Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Latest Government EviroMENTAL Scare Tactics...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31 January 2006, 12:57 PM
  #31  
TelBoy
Scooby Regular
 
TelBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
Tel, and everyone else, interesting read:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html


Ns04

Blimey, they certainly got carried away with the font, bold and colour functions didn't they?

But what in that report made you draw a distinction between industry and private cars, for example? And are you on the side of "do nothing, what we've seen isn't out of the ordinary in terms of the history of the Earth"..?
Old 31 January 2006, 01:01 PM
  #32  
TelBoy
Scooby Regular
 
TelBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dracoro
What proof do you have that doing something is gonna make a difference?

I'm all for making the planet a better place etc. but I want to know
- the real evidence that man made environmental change is happening
- what the implications of this change are. Could be for the better for all we know.
- where best to channel our efforts.

If man is really has a massive impact on undesirable climate change then I suggest a mass cull of humans, after all that'd solve the problem. We eat, we breathe, we consume. The planet itself may kill off humans in time if we are a major problem. After all, the planet has been around FAR FAR FAR longer than humans have and will still be around far long after humans have disappeared.

At the end of the day, this is all about humans preserving a quality of life that we are happy with and that our kids are happy with etc. It's not about 'saving the planet'. The planet will save itself in the long term.
I don't have "proof" per se, other than to suggest that reducing our detrimental effects on the environment MAY have some impact on the planet's ability to withstand the massive increase in population. I just *cannot* bring myself to believe that we're just seeing a "blip" in world weather patterns. And i cannot bring myself to leave it all to chance. But i'm not a tree hugger and as such i'm hypocritical in many areas, but i do what i can. And if and when proof IS forthcoming, i'd expect any government to do whatever was necessary to have an effect, assuming, and it's a huge assumption, that it was on a global scale.
Old 31 January 2006, 01:04 PM
  #33  
New_scooby_04
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
 
New_scooby_04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TelBoy
Blimey, they certainly got carried away with the font, bold and colour functions didn't they?

But what in that report made you draw a distinction between industry and private cars, for example? And are you on the side of "do nothing, what we've seen isn't out of the ordinary in terms of the history of the Earth"..?
No Tel, I'm on the side of do something effective! i.e. address the bigger culprits....especially the cows farting!! Its a point of common sense that we should take reasonable steps to reduce the crpa we put in the environment.

I think the government has deliberately manipulated the global warming argument for economic purposes.

Of more pressing concern is that fossil fuels are a finite resource and what happens when they run out??

Ns04
Old 31 January 2006, 01:10 PM
  #34  
Brendan Hughes
Scooby Regular
 
Brendan Hughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by unclebuck
The State is using the myth of man made 'global warming' to justify the introduction of control systems Europe wide. The UK is in the vanguard of this with Tony at the helm. People should indeed be told the truth instead of a steady diet of spin and lies, which as we can see on here they are only too willing to swallow.
You see? Perfect. You'd almost think he'd been practising
Old 31 January 2006, 01:12 PM
  #35  
SJ_Skyline
Scooby Senior
 
SJ_Skyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Limbo
Posts: 21,922
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I'm all spun out!

*off to buy some corks*
Old 31 January 2006, 01:28 PM
  #36  
scoobyster
Scooby Regular
 
scoobyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sheffield / North Wales
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

That's an interesting read, claiming the US could fulfill all their oil requirements with carbon-neutral biodiesel derived from algae.

This is also worth a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

It's incredibly naive to ignore/dismiss the problem and hope it will go away! Even so, it will be a very brave government who implements significant change to counteract it. I just hope our saving grace is that we'll run out of oil fairly soon anyway so be forced into change, not looking forward to it mind you.
Old 31 January 2006, 01:28 PM
  #37  
unclebuck
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
unclebuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
You see? Perfect. You'd almost think he'd been practising
New Labour saps like you might thank us one day for standing up for the liberties your sort are so delighted to see dismantled. Probably not though, as you are clearly unable to grasp the underlying political agenda behind what's being put in place.
Old 31 January 2006, 01:30 PM
  #38  
unclebuck
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
unclebuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Anyway staying on topic. All these proposals for reducing emissions will be exposed for their futility when a true natural global event (for which we are well overdue) occurs.

