Guest bil h Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 So's to put it correctly I'll sketch it overnight, it will save errors and I can be more precise. Till tomorrow then bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Thanks Bill - look forward to it as the highlight of my weekend! PS That's a joke in case you wondered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Global warming? - that's been happening (as well as 'cooling' ) ...for millions of years and my guess is that verey little man can do to overcome nature. Currently it's just used as a means to taken even more money from us to pay for the waste of Governments and politicians. As for 'average' temps and sun/rain figures - did no-one teach those who provide these figures and especially the media, that averages are made up of very highs/ very lows/ and all in between......and if you didn't have these, then there would be no 'average'. Another factor is where you live anyway - here in Cornwall, normally we don't go for extra highs or extra lows.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 When governments pay 'scientists' to do research the 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' philosophy takes over and scientists will say whatever their paymasters want them too as long as it is reasonably understandable for the gullible masses and ensures the next pay cheque. Do Turkeys vote for Christmas - I think not! Of course it is a natural progression of a living planet's evolution - we all know that - they all know that - and the biggest contributors adding to it know that - but they ain't listening. Which leaves you and I to pick up the world's tab courtessy of Cir Gordon Graspalot = the greedy non knight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I know I've asked this before, but no one answered.If all you global warming deniers are wrong, and the scientists turn out to be men of integrity, what then?What do our children and grandchildren then inherit?The problem with having your head in the sand, as has been noted before, is that it rather leaves your bum in the air! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 No one can deny that it is happening I do's me bit for queen & country. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Nice one Brian. Whether or not global warming is a man made phenomenon or natural we really do need to curb our use of fossil fuels. They are a very limited resource and the burning of fossil fuels does produce polution. this polution doesn't do any of us any good. It leads to respiratory problems for many people along with many other problems. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Yes that is always the scaremongerers argument isn't it Brian? Undeniably mankind is contributing to the problem but to believe that mankind is alone responsible for altering the climate of the planet is surely a supreme arrogance typical of taxation lovers and finger pointers. Just as undeniable is that two countries together stand out a being the contributor of nearly half of all of mankinds CO2 output and these two countries are just as arrogant in their denial of any responsibilty or need to change. Future generations will have to sort out the mess themselves as they go, much as we have had to cope with unexpected climate change. They will however be forewarned which should make it easier for them to stop building on flood plains etc and develop self heating nuclear powered motor caravans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Don't think anyone is denying Global Warming is happening Michele, its the causes that the disagreement is over. Daves absolutely right, we should try to stop the use of fossil fuel and replace it with viable alternatives, not the stupid attemps that the green brigade would try to thrust upon us. Brazil uses no fossil fuel for transport fuel only a sugar cane derivitive for instance, and that is Carbon neutral. As I said before Brian, the same thought process took us into Iraq and there were a lot of disenters who were ignored then because it didn't suit! Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 starspirit - 2007-02-03 6:54 PM Yes that is always the scaremongerers argument isn't it Brian? Undeniably mankind is contributing to the problem but to believe that mankind is alone responsible for altering the climate of the planet is surely a supreme arrogance typical of taxation lovers and finger pointers. This is the George Bush line of argument. Unless you accept that all climate change is a natural phenomenon, so denying any man made contribution, you are an arrogant, taxation loving, finger pointer. It is not, however, an argument, it is an Aunt Sally! The point is to reduce the man made contribution, on the assumption that the natural element cannot be controlled but is probably part of a sustainable cycle, because it appears that the man made element is not sustainable.Just as undeniable is that two countries together stand out a being the contributor of nearly half of all of mankinds CO2 output and these two countries are just as arrogant in their denial of any responsibilty or need to change. True. But does that make it sensible for the rest of us to blindly contribute to accellerating the process, or to rein in our contribution while working on them to do the same? If your house and next door's both happen to catch fire, do you call the fire brigade yourself, or wait for them to call the brigade first, because they have a larger house?Future generations will have to sort out the mess themselves as they go, much as we have had to cope with unexpected climate change. However, the prognosis is that the once the process passes a temperatire rise around 5.5C, it will become unstoppable, no matter what actions thay take. In effect, we shall have condemned most of them to death by our failure to act. Seems a bit mean spirited to me, just for want of a bit of intelligent avoidance, taken now at relatively marginal cost!They will however be forewarned which should make it easier for them to stop building on flood plains etc and develop self heating nuclear powered motor caravans. Responses above, in italics. Enjoy it while you've got it, it will soon enough be gone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Basil - 2007-02-03 6:55 PM Don't think anyone is denying Global Warming is happening Michele, its the causes that the disagreement is over. So, what are the possible causes, and which of these don't you accept, and why?Daves absolutely right, we should try to stop the use of fossil fuel and replace it with viable alternatives, not the stupid attemps that the green brigade would try to thrust upon us. But, what are these stupid items the green brigade would "thrust upon us"? What are you referring to?Brazil uses no fossil fuel for transport fuel only a sugar cane derivitive for instance, and that is Carbon neutral. As I said before Brian, the same thought process took us into Iraq and there were a lot of disenters who were ignored then because it didn't suit! Sorry Basil, I just don't understand this last bit! What is the "same thought process" connected with global warming that got us into Iraq? Many argued the invasion was foolish, (the dissenters?) but the Government ignored them ("because it didn't suit": but what/who didn't it suit? Government policy?). I'm afraid I'm stumped! I just can't see a connection, or follow where you're leading.Bas BasResopnses in italics above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Quote Brian from an earlier post. [red]I know I've asked this before, but no one answered. [/red] I did actually answer you before Brian, but my reasoning follows between your comments. [red]If all you global warming deniers are wrong, and the scientists turn out to be men of integrity, what then?[/red] If all the Iraq war deniers are wrong, and the intelligence turns out to be produced by men of integrity, what then? [red]What do our children and grandchildren then inherit?[/red] What do our children and grandchildren then inherit, Nuclear war? [red]The problem with having your head in the sand, as has been noted before, is that it rather leaves your bum in the air![/red] Ditto! To Reply to your last post. I've tried to make more it more understandable! [blue]Basil - 2007-02-03 6:55 PM Don't think anyone is denying Global Warming is happening Michele, its the causes that the disagreement is over. [/blue] [red]So, what are the possible causes, and which of these don't you accept, and why?[/red] Which of what that I don’t accept? Global Warming Theory is just a theory based around the greenhouse effect It is just that THEORY and the biggest greenhouse gasses are NOT CO2 that’s just what they would have you believe because it suits their argument to destroy modern living. In any case if CO2 was the biggest greenhouse gas, man produces an insignificant amount of it compared to natural causes, how you going to stop nature? [blue]Daves absolutely right, we should try to stop the use of fossil fuel and replace it with viable alternatives, not the stupid attemps that the green brigade would try to thrust upon us. [/blue] [red]But, what are these stupid items the green brigade would "thrust upon us"? What are you referring to?[/red] Individual wind power, wind turbines cost more to make and build than they will ever save in CO2 production. Solar power is proven to be a very ineffective source of heating and hot water (numerous programmes on TV in the last month about this) and again the savings do not get close to the cost. Bicycles ok for recreation but not practical in real world situations. Electric power for vehicles from the NGrid costs more in CO2 in use than other vehicles, unless of course we go Nuclear which we should have done like the French. Electric power produced by the braking efforts and waste efforts of the vehicle have some merit but it still needs a fuel to create it in the first place, so work on Bio Fuels should be a priority with maybe tax breaks, Oh no that would mean less going to government! [blue]As I said before Brian, the same thought process took us into Iraq and there were a lot of disenters who were ignored then because it didn't suit! [/blue] [red]Sorry Basil, I just don't understand this last bit! What is the "same thought process" connected with global warming that got us into Iraq? Many argued the invasion was foolish, (the dissenters?) but the Government ignored them ("because it didn't suit": but what/who didn't it suit? Government policy?). I'm afraid I'm stumped! I just can't see a connection, or follow where you're leading.[/red] Brian the last comment was separated from the comment to Dave in my original post, it doesn’t read correctly the way you have edited it attatched to the comment on Brazils efforts with Bio Fuel. The same thought process was used to take us into Iraq (see the opening statements), make people think that there is a problem, ignore (or worse beat down, condemn and maybe get rid of) all those who disagree and do what those in power want for their own ends. I’m afraid I can’t answer what Tony Blair’s ends were for Iraq, except for maybe oil, but there are very good reason for the GW ones, keeping the population in check (they’ve not been able to do that since the decline of religion) for one, taxing without having to justify because they have ready made justification (that’s already started with transport and whilst people moan about it the GW sword of Damocles is over us). ID cards to keep a check on individuals, road pricing, restrictions to what you can use or burn just to name a few. Eventually total control over the population with the consequent loss of freedoms that have been hard won over the centuries. Bas Edit for typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 All I am saying is that as a nation we should not be penalising either ourselves as individuals or, more importantly our already largely uncompetitive industry, by continually supportng an over bearing tax regime whilst the rest of the world just laughs and says 'well done UK - you are now one less country for the rest of us to compete with on a level pitch'. It seems to me that some of us just can't see that and as an island nation with very little natural resources left, except coal that no one wants because it's too expensive to dig up, we do not need the government shooting us in the other foot as well, on the pretext of saving the world. The only other resource that we have in abundance is an inventive and ambitious band of entrepreneurs who need long term incentivising tax breaks to get them back into inventing and producing winning ideas - not short term government interference. Climate change is going to happen whatever we do and maybe we can slow it a bit but to say that we can stop or reverse it is ridiculous. It would have happened anyway but maybe would have taken a lot longer but for our wasteful living. Either way sooner or later a generation would have to face the fact that living on much of the world's surface might be unsustainable and other solutions would have to be found to enable an acceptable standard of life to be continued. Hopefully by then we will have stopped bombing and shooting each other and the vast ammount of money saved will help pay for this brave new environment. That is if man can ever stop the jealousy, hatred and killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 The interesting thing about all this global warming b*****ks is that Nasa has observed globa warming on Mars too, and indeed on several other bodies in the solar system. So, are all those Little Green Men (hope I'm not being racist) also driving MHs and 4x4s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Quite correct Bill, just another of the facts that the Global Warming Theorists ignore. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 apparently we are overdue an ice age, where does that fit into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 This is another of the possibilities. The Earth follows a cyclicle pattern and currently we are coming out of the last ice age, not yet having achieved the hottest temperature that the world was at prior to the last Ice age, at which point the temperature should fall back into another ice age. Again this is one of the PROVEN facts that the theorists like to ignore. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 In the 800,000+ years for which we have records (mainly from ice and land cores), there has never been an increase in global temperatures anything like as rapid as we are now going through. That covers the most recent 5th of Earth's history. Even so, this could be a natural aberration. Except that man has undoubtedly contributed something over the last 150 years or so. And man wasn't around in any numbers for the previous 799,000 years or so. Yet, even so, the world is still full of those who deny. Amazing isn't the word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Yes and the atmosphere is the cleanest and clearest now than it has ever been over that time, so yes it is amazing! Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 man wasn`t but volcanic eruptions were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Basil - 2007-02-04 3:39 PM Quote Brian from an earlier post. [red]I know I've asked this before, but no one answered. [/red] I did actually answer you before Brian, but my reasoning follows between your comments. So you did Basil. My apoligies, I missed your response.[red]If all you global warming deniers are wrong, and the scientists turn out to be men of integrity, what then?[/red] If all the Iraq war deniers are wrong, and the intelligence turns out to be produced by men of integrity, what then? [red]What do our children and grandchildren then inherit?