Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 28 August 2009, 10:41:09
-
Now Oxfam are jumping into the climate change debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8225895.stm
Who next is going to put pressure on us to do something based on uncertain facts?? :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/
I am sure Nick will have something to say!! :D :D ;) ;) ;) :y
-
Oxfam have been on the bandwagon for some time, Lizzie. :(
It's all politics, not science. >:( >:(
-
Oxfam have been on the bandwagon for some time, Lizzie. :(
It's all politics, not science. >:( >:(
You are certainly right there Nick! :y :y
-
And I've just got a decat, oh dear how can I live with myself :-X ::)
-
And I've just got a decat, oh dear how can I live with myself :-X ::)
Until your next MOT perfectly well I'd say!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
And I've just got a decat, oh dear how can I live with myself :-X ::)
Until your next MOT perfectly well I'd say!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
In 2011 ;)
-
And I've just got a decat, oh dear how can I live with myself :-X ::)
Until your next MOT perfectly well I'd say!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
In 2011 ;)
Of course, the Irish two yearly test!! 8-) 8-) A result then! :D :D :D ;)
-
Some observations.
1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you? If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".
2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.
3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things.
4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?
5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!
Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit
El Varche
-
Point 5 is an interesting one......so I did some digging.
The Uk population has increased due to the arrival of other europeons (eastern europe), the 'native' populations birth rate has continued to decline.
-
Some observations.
1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you? If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".
2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.
3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things.
4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?
5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!
Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit
El Varche
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209396/Population-UK-tops-61million-biggest-baby-boom-generation.html
this is on front page of paper...varche
-
Didn't get a chance to look at this Oxfam crap earlier as I had to go out for the day. Well, I looked at it. No, I couldn't stomach the video, as I've only just eaten, but I did read the first line:
Oxfam has filmed a family living at the 'bottom of the sea' to highlight the rise in sea levels.
When Oxfam stop peddling this fraudulent science, I might start listening to them (then again, I might not).
1. Sea level rise is small, slowing, and decadal in behaviour.
"We calculate the running 10-year trends in sea level as observed from satellites, and append it to the running 10-yr trends in sea level derived by Holgate from the tide gauge network. In this context, the satellite trends (red curve in Figure 3) don’t look unusual at all—they seem to fit squarely into the pattern of long-term fluctuations. And further more, they have been declining!
So rather than evidence of accelerating sea level rise in recent years, what we have is nothing more than the same type of variation that has been going on for at least 100 years. It was merely a coincidence that the satellites began observing the sea level rise during a natural upswing in the rate of sea level rise, that has now turned into a downswing—a behavior that has repeated itself a good half-dozen times during the past century."
Summary based on the work of Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/
2. For the Oxfam's "family" to be submerged would require a total collapse of the ice caps. If you don't want to read all the following, just note the last line:
"The global warming doomsday writers claim the ice sheets are melting catastrophically, and will cause a sudden rise in sea level of many metres. This ignores the mechanism of glacier flow which is by creep: glaciers are not melting from the surface down, nor are they sliding down an inclined plane lubricated by melidioter. The existence of ice over 3 km thick preserving details of past snowfall and atmospheres, used to decipher past temperature and CO2 levels, shows that the ice sheets have accumulated for hundreds of thousands of years without melting. Variations in melting around the edges of ice sheets are no indication that they are collapsing. Indeed 'collapse' is impossible."
See page 20 of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists August 09 paper
http://aig.org.au/assets/244/AIGnews_Aug09.pdf
OXFAM will never get a penny out of me. >:( >:(
-
Some observations.
1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you? If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".
2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.
3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things.
4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?
5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!
Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit
El Varche
Spot on El Varche :y
who needs "scientific" "proof" based on "observation" and "facts" when a couple of websites can dismiss the overwhelming majority of research because of some conspiracy theory on climate change?
if you don't believe that man is adversely affecting the environment than you have to believe that every major country on the planet, every government, national research body, the entire global scientific community, would have to be in on some giant conspiracy to make us believe something that isn't true.
thats religions job i thought? ;)
-
here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? ;D
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)
-
here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? ;D
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)
Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.
-
Some observations.
1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you? If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".
2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.
3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things.
4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?
5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!
Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit
El Varche
Spot on El Varche :y
who needs "scientific" "proof" based on "observation" and "facts" when a couple of websites (Try thousands, Bannjaax)! can dismiss the overwhelming majority of research (NOT the overwhelming majority, Bannjaax) because of some conspiracy theory on climate change?
if you don't believe that man is adversely affecting the environment than you have to believe that every major country on the planet, every government, national research body, the entire global scientific community, would have to be in on some giant conspiracy to make us believe something that isn't true.
thats religions job i thought? ;)
-
Some observations.
1. No one would listen to what any scientists say on any subject. How many people cut back on smoking, drinking, excess eating just cos a few scientists say it is bad for you? If money is/needs to be spent it has to get "political".
2. Regardless of whether you believe that mankinds efforts at mussing up the planet with pollution etc don't have any negative effects, it is irrefutable that it is getting hotter. When was the last time that the Thames froze up? It used to do that regularly until maybe a hundred years ago. The last Ice Age was only 10,000 years ago. Sooner or later it will start cooling down again for the next ice age.
3. Personally I think mankind has developed an absolutely giant ostrich head in the sand approach to ALL the bad things he (it is mostly men) is doing to the planet. Witness the "British sending of toxic waste to Brazil" scam as just one everyday example. Most people don't give a damn. It has to get "political" to curtail such things.
4. The people of Africa or indeed anywhere else where lack of water or food or medicine is an everyday issue should concern everyone of us. I welcome Oxfam jumping into the debate. Perhaps if the taps were turned off in the UK regularly for indeterminate periods of time people would be more understanding?
5. One for Nickbat. Apparently the birth rate is up in Britain according to the news. So i was right, the worlds population is increasing even in the "West". Recessions are good for population increases!
Anyway time to bury my head in the (hot) sand, tarra a bit
El Varche
Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/
-
proves tha adage you can find anything on the net if you look :y
i agree there may be a debate to be had about how much we affect the climate, i don't think you can have a debate about whether or not we affect it surely?
name one, just one piece of research Nickbat, that states we don't affect the climate at all. there isn't any. now we can argue over degrees :y
-
Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/
...an interesting article indeed Nick but I have to say that I feel a rant coming on after reading this part of it;
We have just four months to secure the future of our planet. If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.
Such alarmist tosh devalues any reasoned debate on the merits of the argument :(
-
here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? ;D
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)
Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.
and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight ::)
your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick :y
-
proves tha adage you can find anything on the net if you look :y
i agree there may be a debate to be had about how much we affect the climate, i don't think you can have a debate about whether or not we affect it surely?
name one, just one piece of research Nickbat, that states we don't affect the climate at all. there isn't any. now we can argue over degrees :y
Humanity affects the environment, so do flora and fauna. No one is arguing that. As far as tempertaure is concerned, a good deal of the recorded rise in recent times (which is pretty minimal anyway) can be accounted for by urbanisation. For example, London is obviously warmer now than it ever has been because of the amount of concrete and tarmac. Additionally, many of the world's temperature-gathering stations are sited at airports which have not increased in physical size (hence more concrete/tarmac), but have increased jet movements.
There is NO empirical evidence that mankind is causing a shift in climate of any significance. Indeed, such effects that we have, on a local scale, have probably been beneficial in terms of less frost damage.
-
here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? ;D
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)
Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.
and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight ::)
your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick :y
Maybe it's me, but I haven't a clue what the highlighted text means. :-?
-
Varche, maybe you will find this article enlightening. It is by Professor Will Alexander - who actually lives lives in Africa.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/climate-alarmism-is-a-runaway-fire-by-professor-will-alexander/
...an interesting article indeed Nick but I have to say that I feel a rant coming on after reading this part of it;
We have just four months to secure the future of our planet. If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.
Such alarmist tosh devalues any reasoned debate on the merits of the argument :(
Indeed, Zulu. The highlighted text comes form the mouth of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Four months? That's the time until the Copenhagen Summit. ::)
If your blood pressure's up to it, read this - our very own chief government adviser. (Also read the comments, showing that the majority don't seem to buy this cobblers! :y).
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/08/which-is-first-chicken-little-or-the-perfect-storm.html
-
Indeed, Zulu. The highlighted text comes form the mouth of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Four months? That's the time until the Copenhagen Summit. ::)
If your blood pressure's up to it, read this - our very own chief government adviser. (Also read the comments, showing that the majority don't seem to buy this cobblers! :y).
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/08/which-is-first-chicken-little-or-the-perfect-storm.html
...cobblers? It’s utter 'dangle berries' to be blunt.
The way figures are bandied about with such certain authority would be amusing if it were not so prejudiciously appalling.
With the technological prowess available to those who try to predict the weather pattern for the coming week there remains a distinct lack of accuracy in their utterances.
Bearing that in mind how in the name of the Lord does an individual like this even countenance attempting to predict what is likely to happen 20 years in the future.
The premise seems to be that between now and then there will be no progress toward developing new technology to help deal with the various problems he envisages.
To say that this was an incredible stance for such a figure to take is to state the obvious.
-
here's those cranks at NASA - what are they like? ;D
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
time to put this debate to bed (plus i need another 16 posts)
Nasa's figures are not their own, they come from the UN IPCC.
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F).
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Debate over? No, Bannjaax, it's only just beginning.
and the IPCC collate their report from gathering data across a wide spectrum of respected scientific studies, but no, a few cranks shouting about how theres no problem has about as much weight ::)
your argument about differences in temperature, the differences you're quoting took millions of years to adjust, what we've done in the last 100 years is comparable - you've made my point for me - cheers Nick :y
Maybe it's me, but I haven't a clue what the highlighted text means. :-?
maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact
i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.
i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking
my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything :y
it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me 8-)
-
I have a simple (some may say selfish) attitude to the whole climate change/environment thing.....
When all the preaching politicians and patronising pop/rock "stars" give up their Jaguars, Bentleys, Ferraris and private jets then they can come and tell me what I need to do to help.....
Until that day, which coincidentally is the same day pigs will fly, I will keep the V6 and take everything they say with more than just a pinch of salt.....
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
:y
-
maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact
i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.
i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking
my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything :y
it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me 8-)
;D ;D does that make you a lazy bugger then bj ::) ::) ;D ;D
I can agree with you on many things bj - and on the point of how we as a race have affected the resources of the planet in recent industrialised times - I'm bound to agree that damage has undoubtedly been done.
I'm also comfortable with the notion that this industrial process must have done, and is doing, something to the atmosphere of the planet. That coupled with the resulting activity of the inhabitants of the globe has conspired to bring us to the present point of concern.
What I can't accept however is the evangelical adherence of the so-called experts in the field of planetary climate change to a dogma that is by no means sustained by credible scientific debate.
Until that debate is approached sensibly and with a degree of balance, we will continue to see this matter seized upon by those who have a vested interest in the accumulation of wealth as a result of these dubious assertions.
-
maybe referencing levels of CO2 millions of years ago helps you sleep, the planet at that time was undergoing huge changes in the atmosphere a very volatile period and yet in our short industrialised time, we've had a much greater impact
i'm not sure what point you're making myself, other than the atmosphere was different millions of years ago? we should be looking at whats happening now and ways to slow it down. now this is where we agree Nickbat - one more time - we cannot do anything to stop what we're doing to the environment, nor should we spend billions on fruitless measures that don't go far enough - whilst i totally agree theres some terrible, alarmist articles on climate change - (i agree with you and zulu on that) just because a few cranks go to far, doesn't dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence that points to industrialisation being a significant factor in recent climate change.
i smoke. i know it's bad for me. all medical evidence would appear to suggest that smoking can cause a number of fatal diseases and yet, within a few minutes i could cut and paste reams of websites stating that smoking is harmless - doesn't mean i dismiss all the medical science - and it still doesn't mean i've given up smoking
my point (i'm getting to one!) is that i know without doubt we're affecting our own atmosphere and i know we should be doing something, but i also know i don't worry about it significantly enough to actually do anything :y
it's like me trying to prove to you that God doesn't exist - all evidence and science is behind me and yet if you believe in God no reason will suffice - you'll simply choose to believe what you like - and thats fine by me 8-)
;D ;D does that make you a lazy bugger then bj ::) ::) ;D ;D
I can agree with you on many things bj - and on the point of how we as a race have affected the resources of the planet in recent industrialised times - I'm bound to agree that damage has undoubtedly been done.
I'm also comfortable with the notion that this industrial process must have done, and is doing, something to the atmosphere of the planet. That coupled with the resulting activity of the inhabitants of the globe has conspired to bring us to the present point of concern.
What I can't accept however is the evangelical adherence of the so-called experts in the field of planetary climate change to a dogma that is by no means sustained by credible scientific debate.
Until that debate is approached sensibly and with a degree of balance, we will continue to see this matter seized upon by those who have a vested interest in the accumulation of wealth as a result of these dubious assertions.
you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered ;D ;D ;D :y
i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences :(
-
you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered ;D ;D ;D :y
i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences :(
...I have a particular view on that but will need to expand later as I'm trying to get Word 97 to work on this box but it's messing me about a bit, so if I'm not back later you'll know that I've given it the malkey and will be box-less ;D ;D :-/ :-/
-
you know - i'd retaliate for that slight on my character zulu - but i can't be bothered ;D ;D ;D :y
i agree that the more fundamentalist greenies don't really help in these matters but don't let that cloud your judgement - my take on it that we've done nothing since the 60's and we're desparately playing catch-up, but it's a case of too little too late i'm afraid and unfortunately its not us in the west but the 3rd world who will bear the brunt of any consequences :(
...I have a particular view on that but will need to expand later as I'm trying to get Word 97 to work on this box but it's messing me about a bit, so if I'm not back later you'll know that I've given it the malkey and will be box-less ;D ;D :-/ :-/
i shall wait with baited breath :y
-
Of course the third world will bear the brunt of it. They always do and always will do. The rich people (that is us 1st worlders) will alwayslookafter themselves at the expense of others. I am afraid that is human nature. Even and when we have made the planet uninhabitable for current living practices the rich will ensure they have somewhere to live. Maybe that is part of the life of the earth.
it is clear that there are sufficient people out there who don't believe mankind is doing anything bad to the planet perhaps they could join the flat earthers whose numbers have apparently dwindled quite dramatically. More info at www.the flatearthsociety.org ;D ;D ;D
-
Of course the third world will bear the brunt of it. They always do and always will do. The rich people (that is us 1st worlders) will alwayslookafter themselves at the expense of others. I am afraid that is human nature. Even and when we have made the planet uninhabitable for current living practices the rich will ensure they have somewhere to live. Maybe that is part of the life of the earth.
it is clear that there are sufficient people out there who don't believe mankind is doing anything bad to the planet perhaps they could join the flat earthers whose numbers have apparently dwindled quite dramatically. More info at www.the flatearthsociety.org ;D ;D ;D
I assume that comment is directed towards me and others who question the AGW dogma in an effort to make us look foolish. I find it rather puerile. :(
Let me make my position clear (for the umpteenth time):
I am a conservationist and an environmentalist.
Mankind does impact the environment. One need only look at deforestation, pollution, loss of habitat, building on flood plains, Green Belt development and so on. I am as concerned as anyone that these problems need to be addressed.
I cannot, and will never, apologise or feel guilty about the West's standard of living. It is better that the Third World is given the opportunity to raise its standards to ours, than for us to reduce our levels to theirs. The people of the Third World want that. So do I.
I cannot, and will never, accept flawed or bogus science. There are MANY very eminent scientists out there who believe that the Global Warming Cult is guilty of peddling just that.
The concentration on the bogus theme of Anthropogenic Global Warming is diverting resources from important environmental issues. Indeed many of the actions taken in the name of AGW are already having detrimental effects (e.g. deforestation for bio-fuel cultivation, loss of habitat for windfarms, mercury poisoning of Chinese workers making "green" lightbulbs, etc.).
There is, in my view, a very real danger that the adoption of many of the global warming measures now being proposed will lead to severe economic problems in the West, and catastrophic problems in the Third World. China, meanwhile will grow ever more dominant.
There has not been a single death that can be attributed to global warming. But the world is now cooling. If the Waxman-Markey Bill passes the Senate and if the Copenhagen Summit agrees to slash economic growth (through excessive CO2 reductions), I foresee many deaths in subsequent decades through hypothermia, starvation, disease, lack of medical care and civil strife...and not just in the Third World. Do I want my kids to face that scenario? No.
We can improve air quality, we can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we can protect the lives and habitat of other species. However, we will only be able to achieve these things if human endeavour, technology and enterprise are allowed to flourish. The alternative, being proposed by the AGW followers is a return to stone age living..and death. But maybe the death of billions of humans is what they really want in the long term.
>:( >:( >:(
This is not flat-earthism. It's real science.
-
i shall wait with baited breath :y
...the comments made by Varche lead me quite naturally to the point I was considering about this debate and the third World and Africa in particular.
I have been concerned for some time about the unduly judgmental position taken by several aid agencies, Oxfam included, about how the apparent change in climate - caused by the self-interest of the West in general - has had such a negative impact on the ability of these countries to function.
In my view this can be considered to be emotional blackmail as there seems to be little problem for the leaders and elite of many of these countries having a very acceptable lifestyle.
I would think it more productive for the aid agencies to start questioning the incompetent and self-serving leaderships concerned rather than take the easy path of castigating those of us in the West whom are trying to get by with what we presently have.
Mandela, Mbeki, Mugabe and Moi to name but a few did a lot to insure that the elite and organs of government were taken care of while seeming blind the plight of their own people.
The Third World should be looking to ensure that the leadership they have in place is of the highest calibre so that real progress can be made in the fight against poverty and deprivation. Furthermore, the self-righteous aid agencies should also be making more effort to ensure that this goal is being realised rather than engaging in this disingenuous attempt to send we in the West on a guilt-trip over the plight of those in question.
-
Imo,most of the Charities/aid agencies connected with Africa are run by people who have made a career out of the job,and arent particularily interested in the problems of Africa,they seem to be mostly old fashioned lefties who have never functioned in the real world, rather like their friends in Nu Lie bore.
-
Of course the third world will bear the brunt of it. They always do and always will do. The rich people (that is us 1st worlders) will alwayslookafter themselves at the expense of others. I am afraid that is human nature. Even and when we have made the planet uninhabitable for current living practices the rich will ensure they have somewhere to live. Maybe that is part of the life of the earth.
it is clear that there are sufficient people out there who don't believe mankind is doing anything bad to the planet perhaps they could join the flat earthers whose numbers have apparently dwindled quite dramatically. More info at www.the flatearthsociety.org ;D ;D ;D
I assume that comment is directed towards me and others who question the AGW dogma in an effort to make us look foolish. I find it rather puerile. :(
Let me make my position clear (for the umpteenth time):
I am a conservationist and an environmentalist.
Mankind does impact the environment. One need only look at deforestation, pollution, loss of habitat, building on flood plains, Green Belt development and so on. I am as concerned as anyone that these problems need to be addressed.
I cannot, and will never, apologise or feel guilty about the West's standard of living. It is better that the Third World is given the opportunity to raise its standards to ours, than for us to reduce our levels to theirs. The people of the Third World want that. So do I.
I cannot, and will never, accept flawed or bogus science. There are MANY very eminent scientists out there who believe that the Global Warming Cult is guilty of peddling just that.
The concentration on the bogus theme of Anthropogenic Global Warming is diverting resources from important environmental issues. Indeed many of the actions taken in the name of AGW are already having detrimental effects (e.g. deforestation for bio-fuel cultivation, loss of habitat for windfarms, mercury poisoning of Chinese workers making "green" lightbulbs, etc.).
There is, in my view, a very real danger that the adoption of many of the global warming measures now being proposed will lead to severe economic problems in the West, and catastrophic problems in the Third World. China, meanwhile will grow ever more dominant.
There has not been a single death that can be attributed to global warming. But the world is now cooling. If the Waxman-Markey Bill passes the Senate and if the Copenhagen Summit agrees to slash economic growth (through excessive CO2 reductions), I foresee many deaths in subsequent decades through hypothermia, starvation, disease, lack of medical care and civil strife...and not just in the Third World. Do I want my kids to face that scenario? No.
We can improve air quality, we can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we can protect the lives and habitat of other species. However, we will only be able to achieve these things if human endeavour, technology and enterprise are allowed to flourish. The alternative, being proposed by the AGW followers is a return to stone age living..and death. But maybe the death of billions of humans is what they really want in the long term.
>:( >:( >:(
This is not flat-earthism. It's real science.
Nickbat - i admire your passion and conviction on this, but are you seriously suggesting that we give up this folly and train all our guns on ending poverty, sickness and disease - using all out technological might to clean the air, irrigate the fields and reduce our fossil fuel consumption?
You know what we do with all that knowledge and science? we build golf courses in deserts, ski resorts in Dubai, artificial beaches in Japan, slightly smaller, lighter mobile phones. Slightly faster computers, more choices of deodorant and washing powder.
It will not, based on all the evidence of my own eyes, be used for anything other than to make us in the West feel incrementally better about ourselves and to hell with the consequences. If I was wrong, more would have been done by now.
We can put a man on the moon but people still starve? Theres the proof mate :o
p.s. on a side note there was never a point in our history when anyone seriously believed the earth to be flat (thanks to the Q.I. elves)
-
I've considered long and hard the arguments around climate change and the issues in the third world! Since it would now appear to be less about these issues and more about suppressing peoples free will, I now bury my head in the sand and ignore them!
I like driving my V6 too fast and leaving all of my appliances on standby and resent being told otherwise! Any small change that I make is pointless when the issues are political and ignored by the likes of china anyway!
I also object to the amount of time and money spent on space exploration, it would be much better spent on helping out this planet, think how many people in the third world could be helped to improve their lives with what it costs! If we found another planet to destroy it would only be for the elite and of no benefit to ordinary folk!
Scare mongering just turns me into an ostrich! >:(
-
Oxfam knocked my door the other day collecting clothes for Africa, I said if they could fit into mine they are not starving !! ;D ;D ;D :y
-
There is, in my view, a very real danger that the adoption of many of the global warming measures now being proposed will lead to severe economic problems in the West, and catastrophic problems in the Third World.
The alternative, being proposed by the AGW followers is a return to stone age living.
...I think that these points culled from your earlier post bear repeating as few seem to see the potential in such scenarios being realised.
-
I've considered long and hard the arguments around climate change and the issues in the third world! Since it would now appear to be less about these issues and more about suppressing peoples free will, I now bury my head in the sand and ignore them!
I like driving my V6 too fast and leaving all of my appliances on standby and resent being told otherwise! Any small change that I make is pointless when the issues are political and ignored by the likes of china anyway!
I also object to the amount of time and money spent on space exploration, it would be much better spent on helping out this planet, think how many people in the third world could be helped to improve their lives with what it costs! If we found another planet to destroy it would only be for the elite and of no benefit to ordinary folk!
