They hate Clarkson
31 May 2006, 12:04 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: *R.I.P Heccers.. its been a blast!
Posts: 19,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
Quick question, and possible thread hijack.
WTF i a Yam Yam?
WTF i a Yam Yam?
HTH
31 May 2006, 12:04 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by ME
I'd like to see Clarkson do a dissection of the current climate argument.
Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
he wouldnt...it would expose his pub science as being good for nothing but a comedy TV show....which is handy as thats his job.)
31 May 2006, 12:04 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
Quick question, and possible thread hijack.
WTF i a Yam Yam?
WTF i a Yam Yam?
They are a fat & grotesque unintelligible creature that drinks sterilised milk
31 May 2006, 12:05 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Twitching with a camera
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sociopath
'Find'? Find has nothing to do with it. We know you are from a grotty cess pit of iniquity up north somewhere and we know you struggle to string a sentence together. Q.E.D.
Daz - the sign should say "Coventry, please bomb again".
31 May 2006, 12:07 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Daz34
They are a fat & grotesque unintelligible creature that drinks sterilised milk
31 May 2006, 12:13 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: *R.I.P Heccers.. its been a blast!
Posts: 19,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
So, essentially, the same thing as a Brummie then.
31 May 2006, 12:51 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ALi-B
Who has a Toyota Prius with air conditioning fitted?
"according to a new study by CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore., the Hummer H3, in terms of dust-to-dust energy costs, equates to $1.95 per mile—while the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid are almost $3.30 per mile."
The Subaru Impreza comes in at $2.225 per mile though they don't indicate exactly which model they tested however, given the price I'm guessing it was a WRX. I guess this just highlights how the so called "green" movement is merely a house built on sand.
31 May 2006, 01:07 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but WTF is the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
What next I wonder, cars that go fast, cars that don't do certain minimum mpg, Subarus, who know where they will focus there unwelcome attentions next, I detest people like this.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
What next I wonder, cars that go fast, cars that don't do certain minimum mpg, Subarus, who know where they will focus there unwelcome attentions next, I detest people like this.
31 May 2006, 02:22 PM
#41
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
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
Originally Posted by CrisPDuk
PS: Porritt as usual has got it wrong, Clarkson does not belittle the threat posed by alleged global warming, he justifieble attacks the continued demonisation of the car driver for being the major cause. When in fact, according to the green movement's own figures, the worlds automobile population is responsible for less than 1% of CO2 emmissions
Ns04
31 May 2006, 02:27 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Sport160
What next I wonder, cars that go fast, cars that don't do certain minimum mpg, Subarus, who know where they will focus there unwelcome attentions next, I detest people like this.
31 May 2006, 06:28 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sport160
Sorry but WTF is the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
What next I wonder, cars that go fast, cars that don't do certain minimum mpg, Subarus, who know where they will focus there unwelcome attentions next, I detest people like this.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
What next I wonder, cars that go fast, cars that don't do certain minimum mpg, Subarus, who know where they will focus there unwelcome attentions next, I detest people like this.
However, all the current media hysteria about 4 wheel drive vehicles is being driven by this one tiny group, when the media need a quote they contact this organisation. The organisation has been very effective in giving the impression that there are millions and millions of people who object to you being allowed to decide what car you drive. In turn this "public support" allows the government to make up random laws, and even better, random taxes for people who drive certain cars.
You will not be pleased to hear, however, that your taxes might be going towards funding them. Transport 2000 are keen supporters and you can see what your cash pays for here:
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/take...TakeActionID=4
I have a sinking feeling that some of the cash I work long and hard to earn might be going to these nutters so they can tell me what car I'm allowed to drive, and so they can encourage the government to tax me even harder.
31 May 2006, 08:57 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: A Yorkshireman living in Lancashire, Recruiting for the War of the Roses part deux!
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
It fills me with joy to find that they hate him so much, at least someone speaks for the man in the street. I imagine it isn't long until Clarkson falls victim to the thought police and is made illegal :-)
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle622110.ece
He has insisted there is almost certainly no such thing as global warming, threatened to run down cyclists who get in his way and vowed to keep his patio heater lit 24 hours a day, just to annoy Greenpeace. But the environmentalists are no longer prepared to put up with Jeremy Clarkson's car-loving agenda.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, whose feud with Mr Clarkson dates back several years, has launched his most scathing attack yet on the presenter of the BBC2 motoring show Top Gear, branding him an "outstandingly bigoted petrolhead".
The former director of Friends of the Earth, who heads the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, chose the opening of a classroom at Rendcomb College, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire, for the latest round in a long-running feud. Sir Jonathon blamed Clarkson for public apathy about climate change and contrasted him with his fellow BBC presenter Sir David Attenborough, who recently went public for the first time about his fears over global warming. Clarkson, on the other hand, is renowned for belittling the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions.
"In my mind this outstandingly bigoted petrolhead is partly responsible for why so many people today still somehow think that the world is going to be drawn in the image of Jeremy Clarkson rather than the image of David Attenborough and others," Sir Jonathon said. "Anyone who can shut up Jeremy Clarkson deserves more honours than have already been heaped on David Attenborough."
In the past, Sir David has come under fire from environmentalists for failing to use the platform afforded him as the doyen of natural history programmes to address the threat from rising temperatures. But Sir David told The Independent last week: "I am no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major threat facing the world."
Sir Jonathon said: "I am delighted that David has accepted the evidence that most people accepted a long time ago ... When people like David Attenborough think very carefully about the evidence, eventually there is very little room for people playing the scientific uncertainty argument. Maybe he will even shut up Jeremy Clarkson. That would be a great relief."
Clarkson has insisted he does not want to be the bête noire of the green lobby and that he just wants to be "the champion of the ordinary people". But many of his actions and comments, particularly in his Sunday Times column, seem designed to raise the hackles of environmentalists. The BBC was forced to pay £250 compensation after he drove a Toyota pick-up truck into a 30-year-old horse chestnut tree on Top Gear and he has also driven a 4x4 through virgin peat bogs on the programme.
He has dismissed the effects of global warming in other countries as not even "worthy of a shrug". He warned cyclists in a column: "Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun."
Sian Berry, a spokeswoman for the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s, described Mr Clarkson's stance on global warming as "incredibly irresponsible". "He's like a man in the pub who gets hold of a rumour and tells everyone even though he doesn't know if it's true.
"He perpetuates the worst kinds of stereotypes about people who have concerns about giant gas-guzzlers. Environmentalists stopped being people wearing beards and sandals about 10 years ago ... he's still stuck in the Eighties."
The eco-warrior vs the gas-guzzler
PORRITT ON CLARKSON:
"'Life in the fast lane' is the aspiration of countless millions, regardless of the career crashes and life-wrecks that litter that particular lane. Jeremy Clarkson, the high priest of speed for speed's sake, has a lot to answer for."
(In a critique of the fast pace of life, The Guardian, 28 September 2005)
"Living more sustainably means living happier, more balanced and potentially more fulfilled lives than most of us 'choose' to live today, whatever Jeremy Clarkson may have to say about that!"
www.oursouthwest.com
CLARKSON ON PORRITT:
"I'm sorry, Mr Nboto. We'd love to build a well in your village, but unfortunately Mr Porritt is spending all our money on a new type of possibly unnecessary engine that runs on saliva."
(On why it's "silly to spend billions developing cauliflower-powered cars when they might not make any difference, and half the world is starving."
The Sunday Times, 16 January 2005
"It was as though Jonathon Porritt himself had flown over the town in a giant vacuum cleaner."
About driving in Norway, The Sunday Times, 29 January 2006
"A Happy Christmas to everyone. Except Jonathan Porritt."
In The Sun, 21 December 2001
"For crying out loud, man. You're the boss of a car firm. Siding with Porritt is like finding the Archbishop of Canterbury has sold his cathedral to the devil." On the decision by Mark Quinn of Kia Cars to become a "Green Futures Partner".
The Sun, 27 April 2001
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle622110.ece
He has insisted there is almost certainly no such thing as global warming, threatened to run down cyclists who get in his way and vowed to keep his patio heater lit 24 hours a day, just to annoy Greenpeace. But the environmentalists are no longer prepared to put up with Jeremy Clarkson's car-loving agenda.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, whose feud with Mr Clarkson dates back several years, has launched his most scathing attack yet on the presenter of the BBC2 motoring show Top Gear, branding him an "outstandingly bigoted petrolhead".
The former director of Friends of the Earth, who heads the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, chose the opening of a classroom at Rendcomb College, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire, for the latest round in a long-running feud. Sir Jonathon blamed Clarkson for public apathy about climate change and contrasted him with his fellow BBC presenter Sir David Attenborough, who recently went public for the first time about his fears over global warming. Clarkson, on the other hand, is renowned for belittling the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions.
"In my mind this outstandingly bigoted petrolhead is partly responsible for why so many people today still somehow think that the world is going to be drawn in the image of Jeremy Clarkson rather than the image of David Attenborough and others," Sir Jonathon said. "Anyone who can shut up Jeremy Clarkson deserves more honours than have already been heaped on David Attenborough."
In the past, Sir David has come under fire from environmentalists for failing to use the platform afforded him as the doyen of natural history programmes to address the threat from rising temperatures. But Sir David told The Independent last week: "I am no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major threat facing the world."
Sir Jonathon said: "I am delighted that David has accepted the evidence that most people accepted a long time ago ... When people like David Attenborough think very carefully about the evidence, eventually there is very little room for people playing the scientific uncertainty argument. Maybe he will even shut up Jeremy Clarkson. That would be a great relief."
Clarkson has insisted he does not want to be the bête noire of the green lobby and that he just wants to be "the champion of the ordinary people". But many of his actions and comments, particularly in his Sunday Times column, seem designed to raise the hackles of environmentalists. The BBC was forced to pay £250 compensation after he drove a Toyota pick-up truck into a 30-year-old horse chestnut tree on Top Gear and he has also driven a 4x4 through virgin peat bogs on the programme.
He has dismissed the effects of global warming in other countries as not even "worthy of a shrug". He warned cyclists in a column: "Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun."
Sian Berry, a spokeswoman for the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s, described Mr Clarkson's stance on global warming as "incredibly irresponsible". "He's like a man in the pub who gets hold of a rumour and tells everyone even though he doesn't know if it's true.
"He perpetuates the worst kinds of stereotypes about people who have concerns about giant gas-guzzlers. Environmentalists stopped being people wearing beards and sandals about 10 years ago ... he's still stuck in the Eighties."
The eco-warrior vs the gas-guzzler
PORRITT ON CLARKSON:
"'Life in the fast lane' is the aspiration of countless millions, regardless of the career crashes and life-wrecks that litter that particular lane. Jeremy Clarkson, the high priest of speed for speed's sake, has a lot to answer for."
(In a critique of the fast pace of life, The Guardian, 28 September 2005)
"Living more sustainably means living happier, more balanced and potentially more fulfilled lives than most of us 'choose' to live today, whatever Jeremy Clarkson may have to say about that!"
www.oursouthwest.com
CLARKSON ON PORRITT:
"I'm sorry, Mr Nboto. We'd love to build a well in your village, but unfortunately Mr Porritt is spending all our money on a new type of possibly unnecessary engine that runs on saliva."
(On why it's "silly to spend billions developing cauliflower-powered cars when they might not make any difference, and half the world is starving."
The Sunday Times, 16 January 2005
"It was as though Jonathon Porritt himself had flown over the town in a giant vacuum cleaner."
About driving in Norway, The Sunday Times, 29 January 2006
"A Happy Christmas to everyone. Except Jonathan Porritt."
