Climate change! Weve all been conned (as we all knew)
Discussion
Mr GrimNasty said:
You have to realise that it was only one way to spin the Stats., and by the DM. The pros will spin it completely differently to miraculously reinforce their cause. Just like with the climate-gate emails, exoneration and business as usual, no doubt.
And they can still save us from the ice age, it will just cost a bit more than previously thought.
Shuvi Tupya said:
And they can still save us from the ice age, it will just cost a bit more than previously thought.
Edited by Gary11 on Monday 30th January 17:33
nigel_bytes said:
Here we go again,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-209...
So last Winter when we had the snow, it was blamed on global warming, as we've not had any snow yet this Winter it's because of global warming, there's a forecast of another large bout of snow on the way, presumably this will be due to global warming.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-209...
They just automatically attribute anything the weather is doing with global warming.
The thing that confuses me about it all though, is why they bother to still print this crap.
Liokault said:
Was listening to a debate a few weeks ago on radio 4, I came in at the end so missed most of it.
The bit I picked up was the "were all going to die" expert conceding to the fact that the actual statistics over the last 4 years show no average global warm up and that if the average didn’t head upwards next year he would concede that he will need to re-think his position on MMGW.
Wish I had found it on Iplayer now.
My feeling is that now the government has started working out just how much cash we have available in terms of shale gas we are going to start seeing a reeling in of the whole MMGW thing.
It was probably the discussion on Radio 4 between Dr David Whitehouse (former BBC science correspondent) and a climate scientist. 5 years ago, they had made a bet of £100 on whether the UK's hottest temperature recoded would be exceeded within 5 years. The climate scientist said it would (of course). Whitehouse said it wouldn't. The bit I picked up was the "were all going to die" expert conceding to the fact that the actual statistics over the last 4 years show no average global warm up and that if the average didn’t head upwards next year he would concede that he will need to re-think his position on MMGW.
Wish I had found it on Iplayer now.
My feeling is that now the government has started working out just how much cash we have available in terms of shale gas we are going to start seeing a reeling in of the whole MMGW thing.
Guess who won the bet
Happy82 said:
RegMolehusband said:
And still it continues, Richard Branson tweeted 1 hour ago
"On the way to Antarctica with Al Gore and a fascinating group of scientists and experts"
Be a pity if the engines on the plane froze due to the cold "On the way to Antarctica with Al Gore and a fascinating group of scientists and experts"
The crux of the matter is that Gore, Hansen, Trenberth and more than 100 fellow travelers (Beardy Branson included) will depart from Argentina and arrive in late summer in Antarctica, just in time to witness melting ice, put it on video, wail about the tragedy, and ask for money to combat climate change.
Whilst i have been banging on to all who would listen that it is a huge scam the flip side is there is a degree of merit.
I have no doubt that we as humans are doing damage to the planet. How much we dont know. So if we work towards reducing damaging the planet i am all for it. But it should be done in a sensible and intelligent manner not this gung ho knee jerk we are all going to die manner that is being latched onto by all and sundry.
I have no doubt that we as humans are doing damage to the planet. How much we dont know. So if we work towards reducing damaging the planet i am all for it. But it should be done in a sensible and intelligent manner not this gung ho knee jerk we are all going to die manner that is being latched onto by all and sundry.
Damage to the planet...too emotive for me as an expression with respect, but in terms of actual pollution as opposed to make-believe there is heavy metal contamination in some seas, there is female hormone contamination in drinking water, buses with large and older diesel units emit the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science when the engine is under load, and disturbines plus electric cars cause quite a bit of pollution given that we have no need of either. As a list typed in on the hoof that would do me for a starting point.
turbobloke said:
Damage to the planet...too emotive for me as an expression with respect, but in terms of actual pollution as opposed to make-believe there is heavy metal contamination in some seas, there is female hormone contamination in drinking water, buses with large and older diesel units emit the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science when the engine is under load, and disturbines plus electric cars cause quite a bit of pollution given that we have no need of either. As a list typed in on the hoof that would do me for a starting point.
AND the radiation off luminous wrist watch numerals is causing disfigurement amongst....Blah Blah Blah.....
Turbo i use the term damage to the planet as a broadstroke term as we are no doubt damaging the planet in some way or another. What we are doing to damage it is what we need to establish and try to minimise or find a solution to.
I am of the opinion things like diesel need looking into to make them less damaging. Hormone as you say is also a problem.
But also things as simple as over fishing.
Boeing have got themselves a huge amount of kudos from me for their new 787 dreamliner for ex as it is a much cleaner plane than most in terms of waste from the engines. It is simple things like this which i applaud.
We cant be absolutely certain the damage caused by the engine exhaust gasses from aircraft but if a way can be found to minimise it i applaud it.
Likewise with the car scrappage schemes. I detested those as they were creating waste. the cars that were being scrapped were providing they were mot passable cars were more energy efficient/clean in theory than a brand new car.
A new car is a huge waste. Huge holes have to be dug by hugely dirty machines. the materials have to be transported from factory to factory by yet more very dirty machines. The damage to the ground is massive. it removes minerals from the soils it removes foliage etc.
I try to look at it from a microscopic viewpoint.
