Anyone sick of the 'green'/Global warming stuff yet?
08 February 2008, 12:32 PM
#62
I personally dont believe that humans are responsible for climate change.
What I do believe in is reducing the waste of non-renewables, as some day they will start becoming alarmingly scarce. There will be some serious wars fought out over whats left if people continue to waste at current levels and fail to find credible alternatives
I find it incredibly ironic that the democratic countries have fought wars and campaigned against communism, when in fact communism played a major part in keeping global demand for non-renewables at manageable levels (eg Russia & China).
Prices for these will continue to rise as demand increases and supply fails to keep up. By promoting Capitalism, America and the West will find themselves more and more in the s*** as they lack control over much of those resources.
What I do believe in is reducing the waste of non-renewables, as some day they will start becoming alarmingly scarce. There will be some serious wars fought out over whats left if people continue to waste at current levels and fail to find credible alternatives
I find it incredibly ironic that the democratic countries have fought wars and campaigned against communism, when in fact communism played a major part in keeping global demand for non-renewables at manageable levels (eg Russia & China).
Prices for these will continue to rise as demand increases and supply fails to keep up. By promoting Capitalism, America and the West will find themselves more and more in the s*** as they lack control over much of those resources.
08 February 2008, 12:32 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it's not insignificant if everyone does it.
08 February 2008, 01:37 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't give a damn about global warming and refuse to change my ways to accomodate the scaremongerers. I intend to run my scoob on V-Power 100 and if and when it goes over the emission guidelines, ask me if I give a crap. All this global warming crap will end up like the "acid rain" nonsense...and we've heard precious little of that for a long time. Why? Cos it was PC/green bollox.
So thats really bad example to site isn't it.
08 February 2008, 02:02 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that we are going through a period of climate change. The difference in the winter and summer weather now compared to what is used to be in living memory is quite significant.
I can't say that it is all due to what the human race is doing or whether it is a cyclical change. I reckon it is most likely to be a combination of both but I cant say in what proportion.
It is true to say that man is destructive when it comes to the planet not only by what we do but also in the resources that we use up. North Sea oil and gas is disappearing now and who knows how much gas and oil there is left in the world anyway? At least there is some coal left!
I think in view of all that we should be responsible and do our bit by at least being careful to not use any more than we really need to. Over use of fuels is not really that necessary, we dont need to have cars which do very little to the gallon even if the cost of the fuel does not affect us personally. More careful use of electric power and heating fuels is not that difficult to do. We have to think of our children and those who follow them and we have a duty to leave them with a world which they can live in too.
I do not accept the over taxing which we are told is necessary and really is a way of squeezing even more cash out of us to maintain our selfish leaders' lifestyles. It is a wonderful excuse which they have seized upon for their own purposes and is typical of what we can expect from such people I am afraid.
As was mentioned, the amount of greenhouse pollution which this country produces is peanuts compared with the USA and the developing countries. If they really were honest, our leaders would be doing their best to get these other countries to do their bit instead of kow towing to them once again for their own selfish purposes.
Les
I can't say that it is all due to what the human race is doing or whether it is a cyclical change. I reckon it is most likely to be a combination of both but I cant say in what proportion.
It is true to say that man is destructive when it comes to the planet not only by what we do but also in the resources that we use up. North Sea oil and gas is disappearing now and who knows how much gas and oil there is left in the world anyway? At least there is some coal left!
I think in view of all that we should be responsible and do our bit by at least being careful to not use any more than we really need to. Over use of fuels is not really that necessary, we dont need to have cars which do very little to the gallon even if the cost of the fuel does not affect us personally. More careful use of electric power and heating fuels is not that difficult to do. We have to think of our children and those who follow them and we have a duty to leave them with a world which they can live in too.
I do not accept the over taxing which we are told is necessary and really is a way of squeezing even more cash out of us to maintain our selfish leaders' lifestyles. It is a wonderful excuse which they have seized upon for their own purposes and is typical of what we can expect from such people I am afraid.
As was mentioned, the amount of greenhouse pollution which this country produces is peanuts compared with the USA and the developing countries. If they really were honest, our leaders would be doing their best to get these other countries to do their bit instead of kow towing to them once again for their own selfish purposes.
Les
08 February 2008, 02:15 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what we're so frequently told - but whether or not that's true depends on what "it" actually is.
Have you seen how most 'green' proposals, if they quote any figures at all, almost always quote any CO2 saving as an absolute amount in tonnes, rather than as a percentage of the total? It's to make them sound significant. But the simple fact is, in many cases, they're not.
Light bulbs are a case in point - the humble tungsten filament bulb has been so demonised by the green lobby that it faces an outright ban, yet I worked out that if every single household changed every bulb for an energy-saving one, the total reduction in the UK's CO2 output would be about 0.5%.
In other words, they're a pointless distration. Banning the use of electricity for heating and cooking in favour of gas would deliver a vastly greater benefit, yet we hear nothing of it. And meeting targets of 50 - 80% reduction will mean an end to transport and industry as we know it unless we all go nuclear.
Have you seen how most 'green' proposals, if they quote any figures at all, almost always quote any CO2 saving as an absolute amount in tonnes, rather than as a percentage of the total? It's to make them sound significant. But the simple fact is, in many cases, they're not.
Light bulbs are a case in point - the humble tungsten filament bulb has been so demonised by the green lobby that it faces an outright ban, yet I worked out that if every single household changed every bulb for an energy-saving one, the total reduction in the UK's CO2 output would be about 0.5%.
In other words, they're a pointless distration. Banning the use of electricity for heating and cooking in favour of gas would deliver a vastly greater benefit, yet we hear nothing of it. And meeting targets of 50 - 80% reduction will mean an end to transport and industry as we know it unless we all go nuclear.
08 February 2008, 02:34 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in view of all that we should be responsible and do our bit by at least being careful to not use any more than we really need to. Over use of fuels is not really that necessary, we dont need to have cars which do very little to the gallon even if the cost of the fuel does not affect us personally.
Sadly I believe it is all down to the profits companies/countries make which seems to be the overriding factor in all these matters.
While there is money to be made we will have hypocrites like the governments and the big earning companies
08 February 2008, 03:09 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really can't buy into this climate change myth - mainly because it seems we need something in the news to get hysterical about - the 'panics' I remember are;
- the coming Ice Age
- oil running out by the mid 1970's
- SARS
- Y2k
- bird flu
... just add 'climate change' to the list.
And the other point about 'climate change' is that it smacks of arrogance. I very much doubt that the puny human has very much effect on the planet overall. We need a decent sunspot flare or volcanic eruption to put the whole thing about human influence into perspective.
Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- the coming Ice Age
- oil running out by the mid 1970's
- SARS
- Y2k
- bird flu
... just add 'climate change' to the list.
And the other point about 'climate change' is that it smacks of arrogance. I very much doubt that the puny human has very much effect on the planet overall. We need a decent sunspot flare or volcanic eruption to put the whole thing about human influence into perspective.
Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
08 February 2008, 03:46 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Whatever car companies tell us,I really think they probably do have to the technology to knock petrol/diesel use on the head.
Sadly I believe it is all down to the profits companies/countries make which seems to be the overriding factor in all these matters.
While there is money to be made we will have hypocrites like the governments and the big earning companies
Sadly I believe it is all down to the profits companies/countries make which seems to be the overriding factor in all these matters.
While there is money to be made we will have hypocrites like the governments and the big earning companies
I was interested to read here that the current car engine could be adapted to run on, was it hydrogen? Sounds exciting as it might somehow allow for the changeover period which no-one dares initiate up to now. Point is, we've gone so far down one road with the IC engine that it seems too difficult to turn off or turn back. And to think it's only 25% efficient or whatever.
08 February 2008, 04:27 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 February 2008, 01:50 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the media report it because if you take the scientific community as a whole most scientific bodies support the theory behind man made climate change. They aren't making it up - It's genetal consensus.
THe nearest thing I can find to a list of opponents is here.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compared to supporters here
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, by and large, there is sceintific consensus that CLimate change is happening and Man has contributed.
Same as , say, Big bang theory. There is consensus.
THe nearest thing I can find to a list of opponents is here.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compared to supporters here
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, by and large, there is sceintific consensus that CLimate change is happening and Man has contributed.
Same as , say, Big bang theory. There is consensus.
09 February 2008, 01:53 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish! People still drink and smoke, taxes do nothing to change people's behaviour. Carbon trading is the latest scam in the "climate change" swindle. Al Gore has a UK based carbon trading company, wonder why? His wealth is on the back of the oil industry.
09 February 2008, 02:00 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really can't buy into this climate change myth - mainly because it seems we need something in the news to get hysterical about - the 'panics' I remember are;
- the coming Ice Age
- oil running out by the mid 1970's
- SARS
- Y2k
- bird flu
... just add 'climate change' to the list.
And the other point about 'climate change' is that it smacks of arrogance. I very much doubt that the puny human has very much effect on the planet overall. We need a decent sunspot flare or volcanic eruption to put the whole thing about human influence into perspective.
Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- the coming Ice Age
- oil running out by the mid 1970's
- SARS
- Y2k
- bird flu
... just add 'climate change' to the list.
And the other point about 'climate change' is that it smacks of arrogance. I very much doubt that the puny human has very much effect on the planet overall. We need a decent sunspot flare or volcanic eruption to put the whole thing about human influence into perspective.
Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Point me to any time in histrory where climate HASN'T changed!!! If climate didn't change 4 million years ago, Lucy, and therefore US, will still probably be swinging from trees.
Inter-glacial periods ARE warmer. The Medievil Warm Period was MUCH warmer than today with less CO2. The Carbonifferous period had 1500ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere with no recorded "damaging climate change".
To have Al Gore's mocumentary shown in schools is scandalous, it's actually factually incorrect. Mind you, we still have RE in schools, so the brainwashing continues with a new religion.
09 February 2008, 02:02 AM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia is rubbish. Go to a real library and view the data yourself. I have followed this "scam" for 30 years, decadel trends are flat. Get ready for another 70's style cool period.
09 February 2008, 02:10 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is that species have been and gone on this planet due to changes in the environment over millions and millions of years. It is incredibly foolish to assume that anyone can do anything about it. The human race will become extinct eventually, regardless of whether or not we put CO² into the atmosphere. So to all the green lobbyists and money-grabbing governments I suggest you all shut the f*ck up and accept your fate. Nature's wheels are already in motion and there's absolutely jack sh*t that can be done about it.
09 February 2008, 02:15 AM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very reputable "scientist" once said (During the cooling hype of the 70's) the Earth was heading for a cold period.
09 February 2008, 02:19 AM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what we're so frequently told - but whether or not that's true depends on what "it" actually is.
Have you seen how most 'green' proposals, if they quote any figures at all, almost always quote any CO2 saving as an absolute amount in tonnes, rather than as a percentage of the total? It's to make them sound significant. But the simple fact is, in many cases, they're not.
Light bulbs are a case in point - the humble tungsten filament bulb has been so demonised by the green lobby that it faces an outright ban, yet I worked out that if every single household changed every bulb for an energy-saving one, the total reduction in the UK's CO2 output would be about 0.5%.
In other words, they're a pointless distration. Banning the use of electricity for heating and cooking in favour of gas would deliver a vastly greater benefit, yet we hear nothing of it. And meeting targets of 50 - 80% reduction will mean an end to transport and industry as we know it unless we all go nuclear.
Have you seen how most 'green' proposals, if they quote any figures at all, almost always quote any CO2 saving as an absolute amount in tonnes, rather than as a percentage of the total? It's to make them sound significant. But the simple fact is, in many cases, they're not.
Light bulbs are a case in point - the humble tungsten filament bulb has been so demonised by the green lobby that it faces an outright ban, yet I worked out that if every single household changed every bulb for an energy-saving one, the total reduction in the UK's CO2 output would be about 0.5%.
In other words, they're a pointless distration. Banning the use of electricity for heating and cooking in favour of gas would deliver a vastly greater benefit, yet we hear nothing of it. And meeting targets of 50 - 80% reduction will mean an end to transport and industry as we know it unless we all go nuclear.
09 February 2008, 11:32 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this particular example I think the fault is with the consumers as no-one is prepared or even able to make such a massive switch. Any new engine would need to be able to stop at the existing filling station network for a couple of minutes and carry on. We can't do that with massive batteries or various other fuels. No-one will buy a car it's (almost) impossible to refuel and no company will alter five thousand filling stations in the hope that someone will buy a changed car.
I was interested to read here that the current car engine could be adapted to run on, was it hydrogen? Sounds exciting as it might somehow allow for the changeover period which no-one dares initiate up to now. Point is, we've gone so far down one road with the IC engine that it seems too difficult to turn off or turn back. And to think it's only 25% efficient or whatever.
I was interested to read here that the current car engine could be adapted to run on, was it hydrogen? Sounds exciting as it might somehow allow for the changeover period which no-one dares initiate up to now. Point is, we've gone so far down one road with the IC engine that it seems too difficult to turn off or turn back. And to think it's only 25% efficient or whatever.
Les
09 February 2008, 10:58 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
More from the *concensus* .... not!
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets
" ... In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets
" ... In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
10 February 2008, 08:41 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its another way of controlling the masses
remember a while back , extra taxes and restrictions were imposed due to the oil crisis in the 70,s ,, then the 911 issues, more restrictions & taxes,, for our benefit of course.
now GW, ..
isnt it funny how our increased taxes and costs, will counteract the rest of the planets inability/ unwillingness to do anything to change it..
i drive a diesel
, yet my taxes are higher (fuel), why? all put out of my tailpipe is soot, in marginal amounts, (bl**dy cat)
I seem to recall, the Cat was the be all and end all, which would clean up motoring to the nth degree and ensure all the fluffy bunny rabbits stopped dying. Funny how they turned out to be sod all use on the majority of runs for which there used. (school run). yet it provided a massive taxation hit for the masses...
i seem to recall diesels were the ultimate tax break, with company tax being on the floor for a good diesel.....So what happened, people jumped ship to diesel and the govstapo lost money......result... the diesel tax breaks were scrapped. and now diesels are taxed (company wise ) the same as cars.
nice to know they have the planets interest at heart (not)
btw what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? in the 80,s that was armageddon personified, with more taxes piled on us, i seem to recall it was healing itself naturally last time heard about it. (wasn't the hole around for eons before we founs it if i recall?) more spin to tax the masses.
Mart
remember a while back , extra taxes and restrictions were imposed due to the oil crisis in the 70,s ,, then the 911 issues, more restrictions & taxes,, for our benefit of course.
now GW, ..
isnt it funny how our increased taxes and costs, will counteract the rest of the planets inability/ unwillingness to do anything to change it..
i drive a diesel
, yet my taxes are higher (fuel), why? all put out of my tailpipe is soot, in marginal amounts, (bl**dy cat)I seem to recall, the Cat was the be all and end all, which would clean up motoring to the nth degree and ensure all the fluffy bunny rabbits stopped dying. Funny how they turned out to be sod all use on the majority of runs for which there used. (school run). yet it provided a massive taxation hit for the masses...
i seem to recall diesels were the ultimate tax break, with company tax being on the floor for a good diesel.....So what happened, people jumped ship to diesel and the govstapo lost money......result... the diesel tax breaks were scrapped. and now diesels are taxed (company wise ) the same as cars.
nice to know they have the planets interest at heart (not)
btw what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? in the 80,s that was armageddon personified, with more taxes piled on us
, i seem to recall it was healing itself naturally last time heard about it. (wasn't the hole around for eons before we founs it if i recall?) more spin to tax the masses.Mart
Last edited by mart360; 10 February 2008 at 08:44 AM.
10 February 2008, 09:51 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More from the *concensus* .... not!
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets
" ... In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets
" ... In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance ... "
Enjoy!
Dave
10 February 2008, 09:59 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its another way of controlling the masses
remember a while back , extra taxes and restrictions were imposed due to the oil crisis in the 70,s ,, then the 911 issues, more restrictions & taxes,, for our benefit of course.
now GW, ..
isnt it funny how our increased taxes and costs, will counteract the rest of the planets inability/ unwillingness to do anything to change it..
i drive a diesel, yet my taxes are higher (fuel), why? all put out of my tailpipe is soot, in marginal amounts, (bl**dy cat)
I seem to recall, the Cat was the be all and end all, which would clean up motoring to the nth degree and ensure all the fluffy bunny rabbits stopped dying. Funny how they turned out to be sod all use on the majority of runs for which there used. (school run). yet it provided a massive taxation hit for the masses...
i seem to recall diesels were the ultimate tax break, with company tax being on the floor for a good diesel.....So what happened, people jumped ship to diesel and the govstapo lost money......result... the diesel tax breaks were scrapped. and now diesels are taxed (company wise ) the same as cars.
nice to know they have the planets interest at heart (not)
btw what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? in the 80,s that was armageddon personified, with more taxes piled on us, i seem to recall it was healing itself naturally last time heard about it. (wasn't the hole around for eons before we founs it if i recall?) more spin to tax the masses.
