View Poll Results: Is the World doomed or are be being conned?
Yes the World is doomed and the science behind it is good
9
15.79%
No, there's no problem, we are being conned by just a few
48
84.21%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll
Climate change, real or not?
24 November 2009, 08:03 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
...
Sensible changes in regulation (co2 output etc) will drive innovation. But its not easy to feel I need to cut down on using my car when I hear that 12 of the worlds biggest ships put out more CO2 than all the cars in the world put together and there's little control over ships, etc etc
Sensible changes in regulation (co2 output etc) will drive innovation. But its not easy to feel I need to cut down on using my car when I hear that 12 of the worlds biggest ships put out more CO2 than all the cars in the world put together and there's little control over ships, etc etc
"... With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars ..."
But it's easy to confuse CO2 with 'pollution' when the Greenies define it as such, even though we'd all be dead without it.
Dave
24 November 2009, 08:08 PM
#36
Below is my reply on one of the other recent threads on the subject.
_______
The mathematical model for climate change was worked out many years ago by Mulatin Milankovitch. Its known as the Milankovitch cycles.
There is no denying that climate change happens, but its caused by orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession of the earth in its orbit around the sun.
All this crap about it being the fault of mankind is complete nonsense.
This next bit is just my opinion.
Its really a global conspiracy brought about by the Kyoto agreement. All the worlds powers have got together to see how they can make money by coming up with new forms of taxation. Someone came up with this brilliant idea of saying "the end of the world is nigh" its caused by global warming, and its our fault. Lets tax everything and everybody so as we can get the funding for our lavish expenses.
That is a much simplified version of events as I see it.
How increased taxation will combat climate change is something known only to a polititian, but here's how I think it works;
Lets say it was back in the dark ages, and the local tribe leader knew of a total eclipse of the sun about to happen. He says to his people that they must give him everything of value they own, or it will stay dark forever. After he gets the goods, the sun comes back out again. His taxation cured the problem.
What's happening now is just a much bigger version of this.
In any case, the earth needs CO2. without it the planet would be a barren dessert.
_______
The mathematical model for climate change was worked out many years ago by Mulatin Milankovitch. Its known as the Milankovitch cycles.
There is no denying that climate change happens, but its caused by orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession of the earth in its orbit around the sun.
All this crap about it being the fault of mankind is complete nonsense.
This next bit is just my opinion.
Its really a global conspiracy brought about by the Kyoto agreement. All the worlds powers have got together to see how they can make money by coming up with new forms of taxation. Someone came up with this brilliant idea of saying "the end of the world is nigh" its caused by global warming, and its our fault. Lets tax everything and everybody so as we can get the funding for our lavish expenses.
That is a much simplified version of events as I see it.
How increased taxation will combat climate change is something known only to a polititian, but here's how I think it works;
Lets say it was back in the dark ages, and the local tribe leader knew of a total eclipse of the sun about to happen. He says to his people that they must give him everything of value they own, or it will stay dark forever. After he gets the goods, the sun comes back out again. His taxation cured the problem.
What's happening now is just a much bigger version of this.
In any case, the earth needs CO2. without it the planet would be a barren dessert.
24 November 2009, 08:12 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 November 2009, 08:40 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longterm weather forcast for this area, seams to think that December will be pretty much the same as last year, 1 in 7 chance of a "cold one" according the met office.
24 November 2009, 09:10 PM
#41
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 stat. was not about CO2, it was 'pollution'. From How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world | Mail Online
"... With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars ..."
But it's easy to confuse CO2 with 'pollution' when the Greenies define it as such, even though we'd all be dead without it.
Dave
"... With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars ..."
But it's easy to confuse CO2 with 'pollution' when the Greenies define it as such, even though we'd all be dead without it.
Dave
What it actually says is "Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year."
Not, they do emit that much. But unfortunately, that's not the worst of it. One commentator then goes on to ask:
"So.......why aren't the worlds governments insisting these 16 ships are compulsory purchased and scrapped??"
...and it makes me shudder to think that this person gets to vote. At least someone else actually does some arithmetic (which looks plausible to me - if anyone cares to double check the figures then that would be great), and comes up with the statistic that to transport the same goods by road would require 14 times as much fuel as the ship.
24 November 2009, 11:02 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
25 November 2009, 10:47 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you see the government giving their approval to another runway at Heathrow which is estimated to double passenger throughput, how can they possibly shout at us about GBW?
Les
Les
25 November 2009, 03:36 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: west yorks
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 November 2009, 03:42 PM
#46
Tel, with the option you're providing us, I'm afraid I've had to vote yes; whatever I may really think...
25 November 2009, 06:23 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just correcting the *memory* of r32 who thought he heard it as 'CO2'. Not to say I was agreeing with the whole article per se, but it does make some general points about the fact that governments are so concerned about *climate change* and its effects that they're going to tax the cr*p out of us but they don't put any restrictions on shipping or air travel - apart from taxing air travellers .... strange that .....
Dave
Dave
25 November 2009, 06:24 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM