Climate scandal

[Gucci]

You may have already posted..apologies if so, but I saw the repeat of the Channel 4 programme about climate change swindle. In light of today's news that the Uk is dedicated to cutting carbon emissions, there were some interesting fatcs to compare...

CO2 is mainly naturally occurring...the sea is the biggest producer...we produce as human beings, as well as volcanoes, dying leaves in autumn etc.

The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contain CO2 - 0.5%...and that's ALL CO2, discounting man-made

The sun's acitivity over hundreds of years show the rise in temperatures are NORMAL.

I recommend everyone sees it and starts to realise how wrong the priorities are. AND, I'M SOOOO BUYING AN ML500 NOW :bannana:

 

[recycled]

buy what you like mate. climate change is a farce . The research can not prove that co2 emmisions cause global warming conclusively. What we know is that the temperature of the earth has been rising which is has always done from day1
It is only a matter of time before the government start charging in to peoples houses and taxing them for not using the right fridge,cooker,microwave and television sets .Until there is conclusive proof we are going to speculate.It is a scam. Fossil fuel is natural because it comes from the ground. it is burnt into the air and absorbed back into the ground through various means e.g rain .SO2 ,SO3. There is no way a million TV sets not on standby can ever increase the temperature of the sun.
Another revenue generating scam.
London congestion Zone was to alleviate traffic in the central london. Why has it now being extended to greater london?. Soon it will be the whole of london.

 

[Alfie]

Totally agree, it is yet another vein of taxation that runs through our society.

It is pandering to the 'greens' and preying upon peoples ignorance of the real issues. By ignorance I mean we as a nation are not being told the full facts.

We are treated like mushrooms...Kept in the dark and fed on sh?t

 

[Spinal]

How very sad...

 

[BenzComander]

Not so long ago, scientists were telling us the earth was flat, and that all planets rotated around the earth!!

Global Warming is I am sure happening, but only because we are told it is, and the daffs are out a bit early this year. But what do I know, I have nothing to compare it to??

 

[DITTRICH]

The point of the program, which I saw, was that whilst everyone agrees the climate is getting warmer, the scientists disagree as to the cause. This interesting bit for me was the Danish? research correlating sunspot activity with average global temperatures. Correlation does not imply causality, but it raises the possibility that if the sun were causing global warming then the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere might be a consequence of temperature rise rather than a cause. This has not been widely publicised before. The point was also made that CO2 increases may have a positive feedback effect on temperature rises - ie that the CO2 increase itself causes more temperature rises. Personally my money is on the sun having at least some effect on climate.
My particular bugbear about all this is the fact that people claim that "it is true" that X causes Y - failing to appreciate that the explanation is merely the best available explanation which might be falsified at any moment by the production of evidence that contradicts the explanation. It is impossible to prove that something is true - the greek philosophers at least got this right - and more recently karl popper.
Les

 

[dougal74]

Freakonomics is a weird book but covers this and similar topics on causality (e.g. climate change and bizarrely abortion being the biggest factor in the drop in crime in US cities in 80s!!!)

 

[BonzoDog]

The point of the program, which I saw, was that whilst everyone agrees the climate is getting warmer, the scientists disagree as to the cause. This interesting bit for me was the Danish? research correlating sunspot activity with average global temperatures. Correlation does not imply causality, but it raises the possibility that if the sun were causing global warming then the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere might be a consequence of temperature rise rather than a cause. This has not been widely publicised before. The point was also made that CO2 increases may have a positive feedback effect on temperature rises - ie that the CO2 increase itself causes more temperature rises. Personally my money is on the sun having at least some effect on climate.
My particular bugbear about all this is the fact that people claim that "it is true" that X causes Y - failing to appreciate that the explanation is merely the best available explanation which might be falsified at any moment by the production of evidence that contradicts the explanation. It is impossible to prove that something is true - the greek philosophers at least got this right - and more recently karl popper.
Les

I am irritated that this argument seems to have become polarised, at least at the popular level, which is where I reside. I had veered toward the cautious approach of supporting the arguments of the Green side and I still tend towards that. However, having seen Al Gore's film, I was dismayed to find it a shallow tub thumping piece of self promotional journalism.
My own input is that given that the glaciers on some continents are retreating, how much does it matter? It was just one way that nature delivered precipitation to us, albeit delayed by a few thousand years. I assume that the precipitation will still occur over the mountains in the form of snow or rain and it will still be routed through our river systems.
Oh for a good high level, well informed, unbiased (is that possible?) debate.
I do so resent the feeling of being manipulated.

