thefastone Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 It is very arrogant for man to think that he is the cause of everything that he does not like about the change in the climate, you may not remember this personally, but there was what we like to call an Ice age, You wont remember, because we didn't exsist. But, if we didn't exsist... then... How come the planet iced over? and... How come it all melted again? Holy ****, it was the dinosaurs, wasn't it? Were just not learning their lessons... Oh, Wait... Link to comment
4Hero Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) How come the planet iced over? and... How come it all melted again? Holy ****, it was the dinosaurs, wasn't it? Were just not learning their lessons... Oh, Wait... hehe Have your say over at the bbc about it if you like. Edited to say, there is so much being said about this story around the world. From the word "Climategate" not even being a word last friday, to over 3.7 Million (yes Million) results on google in less than a week. one day it'll be mainstream news in the UK, how can they ignore this? I liked this from NZ "There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?" Researchers find records adjusted to represent 'warming' when raw data show temperatures have been stable." Talk about a f@rse! Edited November 25, 2009 by 4hero Link to comment
soundie Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I looked up climategate and on wikipedia it says that one of the locations the hackers uploaded the stolen info to, was RealClimate.org, and it was THEY alerted the university of east anglia about the breach. here's what they say; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/ RealClimate seem to regard CRU's science as sound, but it still troubles me that The CRU gets ALL of funding from environmentalists - I'm all about the good evidence, and if CRU are supposed to be a main influence in this kind of research then a full independant enquiry must take place. bottom line is i suppose, that we ARE going to run out of fossil fuels so alternatives must be saught no matter what the 'truth' is. And maybe when we are not dependant on oil, the world will be a more peaceful place Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) bottom line is i suppose, that we ARE going to run out of fossil fuels so alternatives must be saught no matter what the 'truth' is. There in lies the whole point! Why are we getting in such a state about Global Warming when main reason for it, is running out? Oh I know, there is no GW its just a way of making money from the ignorant masses who daren't challenge a man in white coat with some letters after his name! As for the world being a more peaceful place; I doubt it. Mankind will always find a way to wage war. When a viable alternative to oil is discovered or designed, then inevitably there will be some countries that will be resource-rich and others who wont... then the tension begins! Edited November 25, 2009 by TheWelsho Link to comment
4Hero Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Running out of fossil fuels is not the reason we are paying over £400 in road tax. Our road tax is based on CO2 emissions, which was supposed to harm the environment, which is false. When will we be refunded due to the governments "mistake"?? I have no issue with saving energy, needless waste is pointless. What I am raging about is the fact that we have been lied to (again) by the people who are supposed to be running our ****hole of a country. On another note, remember David Bellamy? Wondering where he went? BBC are supposed to be non-biased, yet they completely spin the release of these emails as only "hacking" and it's nothing to worry about. Edited November 25, 2009 by 4hero Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Running out of fossil fuels is not the reason we are paying over £400 in road tax. I know. All I'm saying is that they are blaming it on fossil fuels. So, why the big emergency when the fossil fuels are almost gone? Just let us burn them like crazy, get them out the way for the "clean fuels" and everyone can be happy! Link to comment
scoobyseller555 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I bet Gordon Brown doesn't drive around in a Toyota IQ!! Gav Link to comment
soundie Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 yeah i agree if the issue OT is about tax, especially green road tax, the government need to be serious with us about what the tax is for. In a post-oil era we will have less budget is going abroad and as renewable energy is always local, war over territories will drop. A future superpower will be a country that cracks alternative energy, in particular, fuel cell technology. So setting up an infrastructure to handle alternatives, is a step. The tax is called 'green' but goes towards paying for wars with oil rich countries, and paying oil rich countries for their oil. If co2 actually causes global warming, well, i don't believe anyone actually knows the answer to that. there are just too many variables - recent deforestation, reduced western c02 emissions alongside increased eastern emissions, solar activity, natural geological cycles and weather systems, add to that some chaotic cloud behaviour - we can't model all this accurately and have a long term prediction of earths temerature. not with just some fossil records and only 100 years of non-standardised data. The evidence that the influence of solar activity cycles alone seem to affect the planets temperature much more than anything else. The government know that the issue is complicated and use it to they're advantage. They know we won't see results of reduced co2 emissions for another 30 years, (when we will know the if it was all about co2) so it gives them quite a nice cushion to get money out of us for 'noble' reasons. And if in 30 years we find its not about co2, then at least we won't find ourselves a little bit closer to the extinction of oil, and knowing cock all about any alternative. Link to comment
scoobyseller555 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Its like saying that speed cameras reduce speeding and accidents,why not tax dithering idiots for going slow?? At the end of the day its some 'THINK' tank that sits round a table,wastes millions of tax payers money to think up the best way to get more revenue out of our nation,so we can p*** it away in keeping junkies in methadone,alcoholics in drink,imigrants in houses and criminals in open prisons coming out twice a week to do your grannys garden. My old man needs a hip replacement,he's waited 2 years on a waiting list and he's paid 40% tax all his days,suppose the only consilation is that he can spout loads of CO2 out of the back of his Subaru and have the benefit of having disabled road tax and paying nothing for the priviledge. Link to comment
4Hero Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) It's been amazing watching this story unravel, watched it since Friday (the day the files were released). The power of the internet is truly phenomenal. Google results for "climategate" have almost doubled in the last 12 hours to 6.1 million! The hilarious thing though, searching the BBC for the same word shows 0 results Lots of news happening today: 5 Australian MPs resign at disgust over carbon tax US Congress investigates Climategate e-mails Senator Launches "Climategate" Investigation: Warns Participants to Retain Documents There's a hell of a lot more out there, WAKE UP UK MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT!!! Edited November 26, 2009 by 4hero Link to comment
stum450n Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Whatever side of the fence you sit on, regardless of what you do or don't believe, a resolution to this argument is unattainable - win or loose, we're ****ed which ever way you look at it. Be it through a return to the dark ages because of the 'warming' or because of the greediness of global government and the collapse of society as a result - the world as we know it WILL change and we, the general population will continue to be shafted one way or another... May as well just keep calm and carry on imho Link to comment
hammy Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 thank f u c k this has come up. can we not start a david bellamy army and boot this govement out and put him in. i am sick to the back teeth off this dribble about climite change, i have worked on rigs most of my days and do the lights ever go off no so its ok to take s h i t out the ground and burn energy like no tomorrow but if you pay tax on it its ok one word says it all BULL****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) I recently read an article by an Australian geologist (Prof. Ian Plimer) who thinks that GW is a farce, which can be read here. It was so good, I decided to order his book from here! Edit: I just realised that Professor Ian Plimer and his book is actually mentioned in Neil's links! Edited November 27, 2009 by TheWelsho Link to comment
zeolite Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I recently read an article by an Australian geologist (Prof. Ian Plimer) who thinks that GW is a farce, which can be read here. It was so good, I decided to order his book from here!Edit: I just realised that Professor Ian Plimer and his book is actually mentioned in Neil's links! I can't believe my eyes! Welsho believes a geologist! lol I will read what the man has to say before I comment any further about that. Thing is all us geologists know that the CO2 that man has produced is a very small amount compared to the enormous quantities that large scale volcanic activity produces. The amount that the mid-ocean spreading (occurring at this very second in the middle of all the great oceans btw) must be huge but as it happens 2000 ft down we just don't think about it. There is a school of thought that many of the large scale extinctions in the fossil record (Steady Welsho) were precipitated by large volcanic pulses that create huge lava fields and produce millions of tonnes of CO2 and SO, SO2 etc. There is no doubt that the climate of the planet has changed many times in its history. At one time the production of oxygen killed off a huge percentage of life on earth when it was a sulphurous, toxic (to us) greenhouse. The vast majority of people cannot (or refuse to) think beyond the little window of time that homo sapien has scratched about on planet Earth. Whatever happens the earth does not need saved. It will be fine until the Sun burns out its fuel and even then it will just get a bit colder. What happens to Homo sapiens is another question but one thing I know for sure. as long as we have society we will have goverment and as long as there is goverment there will be taxes. Link to comment
thefastone Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 I can't believe my eyes! Welsho believes a geologist! lol Holy ****!!!! After all those arguements!!!!! Link to comment
thefastone Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 From Last night... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ques...ime/8382037.stm Link to comment
soundie Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 good post zeolite From Last night...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ques...ime/8382037.stm yea I watched this last night., couldn't quite fathom the shock of agreeing with a daily mail columnist. Whilst on my flying-pig flight home from my skiing holiday in hell, i'll check the world is still round. Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Holy ****!!!! After all those arguements!!!!! discussions I have no argument with geologists, just what some of them say some of the time! Even geologists don't agree with each other from time to time. And I can't yet say I belive the Prof Plimer until I have read his book; which I am really looking forward too! Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) From Last night...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ques...ime/8382037.stm She pointed out that the BBC are not telling anyone about this... which is pretty obvious, but why??? Why would a reputable news service NOT report such a huge issue. I can't fathom that at all. Do they have an agenda? Or should I ask, what is their agenda? Listening and reading about this stuff is making the AGW issue seem more and more ridiculous by the day; how can anyone in their right mind be duped by this? What does this say about our media, our governments our scientists our enviromentalists and others in a postion of authority and power? If this is a huge farce and we really are being "taken in" by all of these poeple... then, why stop at AGW? What else are they not telling us? What else are they lying about? I have always been skeptical of governments and wouldnt trust them as far as I could throw them; but this is in another league. So much for freedom and democracy... what a crock that is. Edited November 27, 2009 by TheWelsho Link to comment
4Hero Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) She pointed out that the BBC are not telling anyone about this... which is pretty obvious, but why??? Why would a reputable news service NOT report such a huge issue. I can't fathom that at all. Do they have an agenda? Or should I ask, what is their agenda? Listening and reading about this stuff is making the AGW issue seem more and more ridiculous by the day; how can anyone in their right mind be duped by this? What does this say about our media, our governments our scientists our enviromentalists and others in a postion of authority and power? If this is a huge farce and we really are being "taken in" by all of these poeple... then, why stop at AGW? What else are they not telling us? What else are they lying about? I have always been skeptical of governments and wouldnt trust them as far as I could throw them; but this is in another league. So much for freedom and democracy... what a crock that is. John, the BBC have too much to lose, i.e. licence fees (which we pay by the way). But still, the government decide how much they get. Just look at the "global warming" stories that are being covered right now on the beeb. In fact, since last Friday (when the emails were released) the beeb seem to have increased their "You are all killing the polar bears" type stories. Did you know that Polar Bears are on the increase throughout the world? 41. 'Commonwealth Talks Target Climate' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8382014.stm.... 40. '£4million Climate Study Launched' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8381744.stm (Um, I thought the 'science' was 'settled'?) 39. 'Castle's Mexican Plant Rare Bloom' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8381229.stm 38. 'Australia Emissions Plan In Chaos' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8382.stm... (About time! Completely Biased though) 37. 'China Cabron Cuts Put Pressure On India' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/838212.stm... 36. 'The Netherlands Leads the Battle Against Rising Sea Levels' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8362147.stm 35. 'Rich Should Help Amazon Forests, Summit Says' - Fri 27th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8380915.stm.... 34. 'Past Climate Anamolies Explained' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm (Problem solved guys!! AGW back on) 33. 'Amazon Summit to Save Rainforest' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8380915.stm.... 32. 'New Flood Laws Revealed After Record Rainfall' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotl... 31. 'EU Climate Package Explained' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7765094.stm... 30. 'Scottish Offshore Wind Future Set for £30billion Investment' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8379029.stm 29. 'Who Pays and Who Gains For Carbon Offsetting' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8378592.stm 28. 'Nigeria Set for 'Green Big Brother' Show' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8364871.stm... 27. 'Obama Climate Summit Visit Hailed' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8379957.stm.... 26. 'Killing Cows for the Climate' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_838000.stm... 25. 'China Unveils Copenhagen Targets' - Thurs 26th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8380106.stm... 24. 'Cows Survive Whitehall Farce' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379759.stm (All in the name of Climate Change!) 23. 'Icebergs Heading to New Zealand' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8379690.stm... 22. 'Climate Policies Improve Health' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377268.stm 21. 'US Pledges Major Emissions Cut' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8378890.stm.... 20. 'Climate Cash Controversy' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376874.stm 19. 'Climate Change Help For The Poor Has Not Materialised' - Wed 25th: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376009.stm 18. 'Liberians Facing Rising Flood Threat' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8375301.stm 17. 'Plan to Boost UK Woodland to tackle Climate Change' - Wed 25th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8377827.stm 16. 'This Year in Top Five Warmest' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm 15. 'Mozambique Sea Level Rise: A Disaster Waiting to Happen' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8363045.stm... (So good we ran it twice) 14. 'Rising Sea Levels: A Tale of Two Cities' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366538.stm... 13. 'Teenager Wins Trip to World Climate Change Summit' - Tue 24th Nov: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/8374514.stm... 12. 'Australia PM Presses revised Carbon Emissions Scheme' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8375559.stm... 11. 'Copenhagen: What's your Solution?' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8375378.stm... 10. 'Climate is major cause of African conflict' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375949.stm 9. 'US will Announce Climate Targets' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375248.stm 8. 'Global Warming Science Alarming' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm 7. 'Climate Change: Copenhagen in Graphics' - Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359629.stm 6. 'State Leaders boost to Copenhagen' - Mon 23rd Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8373551.stm... 5. 'Climate Change: What Price Will Future Generations Pay?' - Mon 23rd Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8374965.stm 4. 'Is Cumbria a victim of Climate Change?' - Mon 23rd Nov: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston... 3. 'East Antarctica Ice Sheet Losing Mass' - Sun 22nd Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371773.stm 2. 'Fish At Risk In Acidified Oceans' - Sat 21st Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8369453.stm (appeared to have missed this one before TB) 1. 'Fishermen Spot Climate Change' - Fri 20th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/wales/2009/gre... And on 'Climategate': 'UK's Climate Units Emails Hacked' - Fri 20th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm 'Email Arguments' - Sat 21st Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm 'Hacker Leaks Scientists Emails' - Mon 23rd Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8374721... 'Email Impact' -Tue 24th Nov: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm Brainwashing nonsense. Angry with the BBC? Feel free to make a complaint! Edited November 27, 2009 by 4hero Link to comment
thefastone Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) The BBC ALWAYS have an agenda... Remember who it is that really govern them, and where their money comes from... Point of note, BBC news changes the colour of its background according to which part are in power. Currently Red, but Blue when the Cons are in power. I have noticed though, recently, that there is some blue in there, but the main colour is still red. Edited November 27, 2009 by thefastone Link to comment
zeolite Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 At the heart of all of this is the fact that understanding science is a difficult thing. It takes time and effort to make sense of the huge amounts of data that are collected. The vast majority of people (and I include myself in that group) have neither the time the expertees or the inclination to gather it and interpret it. This means we are at the mercy of those who choose to disseminate what they have learned. This isn't usually a problem until the politicians and lazy journalists get involved. The journalists winnow away at the conclusions until they are "bite-sized" and easy for people to undrstand and the politicians hitch their bandwagons to the cause of the day. Scientists will always find reasons to disagree and that is just part of the process. This is a strength of the process. Everything will be questioned and tested. Making sense of their arguments from reading their emails is never going to give any kind of accuracy. Disagreement just shows that they are doing their job. It is 22 years since I got my degree and stuff moves on so I am way out of date but the climate change issue has never convinced me one way or another. As the good professor said geologists aren't trained to think in decades. We are looking at much longer periods of time and I just don't believe that any worthwhile conclusions can be drawn over such short periods of time. I really believe that we still won't have any significant trends drawn over my lifetime. I don't think we can do any harm limiting CO2 but I don't think it will do much good either. All it takes is for a Pinutobu or Krakatoa and we lose any gains overnight. The phrase "pissing in the wind" is one that comes to mind. Pilmer got it spot on about it being the politics of the middle classes. Your starving Sudanese or poisoned Bangladeshi are too concerned about surviving the day without worrying about climate change. can their fates be attributed to climate change caused by mans activities? No. They can't. The jury is still out. Meanwhile we are still polluting our planet with plastic that turns toxic and poisons the sea, overfishing the fish stocks and deforesting great areas of jungle. We know these things are harmful so why don't address these issues with the same vigour that climate change is getting? where is sting when you need him? Link to comment
bmwhere? Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Meanwhile we are still polluting our planet with plastic that turns toxic and poisons the sea, overfishing the fish stocks and deforesting great areas of jungle. We know these things are harmful so why don't address these issues with the same vigour that climate change is getting? where is sting when you need him? That pretty much summarises my point of view, but I just got shot down for not being on the right "side"! Personally, I'm not on any side, I'll draw my own conclusions from the information available and my current thinking is inconclusive on either side of the argument! However in the lack of any decisive proof on either side, I would say its better to take the side of caution because if the pro-global warmers are right, then its going to be too late. What is clear is deforestation (not just the rainforest) is a really big problem and is really not good for the planet, the environment or the wildlife, yet seemingly nothing is being done about this massive problem while the governments of the world target the easy 'problems' such as cars which ultimately will make little difference, but at least they are seen to be doing something! Needless to say, I'll keep driving my 2.5l STi, but I'm happy to use energy saving light bulbs and actively boycott any products that I associate with deforestation! Link to comment
thewelsho Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Yes, but deforestation, overfishing, plastics poisoning the sea and any of the other (real) issues previously mentioned (nice write-up Z), don't get the same air-play because they cannot be used to hammer us and businesses with a Green Tax and the certainly don't attract huge research budgets which keep the white-coated lab rats in a job. As for energy saving light bulbs... where is the ingenuity in those???? They don't give off any freaking light, so no wonder they save energy! But do they tell us of the high mercury-content used in making them, and how hazardous it is to breathe the air in a room where one has been dropped and smashed? No. How do we dispose of these potentially harmful items - landfill! I should say, this is something I heard but as yet haven’t checked out, so feel free to correct me on this while I pursue a reliable source I know the BBC have an agenda (they all do), but I'm really surprised that they are so stubborn. It's beyond belief, despicable actually. Thanks for the links Neil, I will have a squiz at them later Link to comment
bmwhere? Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 As for energy saving light bulbs... where is the ingenuity in those???? They don't give off any freaking light, so no wonder they save energy! But do they tell us of the high mercury-content used in making them, and how hazardous it is to breathe the air in a room where one has been dropped and smashed? No. How do we dispose of these potentially harmful items - landfill! I should say, this is something I heard but as yet haven’t checked out, so feel free to correct me on this while I pursue a reliable source I don't use those crappy florescent ones that you can't dim! Halogen all the way, doesn't save quite as much energy, but still bright enough and no health issues and you can dim them! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now