Climate change! Weve all been conned (as we all knew)
Discussion
I dont think we (UK) in populous get any credit for the job we have already done cleaning the enviroment,people have short memories,take the city in the 60s the smog in the air and pollution in the Thames had to be seen to be belived you could hardly see your hand in front of you,the air and rivers are immesurably cleaner our enviroment therefore is nicer,we should however continue with energy saving and such like,however gimmick ideas for stealth taxing such as low emmision zones etc etc are IMO questionable the boundaries are unenforceable due to the nature of fresh air and wind ignoring the silly green signs,also I find as previously posted these DPF filters just utter bulls
t,the clean for them when they clog up being driving at high RPM for a mile or two to clean them out (releasing carcogenic pollutants back to the atmosphere).
We are doing a better job than most bearing in mind we are alledgedy responsible for less than 1% of world pollution as a nation.
t,the clean for them when they clog up being driving at high RPM for a mile or two to clean them out (releasing carcogenic pollutants back to the atmosphere).We are doing a better job than most bearing in mind we are alledgedy responsible for less than 1% of world pollution as a nation.
Eric Mc said:
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
Whatever the DM says, it will be a load of cobblers.
Gary11 said:
I dont think we (UK) in populous get any credit for the job we have already done cleaning the enviroment,people have short memories,take the city in the 60s the smog in the air and pollution in the Thames had to be seen to be belived you could hardly see your hand in front of you,the air and rivers are immesurably cleaner our enviroment therefore is nicer,we should however continue with energy saving and such like,however gimmick ideas for stealth taxing such as low emmision zones etc etc are IMO questionable the boundaries are unenforceable due to the nature of fresh air and wind ignoring the silly green signs,also I find as previously posted these DPF filters just utter bullst,the clean for them when they clog up being driving at high RPM for a mile or two to clean them out (releasing carcogenic pollutants back to the atmosphere).
We are doing a better job than most bearing in mind we are alledgedy responsible for less than 1% of world pollution as a nation.
You're right.t,the clean for them when they clog up being driving at high RPM for a mile or two to clean them out (releasing carcogenic pollutants back to the atmosphere).We are doing a better job than most bearing in mind we are alledgedy responsible for less than 1% of world pollution as a nation.
And NONE OF IT WHATSOEVER had, or has, anything to do with removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere!
Tallbut Buxomly said:
But also things as simple as over fishing.
I've never believed in man made global warming, aka "the greenhouse effect" as it used to be known, I nailed my colours to the mast many years ago on this issue.I think that in many ways the focus on "carbon emissions" is actually a big detriment to the environment. Why? Because it dominates SO MUCH of the discussion time around care for the environment that the other stuff doesn't get a look in. I remember when things like deforestation were top of the agenda, because it ruins the soil. Also over fishing as you say. And stuff like oil slicks, effluent pipes, land fills etc
But that stuff is not as interesting to the politicians who can levy taxes on Carbon Emissions, so carbon dominates the agenda - despite being a massive red herring IMO. We need to drop that, and refocus on the important stuff.
(This is a similar problem, IMO, to the focus on "breaking the speed limit". I feel that it detracts from the overall road safety debate, because it's prioritised disproportionately vs. other causes like inattentiveness. But what's the common theme? Speeding raises revenue, just like Carbon Emissions. So these red herrings continue to dominate the debates, to the detriment of much more important things.)
nelly1 said:
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.
mrmr96 said:
I've never believed in man made global warming, aka "the greenhouse effect" as it used to be known, I nailed my colours to the mast many years ago on this issue.
I think that in many ways the focus on "carbon emissions" is actually a big detriment to the environment. Why? Because it dominates SO MUCH of the discussion time around care for the environment that the other stuff doesn't get a look in. I remember when things like deforestation were top of the agenda, because it ruins the soil. Also over fishing as you say. And stuff like oil slicks, effluent pipes, land fills etc
But that stuff is not as interesting to the politicians who can levy taxes on Carbon Emissions, so carbon dominates the agenda - despite being a massive red herring IMO. We need to drop that, and refocus on the important stuff.
(This is a similar problem, IMO, to the focus on "breaking the speed limit". I feel that it detracts from the overall road safety debate, because it's prioritised disproportionately vs. other causes like inattentiveness. But what's the common theme? Speeding raises revenue, just like Carbon Emissions. So these red herrings continue to dominate the debates, to the detriment of much more important things.)
Agreed. The focus is on the wrong things entirely. Fix what you KNOW to be wrong not what you think may be wrong.I think that in many ways the focus on "carbon emissions" is actually a big detriment to the environment. Why? Because it dominates SO MUCH of the discussion time around care for the environment that the other stuff doesn't get a look in. I remember when things like deforestation were top of the agenda, because it ruins the soil. Also over fishing as you say. And stuff like oil slicks, effluent pipes, land fills etc
But that stuff is not as interesting to the politicians who can levy taxes on Carbon Emissions, so carbon dominates the agenda - despite being a massive red herring IMO. We need to drop that, and refocus on the important stuff.
(This is a similar problem, IMO, to the focus on "breaking the speed limit". I feel that it detracts from the overall road safety debate, because it's prioritised disproportionately vs. other causes like inattentiveness. But what's the common theme? Speeding raises revenue, just like Carbon Emissions. So these red herrings continue to dominate the debates, to the detriment of much more important things.)
Tallbut Buxomly said:
mrmr96 said:
I've never believed in man made global warming, aka "the greenhouse effect" as it used to be known, I nailed my colours to the mast many years ago on this issue.
I think that in many ways the focus on "carbon emissions" is actually a big detriment to the environment. Why? Because it dominates SO MUCH of the discussion time around care for the environment that the other stuff doesn't get a look in. I remember when things like deforestation were top of the agenda, because it ruins the soil. Also over fishing as you say. And stuff like oil slicks, effluent pipes, land fills etc
But that stuff is not as interesting to the politicians who can levy taxes on Carbon Emissions, so carbon dominates the agenda - despite being a massive red herring IMO. We need to drop that, and refocus on the important stuff.
(This is a similar problem, IMO, to the focus on "breaking the speed limit". I feel that it detracts from the overall road safety debate, because it's prioritised disproportionately vs. other causes like inattentiveness. But what's the common theme? Speeding raises revenue, just like Carbon Emissions. So these red herrings continue to dominate the debates, to the detriment of much more important things.)
Agreed. The focus is on the wrong things entirely. Fix what you KNOW to be wrong not what you think may be wrong.I think that in many ways the focus on "carbon emissions" is actually a big detriment to the environment. Why? Because it dominates SO MUCH of the discussion time around care for the environment that the other stuff doesn't get a look in. I remember when things like deforestation were top of the agenda, because it ruins the soil. Also over fishing as you say. And stuff like oil slicks, effluent pipes, land fills etc
But that stuff is not as interesting to the politicians who can levy taxes on Carbon Emissions, so carbon dominates the agenda - despite being a massive red herring IMO. We need to drop that, and refocus on the important stuff.
(This is a similar problem, IMO, to the focus on "breaking the speed limit". I feel that it detracts from the overall road safety debate, because it's prioritised disproportionately vs. other causes like inattentiveness. But what's the common theme? Speeding raises revenue, just like Carbon Emissions. So these red herrings continue to dominate the debates, to the detriment of much more important things.)
Exactly my thoughts too, save the good bits of the planet by looking after them. Not following some bulls
t mumbojumbo.OP: You must be mistaken. In September of 2009 Gordon Brown (supported by Ed Milliband) said there was only 75 days left to save the world.
http://tinyurl.com/72cwtqw
If what you say is correct that would mean Mr Brown and Mr Milliband are pathological liars and unprincipled sociopaths who will stop at nothing to achieve their political aims.
http://tinyurl.com/72cwtqw
If what you say is correct that would mean Mr Brown and Mr Milliband are pathological liars and unprincipled sociopaths who will stop at nothing to achieve their political aims.
Gary11 said:
I dont think we (UK) in populous get any credit for the job we have already done cleaning the enviroment,people have short memories,take the city in the 60s the smog in the air and pollution in the Thames had to be seen to be belived you could hardly see your hand in front of you,the air and rivers are immesurably cleaner our enviroment therefore is nicer,...
And all that darned carbon dioxide is gone too. It was so stifling.....nelly1 said:
They're going on a boat - see here...
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.
Any chance that they could hit an Ice berg?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.
Oh the irony
odyssey2200 said:
nelly1 said:
They're going on a boat - see here...
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.
Any chance that they could hit an Ice berg?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.
Oh the irony
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff