued a plea to the media to stop misleading the public regarding climate change. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html Just who do we believe? The media is always quick to jump on any passing bandwagon so it's best to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt. Best to watch documentaries / discussions involving a number of scientists with differing views, and then draw your own conclusions. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I'd be inclined to believe Dr Vicki Pope, she seems a nice, sensible girl. Who would prefer to believe, the Daily Mail? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I have listened to this lady on the radio a few times now and she always delivers a steady, strong argument that is based on the facts that she has before her. I would like to believe that she is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 It is not just the media that jumps on the alarmist bandwagon. Lots of gullible people do seem to need some dort of "bogeyman" to focus their fear on. A few years back it was Clobal Cooling, and before that Acid Rain that was all going to kill us. In the 1960's the use of DDT was blamed for killing everything in sight and the book "Silent Spring" was a best seller on the alarmist bookshelves. Al Gore's film has been labelled as having no less than nine very inconvenient lies within it by a UK Court. What many people do not know is that Gore is now setting up world wide companies that will trade in Carbon Credits - he is set to make a fortune whilst it has not gone unnoticed that his own "Carbon Footprint" is about 3 times that of the average US citizen - and they are not known for there wise use of power! Hansen, the so called NASA expert who supplied most of the dubious "facts" in Gores film has now been rather embarrased by his old boss at NASA who has openly stated that he thinks Hansen is wrong and that Hansen is an embarrasment to NASA for the overly alarmist stance Hansen has taken. This is worth a read - if you are interested in how the whole alarmist concept of there being a concensus that Global Warming will kill us all. I believe that being thrifty is sensible and the right thing to do. I do not believe the Catastrophic scenario that the alarmists spin at us.:- Hansen's NASA Supervisor Speaks Out -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon, just announced that he is skeptical of AGW. Dr. Theon also stated that Hansen was never “muzzled” as Hansen has repeatedly claimed by the Bush Administration. Quote: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Hansen has not only been at the political edge on climate change, he has called for the imprisonment of those that are skeptical of AGW, compared coal trains to the prison trains taking Jews to death camps, and testified in England that eco-terrorists that damaged power generation stacks were doing so for the good of humanity. Dr. Theon also expressed his opinion of climate models, on which the entire theory of AGW is based: Quote: Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added. Dr. Theon is certainly qualified in to speak out on the current state of climate science: Quote: “As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. Theon also co-authored the book Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROON Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Might be worth watching the fillm THE AGE OF STUPIDITY starring Pete Postlethwaite (my fave actor) before deciding then? Combines factual, documentary footage with intelligent imaginery images of what the outcome could be and POSSIBLE future if we keep calling people scaremongers and ignoring what man is doing to the world. I'm off now 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeymac Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Well I'm glad that all members of my family live on hills. Rather looking forward to windsurfing to do the shopping. Always ask yourself what people have to gain by telling untruths, or by ignoring indisputable facts. The one thing that really annoys me is sniping at families who own more than one motor vehicle. As motorhomers that includes all of us. Follow through the logic of such criticism and it means that wives should be disenfranchised, staying at home whilst hubby drives to work, or it implies that we are capable of driving more than one vehicle at a time. In my case driving one vehicle at a time is quite enough thank you and the tax and insurance on the other is just what's needed to help revive the economy. Everyone should be encouraged to fill their driveways with vehicles, as long as they're second hand of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Makes you laugh doesn’t it! A while ago car manufacturers were criticised because their cars did not last long enough and so we had to replace our "rust buckets" to often and this was "bad for Global Warming" because making a car uses a lot of energy!!!! Now we have cars that can easily do many hundreds of thousands of miles and galvanised bits that do not rust but as an environmental "it's bad for Global Warming" the extremists want us all to scrap older cars and buy an imported one! Is it just me or does anyone else think that this is all total spherical objects and that the numpty Climate Change extremists will dress up anything as a "Green" project. Don't get me wrong - I do believe we should save fuel and be efficient and I also believe that we DO have an effect on climate. But I do not believe that CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere is a poison. We all need CO2 levels to breath (google pCO2 levels - without CO2 we would stop breathing!!) and plants need CO2 as a substrate for Photosynthesis. On top of which we seem to be heading for a Solar Minimum which based on past history indicates a period of very cold weather. As we had in the Maunder Minimum in the 1700's when the Thames was solid ice and people died of extreme cold. So we may be glad of a nice CO2 "blanket" :-D http://www.astronomynow.com/090422sun.html Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Surely the main aim of persuading people to buy new cars at the moment is more to do with saving jobs than saving the planet,( although it seems that modern cars are more fuel efficient). This is supported by the fact that the car 'scrappage' scheme is only for a fixed period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick H. Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 J9withdogs - 2009-02-22 4:57 PM The Met Office have issued a plea to the media to stop misleading the public regarding climate change. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html Just who do we believe? I read somewhere over the weekend that although one of the poles is melting at the other end of the world it's freezing more than ever Something to do with the hole in the ozone layer it's helping things at the moment. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Mick H. - 2009-04-27 4:32 PM J9withdogs - 2009-02-22 4:57 PM The Met Office have issued a plea to the media to stop misleading the public regarding climate change. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html Just who do we believe? I read somewhere over the weekend that although one of the poles is melting at the other end of the world it's freezing more than ever Something to do with the hole in the ozone layer it's helping things at the moment. Mick Oh dear. If it's getting lighter at the top and heavier at the bottom it could start wobbling and throw us all off ! Something else to worry about. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick H. Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Don't worry Malc. Once it reaches a certain weight it will fall off through the hole in the ozone and do half a circuit of the earth and fall back on top. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Interesting points - I just wish someone would explain how scrapping a perfectly good car just because it is ten years old is going to be "green" when scrapping it uses a shed load of energy - hence emissions, and its replacement new car again costs shed loads of energy - hence even more emissions to produce???? Plus the fact that most of the new cars bought these days are made outside of the UK and so they have to be shipped halfway round the world creating yet more emissions!! If this is a "green" idea I will eat my hat. Don't you just love to think that petrol prices in the UK are high because of environmental taxes, your insurance policy has a tax hit, you pay RFL and yet all the hype re environmental taxes goes out of the window in this recession because the tax payer has to pay £2000 a car so that Korea Japan etc. can import more cars into the UK? Am I cynical - you bet I am >:-) >:-) >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 The taxpayer is not going to pay £2000 per car. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Sorry malc - where did you get the idea that such an incentive by the Chancellor did not involve public funds? (?) "Around half the cash on offer will come from the Government and the remaining £1,000 or so will come from car companies themselves. The motor industry had been hoping that Labour would foot the entire £2,000 bill. " http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=483064&in_page_id=2 It may not be the full £2K - only £1K from the tax man - but it still means that we are likely to be subsidising car manufacturing outside the UK as much as within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 CliveH - 2009-04-28 9:39 AM Sorry malc - where did you get the idea that such an incentive by the Chancellor did not involve public funds? (?) "Around half the cash on offer will come from the Government and the remaining £1,000 or so will come from car companies themselves. The motor industry had been hoping that Labour would foot the entire £2,000 bill. " http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=483064&in_page_id=2 It may not be the full £2K - only £1K from the tax man - but it still means that we are likely to be subsidising car manufacturing outside the UK as much as within it. Clive With respect, you misread what I said. I did NOT say that the incentive 'did not involve public funds'. You said "------ the taxpayer has to pay £2000 per car ------ " I simply pointed out that the taxpayer will not be paying £2000 per car, and, as you have just confirmed, the taxpayer will only be paying £1000. As buyers of the new cars will be paying VAT, it seems likely that some of that £1000 will be recovered by the taxman. I agree that we may well be subsidising car manufacturing,( +dealerships and suppliers) outside the UK but I assume this European wide scheme is to boost the world economy as much as our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 all i care about is having a clean environment to live in, and if 'acid rain' cleaned up car and coal emissions, and if 'global warming' cleans up even more (with an added benefit of reducing the use of limited fuels), then its fine by me, as long as it doesnt cost too much cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Some musings. 1. I find it hilarious that a government that has vilified, persecuted and just plain robbed motorists for 12 years all of a sudden wants people to buy more cars. (Perhaps all the old cars go too slowly to be caught by speed cameras whose revenue will also just happen to be boosted by the addition of the new £15 "victim surcharge"? :-D) 2. Basic rule of auditing - to find the fraud, look for the money - and there is shed loads of money to made from CO2 scaremongering e.g research grants, conferences in nice beach resorts, green taxes etc, etc. 3. Let's not forget the chemical industry was rather chuffed with the ozone scare of the 80's which just happened to promote new, patented HFCs at the expense of CFC's at the very point in time when those out of patent CFC's started to be produced in vast qauntities in third world countries at prices well-below what mature economies could make them for.... oh what a cynic I am. 4. The government is debating a handful of new coal-fired power stations which it proposes to shackle with expensive and unproven carbon-capture technology. Yet 360 square kms of coalfield has been burning out of control in India for a 100 years and adds to CO2 from the 400 million tonnes of coal India's industry burns every year. So what possible difference will our few new stations make compared to India's alone, never mind China which commission's a new coal-fired station almost weekly? What happened to British jobs for British workers. Priced out by uncompetitive legislation, apparently. 5. If there is man-made global warming - I am not convinced yet - the best control is surely population control - which is evident common sense versus all finite resources. Yet our government is taking the lead in boosting our population to horrendous levels. How is that sensible? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeymac Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 It only goes to add to the list of inconvenient facts that stand in the way of short term gain. If the major coastal cities flood, such gains will be seen as stupidly piffling as they are. It's easy to dismiss any energy saving, emmission avoidance etc as too small to make a difference, and so it will remain until everyone jumps on board, either by choice or force. Scrapping the tungsten light bulb is a good start and great for conserving MH battery power. There's a lesson we can instantly see and reap the benefits of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Usinmyknaus - 2009-04-28 10:23 AM 5. If there is man-made global warming - I am not convinced yet - the best control is surely population control - which is evident common sense versus all finite resources. Yet our government is taking the lead in boosting our population to horrendous levels. How is that sensible? Bob I agree that population control would be an important step, but I've obviously missed the bit of news about the Govt boosting population - how does that work exactly? Not another Cabinet "sex drive" like we had under John Major? Oh, I just noticed you said "OUR" population, so perhaps it's yet another (yawn) post about "foreigners coming over here and ...." In that case, it's not at all relevant to GLOBAL climate change - where the population IS doesn't make a ha'p'orth of difference to that! Unless it's all about "foreigners coming over here and mucking up our weather?" Nah, doesn't work, does it? Be nice if some of them COULD bring their weather with them! :-D Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The original idea was for the entire £2000 to be at the taxpayers expense. Only the lack of money available and high borrowings have reduced this. But regardless of the amount be it £1000 , a £1 or £10,000, the principle is the same. Taxpayers are being asked to subsidise new car production. And sadly a lot of new car production is not in the UK so exactly how is this drain on the public purse going to help? Why not give a £1000 discount on caravan or MH purchase so more will holiday here in the UK rather than hop on a plane? What about a discount on home purchase to get that market moving again? No I agree with Usinmyknaus - for years car use has been vilified and taxed heavily by this government in the name of green taxes but now when reality bites! - what happens!! Perfectly good cars designed to last a long time and be less polluting over their whole lifecycle are to be scrapped so that another car (most likely from outside the UK/EU) can be built/imported and sold with a grant from the UK taxpayer. How "green" is this?? - Not very. And nothing can dispute the fact that scrapping a car and building a car uses up shedloads of energy and so produces far higher CO2 emissions than simply using and keeping a well maintained car on the road for longer. And that last bit was what Governments wanted manufacturers to do of course - but that has - like so many sensible policies been thrown out the window. The hypocrisy of this new car subsidy is simply staggering considering we are supposed to be saving energy and reducing emissions not cranking them up by making new cars and importing them from half way around the world. I am not saying that if I had a 10 year old banger I would not jump on the bandwagon myself!! – far from it! – Who would look such a gift horse in the mouth? What angers me is that the idea is flawed – deeply flawed. The selling of it is akin to Gordon Brown going on Utube to state categorically that the MP’s second home allowance is dead and buried and then a few days later we hear that he has changed his mind! I am fed up with being lied to and what I see as a sensible policy re car use and longevity being chucked out on the bandwagon of being “green” when in fact this latest policy is anything but and will produce far, far, far more emissions as a result. And we as tax payers will be subsidising it. Barmy :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Tony Jones - 2009-04-28 12:03 PM Usinmyknaus - 2009-04-28 10:23 AM 5. If there is man-made global warming - I am not convinced yet - the best control is surely population control - which is evident common sense versus all finite resources. Yet our government is taking the lead in boosting our population to horrendous levels. How is that sensible? Bob I agree that population control would be an important step, but I've obviously missed the bit of news about the Govt boosting population - how does that work exactly? Not another Cabinet "sex drive" like we had under John Major? Oh, I just noticed you said "OUR" population, so perhaps it's yet another (yawn) post about "foreigners coming over here and ...." :-D Oh Tony, how could you think so ill of me? It is not a cheap racist/bash the immigrants point at all. My point is that very many of our government's policies over a number of years from unlimited child benefits, tax credits, subsidised housing, better healthcare, uprated pensions and related benefits and yes, immigration is one factor be it from Europe, the Commonwealth or wherever, whilst all very laudable in themselves have increased our population hugely and are likely to accelerate in their effects in the future. Therefore, I see no likelyhood that the UK's consumption of finite resources will do anything except rise as will, if it matters ,CO2 output. Consequently I feel that Government ministers are disingenuous in the extreme to lecture us (and the world) on climate change et al when their own policies exacerbate the fundamental source of man-made pollution/consumption which is, in my opinion, our own numbers in a very crowded, energy and resource-intensive island. I offer no preferred solution, just that it should be a key part of the debate. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakaleg Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 We get three dusbin carts down our road now, where as we used to have one. multiply that across britain, and remind me again how we are saving the planet please Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 No listen hear Pete!!!!!! (lol) Just DON'T get me started on THAT so called "green" issue!!! (lol) (lol) (lol) Trouble is - It really is not funny at all :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Our normal dustcart and our recycling one are usually several hours apart, but they both appeared together this morning - and stopped side-by-side in the street! I asked one of the guys if they wanted me to start the race. He didn't seem amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.