Take for example the year of 1816 known as The Year Without a Summer, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe and the American Northeast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_A_Summer

It is now generally thought that the aberrations occurred because of the 5–15 April 1815 volcanic eruptions of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies (in today's Indonesia) which ejected over a million and a half metric tons of dust into the upper atmosphere. As is common following a massive volcanic eruption, temperatures fell worldwide due to reduced sunlight.

The unusual climate aberrations of 1816 had the greatest effect on the American northeast and northern Europe. Typically, the late spring and summer of the American Northeast are relatively stable: temperatures average about 68–77 °F (20–25 °C), and rarely fall below 41 °F (5 °C). Summer snow is an extreme rarity, though May flurries sometimes occur.
In May of 1816, however, frost killed off most of the crops that had been planted, and in June two large snowstorms resulted in many human deaths as well. In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania. Rapid, dramatic temperature swings were common, with temperatures sometimes reverting from normal or above-normal summer temperatures as high as 95 °F (35 °C) to near-freezing within hours.

Europe, still recuperating from the Napoleonic Wars, suffered from food shortages. Food riots broke out in Britain and France and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked Switzerland, where famine caused the government to declare a national emergency.
Just try to imagine en event of this kind happening today and the chaos that would result (difficult for some of you, I know). And what preparations are the governments of Europe making for this, a far greater threat than long term global warming? None whatsoever of course.

Last edited by unclebuck; 31 January 2006 at 01:34 PM.
Old 31 January 2006, 01:34 PM
  #39  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Apparently were in for hose pipe bans soon. Dryest spell since, oohh the last dry spell
Old 31 January 2006, 01:37 PM
  #40  
Iain Young
Scooby Regular
 
Iain Young's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by unclebuck
Anyway staying on topic. All these proposals for reducing emissions will be exposed for their futility when a true natural global event (for which we are well overdue) occurs.
Agreed. However, how do you know we are overdue for a natural cataclysmic event? Just because we haven't had one for a while, doesn't mean that we must have one soon. These things are natural, and by that token, unpredictable. You might as well say we are overdue to be hit by an asteroid...

My guess is that there is little or no preparation in place for an event like this though. Governments (not just Labour, or even just the UK) tend to always just react to the current issues rather than spend money on and prepare for something that might never happen (at least while they are in government)...
Old 31 January 2006, 01:40 PM
  #41  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Havent we just had a few natural cataclysmic events? 2005 certainly seemed like it.
Old 31 January 2006, 01:46 PM
  #42  
TonyG
Scooby Regular
 
TonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by _RIP_
Havent we just had a few natural cataclysmic events? 2005 certainly seemed like it.
None of which (with the possible exception of the hurricane) are remotely connected to climate change
Old 31 January 2006, 02:06 PM
  #43  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well I dont know about that.

I wont even mention hurricanes, heatwaves, drought etc. How do you know climate change is not to blame? The number of people affected by floods worldwide has already risen from 7 million in the 1960s to 150 million today. Make of that what you like.

2005 just seemed to attract a hell of a lot of disasters whether related to climate change or not. I wont bother cutting and pasting any more from this one site, only the floods/weather. It doesnt even include the recent UK floods, of which there have been many. Perhaps if you stayed in an area which was affected by floods then you might think differently. I'm sure you can Google more for yourself


# Jan. 8–12, Europe: wild storms battered many European countries, leaving 19 dead. High winds and flooding left people without power and shut down ferries, trains, and highways.

# Jan. 22–23, eastern United States: strong snow storms swept across the Midwest to the Atlantic coast, killing 20 people. A blizzard blanketed parts of the Northeast with snow depths up to 38 in north and south of Boston and the entire island of Nantucket lost power. By the end of January, Boston had the snowiest month on record with a total of 43.1 inches of snow.

Feb. 6–13, Pakistan: heavy flooding from snows and rain killed more than 1460 people and left thousands more missing. The Shadi Kor dam in Baluchistan province broke on Feb. 10, leaving thousands homeless.

# Feb. 17–23, Calif.: a series of storms caused flooding, landslides, and avalanches, killing at least 9 people, damaging many roads, and forcing the evacuation of many homes. More than 9 in of rain fell in downtown Los Angeles.