 

[MangoMan]

It's a load of hogwash! Just another scam to make money!

'Aluta continua'

 

[Dieter]

Hi all,

It is only an hypothesis that our lifestyles are causing global warming as it is also only an hypothesis that the sun's activity is responsible, though there appears to be agreement that the planet is truly warming. Neither of the aforementioned hypotheses can be proved (but time will tell which was/is more accurate ) and my big issue is that w/out a World Wide response we (UK) will just be p..ssing in the wind (and paying up for no real impact).
Also I can't really see China/India reducing their output as their massive populations want/need to develop further.

Usually in these situations the answer is 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' i.e. both sun and CO2/CH4 etc. are making some contribution.

The point about use of fossil fuels is that the CO2 released has been stored and is, therefore, 'extra' CO2 which could contribute to global warming (along with methane from intensive farming and destruction of CO2 sinks (Brazillian rain forests etc. etc.)) so cost effective cut backs (long life bulbs/no standby switches/better insulation/dearer air fares etc.) are prudent.

Ultimately we are running out of fossil fuels so its increasing cost has/will drive profligate wastage/use down anyway and this increasing cost will make alternative power generation/fuels more cost effective.

So my solution is to use as much fuel as possible now in order to drive the impetus to come up with more 'eco' friendly (more expensive) alternatives (nuclear/fuel cells etc. etc.) sooner, rather than later.

Cheers,

 

[Tilly]

I can't remember where it was that I read it, it may have even been on this forum but basically someone mentioned how the UK contributed towards 1% of the worlds population meaning the emissions we produce in a year could be equalled by the rest of the world in approx. half a week so why bother?

But then again we're not going from sh*t to 100% green, we're going from bad to ever so slightly better so the emissions we have cut wouldn't take the full three days for the world to equal but closer to only one day, or even less if we reduced our emmissions by 33%. Why struggle, suffer and pay silly taxes if we're fighting a losing battle that the remainder of the world won't contribute too?

 

[wallingd]

If it's all a farce, then why all the focus?

There's still the issue that we are of course using up fossil fuels, so rather than cutting down on emissions we should be looking @ ways to sustain our development, rather than reduce it.

Anyway, being "green" can still at least mean we save money on our bills...

 

[recycled]

i totally agree with dieter. The fuel should be made as cheap as possible so that we can all buy and use it up. Then we will have no choice but to park our cars and walk. I dont think no 11 will like that idea though .
Less freebies for them

 

[Sp!ke]

I say bring it on... Here in the UK we would be winners of global warming.

When it gets real bad and we've all had enough, we can just create a nuclear dust cloud over the Antarctic and bring the global temperatures down again.

i totally agree with dieter. The fuel should be made as cheap as possible so that we can all buy and use it up. Then we will have no choice but to park our cars and walk.

You mean just like they are doing in the US?

Actually the US are stockpiling the worlds oil resources, they are pumping oil out of the ground in a worldwide frenzy, then shipping it back to the US where they are then putting it back into the ground as fast as they can presumably for personal use once the rest of the world runs dry.

 

[recycled]

If these green activists do their research, they will find out that tidal waves/hurricanes are caused by the rotation of the earth and its gravitational attraction towards the sun .volcanic eruptions are caused by build up of molten lava from within the earths core. temperature rise can be caused by anything from a ocean currents mixing wih tropical atlantic currents and northern atlanic, to the testing of nuclear weapons.
Nowadays as clarkson said, blame everything on global warming, so when next your airbag fails , its global warming,your ecu fumbles, just blame global warming and how on earth is making people pay more for things in britain going to make a dent on the world use of fossil fuels.
Do the government just thinks that we all get up at 7 oclock in the morning and start driving just to p*ss them off? people take their kids to school in the car because they dont want him to get attacked by paedos let out early or by yobs as the old bill are too busy watching road cameras thinking of new schemes to generate money for their end of year party.
If you watched 1997 in review on bbc3 last night, the tube was down 52 times in 7days and it was one of their better weeks.
Now it is worse .For the price of a train jouney to blackpool from london ,i can fill my tank twice overand still listen to my fav music collection ,so please,Long live the car.
If global warming is the next epidemic, just ban all cars and buses and let us go back to the stone age

 

[glojo]

I have no opinion either way, but when George Bush states he doesn't believe the Global warming theories then I hesitate

My brother lives in New Zealand and the thinning ozone layer is a huge problem with the sun's rays. They aren't getting sun burnt when the moon is out, but the ozone layer is thinning for whatever reason?

Slip, Slop, Slap is not being treated lightly. As I say, I have NO opinion either way.

Regards,
John

 

[Spinal]

Can we get this thread preserved for another 50/60years? I should still be alive in 60 years, and I really want to see what will be happening then!

Meanwhile, I'm making sure I'm gonna move to the states! At least they are getting prepared and stockpiling!

 

[Alfie]

I can't remember where it was that I read it, it may have even been on this forum but basically someone mentioned how the UK contributed towards 1% of the worlds population meaning the emissions we produce in a year could be equalled by the rest of the world in approx. half a week so why bother?

But then again we're not going from sh*t to 100% green, we're going from bad to ever so slightly better so the emissions we have cut wouldn't take the full three days for the world to equal but closer to only one day, or even less if we reduced our emmissions by 33%. Why struggle, suffer and pay silly taxes if we're fighting a losing battle that the remainder of the world won't contribute too?

It was me that said it and you are absolutely right.

In the early 80's the government listened to panic merchants when they said that aids would wipe out the western world in a few years. They soon dropped the ad campaigns and the funding when they realised it wasnt true and more importantly to them, there was no tax to be had from sticking with it. With 'global warming' they stay on the band wagon with it, despite it being a load of rubbish because there is money to be had from it!

 

[guydewdney]

I say bring it on... Here in the UK we would be winners of global warming.

sadly not - the uk - and northern europe will get colder - long boring stuff about water flow, atlantic warm water etc..

the earth IS getting warmer - ok - why is a different question.

We ARE running low on oil - or else why iraq????

My attitude is 'be sensible' - you dont need a three tonne, 7 litre car to take the kids 400 yards to school...

My health has improved dramatically ever since i moved out of the south east - but my lifestyle basically hasnt - i still drink too much , i still eat rubbish - but my skin is so much clearer, and my bogeys are white not black like they were. I even (think) I can see better... whats the biggest difference? quality of food (local / homegrown) and no pollution....

I (as some may know) have bought a water mill in zomerzet, to generate my own leccy - why NOT? its (basically) free, zero damage, and even arguabley pretty... not somthing i would attribute to a coal / oil station.

I am in FAVOUR of nuclear oddly... zero emissions - just need to sort out how to get rid of the rubbish :rolleys:

 

[Dieselman]

sadly not - the uk - and northern europe will get colder - long boring stuff about water flow, atlantic warm water etc..

the earth IS getting warmer - ok - why is a different question.

We ARE running low on oil - or else why iraq????

My attitude is 'be sensible' - you dont need a three tonne, 7 litre car to take the kids 400 yards to school...

I agree with al your comments here Guy. Why not just do everything you need to but reduce the impact.

I am in FAVOUR of nuclear oddly... zero emissions - just need to sort out how to get rid of the rubbish :rolleys:

Not zero emissions when it is taken on a dust to dust basis. Apparently produces similar CO2 levels to naturals gas.
Things like mining, processing, transport, subsequent reprocessing and long term storage all contribute to the Co2 output.