In The Sun, 21 December 2001
"For crying out loud, man. You're the boss of a car firm. Siding with Porritt is like finding the Archbishop of Canterbury has sold his cathedral to the devil." On the decision by Mark Quinn of Kia Cars to become a "Green Futures Partner".
The Sun, 27 April 2001
21 June 2006, 03:26 PM
#45
Originally Posted by hedgehog
"according to a new study by CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore., the Hummer H3, in terms of dust-to-dust energy costs, equates to $1.95 per mile—while the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid are almost $3.30 per mile."
I just had to post that on the Discovery owners forum What get's me about these global warming aguments is the fact that 96.5% of CO2 emissions are natural so we've got them anyway, that leaves 3.5% of total spread between 6 billion people on this planet
Wipe out the British isles completely and 'the planet' wouldn't even notice!Aircraft are by far the worse yet they don't even pay tax on their fuel!!! the cheap prices for air travel are ludicrously low and yet the motorist gets all the flack from the greenies
I think that global warming is a red-herring to divert our attention from all the other political rubbish that is going on. Failure of the Euro, unelected dictators in Brussels, Tony Blair trying to become President of Britain (or Europe) etc
Mick
21 June 2006, 04:04 PM
#46
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
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
Originally Posted by Sport160
Sorry but WTF is the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
.
Please tell me this a joke right ? they've even got a f*****g website that promotes "constructive, creative and peaceful" ways of dealing with 4x4s, including placing signs on windows
.
Ns04
21 June 2006, 04:17 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mick
Aircraft are by far the worse yet they don't even pay tax on their fuel!!! the cheap prices for air travel are ludicrously low and yet the motorist gets all the flack from the greenies
After the US closed its airspace post 9/11 some scientists who took measurements concluded that this caused the temperature to rise as the contrails from aircraft were no longer reflecting the suns rays back into space. This conclusion resulted in a lot of hand wringing, and I suspect there was even a BBC Horizon programme telling us we were all doomed because of "global dimming." It must be said, however, that all of this panic was down to temperature measurements taken on one day which doesn't seem like very sound science to me. It also seems that the global dimming scare has pretty much gone away as it didn't fit the agenda very well.
In the current issue of the British science journal "Nature" there is a paper telling us that sometimes planes cause warming and sometimes they cause cooling and that it is best if they only fly during the day and during the summer months.
So while the simple perception is that planes must be a bad thing the science would appear not to support this and, in fact, the science ranges from planes cause warming right through to planes cause cooling. My personal view is that the scientific jury is still out and, as with the 4X4 situation, it might be foolish to reach conclusions based upon the loud voices of a very few with an agenda of returning us all to the stone age.
The following extract, which just happens to be to hand, provides an interesting contrast to the constant bombardment of green propaganda we get in the general media and highlights just how untrue are claims that science believes in man made global warming:
An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005
temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.
--Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006
21 June 2006, 05:08 PM
#48
I'd like to see figures explaining EXACTLY why we are now, according to scientists, suffering from global warming, while during the 70's, those self-same scientists were wringing their hands and telling us we were heading for the next ice age.
What changed so massively in between?
And has ANYONE taken into account the changes in activity of our sun? Apprently, we are going through a period of intense activity at the moment. The last period of low activity was.............you guessed it.........the mid 70's
Alcazar
What changed so massively in between?
And has ANYONE taken into account the changes in activity of our sun? Apprently, we are going through a period of intense activity at the moment. The last period of low activity was.............you guessed it.........the mid 70's
Alcazar
21 June 2006, 06:48 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Quahog
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mick
Aircraft are by far the worse yet they don't even pay tax on their fuel!!!
21 June 2006, 07:45 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the very ability of entertainment to win hearts and minds that makes it important, and also that makes it such a thorn in the side of the green nutters. There is no question that Clarkson entertains but he also gets the message of many climate scientists to the general public, something that other media outlets are unwilling to do just because terms like "natural variability" don't make entertaining news while doom saying and hand wringing, even if devoid of scientific fact, does.
There is absolutely no reason why Clarkson can't be an entertainer with a serious message and his entertaining ourbursts give an outlet for the majority who put their faith in science rather than in the doom mongering rubbish spouted by the green nutters in the general media.
There is absolutely no reason why Clarkson can't be an entertainer with a serious message and his entertaining ourbursts give an outlet for the majority who put their faith in science rather than in the doom mongering rubbish spouted by the green nutters in the general media.
22 June 2006, 01:34 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of aircraft fuel, I think it's basically.
CO2 emissions from engine = bad, cause global warming
Smog-like emissions = good, blocks out the sun a bit so the heat gets in.
Apparently if we changed the law to require more sulphur to be present in aircraft fuel, we'd get more of the smog-like stuff and thus help cool the planet down a bit.
Anyway, what I'd like to see is the BBC run a one-on-one debate show starring Jeremy Clarkson, basically Clarkson vs someone who disagrees with him. If it is just factless pub science then a good debater should be able to expose this pretty quickly and if there's merit to it, then I'm sure Clarkson will be able to deliver a reasoned debate.
Such a program would be beneficial to the BBC too, since they often come under fire for broadcasting Clarkson's opinion, the next group of people to whinge about this can instead just come on the show and challenge him.
CO2 emissions from engine = bad, cause global warming
Smog-like emissions = good, blocks out the sun a bit so the heat gets in.
Apparently if we changed the law to require more sulphur to be present in aircraft fuel, we'd get more of the smog-like stuff and thus help cool the planet down a bit.
Anyway, what I'd like to see is the BBC run a one-on-one debate show starring Jeremy Clarkson, basically Clarkson vs someone who disagrees with him. If it is just factless pub science then a good debater should be able to expose this pretty quickly and if there's merit to it, then I'm sure Clarkson will be able to deliver a reasoned debate.
Such a program would be beneficial to the BBC too, since they often come under fire for broadcasting Clarkson's opinion, the next group of people to whinge about this can instead just come on the show and challenge him.
22 June 2006, 11:05 AM
#54
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
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
Originally Posted by Lum
On the subject of aircraft fuel, I think it's basically.
CO2 emissions from engine = bad, cause global warming
Smog-like emissions = good, blocks out the sun a bit so the heat gets in.
Apparently if we changed the law to require more sulphur to be present in aircraft fuel, we'd get more of the smog-like stuff and thus help cool the planet down a bit.
Anyway, what I'd like to see is the BBC run a one-on-one debate show starring Jeremy Clarkson, basically Clarkson vs someone who disagrees with him. If it is just factless pub science then a good debater should be able to expose this pretty quickly and if there's merit to it, then I'm sure Clarkson will be able to deliver a reasoned debate.
Such a program would be beneficial to the BBC too, since they often come under fire for broadcasting Clarkson's opinion, the next group of people to whinge about this can instead just come on the show and challenge him.
CO2 emissions from engine = bad, cause global warming
Smog-like emissions = good, blocks out the sun a bit so the heat gets in.
Apparently if we changed the law to require more sulphur to be present in aircraft fuel, we'd get more of the smog-like stuff and thus help cool the planet down a bit.
Anyway, what I'd like to see is the BBC run a one-on-one debate show starring Jeremy Clarkson, basically Clarkson vs someone who disagrees with him. If it is just factless pub science then a good debater should be able to expose this pretty quickly and if there's merit to it, then I'm sure Clarkson will be able to deliver a reasoned debate.
Such a program would be beneficial to the BBC too, since they often come under fire for broadcasting Clarkson's opinion, the next group of people to whinge about this can instead just come on the show and challenge him.
Yep, Bernard Manning! Why? Humour is a very persuasive tool and he spoke in straight forward, jargon free terms and remained calm and reasonable.
Also, many "hardliners" of any cause come acros as being completely inflexible and, quite frankly, arrogant (politician syndrome)! That's exactly how Germaine came across, despite her obvious intellect.
