Sanity really has broken out in the US
20 April 2009, 11:00 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great isn't it that we are all now being labelled, individually, as polluters. From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/sc...8endanger.html we have " ... WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare ... "
So, every time your baby breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'. Every time your pet breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'.
Every time YOU breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'.
They really have lost the plot ....... oh, and they're also looking at including it under the US 'Superfund' law for cleaning up waste sites. Which is retrospective. So even though breathing out may be legal today, by next year you could be fined for breathing out today .....
What a brave new world we have entered ....
Dave
So, every time your baby breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'. Every time your pet breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'.
Every time YOU breathes out it's 'endangering public health and welfare'.
They really have lost the plot ....... oh, and they're also looking at including it under the US 'Superfund' law for cleaning up waste sites. Which is retrospective. So even though breathing out may be legal today, by next year you could be fined for breathing out today .....
What a brave new world we have entered ....
Dave
20 April 2009, 11:16 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But an eco warrior that drives a gas guzzler surely balances out, becoming moderate overall 
Unless they've remanipulated the 'records' again then doesn't CO2 lag global temperature? A bit like saying the smoke is the cause of fire? But of course its not as simple as that, which is why they simply tax us on CO2
Unless they've remanipulated the 'records' again then doesn't CO2 lag global temperature? A bit like saying the smoke is the cause of fire? But of course its not as simple as that, which is why they simply tax us on CO2
It's a bit sad and transparent though isn't it
20 April 2009, 11:18 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 April 2009, 11:30 PM
#66
BANNED
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 April 2009, 11:37 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really really do believe we are killing the planet (although you cant prove it) then why dont you do your bit by selling your 350BHP gas guzzling monster and buy a more eco friendly car? I`ll tell you why you tree hugging **** because your a ******* hypocrit!
now go plant some tree`s and get to f**k!
20 April 2009, 11:37 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 April 2009, 08:50 AM
#70
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was pretty obvious my post was in response to somebody else labelling you an eco warrior, but hey you must be pretty sad and opaque not to see that. Perhaps your mind isn't as open as you think.
21 April 2009, 12:36 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers
Looks like they noticed my posts about sunspots!
Funny how they are so quick to say that it will not affect global warming. We will certainly have climate change if we go into another long minimum like the one that Maunder researched!
Les
Looks like they noticed my posts about sunspots!
Funny how they are so quick to say that it will not affect global warming. We will certainly have climate change if we go into another long minimum like the one that Maunder researched!
Les
21 April 2009, 12:37 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol if you have been trying to have a sensible debate all of this time you have failed miserably, every post infact every word you have contributed to this thread so far has been nothing more than sh!te, you come here preaching to us the enviroment this the enviroment that but have admitted openly that you are still to be convinced whether its all man made or not, how the fkuc can you sit there in your seat and practicaly preach to us all we are killing the planet when you dont actually know your self?
If you really really do believe we are killing the planet (although you cant prove it) then why dont you do your bit by selling your 350BHP gas guzzling monster and buy a more eco friendly car? I`ll tell you why you tree hugging **** because your a ******* hypocrit!
now go plant some tree`s and get to f**k!
If you really really do believe we are killing the planet (although you cant prove it) then why dont you do your bit by selling your 350BHP gas guzzling monster and buy a more eco friendly car? I`ll tell you why you tree hugging **** because your a ******* hypocrit!
now go plant some tree`s and get to f**k!
OK i'll accept everything you just said if you can find a single sentence that I have posted that preaches anything, that claims definitively that we are killing the planet, that tries to prove anything.....?
The problem is you just make bad assumptions about me without even trying to understand what I'm saying. I HAVE NEVER PREACHED ON THIS, how could I, I don't know the answer and unlike some on here have never claimed to.
As I said before if I was on a AGW forum I would be just as challenging to the extremist/fundermentalist views there as I am here. I just don't believe that this issue is black or white, it just doesn't break down into a simplistic binery answer, not for me anyway.
It's becoming complete pointless trying to debate anything on this site.
I say it again, it's not my views that are extreme on here
Anyway I expect all of the above to be ignored yet again - and more deliberately inaccurate assumptions as to where I'm coming from on this issue to be made
21 April 2009, 02:29 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
So where are you coming from Martin?
Because you've obviously lacked any frorm of clarity up until know.
Personally, I believe that that the political interest in Co2 emissions is both financial and practical. We are running out of fossil fuels, and we should be reducing our global uses. But not because we are killing our planet, rather that we haven't yet got a suitable alternative.
But for us human's to think that we can change the unchangeable, or to make a material difference to the planets evolutionary cycle, is both naieve and arrogant beyond belief.
If there wasn't (tax) dollars in it, no one would give a rats *** about Co2.
The upside of Obama's position, is that the yanks may stop draining the natural resources quite so fast.
Because you've obviously lacked any frorm of clarity up until know.
Personally, I believe that that the political interest in Co2 emissions is both financial and practical. We are running out of fossil fuels, and we should be reducing our global uses. But not because we are killing our planet, rather that we haven't yet got a suitable alternative.
But for us human's to think that we can change the unchangeable, or to make a material difference to the planets evolutionary cycle, is both naieve and arrogant beyond belief.
If there wasn't (tax) dollars in it, no one would give a rats *** about Co2.
The upside of Obama's position, is that the yanks may stop draining the natural resources quite so fast.
21 April 2009, 02:40 PM
#75
Don't be silly! Obama will use the opportunity to tax people to high heaven like our PM has/is doing to recuperate the billions used in the bail out of the financial crisis.
21 April 2009, 02:55 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Martin -- I probably agree with 99% of what you say/think on this, but where i disagree is that deep down there is niether the will or ability to really affect any lasting change, and all it does is divert attention from the solvable issues that humans face
pessimistic maybe -- but realistic
21 April 2009, 04:13 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sanity really has broken out in the US"
This is either stating that you believe that man made global warming is happening and America has just realised the fact, or you are just trolling!
21 April 2009, 04:36 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you not realise, you are not actually debating anything, you are just criticising people who don't believe in MMGW, because you say "how can you possibly know it's not happening". Look back at your posts, where have you posted any scientific evidence to back up the MMGW theory?
That isn't debate, why don't you post up some facts and allow us to argue them with you? In my experience, the people who do not believe in MMGW are the ones presenting facts on the matter, the believers simply look at us as though we are mad.
I am just as entitled to not believe as anyone else is to believe, what I don't need is you, who by your own admission haven't a clue what to think, telling me what I should believe.
21 April 2009, 04:46 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have listed below the links that us sceptics have posted on this thread:
NPR: NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming
Global carbon market to hit $669bn by 2013 - 16 Apr 2009 - BusinessGreen.com
SBI
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
reports blogger Bill Hobbs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...really-is.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/sc...8endanger.html
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers
For a bunch of people who are not interested in debate, I'd say we have provided plenty of evidence for you to debate if you really wanted to. You on the other hand have added nothing!
NPR: NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming
Global carbon market to hit $669bn by 2013 - 16 Apr 2009 - BusinessGreen.com
SBI
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
reports blogger Bill Hobbs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...really-is.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/sc...8endanger.html
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers
For a bunch of people who are not interested in debate, I'd say we have provided plenty of evidence for you to debate if you really wanted to. You on the other hand have added nothing!
21 April 2009, 05:45 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you not realise, you are not actually debating anything, you are just criticising people who don't believe in MMGW, because you say "how can you possibly know it's not happening". Look back at your posts, where have you posted any scientific evidence to back up the MMGW theory?
That isn't debate, why don't you post up some facts and allow us to argue them with you? In my experience, the people who do not believe in MMGW are the ones presenting facts on the matter, the believers simply look at us as though we are mad.
I am just as entitled to not believe as anyone else is to believe, what I don't need is you, who by your own admission haven't a clue what to think, telling me what I should believe.
That isn't debate, why don't you post up some facts and allow us to argue them with you? In my experience, the people who do not believe in MMGW are the ones presenting facts on the matter, the believers simply look at us as though we are mad.
I am just as entitled to not believe as anyone else is to believe, what I don't need is you, who by your own admission haven't a clue what to think, telling me what I should believe.
When did I tell anyone what to believe?
Why do I need to start posting up links to scientific study's, is that going to change anything?
You know the study's that have been conducted into this subject and you know the arguments against it, no different to me, so how does turning this debate into a google-a-thon help???
I think trying to debate against an absolutist position driven in many cases by just plain cynicism, which in retrospect was a silly idea.
Ultimately no amount of evidence either way will shift people from an absolutist position, which is kind of tragic.
BTW 3 times on this thread you have called me an eco-warrior – this is a completely baseless and (probably deliberately) inaccurate portrayal of my position. However it is fair to say that on balance I more likely to believe the perceived wisdom, but certainly not slavishly and really really not in a fundamentalist way.
So let’s debate why you are not prepared to have your absolutist views challenged without having to slur and misrepresent the person challenging them.
21 April 2009, 05:52 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant, so how exactly are you debating this subject?You are not posting links to scientific evidence, you don't know anything about the subject and are not sure who to believe and you are not interested in links to what we think is proof there is no MMGW.
Why do you think that I cannot be persuaded, find me evidence where I have said that?
21 April 2009, 05:53 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Percieved wisdom. Thats the point Martin - perception is often far from reality.
There is plenty of wisdom out there suggesting that the whole CO2 issue is a crock of ****.
There is plenty of wisdom out there suggesting that the whole CO2 issue is a crock of ****.
21 April 2009, 05:55 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, this is how I see you and the global warming ( climate change ) debate, from what I've read on SN.
I'm happy to be corrected on any point.
1. You clearly believe GW is happening.
2. You seem to intimate it's being caused by, or helped along it's way, by humans burning fossil fuels.
3. You appear to believe that anyone with a differing view is a conspiracy nut, or a cynic.
Fair enough?
4. Yet you drive a hugely polluting vehicle?
Given points 1, 2 and 3, can you not see hypocrisy of point 4?
I'm happy to be corrected on any point.
1. You clearly believe GW is happening.
2. You seem to intimate it's being caused by, or helped along it's way, by humans burning fossil fuels.
3. You appear to believe that anyone with a differing view is a conspiracy nut, or a cynic.
Fair enough?
4. Yet you drive a hugely polluting vehicle?
Given points 1, 2 and 3, can you not see hypocrisy of point 4?
21 April 2009, 05:56 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the way that because I don't agree with you, I have an absolutist view.
What if we were talking about whether or not there was a God, this cannot be proved either way, but people are still entitled to an opinion.
21 April 2009, 07:21 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant, so how exactly are you debating this subject?You are not posting links to scientific evidence, you don't know anything about the subject and are not sure who to believe and you are not interested in links to what we think is proof there is no MMGW.
Why do you think that I cannot be persuaded, find me evidence where I have said that?
Do you want me to post up every single piece of scientific evidence from both sides of this debate? Will that help? Does that prove anything?
Tell you what in the name of balance post up some of the evidence that supports the AGW arguement, rather than asking me to do it.
21 April 2009, 07:36 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm not the one claiming to know the answer am I, I'm not the one stating anything is or isn't definitely happening am I?
21 April 2009, 07:38 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
21 April 2009, 07:51 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, this is how I see you and the global warming ( climate change ) debate, from what I've read on SN.
I'm happy to be corrected on any point.
1. You clearly believe GW is happening.
2. You seem to intimate it's being caused by, or helped along it's way, by humans burning fossil fuels.
3. You appear to believe that anyone with a differing view is a conspiracy nut, or a cynic.
Fair enough?
4. Yet you drive a hugely polluting vehicle?
Given points 1, 2 and 3, can you not see hypocrisy of point 4?
I'm happy to be corrected on any point.
1. You clearly believe GW is happening.
2. You seem to intimate it's being caused by, or helped along it's way, by humans burning fossil fuels.
3. You appear to believe that anyone with a differing view is a conspiracy nut, or a cynic.
Fair enough?
4. Yet you drive a hugely polluting vehicle?
Given points 1, 2 and 3, can you not see hypocrisy of point 4?
1. Yes I believe our climate is going through some sort of scism at the moment
2. I believe that humans MIGHT be to some extent responsible for this, at least in part. It's hard to get away from cause and effect, we spent a few years burning 10 of millions of years worth of stored up carbon, can there be no consequence to this...I think that is unlikely.
3. Just read any thread on the subject and the counter-arguement just breaks down into conspiracy about taxation..of course nobody ever bothers to explain how this global conspiracy could possibly of been hatched, by who and how, and also how the hell do you keep that secret. Rarely do I read anything that just says they've got it wrong without the implicit conspiritorial stuff. And cynicism as absolutely rife on here so I'm surprised you even asked me that one.
4. Well yes I'm riddled with contradictions as we all are, but at least I recognise this. I also believe the planet to be overpopulated but have 2 kids of my own!
Turning this on it's head for a minute, why is it on a Subaru forum that a completely unrepresentative number of people completely reject AGW, I ask you who's not being honest with themselves, or at least leaping upon a convenient couter argument.
But the thing that gets right up my nose is that having any kind of challenge to the SN massive instantly gets you branded at one extreme of the debate, I've laughably been called both an Eco-warrior and a Socialist on this thread, these simply couldn't be further from the truth. What this tells me is that this place can be very narrow minded, cynical and extreme. Let's not ever forget the poll that showed 20% of SN would vore BNP in the next election...you think thats representative and mainstream????