Mart
remember a while back , extra taxes and restrictions were imposed due to the oil crisis in the 70,s ,, then the 911 issues, more restrictions & taxes,, for our benefit of course.
now GW, ..
isnt it funny how our increased taxes and costs, will counteract the rest of the planets inability/ unwillingness to do anything to change it..
i drive a diesel
, yet my taxes are higher (fuel), why? all put out of my tailpipe is soot, in marginal amounts, (bl**dy cat)I seem to recall, the Cat was the be all and end all, which would clean up motoring to the nth degree and ensure all the fluffy bunny rabbits stopped dying. Funny how they turned out to be sod all use on the majority of runs for which there used. (school run). yet it provided a massive taxation hit for the masses...
i seem to recall diesels were the ultimate tax break, with company tax being on the floor for a good diesel.....So what happened, people jumped ship to diesel and the govstapo lost money......result... the diesel tax breaks were scrapped. and now diesels are taxed (company wise ) the same as cars.
nice to know they have the planets interest at heart (not)
btw what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? in the 80,s that was armageddon personified, with more taxes piled on us
, i seem to recall it was healing itself naturally last time heard about it. (wasn't the hole around for eons before we founs it if i recall?) more spin to tax the masses.Mart
14 February 2008, 09:56 PM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh let's bring this thread back to life ...... see Big Climate's strange 'science' | The Register ...
To save you the hassle of clicking here it is in full ..
Enjoy!
Dave
Big Climate's strange 'science'
Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge?
By John Atkinson → More by this author
Published Thursday 14th February 2008 11:55 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Simplify your network Infrastructure with Metro Ethernet
Comment I had to chuckle to myself reading a letter here at The Register, recently.
"David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate," wrote a reader. This is one of my greatest concerns about so called climate science. Climate science is a very, very new field. So new, in fact, that it has had little chance for its assertions to be tested.
For example, climate models are being developed with very little ability to test out of sample. Furthermore, the climate science bandwagon has come about solely because of supposed anthropogenic climate change, which means that their funding is intrinsically tied to climate change happening and being man-made. A more self-interested group I could not find anywhere, even looking at the researchers who were paid by big tobacco companies to tell us cigarettes are safe.
The scientists who interest me in this field are those who can draw on the experience of a lot of people who have come before them. And uniformly in these areas I find scepticism. People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing. Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing. Engineers find the arguments unconvincing. And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing.
Why? Well the answers are clear.
Climate groupthink
The climate models seem to be largely driven by over-fitting to a small sample set and positive feedback. The small sample set - at most 30 years of accurate data - might be enough to try and predict one or two years, but 50 year predictions? Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour - is surely going to cause problems.
Positive feedback in engineering invariably results in unstable systems - so we have to ask why do most if not all of the climate models rely on it to get doomsday predictions? For the Earth to have survived as long as it has with a stable climate, through major events like ice-ages or volcanic eruptions, there is little doubt that a degree of negative climate feedback is essential.
Geologists will quite happily explain how major climate changes in the Earth are a result of geological changes. Remember that more carbon is trapped in limestone than in either plant life or fossil fuels (or both put together for that matter). Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof.
Of course, it's also interesting to see changes over shorter time periods. If you go to see the Roman ruins at Ephesus in Turkey, the guide will point out that the harbour is miles from where the nearest sea is today. Sea levels go up and down for many reasons - carbon dioxide not being one of them. Somehow, we survive.
Of course, astrophysicists and astronomers will happily tell us about global warming on other planets in the solar system, a period of extensive solar activity and the like. But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view. Climate scientists have to disagree with real scientists or they would lose their funding.
Finally, why can't we trust human ingenuity? At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, the evidence really does come out in favour of these theories, then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem. Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain. We always have. ®
John Atkinson is an IT professional.
To save you the hassle of clicking here it is in full ..
Enjoy!
Dave
Big Climate's strange 'science'
Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge?
By John Atkinson → More by this author
Published Thursday 14th February 2008 11:55 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Simplify your network Infrastructure with Metro Ethernet
Comment I had to chuckle to myself reading a letter here at The Register, recently.
"David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate," wrote a reader. This is one of my greatest concerns about so called climate science. Climate science is a very, very new field. So new, in fact, that it has had little chance for its assertions to be tested.