Scare mongering just turns me into an ostrich! >:(
you've hit the nail on the head Ljay :y
we're not going to do anything to seriously change, life will go on with the majority of the planet scratching in the dirt to provide the west with food, clothes and gadgets. we really suck as a species when you look at the big picture :(
-
you've hit the nail on the head Ljay :y
we're not going to do anything to seriously change, life will go on with the majority of the planet scratching in the dirt to provide the west with food, clothes and gadgets. we really suck as a species when you look at the big picture :(
...where is this happening bj?
-
you've hit the nail on the head Ljay :y
we're not going to do anything to seriously change, life will go on with the majority of the planet scratching in the dirt to provide the west with food, clothes and gadgets. we really suck as a species when you look at the big picture :(
...where is this happening bj?
I think hes talking metaphorically, though I can see where hes coming from!
-
I think hes talking metaphorically, though I can see where hes coming from!
... ...he might well be Lj but such generalisations are routinely used as a cudgel to threaten the moral content of those of us who happen to inhabit the consumer society that prevails in the West.
-
you've hit the nail on the head Ljay :y
we're not going to do anything to seriously change, life will go on with the majority of the planet scratching in the dirt to provide the west with food, clothes and gadgets. we really suck as a species when you look at the big picture :(
...where is this happening bj?
you don't have to look too far to see the west exploiting the third world, everything from trainers made in sweatshops to diamonds mined by children zulu :o
-
Possibly the most difficult hurdle to overcome when trying to help alleviate the problems in African countries is the governments are totally corrupt ,so when aid is given it doesnt get to the people who need it but instead goes into the coffers of the ruling elites.Until this can be solved the peoples of the countries concerned will probably carry on living in dire poverty indefinetely.
Capitalism and "climate change" cant be blamed for that.
-
Possibly the most difficult hurdle to overcome when trying to help alleviate the problems in African countries is the governments are totally corrupt ,so when aid is given it doesnt get to the people who need it but instead goes into the coffers of the ruling elites.Until this can be solved the peoples of the countries concerned will probably carry on living in dire poverty indefinetely.
Capitalism and "climate change" cant be blamed for that.
i think we've opened another can of worms! :-X
-
Possibly the most difficult hurdle to overcome when trying to help alleviate the problems in African countries is the governments are totally corrupt ,so when aid is given it doesnt get to the people who need it but instead goes into the coffers of the ruling elites.Until this can be solved the peoples of the countries concerned will probably carry on living in dire poverty indefinetely.
Capitalism and "climate change" cant be blamed for that.
We saw this first hand in mexico, the tourist areas were all state of the art, more advanced than here and yet the people were living in shanty towns just streets away! The tour guides kept telling us how rich their country was but how poor the people were! politics again!
-
Nickbat - i admire your passion and conviction on this, but are you seriously suggesting that we give up this folly and train all our guns on ending poverty, sickness and disease - using all out technological might to clean the air, irrigate the fields and reduce our fossil fuel consumption?
You know what we do with all that knowledge and science? we build golf courses in deserts, ski resorts in Dubai, artificial beaches in Japan, slightly smaller, lighter mobile phones. Slightly faster computers, more choices of deodorant and washing powder.
It will not, based on all the evidence of my own eyes, be used for anything other than to make us in the West feel incrementally better about ourselves and to hell with the consequences. If I was wrong, more would have been done by now.
We can put a man on the moon but people still starve? Theres the proof mate :o
p.s. on a side note there was never a point in our history when anyone seriously believed the earth to be flat (thanks to the Q.I. elves)
Highlighted text 1.
Yes, I am suggesting precisely that. Your choice of example (ski resorts in Dubai, etc) is a red herring. Medical advances mean that what was fatal four decades ago can now be cured by a day in hospital. We have a longer life expectancy than at any time in the past. We have cleaner air in our cities than we did a few decades ago. Our rivers are cleaner. Our beaches are cleaner. Clearly, more can be done, and more will be done. We are more aware of our fellow species, than ever before. technological breakthroughs are enabling us to monitor and help endangered species. Our transportation is cleaner and more efficient than ever before (compare a 707's efficiency, exhaust pollution and noise with that of a 777). Consider how microprocessors have improved every aspect of our lives. Technology is on-going, but it must be financed and encouraged. Society demands improvements. The 21st century society will demand more. Technology will provide, if permitted.
Highlighted text 2.
Due entirely to politics (see Zulu's recent post). Starvation is a problem in the Third World, not in the West. Zimbabwe used to be the "Bread Basket of Africa". It is now the "Basket Case of Africa". Why? Politics, nowt else.
Remember the EU's grain/milk/butter mountains? All a distant memory now as they pay farmers not to produce.
We can easily feed the world, and more. That we do not do so, is a question you need to put to the politicians. ::)
-
you don't have to look too far to see the west exploiting the third world, everything from trainers made in sweatshops to diamonds mined by children zulu :o
....we're getting to the point now bj - why are the governments of those countries in question allowing this to happen? Are they not as culpable as those in the West who would seek to employ such exploitation?
-
you don't have to look too far to see the west exploiting the third world, everything from trainers made in sweatshops to diamonds mined by children zulu :o
....we're getting to the point now bj - why are the governments of those countries in question allowing this to happen? Are they not as culpable as those in the West who would seek to employ such exploitation?
Because corruption speaks louder than conscience! Always has, always will!
You either need to be corrupt to gain power or be corrupted by the power, doesn't seem to be much difference in any society, rich or poor! >:( >:(
-
Nickbat - i admire your passion and conviction on this, but are you seriously suggesting that we give up this folly and train all our guns on ending poverty, sickness and disease - using all out technological might to clean the air, irrigate the fields and reduce our fossil fuel consumption?
You know what we do with all that knowledge and science? we build golf courses in deserts, ski resorts in Dubai, artificial beaches in Japan, slightly smaller, lighter mobile phones. Slightly faster computers, more choices of deodorant and washing powder.
It will not, based on all the evidence of my own eyes, be used for anything other than to make us in the West feel incrementally better about ourselves and to hell with the consequences. If I was wrong, more would have been done by now.
We can put a man on the moon but people still starve? Theres the proof mate :o
p.s. on a side note there was never a point in our history when anyone seriously believed the earth to be flat (thanks to the Q.I. elves)
Highlighted text 1.
Yes, I am suggesting precisely that. Your choice of example (ski resorts in Dubai, etc) is a red herring. Medical advances mean that what was fatal four decades ago can now be cured by a day in hospital. We have a longer life expectancy taht at any time in the past. We have cleaner air in our cities than we did a few decades ago. Our rivers are cleaner. Our beaches are cleaner. Clearly, more can be done, and more will be done. We are more aware of our fellow species, than ever before. technological breakthroughs are enabling us to monitor and help endangered species. Our transportation is cleaner and more efficient than ever before (compare a 707's efficiency, exhaust pollution and noise with that of a 777). Consider how microprocessors have improved every aspect of our lives. Technology is on-going, but it must be financed and encouraged. Society demands improvements. The 21st century society will demand more. Technology will provide, if permitted.
Highlighted text 2.
Due entirely to politics (see Zulu's recent post). Starvation is a problem in the Third World, not in the West. Zimbabwe used to be the "Bread Basket of Africa". It is now the "Basket Case of Africa". Why? Politics, nowt else.
Remember the EU's grain/milk/butter mountains? All a distant memory now as they pay farmers not to produce.
We can easily feed the world, and more. That we do not do so, is a question you need to put to the politicians. ::)
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
-
I'm with nickbat on this one.
Maybe you've seen the documentary "Great global warming swindle" I havent heard it mentioned here but it completly shoots down every argument in support of the THEORY of AGW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Among the group of people that think for themselves or "skeptics" include the co-founder of greenpeace and founder of the wheather channel in the US.
And the difference in AGW propaganda between Britain and here is taking the p***. AGW is just another bandwagon for the PC brigade, its so easy to be labled a racist these days, similarly it is just as easy to be called a holocost denying, flat eather when just thinking for ones self in not believing in man made global warming.
-
you don't have to look too far to see the west exploiting the third world, everything from trainers made in sweatshops to diamonds mined by children zulu :o
....we're getting to the point now bj - why are the governments of those countries in question allowing this to happen? Are they not as culpable as those in the West who would seek to employ such exploitation?
Because corruption speaks louder than conscience! Always has, always will!
You either need to be corrupt to gain power or be corrupted by the power, doesn't seem to be much difference in any society, rich or poor! >:( >:(
agree totally Ljay :y
what do we do? wash our hands of the problems in the third world? we seem to be quick to defend the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan who find themselves under the boot of tyranny. or is it that corporations in the west find cosy arrangements with those in power to exploit the masses - same pattern over and over.
we only intervene if it benefits us and do nothing when it suits us :(
-
Because corruption speaks louder than conscience! Always has, always will!
You either need to be corrupt to gain power or be corrupted by the power, doesn't seem to be much difference in any society, rich or poor! >:( >:(
.....and those assertions are conveniently disregarded by the very agencies we are speaking of as they try to place the blame on everyone but those in power in the very countries that have the most deprived populations.
-
you don't have to look too far to see the west exploiting the third world, everything from trainers made in sweatshops to diamonds mined by children zulu :o
....we're getting to the point now bj - why are the governments of those countries in question allowing this to happen? Are they not as culpable as those in the West who would seek to employ such exploitation?
Because corruption speaks louder than conscience! Always has, always will!
You either need to be corrupt to gain power or be corrupted by the power, doesn't seem to be much difference in any society, rich or poor! >:( >:(
agree totally Ljay :y
what do we do? wash our hands of the problems in the third world? we seem to be quick to defend the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan who find themselves under the boot of tyranny. or is it that corporations in the west find cosy arrangements with those in power to exploit the masses - same pattern over and over.
we only intervene if it benefits us and do nothing when it suits us :(
Sadly true! Don't even know how you would go about changing the pattern!
I have given up trying to work out truth from lies and chosen to ignore it all for the sake of my sanity!
I worry for my childrens future but can do nothing to influence change, so live and let live!
-
I'm with nickbat on this one.
Maybe you've seen the documentary "Great global warming swindle" I havent heard it mentioned here but it completly shoots down every argument in support of the THEORY of AGW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Among the group of people that think for themselves or "skeptics" include the co-founder of greenpeace and founder of the wheather channel in the US.
And the difference in AGW propaganda between Britain and here is taking the p***. AGW is just another bandwagon for the PC brigade, its so easy to be labled a racist these days, similarly it is just as easy to be called a holocost denying, flat eather when just thinking for ones self in not believing in man made global warming.
Thanks, Brick! An ally from the Emerald Isle - I'm honoured. I'm hoping that two of your compatriots (Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer) will do a lot for our cause this autumn: :y :y
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Pass me another Guinness! ;) :y
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
-
I'm with nickbat on this one.
Maybe you've seen the documentary "Great global warming swindle" I havent heard it mentioned here but it completly shoots down every argument in support of the THEORY of AGW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Among the group of people that think for themselves or "skeptics" include the co-founder of greenpeace and founder of the wheather channel in the US.
And the difference in AGW propaganda between Britain and here is taking the p***. AGW is just another bandwagon for the PC brigade, its so easy to be labled a racist these days, similarly it is just as easy to be called a holocost denying, flat eather when just thinking for ones self in not believing in man made global warming.
Thanks, Brick! An ally from the Emerald Isle - I'm honoured. I'm hoping that two of your compatriots (Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer) will do a lot for our cause this autumn: :y :y
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Pass me another Guinness! ;) :y
It shouldn't come down to allies/enemies! If we are divided amongst ourselves corruption is always going to win!
The way I see it, we need to unite ourselves to stamp out corruption and then tackle world issues through honest eyes!
Not going to happen I know! :'(
-
I'm with nickbat on this one.
Maybe you've seen the documentary "Great global warming swindle" I havent heard it mentioned here but it completly shoots down every argument in support of the THEORY of AGW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Among the group of people that think for themselves or "skeptics" include the co-founder of greenpeace and founder of the wheather channel in the US.
And the difference in AGW propaganda between Britain and here is taking the p***. AGW is just another bandwagon for the PC brigade, its so easy to be labled a racist these days, similarly it is just as easy to be called a holocost denying, flat eather when just thinking for ones self in not believing in man made global warming.
Thanks, Brick! An ally from the Emerald Isle - I'm honoured. I'm hoping that two of your compatriots (Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer) will do a lot for our cause this autumn: :y :y
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
Pass me another Guinness! ;) :y
I wonder will they win the nobel peace prize ::)
-
Kudos to bannjaxx - you're holding your own rightly there my son 8-) :y :y
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
Hold on!!! Did you two just agree?????? pick me up off the floor would you!!!! was getting my crash hat ready!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
-
Kudos to bannjaxx - you're holding your own rightly there my son 8-) :y :y
hehe - i love a good debate with learned fellows :y
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
...and that's where the humanity is shown and as long as such humanity exists, there is a chance that many wrongs will be addressed 8-) :y :y
-
i've just been knighted - for services to waffle! :D :D
-
i've just been knighted - for services to waffle! :D :D
..congratulations bj - your posts are far from waffle, here's to the next thousand or ten :y :y :y
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
That's the whole point about democracy, bj. We vote for people who we believe will look after our interests. We seek to root out corruption (see the expenses scandal) because we genuinely want to governed by people we can trust. The problem in the Third World is that even though the populous at large know how corrupt their leaders are, there is often no way of getting rid of them. If we, in the West, get involved we are accused of racism/imperialism/colonialism. I pity the poor people of Zimbabwe, but what can we do? Mugabe is a tyrant; I would hazard a guess that most Zimbaweans agree, but we are powerless to do anything about it. :(
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
That's the whole point about democracy, bj. We vote for people who we believe will look after our interests. We seek to root out corruption (see the expenses scandal) because we genuinely want to governed by people we can trust. The problem in the Third World is that even though the populous at large know how corrupt their leaders are, there is often no way of getting rid of them. If we, in the West, get involved we are accused of racism/imperialism/colonialism. I pity the poor people of Zimbabwe, but what can we do? Mugabe is a tyrant; I would hazard a guess that most Zimbaweans agree, but we are powerless to do anything about it. :(
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
That's the whole point about democracy, bj. We vote for people who we believe will look after our interests. We seek to root out corruption (see the expenses scandal) because we genuinely want to governed by people we can trust. The problem in the Third World is that even though the populous at large know how corrupt their leaders are, there is often no way of getting rid of them. If we, in the West, get involved we are accused of racism/imperialism/colonialism. I pity the poor people of Zimbabwe, but what can we do? Mugabe is a tyrant; I would hazard a guess that most Zimbaweans agree, but we are powerless to do anything about it. :(
sadly true Nickbat :(
-
That's the whole point about democracy, bj. We vote for people who we believe will look after our interests. We seek to root out corruption (see the expenses scandal) because we genuinely want to governed by people we can trust. The problem in the Third World is that even though the populous at large know how corrupt their leaders are, there is often no way of getting rid of them. If we, in the West, get involved we are accused of racism/imperialism/colonialism. I pity the poor people of Zimbabwe, but what can we do? Mugabe is a tyrant; I would hazard a guess that most Zimbaweans agree, but we are powerless to do anything about it. :(
......well made Nick and I would say that sentiment could be applied to many other countries the collective plight of which is constantly exhibited as being the sole fault of everyone but their own leadership.
-
politicians only react to the public consensus, we in the west as taxpayers and voters could change it almost overnight - if their was a will :-/
I don't see how it can be reasonably suggested that any proposal in this regard could gain realistic traction.
The problem lies not wholly in the self-interest exhibited by the West but more squarely with the incompetent and corrupt regimes in the very countries suffering in the way being discussed.
you're right zulu - we'd never vote for the guy who made ending world poverty a priority - what about our taxes? our schools? our demands and needs? sadly we almost always put ourselves first - i'm no different, but i can dream can't i? :y
That's the whole point about democracy, bj. We vote for people who we believe will look after our interests. We seek to root out corruption (see the expenses scandal) because we genuinely want to governed by people we can trust. The problem in the Third World is that even though the populous at large know how corrupt their leaders are, there is often no way of getting rid of them. If we, in the West, get involved we are accused of racism/imperialism/colonialism. I pity the poor people of Zimbabwe, but what can we do? Mugabe is a tyrant; I would hazard a guess that most Zimbaweans agree, but we are powerless to do anything about it. :(
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
Yes, but the leaders of the Pan-African nations would denounce it as "white colonialism", and we would be back at square one. :(
-
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
...sadly it’s a non-starter from a purely military standpoint Martin. The problems being faced in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that. More importantly the military consideration pales when one must consider the civil infrastructure which would be necessary in the aftermath of military action.
The manpower and finance needed to achieve a realistic outcome simply isn't there.
-
And there is little or no oil in Zimbabwe afaik.If there was I,m sure we would have formulated a plan to "rescue" its people by now. ;)
-
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
...sadly it’s a non-starter from a purely military standpoint Martin. The problems being faced in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that. More importantly the military consideration pales when one must consider the civil infrastructure which would be necessary in the aftermath of military action.
The manpower and finance needed to achieve a realistic outcome simply isn't there.
I thought shoot Mugabe and it would all straiten out :-/
-
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
...sadly it’s a non-starter from a purely military standpoint Martin. The problems being faced in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that. More importantly the military consideration pales when one must consider the civil infrastructure which would be necessary in the aftermath of military action.
The manpower and finance needed to achieve a realistic outcome simply isn't there.
I thought shoot Mugabe and it would all straiten out :-/
-
No were are not - our military could sort him in about 5 minutes - one sniper would be enough
...sadly it’s a non-starter from a purely military standpoint Martin. The problems being faced in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that. More importantly the military consideration pales when one must consider the civil infrastructure which would be necessary in the aftermath of military action.
The manpower and finance needed to achieve a realistic outcome simply isn't there.
I thought shoot Mugabe and it would all straiten out :-/
I wouldn't have thought so. These countries seem to have a never ending supply of people ready to take over, each as bad as the one before!
-
I wouldn't have thought so. These countries seem to have a never ending supply of people ready to take over, each as bad as the one before!
....not too far from the truth there Lj, - good morning to you - that's why there must be a fundamental change of attitude of those in such countries who would seek to lead their people.
Until that is achieved no amount of interference from the West - however well intentioned or otherwise - will have any discernible effect.
-
As well as "Not Evil, Just Wrong", there is another new film headed our way, entitled "Climate Chains". Hopefully, it will receive widespread broadcast. Here's a trailer: :y :y :y
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gda33DLFGX4[/media]
Incidentally, with a cooling world and temperatures much as they were thirty years ago, it is not in slightest bit comforting to know there are some very dangerous and completely mad scientists around:
"THE Royal Society is backing research into simulated volcanic eruptions, spraying millions of tons of dust into the air, in an attempt to stave off climate change.
The society will this week call for a global programme of studies into geo-engineering — the manipulation of the Earth’s climate to counteract global warming..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6814912.ece
Mad, utterly, utterly, mad. >:( >:( >:(
-
..and forget wind power...
"Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)." ::) ::) ::)
http://utorontolaw.typepad.com/faculty_blog/2009/04/michael-trebilcock-wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.html
-
..and forget wind power...
"Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)." ::) ::) ::)
http://utorontolaw.typepad.com/faculty_blog/2009/04/michael-trebilcock-wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.html
...wind was never going to be the answer Nick.
It is a very visible indication however that the spin put up by those with vested interests in this form of generation has been swallowed by the incompetents in government.
-
If you read this article, just published:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/global-cooling-has-begun-bob-foster/
...and compare it to the Royal Society's plans to research artificial volcanoes to blot out the sun's rays to stop warming (see my 7.57pm post), you'll understand why I think real science has gone AWOL. >:( >:(
Incidentally, a past president of the Royal Society said it would be impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly. ;) ::) ::) ;D ;D
-
If you read this article, just published:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/global-cooling-has-begun-bob-foster/
...and compare it to the Royal Society's plans to research artificial volcanoes to blot out the sun's rays to stop warming (see my 7.57pm post), you'll understand why I think real science has gone AWOL. >:( >:(
Incidentally, a past president of the Royal Society said it would be impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly. ;) ::) ::) ;D ;D
Indeed, I was looking at various proposals for this including sun shades in orbit, which is stretching things a bit.
However, when there is serious consideration given to attempting to alter the planetary atmosphere in this way you really have to ask the question - just what are they on?
-
As well as "Not Evil, Just Wrong", there is another new film headed our way, entitled "Climate Chains". Hopefully, it will receive widespread broadcast. Here's a trailer: :y :y :y
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gda33DLFGX4[/media]
Incidentally, with a cooling world and temperatures much as they were thirty years ago, it is not in slightest bit comforting to know there are some very dangerous and completely mad scientists around:
"THE Royal Society is backing research into simulated volcanic eruptions, spraying millions of tons of dust into the air, in an attempt to stave off climate change.
The society will this week call for a global programme of studies into geo-engineering — the manipulation of the Earth’s climate to counteract global warming..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6814912.ece
Mad, utterly, utterly, mad. >:( >:( >:(
looks quite funny - whens it out? :y
whats that guy on about bottled water? is that the best quote they could use?
Nick - if I do a little digging - am I going to find out this film is funded by right-wing loonballs?
I am aren't I? ;D
-
Doesn't matter who funds what. It's either true or not. Incidentally, the AGW campaign receives far more funds than the realist side. :( >:(
-
This thread seems as good a place as any for this nugget:
As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms
"The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.
That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.
Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012."
Let's not deplete oil reserves (which are relatively abundant), let's use up the rare metals instead!
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26285433
::) ::) :(
-
This thread seems as good a place as any for this nugget:
As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms
"The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.
That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.
Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012."
Let's not deplete oil reserves (which are relatively abundant), let's use up the rare metals instead!
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26285433
::) ::) :(
I suppose I'd better order the replacement for my current Prius sooner rather than later then ::) ::) ;D ;D 8-) :-* :-* :y
-
This thread seems as good a place as any for this nugget:
As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms
"The Prius hybrid automobile is popular for its fuel efficiency, but its electric motor and battery guzzle rare earth metals, a little-known class of elements found in a wide range of gadgets and consumer goods.
That makes Toyota's market-leading gasoline-electric hybrid car and other similar vehicles vulnerable to a supply crunch predicted by experts as China, the world's dominant rare earths producer, limits exports while global demand swells.
Worldwide demand for rare earths, covering 15 entries on the periodic table of elements, is expected to exceed supply by some 40,000 tonnes annually in several years unless major new production sources are developed. One promising U.S. source is a rare earths mine slated to reopen in California by 2012."
Let's not deplete oil reserves (which are relatively abundant), let's use up the rare metals instead!
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26285433
::) ::) :(
I suppose I'd better order the replacement for my current Prius sooner rather than later then ::) ::) ;D ;D 8-) :-* :-* :y
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, as I couldn't possibly have read this lengthy tome of a thread, but the new beamer 330d is only about 3mpg short of the prius.
-
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, as I couldn't possibly have read this lengthy tome of a thread, but the new beamer 330d is only about 3mpg short of the prius.
Nice to see you again ST :y
It hasn't been mentioned before and you're right, the new BM has low emissions and good fuel ecomomy.
I'm happy with the Prius not wholly from the environmental perspective - which the jury's still out on - but because it suits my requirements in that it's relaxing to drive and reliable.
Others would take the BM for their own reasons :y