[/red] What do our children and grandchildren then inherit, Nuclear war? [red]The problem with having your head in the sand, as has been noted before, is that it rather leaves your bum in the air![/red] Ditto! To Reply to your last post. I've tried to make more it more understandable! [blue]Basil - 2007-02-03 6:55 PM Don't think anyone is denying Global Warming is happening Michele, its the causes that the disagreement is over. [/blue] [red]So, what are the possible causes, and which of these don't you accept, and why?[/red] Which of what that I don’t accept? Global Warming Theory is just a theory based around the greenhouse effect It is just that THEORY and the biggest greenhouse gasses are NOT CO2 that’s just what they would have you believe because it suits their argument to destroy modern living. So, what is the biggest greenhouse gas, and what should we do about it?In any case if CO2 was the biggest greenhouse gas, man produces an insignificant amount of it compared to natural causes, how you going to stop nature? Even if it isn't the biggest gas, it is a very sighnifiant one. Man does indeed produce enormous quantities of CO2, by burning coal, oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. We have done this since the begining of the industrial revolution. It is that growinig accumulation of the CO2 that appears to be doing most of the damage, and the process of re-absorption is far, far, slower than the rate at which we add to it. Thus, unless we curb fossil fuel use now, our children and grandchildren face a catastrophy they will be powerless to halt.[blue]Daves absolutely right, we should try to stop the use of fossil fuel and replace it with viable alternatives, not the stupid attemps that the green brigade would try to thrust upon us. [/blue] [red]But, what are these stupid items the green brigade would "thrust upon us"? What are you referring to?[/red] Individual wind power, wind turbines cost more to make and build than they will ever save in CO2 production. Solar power is proven to be a very ineffective source of heating and hot water (numerous programmes on TV in the last month about this) and again the savings do not get close to the cost. Bicycles ok for recreation but not practical in real world situations. I'm still a bit confused. You were earlier arguing that CO2 wasn't the problem. Why then do we need to curb our use of fossil fuels, since they are the cause of the excess CO2 and its greenhouse effect.Electric power for vehicles from the NGrid costs more in CO2 in use than other vehicles, unless of course we go Nuclear which we should have done like the French. We may need some nuclear, but I have grave reservations about safe disposal of the waste, which has not to date been resolved to anyone's satisfaction.Electric power produced by the braking efforts and waste efforts of the vehicle have some merit but it still needs a fuel to create it in the first place, so work on Bio Fuels should be a priority with maybe tax breaks, Oh no that would mean less going to government!Bio fuels maybe, but no one I have seen has yet estimated how many millions of acres would need to be set aside for their production. I have a feeling we may have a bit of a stark choice, eat or travel, but not both! The tax loss would soon be recovered, by taxing the bio fuels! [blue]As I said before Brian, the same thought process took us into Iraq and there were a lot of disenters who were ignored then because it didn't suit! [/blue] [red]Sorry Basil, I just don't understand this last bit! What is the "same thought process" connected with global warming that got us into Iraq? Many argued the invasion was foolish, (the dissenters?) but the Government ignored them ("because it didn't suit": but what/who didn't it suit? Government policy?). I'm afraid I'm stumped! I just can't see a connection, or follow where you're leading.[/red] Brian the last comment was separated from the comment to Dave in my original post, it doesn’t read correctly the way you have edited it attatched to the comment on Brazils efforts with Bio Fuel. My mistake. Apologies. It was how I read it.The same thought process was used to take us into Iraq (see the opening statements), make people think that there is a problem, ignore (or worse beat down, condemn and maybe get rid of) all those who disagree and do what those in power want for their own ends. I’m afraid I can’t answer what Tony Blair’s ends were for Iraq, except for maybe oil, but there are very good reason for the GW ones, keeping the population in check (they’ve not been able to do that since the decline of religion) for one, taxing without having to justify because they have ready made justification (that’s already started with transport and whilst people moan about it the GW sword of Damocles is over us). ID cards to keep a check on individuals, road pricing, restrictions to what you can use or burn just to name a few. Eventually total control over the population with the consequent loss of freedoms that have been hard won over the centuries. Bas Loss of freedoms has been going on for centuries. While some liberties have been gained (loss of serfdom for example), others are lost (the right to hunt foxes for example). Humanity started off with total freedom, no rules, no laws, no rulers, no governments. All civilising influences since have restricted, bit by bit, that total freedom. Sometimes we go too far, and have to row back, but generally these erosions of freedom reflect no more than the disciplines necessary to live together, under an accepted and recognisable legal structure, at increasing density as the human population goes on growing. That growing population, and its thirst for travel, comfort and toys now threatens our continued existance. It also threatens the existence of much of the worlds wildlife. Maybe we should just accept that, and consign our immediate descendants to the dustbin of history, in the hope that in a few million more years a more intelligent species will have evolved from the waste we created. However, that seems to me just a bit uncharitable to our descendants. Still, if it's only you who carries on in the old ways, I guess it won't make too much difference to the outcome! :-)Edit for typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 starspirit - 2007-02-04 5:54 PM All I am saying is that as a nation we should not be penalising either ourselves as individuals or, more importantly our already largely uncompetitive industry, by continually supportng an over bearing tax regime whilst the rest of the world just laughs and says 'well done UK - you are now one less country for the rest of us to compete with on a level pitch'. It seems to me that some of us just can't see that and as an island nation with very little natural resources left, except coal that no one wants because it's too expensive to dig up, we do not need the government shooting us in the other foot as well, on the pretext of saving the world. The only other resource that we have in abundance is an inventive and ambitious band of entrepreneurs who need long term incentivising tax breaks to get them back into inventing and producing winning ideas - not short term government interference. Climate change is going to happen whatever we do and maybe we can slow it a bit but to say that we can stop or reverse it is ridiculous. It would have happened anyway but maybe would have taken a lot longer but for our wasteful living. Either way sooner or later a generation would have to face the fact that living on much of the world's surface might be unsustainable and other solutions would have to be found to enable an acceptable standard of life to be continued. Hopefully by then we will have stopped bombing and shooting each other and the vast ammount of money saved will help pay for this brave new environment. That is if man can ever stop the jealousy, hatred and killing. Can't disagree with most of that, Richard, but it still seems to me that your central point to put financial considerations first, and just hope that others will find a way out. The main problem with that seems to be that the science now says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I fear you misunderstand my motives Brian. [red]So, what is the biggest greenhouse gas, and what should we do about it?[/red] H2O accounts for around 90% of the total greenhouse gas leaving 10% for non water greenhouse effect (i.e. CO2 and all others) and there is not a lot you can do as it is a natural cycle. The question that needs to be answered is is greenhouse effect the cause of GW, there is much evidence to say no it isn't? [red]Even if it isn't the biggest gas, it is a very sighnifiant one. Man does indeed produce enormous quantities of CO2, by burning coal, oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. We have done this since the begining of the industrial revolution. It is that growinig accumulation of the CO2 that appears to be doing most of the damage, and the process of re-absorption is far, far, slower than the rate at which we add to it. Thus, unless we curb fossil fuel use now, our children and grandchildren face a catastrophy they will be powerless to halt.[/red] Your answer is one from a mind that is closed to there being any other cause and is completely incorrect it is a very INsignificant one! Compared to Natural occurrence mankind creates only 3.4% annually! It would be true to say that mankind may have created perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere). Your last statement is untrue if we curbed ALL of our fossil fuel use it will have little or no effect. [red]I'm still a bit confused. You were earlier arguing that CO2 wasn't the problem. Why then do we need to curb our use of fossil fuels, since they are the cause of the excess CO2 and its greenhouse effect.[/red] We need to curb our use of fossil fuels, or rather find an alternative, purely because the reserves are finite and we will run out so we should be investigating for the future now. [red]We may need some nuclear, but I have grave reservations about safe disposal of the waste, which has not to date been resolved to anyone's satisfaction.[/red] Wouldn’t argue with your comments, but there is no other viable alternative and science has already made it possible that future nuclear power will produce far less waste and that will continue to be reduced into the future. [red]Bio fuels maybe, but no one I have seen has yet estimated how many millions of acres would need to be set aside for their production. I have a feeling we may have a bit of a stark choice, eat or travel, but not both! The tax loss would soon be recovered, by taxing the bio fuels![/red] Brazil is already producing sufficient Bio Fuel for its own needs (they no longer import fuel oils) and is exporting it, yet it is still able to produce sufficient food for its people (I would concede there may or may not be some people less well off than here, I honestly don’t know but I haven’t heard any charities asking for food for Brazil other South American countries maybe) according to their government. Therefore the bluprint has been set. [red]Loss of freedoms has been going on for centuries. While some liberties have been gained (loss of serfdom for example), others are lost (the right to hunt foxes for example). Humanity started off with total freedom, no rules, no laws, no rulers, no governments. All civilising influences since have restricted, bit by bit, that total freedom. Sometimes we go too far, and have to row back, but generally these erosions of freedom reflect no more than the disciplines necessary to live together, under an accepted and recognisable legal structure, at increasing density as the human population goes on growing. That growing population, and its thirst for travel, comfort and toys now threatens our continued existance. It also threatens the existence of much of the worlds wildlife. Maybe we should just accept that, and consign our immediate descendants to the dustbin of history, in the hope that in a few million more years a more intelligent species will have evolved from the waste we created. However, that seems to me just a bit uncharitable to our descendants. Still, if it's only you who carries on in the old ways, I guess it won't make too much difference to the outcome! [/red] Part of your statement e.g. [red]That growing population, and its thirst for travel, comfort and toys now threatens our continued existance. It also threatens the existence of much of the worlds wildlife[/red] assumes that Global Warming Theory is the only true word, very Evangelistic but not necessarily true. Your last comment is a bit cheap, although I will take the smiley as meaning you are only joking, for what I thought was going to be a sensible discussion but you read me wrong, I have concerns that what the politicians and scientists in their pay would have us do is for their own ends and policies. There is a danger that if we follow the route we are being herded into despite evidence to the contrary we will not be in a position to correct the real causes (if that is possible anyway) or find other solutions should they be neccessary, if we leave it to late. Too many scientist and much information is being ignored, may I say again just like with Iraq and Millennium Bug, why is my question? Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Well, Bas, it's been fun, but I suspect everyone else is bored by now!I will investigate water vapour as a greenhouse gas, but it occurs to me that the earth has evolved to its present state with, more or less, the water vapour its atmosphere presently contains. Are you suggesting water vapour is the culprit, or just that CO2 can't be, because there is more water vapour?Seems you know something about CO2 that practically the whole of the world's climate scientists have overlooked. But then if we have contributed 25% of the present atmospheric greenhouse gases, which is a quite startling figure, I'll settle for that 25% being the culprit. The problem with the 3.4% annual growth is that it compounds, just like interest, so over 150 years or so......... That is an awful lot of CO2.Alternative fuels due to finite resources: fine. Agreed.Brazil and its bio fuel. Don't know, but Brazil has a very low population density compared to us. As I said, we'll probably be left with the choice between travelling and eating!The biggest problem I have with your argument overall, is this grand conspiracy theory in which all the politicians and scientists have to be proto-dictators for it to work. In reality, they all started where we started, as ordinary folk. Many of the scientists who have argued that the climate has been changing due to man's activities were until recently regarded as renegades by both the scientific establishment and by governments. A number have been advancing this argument, from the sidelines, for over 25 years. It seems a bit thick to charge them with being political lackeys now that they are being accepted.Final point, the nuclear lobby is just as stuffed with scientists, and feted by politicians as the green lobby. What's so different about the integrity of those scientists/politicians that you agree with, them while suspecting the green oriented ones of being rogues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Mel E says And I quote" there has never been an increase in global temperatures anything like as rapid as we are now going through" That is exactly right and is the the key to this whole fiasco that is being broadcast by so many. Its a wonderful ploy to wind every one up and make them feel guilty. The people who set this up are no fools and I wish I was on their payroll. Later tonight I will publish my theory on this 'increase' which I might add is easily calculated when you know the answer. You'll need a pencil and paper and a 12inch ruler, and maybe a protractor if you cannot guess a 30 degree angle. In the meantime look up Dr Robert Openheimer ?? Its all his fault. I may start a new subject as there's a lot of post here. bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.