For example, climate models are being developed with very little ability to test out of sample. Furthermore, the climate science bandwagon has come about solely because of supposed anthropogenic climate change, which means that their funding is intrinsically tied to climate change happening and being man-made. A more self-interested group I could not find anywhere, even looking at the researchers who were paid by big tobacco companies to tell us cigarettes are safe.
The scientists who interest me in this field are those who can draw on the experience of a lot of people who have come before them. And uniformly in these areas I find scepticism. People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing. Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing. Engineers find the arguments unconvincing. And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing.
Why? Well the answers are clear.
Climate groupthink
The climate models seem to be largely driven by over-fitting to a small sample set and positive feedback. The small sample set - at most 30 years of accurate data - might be enough to try and predict one or two years, but 50 year predictions? Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour - is surely going to cause problems.
Positive feedback in engineering invariably results in unstable systems - so we have to ask why do most if not all of the climate models rely on it to get doomsday predictions? For the Earth to have survived as long as it has with a stable climate, through major events like ice-ages or volcanic eruptions, there is little doubt that a degree of negative climate feedback is essential.
Geologists will quite happily explain how major climate changes in the Earth are a result of geological changes. Remember that more carbon is trapped in limestone than in either plant life or fossil fuels (or both put together for that matter). Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof.
Of course, it's also interesting to see changes over shorter time periods. If you go to see the Roman ruins at Ephesus in Turkey, the guide will point out that the harbour is miles from where the nearest sea is today. Sea levels go up and down for many reasons - carbon dioxide not being one of them. Somehow, we survive.
Of course, astrophysicists and astronomers will happily tell us about global warming on other planets in the solar system, a period of extensive solar activity and the like. But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view. Climate scientists have to disagree with real scientists or they would lose their funding.
Finally, why can't we trust human ingenuity? At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, the evidence really does come out in favour of these theories, then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem. Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain. We always have. ®
John Atkinson is an IT professional.
14 February 2008, 10:07 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh let's bring this thread back to life ...... see Big Climate's strange 'science' | The Register ...
To save you the hassle of clicking here it is in full ..
Enjoy!
Dave
Big Climate's strange 'science'
Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge?
By John Atkinson → More by this author
Published Thursday 14th February 2008 11:55 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Simplify your network Infrastructure with Metro Ethernet
Comment I had to chuckle to myself reading a letter here at The Register, recently.
"David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate," wrote a reader. This is one of my greatest concerns about so called climate science. Climate science is a very, very new field. So new, in fact, that it has had little chance for its assertions to be tested.
For example, climate models are being developed with very little ability to test out of sample. Furthermore, the climate science bandwagon has come about solely because of supposed anthropogenic climate change, which means that their funding is intrinsically tied to climate change happening and being man-made. A more self-interested group I could not find anywhere, even looking at the researchers who were paid by big tobacco companies to tell us cigarettes are safe.
The scientists who interest me in this field are those who can draw on the experience of a lot of people who have come before them. And uniformly in these areas I find scepticism. People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing. Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing. Engineers find the arguments unconvincing. And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing.
Why? Well the answers are clear.
Climate groupthink
The climate models seem to be largely driven by over-fitting to a small sample set and positive feedback. The small sample set - at most 30 years of accurate data - might be enough to try and predict one or two years, but 50 year predictions? Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour - is surely going to cause problems.
Positive feedback in engineering invariably results in unstable systems - so we have to ask why do most if not all of the climate models rely on it to get doomsday predictions? For the Earth to have survived as long as it has with a stable climate, through major events like ice-ages or volcanic eruptions, there is little doubt that a degree of negative climate feedback is essential.
Geologists will quite happily explain how major climate changes in the Earth are a result of geological changes. Remember that more carbon is trapped in limestone than in either plant life or fossil fuels (or both put together for that matter). Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof.
Of course, it's also interesting to see changes over shorter time periods. If you go to see the Roman ruins at Ephesus in Turkey, the guide will point out that the harbour is miles from where the nearest sea is today. Sea levels go up and down for many reasons - carbon dioxide not being one of them. Somehow, we survive.
Of course, astrophysicists and astronomers will happily tell us about global warming on other planets in the solar system, a period of extensive solar activity and the like. But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view. Climate scientists have to disagree with real scientists or they would lose their funding.
Finally, why can't we trust human ingenuity? At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, the evidence really does come out in favour of these theories, then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem. Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain. We always have. ®
John Atkinson is an IT professional.
To save you the hassle of clicking here it is in full ..
Enjoy!
Dave
Big Climate's strange 'science'
Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge?
By John Atkinson → More by this author
Published Thursday 14th February 2008 11:55 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Simplify your network Infrastructure with Metro Ethernet
Comment I had to chuckle to myself reading a letter here at The Register, recently.
"David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate," wrote a reader. This is one of my greatest concerns about so called climate science. Climate science is a very, very new field. So new, in fact, that it has had little chance for its assertions to be tested.
For example, climate models are being developed with very little ability to test out of sample. Furthermore, the climate science bandwagon has come about solely because of supposed anthropogenic climate change, which means that their funding is intrinsically tied to climate change happening and being man-made. A more self-interested group I could not find anywhere, even looking at the researchers who were paid by big tobacco companies to tell us cigarettes are safe.
The scientists who interest me in this field are those who can draw on the experience of a lot of people who have come before them. And uniformly in these areas I find scepticism. People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing. Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing. Engineers find the arguments unconvincing. And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing.
Why? Well the answers are clear.
Climate groupthink
The climate models seem to be largely driven by over-fitting to a small sample set and positive feedback. The small sample set - at most 30 years of accurate data - might be enough to try and predict one or two years, but 50 year predictions? Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour - is surely going to cause problems.
Positive feedback in engineering invariably results in unstable systems - so we have to ask why do most if not all of the climate models rely on it to get doomsday predictions? For the Earth to have survived as long as it has with a stable climate, through major events like ice-ages or volcanic eruptions, there is little doubt that a degree of negative climate feedback is essential.
Geologists will quite happily explain how major climate changes in the Earth are a result of geological changes. Remember that more carbon is trapped in limestone than in either plant life or fossil fuels (or both put together for that matter). Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof.
Of course, it's also interesting to see changes over shorter time periods. If you go to see the Roman ruins at Ephesus in Turkey, the guide will point out that the harbour is miles from where the nearest sea is today. Sea levels go up and down for many reasons - carbon dioxide not being one of them. Somehow, we survive.
Of course, astrophysicists and astronomers will happily tell us about global warming on other planets in the solar system, a period of extensive solar activity and the like. But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view. Climate scientists have to disagree with real scientists or they would lose their funding.
Finally, why can't we trust human ingenuity? At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, the evidence really does come out in favour of these theories, then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem. Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain. We always have. ®
John Atkinson is an IT professional.
Let the scientists have the debate, in the meantime let's all keep an open mind
15 February 2008, 12:39 AM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't know Al Gore was a scientist. Also his mocumentary, being taught in schools, wasn't prepared by scientists and it is factually incorrect. What we do know is these "climatologists" DO NOT know all variables. All computer modles are based on assumption, and until very recently, were "clear sky" modles (And still these "scientists" do not fully understand the effects of clouds or even contrails).
Last edited by Klaatu; 15 February 2008 at 01:06 AM.
15 February 2008, 08:09 AM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
15 February 2008, 11:22 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys realise that the patio heating ban is probably as much to do with the war on smoking as it is to do with global warming.
Loads of pubs have those things outside so that you can actually smoke outside and stay fairly warm. With these heaters banned and smoking indoors banned, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to smoke.
Sucks for the children of smokers though, they'll have to put up with parents smoking indoors again.
(BTW, I'm a non-smoker, I'm actually quite badly allergic to cigarette smoke, but even I think the smoking ban is going a bit far these days)
Loads of pubs have those things outside so that you can actually smoke outside and stay fairly warm. With these heaters banned and smoking indoors banned, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to smoke.
Sucks for the children of smokers though, they'll have to put up with parents smoking indoors again.
(BTW, I'm a non-smoker, I'm actually quite badly allergic to cigarette smoke, but even I think the smoking ban is going a bit far these days)
15 February 2008, 12:37 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mind is open on global warming. i.e. is the world getting warmer or not. BUT my mind is firmly closed to the fact that is it man-made (*IF* the world is actually getting warmer - just look at some of the *evidence* they use to *prove* that and you tell me how they work out an *average* temperature for the earth??!!) because that part is a wholly politically inspired invention.
Dave
Dave
Closing your mind just means you will not listen to anything that is outside your view of things, that's not how people learn and develop.
I will add that it's just convenient to label this issue as being 'politically inspired', now there really is very little evidence to support that view!