# Feb., South East Asia: extreme winter weather including cold, snowfall, avalanches, and flooding in Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan killed more than 1,400 people in the last month. Due to the lack of communications actual numbers were hard to confirm.

Mar. 18–22, Afghanistan: heavy rains and melting snows killed more than 200 and left thousands homeless. This followed what was already the worst winter in years that had killed several hundred people.

June, Southern China: widespread flooding for the month of June, particularly in southern China, killed 536 people. In addition the floods damaged dikes, reservoirs, roads, rail lines, and millions of acres of crops.

June 12, Northwest China: a flash flood, triggered by torrential rains, swept through an elementary school in Ning'an, in northeast Heilongjiang province, killing at least 117 of which 105 were children.

# June 18–19, Calgary, Alberta, Canada: flooding of the Elbow and Bow rivers, from a week of rain, impacted hundreds of homes, forcing the evacuation of more than 1,500.

# Europe: days of heavy rains in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Romania, and Switzerland inundated rivers and lakes, flooded cities and towns, damaged roads and railways, and killed at least 42 people, 31 of them in Romania.

Oct. 1–5, In El Salvador more than 130,000 people were evacuated and 80% of the roads were affected. In Guatemala, continuous torrential rains brought floods and mudslides that killed more than 2,000 and buried the whole village of Panabáj.

Oct. 7–Oct. 14, Northeast U.S.: Torrential rains caused flooded in several states in the Northeast, especially New Jersey and New Hampshire, killing 10.

Last edited by _RIP_; 31 January 2006 at 02:13 PM.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:08 PM
  #44  
TelBoy
Scooby Regular
 
TelBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Exactly. And it's for evidence like the above that i find it impossible to be complacent, and impossible to countenance it as some great pan-European political conspiracy.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:14 PM
  #45  
Dracoro
Scooby Regular
 
Dracoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You can't look at these events in isolation. You have to look at the pattern over a number of years (decades, centuries) etc.

Put another way - The October 87 hurricane for example. Have we seen anything as bad as that here? Not really, does that mean things are improving? Who knows.

Anyway, as previously stated, it's one thing proving that radical climate change is happening. It's another proving that humans are the cause. As I said before, I'd agree that humans are CONTRIBUTING to climate change, however that's doesn't mean they are the CAUSE of climate change. What evidence do you have that all these catastrophes would have not happened if man wasn't about? They may have happened anyway.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:15 PM
  #46  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You can't look at these events in isolation. You have to look at the pattern over a number of years (decades, centuries) etc.
Perhaps the trend is changing too quickly for this to be studied in time. I read an article in the Intependant recently, by a world renowned scientist, I forget the name. Basically it said the only reason we are still here, is due to all the dust floating about the atmosphere which is reflecting much of the suns radiation. Take the pollution and dust away and were stuffed. Keep it and were stuffed. Either way.

edited to say I think this is the article, or similar and it was James Lovelock, a very respected scientist.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...icle338830.ece

Last edited by _RIP_; 31 January 2006 at 02:23 PM.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:31 PM
  #47  
drumsterphil
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
drumsterphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I do think that CO2 targets are a complete folly - all it needs is one decent sized volcano and hey-ho there goes the year's targets!

And recently, it's been discovered that plants emit METHANE! So, we've been decrying de-forestation for years but it now appears that plants/trees contribute to the production of so-called 'greenhouse' gasses.

With announcements like this is it any wonder that global-warming (or more importantly 'man-made global warming) is treated with such mirth by people who look outside of eco-mentalist arguments! Indications are a long way short of proof in my book!
Old 31 January 2006, 02:31 PM
  #48  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TelBoy
So based on the fact that we now spew more into the atmosphere than at any other time in the history of the planet, we should all just continue to sit on our hands, convince ourselves that it's all guesswork at the end of the day, deny that major environmental changes are occurring, and hope for the best?
That may be your conclusion, I wasn't aware I'd posted one.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:33 PM
  #49  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TelBoy
NS04, what's the difference between the carbon monoxide emitted by industrial chimneys and the carbon monoxide emitted by your car? Sorry, didn't understand the point you're making.
CO is a poison I agree, but isn't generally considered to be an issue in terms of GW. I think you may mean carbon di-oxide or are you trying to make some other point relating to CO?
Old 31 January 2006, 02:37 PM
  #50  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This is the part that makes sense, if you know what I mean.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This "global dimming" is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:43 PM
  #51  
TelBoy
Scooby Regular
 
TelBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by OllyK
That may be your conclusion, I wasn't aware I'd posted one.

No not explicitly, but "guesswork" doesn't strike me as the sort of word which goes hand in hand with pre-emptive actions against global pollution. Yes i agree nothing is concrete yet, but how long do we have to wait? The latest reports, albeit in the hands of fekkit Beckett, don't make pretty reading. The last thing we should do is procrastinate, in my opinion.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:46 PM
  #52  
alcazar
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
alcazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rl'yeh
Posts: 40,781
Received 27 Likes on 25 Posts
Unhappy

That's not to say we should do nothing about about it, however if the government were REALLY serious about it, they should have cats (or suchlike ) fitted to aircraft. These pollute far more than cars.
And isn't aircraft fuel virtually tax-free? Oh yes, LYING Labour REALLY care!

Alcazar
Old 31 January 2006, 02:47 PM
  #53  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scoobyster
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

That's an interesting read, claiming the US could fulfill all their oil requirements with carbon-neutral biodiesel derived from algae.

This is also worth a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

It's incredibly naive to ignore/dismiss the problem and hope it will go away! Even so, it will be a very brave government who implements significant change to counteract it. I just hope our saving grace is that we'll run out of oil fairly soon anyway so be forced into change, not looking forward to it mind you.
If the warming is due to increased solar activity and continuing recovery from the last full ice age and the mini ice age in the 1600's - then there isn't a problem to ignore as far as AGW is concerned anyway.
Old 31 January 2006, 02:47 PM
  #54  
crush her
Scooby Regular
 
crush her's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by unclebuck
Not to mention methane which is 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If they want to make an impact on emmission they should cut down massively on the beef and diary industries worldwide by banning the sale of burgers and other industrial beef products.
I'll do my bit, won't order mine for next year
Old 31 January 2006, 02:54 PM
  #55  
alcazar
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
alcazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rl'yeh
Posts: 40,781
Received 27 Likes on 25 Posts
Default

BTW: I DON'T believe that ice ages are caused by orbit changes. How much did it change? Why?

Loads of people give the reason as a change in the TILT of the earth, but that doesn't make sense: Do you REALLY feel colder stepping 1cm further from a fire that you are already 50m from?

Alcazar
Old 31 January 2006, 02:57 PM
  #56  
TonyG
Scooby Regular
 
TonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hmmm, didn't think there'd been that many cataclysmic events last year. Was only thinking in terms of the big news stories (earthquake, tsunami). I stand corrected.
Old 31 January 2006, 03:01 PM
  #57  
_RIP_
BANNED
 
_RIP_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I was in Switzerland, Grindelwald, last September for a few weeks, and the place was a complete disaster with the flooding. You would have to have seen it to believe it. Whole mountains, valleys, forests, roads, railways and houses simply vanished
Old 31 January 2006, 03:04 PM
  #58  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TonyG
Hmmm, didn't think there'd been that many cataclysmic events last year. Was only thinking in terms of the big news stories (earthquake, tsunami). I stand corrected.
Earhquakes and Tsunamis of course have nothing to do with Climate Change.
Old 31 January 2006, 03:17 PM
  #59  
unclebuck
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
unclebuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by _RIP_
James Lovelock, a very respected scientist.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...icle338830.ece
'faid not. James Lovelock was once a NASA scientist who became a notorious Eco Mentalist with his crazy Gaia theory that has been completely discredited by the scientific community as 'teleological' (founded in religious rather than scientific thinking).

He then succeeded in alienating himself from the Mentalists by advocating that nuclear power was the only way to save the planet. Lovelock is not respected, he a crank, hence the reason why you find his ramblings published in The Independent.
Old 31 January 2006, 03:18 PM
  #60  
unclebuck
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
unclebuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by OllyK
Earhquakes and Tsunamis of course have nothing to do with Climate Change.
I'm sure Tony will find a way to spin them in there somehow....


Quick Reply: Latest Government EviroMENTAL Scare Tactics...



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 PM.