If you will. 1 person cuts down a bush no big deal. But if 100 people around the world cut down a tree at the same time its a hell of a lot less foliage to help clean the air. Dig up your grass and pave your yard. On its own no real impact but consider how many people around the world are doing the same the damage is more significant.
I am no massive green freak, hell i drive a diesel 60k miles a year. But i try to consider the environment as best as possible.
I dont believe in knee jerk solutions to imaginary problems.
The stone buildings in london are being damaged by the chemicals in diesel engined vehicles such as busses lorries etc so in an ideal way i would like to see them removed from the environment in their present form or the engines made cleaner or the chemicals removed etc whichever is the best option. If a compromise solution has to be found so be it.
I am of the opinion things like diesel need looking into to make them less damaging. Hormone as you say is also a problem.
But also things as simple as over fishing.
Boeing have got themselves a huge amount of kudos from me for their new 787 dreamliner for ex as it is a much cleaner plane than most in terms of waste from the engines. It is simple things like this which i applaud.
We cant be absolutely certain the damage caused by the engine exhaust gasses from aircraft but if a way can be found to minimise it i applaud it.
Likewise with the car scrappage schemes. I detested those as they were creating waste. the cars that were being scrapped were providing they were mot passable cars were more energy efficient/clean in theory than a brand new car.
A new car is a huge waste. Huge holes have to be dug by hugely dirty machines. the materials have to be transported from factory to factory by yet more very dirty machines. The damage to the ground is massive. it removes minerals from the soils it removes foliage etc.
I try to look at it from a microscopic viewpoint.
If you will. 1 person cuts down a bush no big deal. But if 100 people around the world cut down a tree at the same time its a hell of a lot less foliage to help clean the air. Dig up your grass and pave your yard. On its own no real impact but consider how many people around the world are doing the same the damage is more significant.
I am no massive green freak, hell i drive a diesel 60k miles a year. But i try to consider the environment as best as possible.
I dont believe in knee jerk solutions to imaginary problems.
The stone buildings in london are being damaged by the chemicals in diesel engined vehicles such as busses lorries etc so in an ideal way i would like to see them removed from the environment in their present form or the engines made cleaner or the chemicals removed etc whichever is the best option. If a compromise solution has to be found so be it.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
Whilst i have been banging on to all who would listen that it is a huge scam the flip side is there is a degree of merit.
.
There is merit to protecting the planet, by not polluting the oceans with all sorts of chemicals (like bleach and oil), by not logging forests, by not mining nickel, by not finning sharks and so on..
There is however no merit in claiming that CO2 is a contaminent or pollutant.
Jasandjules said:
There is merit to protecting the planet, by not polluting the oceans with all sorts of chemicals (like bleach and oil), by not logging forests, by not mining nickel, by not finning sharks and so on.
There is however no merit in claiming that CO2 is a contaminent or pollutant.
Well there is and there isnt. We dont know the actual overall effect. It may be positive it may be negative. But before we go all loopy and ban it we should work out which it is and react accordingly.There is however no merit in claiming that CO2 is a contaminent or pollutant.
King Herald said:
turbobloke said:
Damage to the planet...too emotive for me as an expression with respect, but in terms of actual pollution as opposed to make-believe there is heavy metal contamination in some seas, there is female hormone contamination in drinking water, buses with large and older diesel units emit the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science when the engine is under load, and disturbines plus electric cars cause quite a bit of pollution given that we have no need of either. As a list typed in on the hoof that would do me for a starting point.
AND the radiation off luminous wrist watch numerals is causing disfigurement amongst....Tallbut Buxomly said:
Well there is and there isnt. We dont know the actual overall effect. It may be positive it may be negative. But before we go all loopy and ban it we should work out which it is and react accordingly.
It is non-toxic and higher levels would facilitate better plant growth. It is not and has never been a pollutant. How the f
k do you ban CO2? We breathe it out. Commercial greenhouse operators pump it in to get to levels of 2000ppm and higher to increase yields yet the workers walk in and out without dying. Amazing!Edited by rovermorris999 on Monday 30th January 19:54
turbobloke said:
Luminous watch dials don't worry me but walking along High Streets in towns and cities, and catching trains particularly in terminus buildings, both of those are causes for concern because of the high 3-nitrobenzanthrone and 1,8-dinitropyrene levels. The blah blah there is that these are indeed the two most carcingenic chemicals known to science and both are off the scale compared to the banned food additive Sudan -1 which caused foods to be removed from supermarket shelves a few years back Still, each to their own, if plant food gas or watch dials blow your skirt up, rather you than me.
Sarcasm: how to insult people without them noticing. I wuz just messing wid ya.
King Herald said:
turbobloke said:
Luminous watch dials don't worry me but walking along High Streets in towns and cities, and catching trains particularly in terminus buildings, both of those are causes for concern because of the high 3-nitrobenzanthrone and 1,8-dinitropyrene levels. The blah blah there is that these are indeed the two most carcingenic chemicals known to science and both are off the scale compared to the banned food additive Sudan -1 which caused foods to be removed from supermarket shelves a few years back Still, each to their own, if plant food gas or watch dials blow your skirt up, rather you than me.
Sarcasm: how to insult people without them noticing. I wuz just messing wid ya.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff