Hehe - that climate change stuff

[signia]

Lost_BMW said:

When we're all heads under and drowning can I borrow the straw you're clutching at to breathe through?

Yes.

Ok, it might look like 1918 on my pc. It looked like 1818 on my phone.

Again, I wasn't trying to make any "statement" just my initial reaction to the image itself. Not a scientist, not particularly that smart either so I'm told. Just what I thought when I saw the pic. All in the same vein as the OPs original post.

I have no opinion on whether it really is getting more frequent or not. It probably is, or perhaps we're just becoming more aware of it, or perhaps we're all paranoid about the link between driving V8s and the polar bears evolving into sea creatures.

[Einion Yrth]

signia said:

Lost_BMW said:

When we're all heads under and drowning can I borrow the straw you're clutching at to breathe through?

Yes.

Ok, it might look like 1918 on my pc. It looked like 1818 on my phone.

Again, I wasn't trying to make any "statement" just my initial reaction to the image itself. Not a scientist, not particularly that smart either so I'm told. Just what I thought when I saw the pic. All in the same vein as the OPs original post.

I have no opinion on whether it really is getting more frequent or not. It probably is, or perhaps we're just becoming more aware of it, or perhaps we're all paranoid about the link between driving V8s and the polar bears evolving into sea creatures.

It's a whole four datapoints, really not enough for any kind of rigourous analysis.

[chris watton]

signia said:

, or perhaps we're just becoming more aware of it, or perhaps we're all paranoid about the link between driving V8s and the polar bears evolving into sea creatures.

No....We're not - most on here are too busy earning a living to be 'paranoid' about activist science - those of us who live in the real world, without any idioligical/anti Human agenda can see right through it and see exactly what motivates it.

So, you're a fence-sitter, then?

[otolith]

Tsk, you are forgetting the difference between climate and weather - it's climate when it accords with the anthropogenic climate change agenda, and weather when it doesn't.

[signia]

chris watton said:

So, you're a fence-sitter, then?

No. I just don't necessarily believe the hype - and the various angles the press have and the agendas of the government/greenies etc.

But at the same time, wouldn't like to say it's all rubbish because, thanks to all the propaganda, it's not easy to tell if there is a point - and if there is, how big a deal it is.

[chris watton]

signia said:

chris watton said:

So, you're a fence-sitter, then?

No. I just don't necessarily believe the hype - and the various angles the press have and the agendas of the government/greenies etc.

But at the same time, wouldn't like to say it's all rubbish because, thanks to all the propaganda, it's not easy to tell if there is a point - and if there is, how big a deal it is.

I would say that most of it is rubbish. How can we give the government, tax payer funded institutions etc. any credence when they allow criminally inept organisations like the MET Office (to name but one) to continue to be funded (by us!) despite getting even basic forecasts wrong? Not only that, but we are meant to swallow the excuses and the bandwagon continues with aplomb.
This is nothing but ‘green Capitalism’ – where a few canny people make a shed load from public money via ‘Green’ subsidies – and meanwhile, the most vulnerable in our society continue to freeze, due to increasing basic fuel prices to help fund these subsidised red-herrings. I really do cringe at the thought of what future historians make of us – it is quite embarrassing witnessing people being taken in by this – I realise that, intellectually, as a whole, we’re no further forward than we were a thousand years ago.

[signia]

chris watton said:

I would say that most of it is rubbish. How can we give the government, tax payer funded institutions etc. any credence when they allow criminally inept organisations like the MET Office (to name but one) to continue to be funded (by us!) despite getting even basic forecasts wrong? Not only that, but we are meant to swallow the excuses and the bandwagon continues with aplomb.
This is nothing but ‘green Capitalism’ – where a few canny people make a shed load from public money via ‘Green’ subsidies – and meanwhile, the most vulnerable in our society continue to freeze, due to increasing basic fuel prices to help fund these subsidised red-herrings. I really do cringe at the thought of what future historians make of us – it is quite embarrassing witnessing people being taken in by this – I realise that, intellectually, as a whole, we’re no further forward than we were a thousand years ago.

Totally agree that the public are held to ransom over a lot of this and undoubtedly, there is a rather large bandwagon.

At the same time, I don't see anything wrong, for example, with car manufacturers making engines cleaner and more efficient if they can - through social responsibility. If there's no need to produce so many poisonous gasses, and we can change that, then why not?

I don't like the fact it's because their products would be uncompetitive due to road tax. It's that the government leans more to using the stick as opposed to the carrot.

I'm not saying what they're trying to do is wrong in itself. It's a shame there isn't a rational approach to it and a few more carrots, plus a bit more intolerance to the sensationalists.

To put that view into context however, one of my cars does 15mpg on a good day, probably puts out 400g/km of CO2, is very noisy, very dirty, and I love it. Would I drive it every day? No. Although that is probably due to running cost and that it's not that comfortable

[Lost_BMW]

signia said:

chris watton said:

I would say that most of it is rubbish. How can we give the government, tax payer funded institutions etc. any credence when they allow criminally inept organisations like the MET Office (to name but one) to continue to be funded (by us!) despite getting even basic forecasts wrong? Not only that, but we are meant to swallow the excuses and the bandwagon continues with aplomb.
This is nothing but ‘green Capitalism’ – where a few canny people make a shed load from public money via ‘Green’ subsidies – and meanwhile, the most vulnerable in our society continue to freeze, due to increasing basic fuel prices to help fund these subsidised red-herrings. I really do cringe at the thought of what future historians make of us – it is quite embarrassing witnessing people being taken in by this – I realise that, intellectually, as a whole, we’re no further forward than we were a thousand years ago.

Totally agree that the public are held to ransom over a lot of this and undoubtedly, there is a rather large bandwagon.

At the same time, I don't see anything wrong, for example, with car manufacturers making engines cleaner and more efficient if they can - through social responsibility. If there's no need to produce so many poisonous gasses, and we can change that, then why not?

I don't like the fact it's because their products would be uncompetitive due to road tax. It's that the government leans more to using the stick as opposed to the carrot.

I'm not saying what they're trying to do is wrong in itself. It's a shame there isn't a rational approach to it and a few more carrots, plus a bit more intolerance to the sensationalists.

To put that view into context however, one of my cars does 15mpg on a good day, probably puts out 400g/km of CO2, is very noisy, very dirty, and I love it. Would I drive it every day? No. Although that is probably due to running cost and that it's not that comfortable

I'd agree almost totally with this but note the paranoia against certain emissions - CO666 especially - leading regulators to push diesel despite the fact that many, particularly older design, diesel engine/exhaust methods produce very real, very significant and very dangerous levels of very dangerous pollutants (e.g. the massive impact of bus and taxi use in cities) whilst focussing over much on plant fuel.

No sense, no logic and no help to the rest of us. The sorts of people we put in charge of our country, Jesus!

[powerstroke]

Id like to see people turning over a new leaf...... Nissan leaf that is

[deeps]

signia said:

To put that view into context however, one of my cars does 15mpg on a good day, probably puts out 400g/km of CO2, is very noisy, very dirty, and I love it. Would I drive it every day? No. Although that is probably due to running cost and that it's not that comfortable

It's worrying that you know your grams per km! There's nothing even slightly bad about CO2, and as our atmosphere is currently CO2 impoverished, the more the better.

http://www.iloveco2.org/p/about-co2.html