Who is paying the BBC to talk such nonense about global warming?
26 January 2007, 03:50 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
The problem is, mankind in 2007 seems to think it can control exactly what happens on this planet, we can't.
Just leave it as it is, don't worry so much and get on with life.
Just leave it as it is, don't worry so much and get on with life.
26 January 2007, 03:51 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
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
During the Cretaceous period, average global temperatures were much higher than today. In fact, they were much higher than the current estimates for the future by doom mongers such as yourself. We had no polar ice caps, forests grew near the poles where there was land mass.
Even so, there was no disasterous warming in the tropics, nor a runaway greenhouse effect. Life flourished.
Geezer
Even so, there was no disasterous warming in the tropics, nor a runaway greenhouse effect. Life flourished.
Geezer
2. The continents were arrranged rather differently, limiting the heat transfer from the tropics to the poles via ocean currents, which is what gives us in Western Europe such mild winters.
26 January 2007, 03:51 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do I see outside my window? It is warm in summer and cold in winter, it rains if its cloudy and its sunny if its not, if its windy fences get knocked over, and we have the odd "natural disaster" every so often somewhere around the planet.
Nothing has changed from now to 10,000 years ago, and it never will.
What do you see outside your window thats so different to what was seen when your ancestors were roaming about?
Nothing has changed from now to 10,000 years ago, and it never will.
What do you see outside your window thats so different to what was seen when your ancestors were roaming about?
My ancestors? Mate i don't have to go back THAT far!! The last thirty years is all you need to consider. Cold in winter? What like it was last week? Come on. If you're not prepared to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental climatic shift in this country alone, then the rest of the discussion is pointless. Believe me, if i thought nothing had changed i too would be telling everybody to stop talking nonsense. But i'm not. For a reason.
26 January 2007, 03:53 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL, i'm not losing sleep over it, don't panic!! But i AM happy to adjust my lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, something that so many people seem to see as some sort of breach of their civil liberties, which frankly i find absurdly selfish!!
26 January 2007, 03:55 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Maybe down in "London" things have changed, but here Oop North its the same as it was back in the 70's.
Summer gets hot, and winter gets cold - its -4 at night here at the minute, and last year it snowed on Xmas day - funnily enough, just the same as it did when I was a kid 30 years ago.
Nothing has changed IMO regarding climate, not where I live anyway.
Summer gets hot, and winter gets cold - its -4 at night here at the minute, and last year it snowed on Xmas day - funnily enough, just the same as it did when I was a kid 30 years ago.
Nothing has changed IMO regarding climate, not where I live anyway.
26 January 2007, 03:56 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
The "crisis" reporting on the news is OTT though.
26 January 2007, 04:04 PM
#67
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rather simplistic statement that doesn't mention two rather crucial facts. 1. There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere, possibly as much as 4 times as the current level., causing a global mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees higher than the current GMST.
2. The continents were arrranged rather differently, limiting the heat transfer from the tropics to the poles via ocean currents, which is what gives us in Western Europe such mild winters.
2. The continents were arrranged rather differently, limiting the heat transfer from the tropics to the poles via ocean currents, which is what gives us in Western Europe such mild winters.
The makeup of earths continents has an obvious effect (Antarctica is only 'recently' icy due to be isolated from other land masses), but it still holds true that high temperature does not equal global catastrophe.
The only real problem is rising sea levels, and that will continue to change throughout the future with or without our influence.
Geezer
26 January 2007, 04:14 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
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
... and more extreme weather, increased flooding in some areas, drought in others, more deserts...
Unless they're not problems of course.
Unless they're not problems of course.
26 January 2007, 04:24 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though I remain unconvinced that global warming etc is a real problem, I don't think it would hurt for people to be a bit more green. If everyone made a small effort it would, collectively, make a big difference.
However, whatever efforts the UK make (and I'm not suggesting we don't bother), will be a drop in the ocean if the US, China, Russia, India etc don't make significant changes.
I am vehemently against the government adding new "green" taxes though. The people who are the least green, are the very people who the taxes will make little difference to.
However, whatever efforts the UK make (and I'm not suggesting we don't bother), will be a drop in the ocean if the US, China, Russia, India etc don't make significant changes.
I am vehemently against the government adding new "green" taxes though. The people who are the least green, are the very people who the taxes will make little difference to.
26 January 2007, 04:35 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very well-written article with a good explanation of the history of climate change and how the current projections are worked out:
Kerry Emanuel: Phaeton's Reins
It gives a lot of background showing how hard it is to predict anything, and it covers the politics of both sides. Worth a read IMHO.
Kerry Emanuel: Phaeton's Reins
It gives a lot of background showing how hard it is to predict anything, and it covers the politics of both sides. Worth a read IMHO.
26 January 2007, 04:36 PM
#73
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 January 2007, 04:44 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
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
Mass extinctions are pretty rare events, and slow extinction is usually caused by evolution adapting to a changing environment. Not sure what 'stagnation' of the biosphere is, but I'm sure that the sharks might argue that they're not stagnant, despite having been around for some 200 million years
26 January 2007, 04:50 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to recommend a very good book by a guy called Simon Winchester, about the build up to, and the aftermath of, the Krakatoa eruption.
At the end of the book the author raises some very good points worthy of more discussion. The eruption of Krakatoa and the resultant blasting of millions of tons of dust into the upper atmosphere caused global temperatures to drop by 15deg over the following 2 years, and that wasn't the only major eruption in that period, there were two more on similar scale, but without the catastrophic tidal aftermath. One was in the first half of the 19th century, and one off the coast of Alaska at the end of the century.
Subsequently we have had no major volcanic activity, with the result that the earth has been slowly warming itself up, back to pre-eruption temperatures, as the dust cloud gradually falls back out of the atmosphere.
The other point he raises is that global warming is not likely to be a problem for much longer anyway, as the island (Anak Krakatoa) that appeared in Krakatoa's place 30 years after the eruption is now growing at such a rate that it is likely to eclipse it's predecessor in size during the next 10-15years
Thanks to the relentless tectonic plate activity in the area (witness the Boxing Day tsunamis of 2005 and the April 2006 earthquake), it is a case of when, not if, an eruption on a similar scale will occur
I think I should get a pretty good view from here
Then all the ****'s currently bleating on about Global Warming will be telling us the next Ice Age is coming, and it's all the fault of them nasty car drivers
At the end of the book the author raises some very good points worthy of more discussion. The eruption of Krakatoa and the resultant blasting of millions of tons of dust into the upper atmosphere caused global temperatures to drop by 15deg over the following 2 years, and that wasn't the only major eruption in that period, there were two more on similar scale, but without the catastrophic tidal aftermath. One was in the first half of the 19th century, and one off the coast of Alaska at the end of the century.
Subsequently we have had no major volcanic activity, with the result that the earth has been slowly warming itself up, back to pre-eruption temperatures, as the dust cloud gradually falls back out of the atmosphere.
The other point he raises is that global warming is not likely to be a problem for much longer anyway, as the island (Anak Krakatoa) that appeared in Krakatoa's place 30 years after the eruption is now growing at such a rate that it is likely to eclipse it's predecessor in size during the next 10-15years
Thanks to the relentless tectonic plate activity in the area (witness the Boxing Day tsunamis of 2005 and the April 2006 earthquake), it is a case of when, not if, an eruption on a similar scale will occur
I think I should get a pretty good view from here
Then all the ****'s currently bleating on about Global Warming will be telling us the next Ice Age is coming, and it's all the fault of them nasty car drivers
CPD: this is a really really good little known point that gets ignored. as i recall from that great beeb krakatoa doc last year, the estimate was 34m tons of sulphurous dust hitting the jetstream in less than 48 hours with a prediction that the cooling effect would last up to 50 years before usual weather service resumed.
so, incremental temperature rises since the 1950s an unrelated coincidence?
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 26 January 2007 at 04:53 PM.
26 January 2007, 04:52 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brighton no more
Posts: 2,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on (to all posters) - all we need to do is cary on living our lives for the next 30 years (assuming we don't win the ticket out before then).
We can then log onto whatever Scoobynet (tm) has turned into, and we can all laugh at the ones who are wrong about all this!
Me? I don't really care. I don't think we know enough to work out what foot our shoes go (in the big scheme of things) let alone to separate natural cycles from man-made damage.
Everyone is jumping on their bandwagon for whatever reason, I don't believe anyone knows for sure. And we can't really do anything about it as far as I can see.
Fill it up with V-Power and boot it!
We can then log onto whatever Scoobynet (tm) has turned into, and we can all laugh at the ones who are wrong about all this!
Me? I don't really care. I don't think we know enough to work out what foot our shoes go (in the big scheme of things) let alone to separate natural cycles from man-made damage.
Everyone is jumping on their bandwagon for whatever reason, I don't believe anyone knows for sure. And we can't really do anything about it as far as I can see.
Fill it up with V-Power and boot it!
26 January 2007, 05:08 PM
#77
As to 1970s science, well if we're going to take it down to "can't tell the temperature" level then let's leave it there. Or have a word with a meteorologist. I think you know what i mean though - at least i hope you do.
In terms of future technological advances - yes, of course we might make further progress in our understanding of the Earth's climate. So what to do. Sit and wait until that happens and do bugger all about it in the meantime, or make relatively small adjustments to our hedonistic lifestyles which might make some, admittedly small in isolation, difference? I know which route i prefer.
Those b*ggers can't even tell me what's going to happen TOMORROW, let alone next year, or next decadeAgain, I'd be inclined to agree with your last paragraph, except for two small niggles:
Firstly, we're not being asked to make relatively small adjustments, we're being asked for more, and more, and more taxes
And as has been shown time and time again, (smoking, drinking, car-fuel), it just doesn't work to try and stop someone doing something by taxing them. Goverments spend the taxes, then can't afford people to give up whatever it was the government wanted them to give up, so the whole thing collapses
Only the taxes stay.Secondly, I'm not at all happy that a tiny, tiny island is supposed to be able to cure all the ills that the developing world are purpetrating (sp?) on the earth, not to mention the USA, who are, as usual, paying lip-service only. I HATE the idea of us being taxed out of our skins while the rest of the planet continue to have what they want, when they want it, at a lower price than us. We've enough of that already, with the Japs charging us £ for $, or about 50% extra to ship stuff here than what the JDM pays, then charging THEMSELVES around 40% LESS for stuff we make here and ship them. CTR, anyone????
Nope, if I could be SURE it wasn't just a ruse to get us to pay more taxes without bleating, I'd support it.
I'm afraid I'm not sure, though. In fact I'm more sure it IS a ruse, and that recycling, the environment and global warming are just the new religion, used to keep the population under control.
And used to make TBLiar look like a world statesman rather than a grubby little LIAR
Alcazar
26 January 2007, 05:15 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: cuckoo land
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what about the tax on air travel...tax on cars going into London...you may not be paying owt yet but watch this space..with respect
26 January 2007, 05:20 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all well and good looking at how much pollution we produce. BUT, and its a huge one. What the hell is a tax by the goverments going to do (I rhetorically ask btw 
)? A "green" tax won't be pumped into Rolls-Royce/GEC/CFM to devolop jet engines that can run off Barley sugar and produce snow to top up the ice caps and cool the earth down a bit.
Unless the money is going to be pumped into some sort of beam- me-up-scotty transporter than can send your physical body over the internet to your desired location. And if they do invest "green tax" in such crackpot schemes, they are as bonkers as the person who thinks it up (moi? ). And just to quell any ideas of my patent pending interweb-transportomothingy, for it to work you need to be able to create an identical copy of yourself, cloning is a big nono in this current political climate, and would need you to commit suicide everytime you transported yourself so not to create a load of copies of yourself. It might, however be of use to terrorist suicide bombers
Anyway, back to earth now. It's all well and good our political do gooders inventing a new thing for us to rant and rave about over how we now are killing the planet. But its obvious what their intentions are, when they totally ignore the huge amounts pollution that China emits alone that makes the UK energy consumption equivelent to comparing the energy used to light a single LED versus a floodlit stadium. Scary, and not to mention other developing countries that could follow suit.
Taxing the UK's citizens and its UK based businesses (whatever is left of them ) is not the the solution. However taxing compnaies that insist on producing products in a polluting country such as China might make their accountants think twice about where to set up production and fuel the growth of one of the world's top polluters.
)? A "green" tax won't be pumped into Rolls-Royce/GEC/CFM to devolop jet engines that can run off Barley sugar and produce snow to top up the ice caps and cool the earth down a bit.Unless the money is going to be pumped into some sort of beam- me-up-scotty transporter than can send your physical body over the internet to your desired location. And if they do invest "green tax" in such crackpot schemes, they are as bonkers as the person who thinks it up (moi?
). And just to quell any ideas of my patent pending interweb-transportomothingy, for it to work you need to be able to create an identical copy of yourself, cloning is a big nono in this current political climate, and would need you to commit suicide everytime you transported yourself so not to create a load of copies of yourself. It might, however be of use to terrorist suicide bombers Anyway, back to earth now. It's all well and good our political do gooders inventing a new thing for us to rant and rave about over how we now are killing the planet. But its obvious what their intentions are, when they totally ignore the huge amounts pollution that China emits alone that makes the UK energy consumption equivelent to comparing the energy used to light a single LED versus a floodlit stadium. Scary, and not to mention other developing countries that could follow suit.
Taxing the UK's citizens and its UK based businesses (whatever is left of them
) is not the the solution. However taxing compnaies that insist on producing products in a polluting country such as China might make their accountants think twice about where to set up production and fuel the growth of one of the world's top polluters.
26 January 2007, 05:47 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: cuckoo land
Posts: 1,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all well and good looking at how much pollution we produce. BUT, and its a huge one. What the hell is a tax by the goverments going to do (I rhetorically ask btw )? A "green" tax won't be pumped into Rolls-Royce/GEC/CFM to devolop jet engines that can run off Barley sugar and produce snow to top up the ice caps and cool the earth down a bit.
Unless the money is going to be pumped into some sort of beam- me-up-scotty transporter than can send your physical body over the internet to your desired location. And if they do invest "green tax" in such crackpot schemes, they are as bonkers as the person who thinks it up (moi? ). And just to quell any ideas of my patent pending interweb-transportomothingy, for it to work you need to be able to create an identical copy of yourself, cloning is a big nono in this current political climate, and would need you to commit suicide everytime you transported yourself so not to create a load of copies of yourself. It might, however be of use to terrorist suicide bombers
Anyway, back to earth now. It's all well and good our political do gooders inventing a new thing for us to rant and rave about over how we now are killing the planet. But its obvious what their intentions are, when they totally ignore the huge amounts pollution that China emits alone that makes the UK energy consumption equivelent to comparing the energy used to light a single LED versus a floodlit stadium. Scary, and not to mention other developing countries that could follow suit.
Taxing the UK's citizens and its UK based businesses (whatever is left of them ) is not the the solution. However taxing compnaies that insist on producing products in a polluting country such as China might make their accountants think twice about where to set up production and fuel the growth of one of the world's top polluters.
)? A "green" tax won't be pumped into Rolls-Royce/GEC/CFM to devolop jet engines that can run off Barley sugar and produce snow to top up the ice caps and cool the earth down a bit.Unless the money is going to be pumped into some sort of beam- me-up-scotty transporter than can send your physical body over the internet to your desired location. And if they do invest "green tax" in such crackpot schemes, they are as bonkers as the person who thinks it up (moi?
). And just to quell any ideas of my patent pending interweb-transportomothingy, for it to work you need to be able to create an identical copy of yourself, cloning is a big nono in this current political climate, and would need you to commit suicide everytime you transported yourself so not to create a load of copies of yourself. It might, however be of use to terrorist suicide bombers Anyway, back to earth now. It's all well and good our political do gooders inventing a new thing for us to rant and rave about over how we now are killing the planet. But its obvious what their intentions are, when they totally ignore the huge amounts pollution that China emits alone that makes the UK energy consumption equivelent to comparing the energy used to light a single LED versus a floodlit stadium. Scary, and not to mention other developing countries that could follow suit.
Taxing the UK's citizens and its UK based businesses (whatever is left of them
) is not the the solution. However taxing compnaies that insist on producing products in a polluting country such as China might make their accountants think twice about where to set up production and fuel the growth of one of the world's top polluters.
26 January 2007, 08:01 PM
#81
Tel me about it...
In terms of future technological advances - yes, of course we might make further progress in our understanding of the Earth's climate. So what to do. Sit and wait until that happens and do bugger all about it in the meantime, or make relatively small adjustments to our hedonistic lifestyles which might make some, admittedly small in isolation, difference? I know which route i prefer.
Tel, I think your posts here are very reasonable
. The fact is nobody knows for sure whether or not mankind is having a major affect on climate. Just being a little cautious about it would be quite wise, surely. 
There are signs that something is going on in terms of global warming in recent decades, but again no certainty either way. I also find it odd that people are so convinced that there's absolutely nothing to it. There isn't enough evidence to reach that particular conclusion so I expect a degree of 'fickness' is behind such arrogance. From my side, if we make an effort to stop manufacturing everything in China where they really don't give a toss about anything - that would be a great start. That's not going to happen though, because corporations love the fat margins and consumers likewise the cheaper prices.
We're maybe / maybe not doomed, I tell you!
26 January 2007, 09:01 PM
#82
Wo betide if all you sceptics are wrong and that the Green lobby are right about man made CO2 destroying the world!! You'll see!!!......
...in the mean time I'll continue to drive my performance car, go to track days and read magazines glorifying high performance cars and draw my electricity for my computer and house hold appliances from coal fired powersations.....
...in the mean time I'll continue to drive my performance car, go to track days and read magazines glorifying high performance cars and draw my electricity for my computer and house hold appliances from coal fired powersations.....
26 January 2007, 09:26 PM
#85
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mass extinctions are pretty rare events, and slow extinction is usually caused by evolution adapting to a changing environment. Not sure what 'stagnation' of the biosphere is, but I'm sure that the sharks might argue that they're not stagnant, despite having been around for some 200 million years
After each of the major ones, the gap left behind has been filled with an explosion of new species.
Not that I am advocating a huge extinction, but it is inevitable.
Geezer
26 January 2007, 09:51 PM
#86
Well the whole of Yosemite Park is due to erupt into a massive explosion spewing out lava, gases more noxious than CO2, world wide acid rain and solar blocking dust some time soon, Calafornia is gonna sink into the Pacific creating a world wide tsunami, and if thats not enough, Earth is due a major meteor strike...
26 January 2007, 11:08 PM
#87
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the whole of Yosemite Park is due to erupt into a massive explosion spewing out lava, gases more noxious than CO2, world wide acid rain and solar blocking dust some time soon, Calafornia is gonna sink into the Pacific creating a world wide tsunami, and if thats not enough, Earth is due a major meteor strike...
Everyone loves an optimist
Geezer
27 January 2007, 12:23 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 January 2007, 12:33 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that the climate is changing, and significantly at that. The argument is, is it due to natural change or man made.
I believe that it could well be down to a natural change but with the speed of change that man is also partly responsible. This is a world wide phenomenon and is certainly a worry for the future. We owe our descendants more than that.
Instead of hammering us for taxes which will have no significant effect on what is happening, the jumped up prats running this country should be making forceful representations to those countries who are really polluting the world and also to those who are cutting the rain forests down.
Les
I believe that it could well be down to a natural change but with the speed of change that man is also partly responsible. This is a world wide phenomenon and is certainly a worry for the future. We owe our descendants more than that.
Instead of hammering us for taxes which will have no significant effect on what is happening, the jumped up prats running this country should be making forceful representations to those countries who are really polluting the world and also to those who are cutting the rain forests down.
Les
27 January 2007, 01:42 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: South London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the Cretaceous period, average global temperatures were much higher than today. In fact, they were much higher than the current estimates for the future by doom mongers such as yourself. We had no polar ice caps, forests grew near the poles where there was land mass.
Even so, there was no disasterous warming in the tropics, nor a runaway greenhouse effect. Life flourished.
OK, I fully admit that rising sea levels are a problem for large portions of the population, but the earth is not a static place, and the coast has never been a particularly stable choice for inhabitation.
For example, the east of the UK is sinking in to the sea. That has nothing to do with us, that is directly to do with the rebound effect of losing the ice sheet after the last ice age. Another example of our powerlessness (real word huh?) to do anything.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas (in fact, it is proven that plants will use more CO2 if you give it to them. Our love of hydrocarbons may yet solve the food problem in the world, with increased precipitation and huge plant growth, ironic eh?), yet everything is being driven to reduce it. Methane is far more effective, but the big daddy of them all is water vapour.
Now, call me cynical, but those lovely big cars and planes don't give off alot of methane, and water is actually touted by the greens as being good! Somewhat contradictory don't you think? So what do they target? A nice, easy, taxable source, like hydrocarbon based fuels.
If you truly believe we are causing this (and of course I concede that we may, because the evidence is inconclusive either way, but I prefer the "it isn't us" view), then why don't you campaign for the abolition of anything that produces water vapour?
Geezer
Even so, there was no disasterous warming in the tropics, nor a runaway greenhouse effect. Life flourished.
OK, I fully admit that rising sea levels are a problem for large portions of the population, but the earth is not a static place, and the coast has never been a particularly stable choice for inhabitation.
For example, the east of the UK is sinking in to the sea. That has nothing to do with us, that is directly to do with the rebound effect of losing the ice sheet after the last ice age. Another example of our powerlessness (real word huh?) to do anything.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas (in fact, it is proven that plants will use more CO2 if you give it to them. Our love of hydrocarbons may yet solve the food problem in the world, with increased precipitation and huge plant growth, ironic eh?), yet everything is being driven to reduce it. Methane is far more effective, but the big daddy of them all is water vapour.
Now, call me cynical, but those lovely big cars and planes don't give off alot of methane, and water is actually touted by the greens as being good! Somewhat contradictory don't you think? So what do they target? A nice, easy, taxable source, like hydrocarbon based fuels.
If you truly believe we are causing this (and of course I concede that we may, because the evidence is inconclusive either way, but I prefer the "it isn't us" view), then why don't you campaign for the abolition of anything that produces water vapour?
Geezer
Exactly - we worry about this global warming 'nightmare' that is on the horizon when a cataclysmic event as above will more than likely occur anytime soon to put everything back into perspective.
The government is using it is a mechanism for rasing revenue - end of.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