It doesn't matter how valid the point you're trying to make is: if people think you're a tosser, they're going to switch off!
Ns04
22 June 2006, 11:51 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
It doesn't matter how valid the point you're trying to make is: if people think you're a tosser, they're going to switch off!
Ns04
Ns04
22 June 2006, 06:46 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading up a bit on global warming. Not easy - there is a massive amount of confusion all round.
What I have concluded is:
- global temperatures are rising, but there is no reliable measure.
- man is only responsible for less than 4% of greenhouse gasses. Cars less than 1%.
- I find it hard to believe that any human activity in the last couple of decades can have changed these figures much, or had significant climatic effect.
- Natural activity is much more likely (eg tsunami), and changes to the sun are well known, documented and accepted. Now I can certainly believe that very small changes to the sun can have a big impact down here.
So why all this fuss about a natural phenominon which we can do nothing about, other than take sensible precautions to cope with whatever may, or may not, come our way?
The most plausible explanation I have heard is that there is a global energy crisis and this global warming thing, being green and all environmentally in tune with nature etc is a new and powerful political tool to a) get us to use less energy, and b) accept that we are going to be taxed increasingly heavily on its use.
In other words, those that can afford gass-guzzlers will be helping to fill the finanical void that is looming large in our ageing population which is already failing to cope with health and pension problems. This is going to get worse quite quickly as we, in affluent Europe and the US, get are collective asses kicked by the exploding economies of China, India and Asia in general.
But which ever way you look at it, or whoever you believe or blame, we're heading for big trouble one way or another
Richard.
What I have concluded is:
- global temperatures are rising, but there is no reliable measure.
- man is only responsible for less than 4% of greenhouse gasses. Cars less than 1%.
- I find it hard to believe that any human activity in the last couple of decades can have changed these figures much, or had significant climatic effect.
- Natural activity is much more likely (eg tsunami), and changes to the sun are well known, documented and accepted. Now I can certainly believe that very small changes to the sun can have a big impact down here.
So why all this fuss about a natural phenominon which we can do nothing about, other than take sensible precautions to cope with whatever may, or may not, come our way?
The most plausible explanation I have heard is that there is a global energy crisis and this global warming thing, being green and all environmentally in tune with nature etc is a new and powerful political tool to a) get us to use less energy, and b) accept that we are going to be taxed increasingly heavily on its use.
In other words, those that can afford gass-guzzlers will be helping to fill the finanical void that is looming large in our ageing population which is already failing to cope with health and pension problems. This is going to get worse quite quickly as we, in affluent Europe and the US, get are collective asses kicked by the exploding economies of China, India and Asia in general.
But which ever way you look at it, or whoever you believe or blame, we're heading for big trouble one way or another
Richard.
22 June 2006, 08:29 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rhymney Valley
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this which indicates temperateure 500,000 years ago hotter than now
Must be due to all the cave men lighting fires or driving their 4x4s.
The Earth's climate has fluctutated many times between warmer interglacials and colder Ice Ages during the last 2 million years, driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
All date regarding global warmmig only based on date for last 100 -150 years. Hardly any time at all really. It was hotter in Medieval times than it is now.http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate...te_Change.html
Mind you it has given rise to a few nice well paid jobs for certain people.
If you like figures check this out
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/01/25/my...sting-post.php
Must be due to all the cave men lighting fires or driving their 4x4s.
The Earth's climate has fluctutated many times between warmer interglacials and colder Ice Ages during the last 2 million years, driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
All date regarding global warmmig only based on date for last 100 -150 years. Hardly any time at all really. It was hotter in Medieval times than it is now.http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate...te_Change.htmlMind you it has given rise to a few nice well paid jobs for certain people.
If you like figures check this out
http://wizbangblog.com/2005/01/25/my...sting-post.php
Last edited by Sauron; 22 June 2006 at 08:41 PM.