Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

If you think the country's gone mad, here are two pieces to back up your views:

With the current political situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, Professor Fells said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.

Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/2970482/Britain-faces-serial-power-cuts-in-next-decade-warns-expert.html


AND


Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running while stuck in traffic.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1056633/Drivers-face-20-fine-leaving-engines-running-traffic-jams.html


All in the name of Global Warming! As John Coleman, experienced meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel says:
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it."

http://www.huliq.com/41129/john-coleman-says-global-warming-is-a-scam

Bravo, that man.  

[Kevin Wood]

Motorists could face £20 spot fines if they leave their engines running while stuck in traffic.

This sort of thing really gets my goat. Some stupid civil servant has pulled an idea out of his @rse and assumed it can only be good. Where's the analysis? What impact will all the additional car batteries (full of heavy metals) being discarded recycled make? Do they have any idea at all what happens under the bonnet of a car?

 

Kevin

[Martin_1962]

I won't switch off or pay - takes too long to swich back to LPG on a restart.

Also why do these power stations need decommisioning?

[Entwood]

As said in another thread ...


Global Warming = Cash Cow .....    

[Banjax]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I couldn't give a monkeys about the environment - that doesn't mean I buy into the "Climate Change Hoax" conspiracy.

A few lone voices in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence won't convince me - this guy John Coleman may not believe in climate change but most of his peers do.

I'm sure you'll find respected members of society who refuse to believe in evolution - doesn't mean they're not cranks

Keep on burning the fossil fuels - eventually they'll disappear.

Keep on polluting the atmosphere - it doesn't affect me.

So the question is - even if it IS a lie - don't you think theres nothing to be lost being a bit more green, using less of our planets dwindling resources?

I wish I believed it was all hype - but then speak to someone whose house hasnt flooded in 100yrs, yet has flooded twice in the last 5 and now can't get insurance, speak to people in the caribbean and southern states of the US who've been devasted by hurricanes - yes floods and storms have always happened - but they're increasing in intensity and frequency.

I don't like whats happening but it IS happening - i'm not a scientist - but even the biggest sceptic can't deny that our climate has changed!

[Kevin Wood]

I won't switch off or pay - takes too long to swich back to LPG on a restart.

Mine switches over after 3 seconds on a hot start.

Kevin

[hersham boy]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I couldn't give a monkeys about the environment - that doesn't mean I buy into the "Climate Change Hoax" conspiracy.




I wish I believed it was all hype - but then speak to someone whose house hasnt flooded in 100yrs, yet has flooded twice in the last 5 and now can't get insurance, speak to people in the caribbean and southern states of the US who've been devasted by hurricanes - yes floods and storms have always happened - but they're increasing in intensity and frequency.

You could use this as the reason for the flooding but what about the fact we have been building on flood planes for years putting up flood defences everywhere which just makes the problem worse downstream.. nothing to do with climate change!! Its easy if you only listern to one side..

[hersham boy]

Has global warming stopped?

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'.
Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

Were only a few months into 2008, the indications are the global temperature for last year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

CONT. VVVVVVVVVVV

[hersham boy]

cont.......
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

But they don't want you to know any of this... Snow on the 6th of April this year got me thinking about this again...

[Banjax]

cont.......
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

But they don't want you to know any of this... Snow on the 6th of April this year got me thinking about this again...

thats not climate change then? now i'm confused  

global warming would actually plunge us into a deep deep ice age if the atlantic cooled sufficiently for the gulstream system to shut down

[hersham boy]

cont.......
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

But they don't want you to know any of this... Snow on the 6th of April this year got me thinking about this again...

thats not climate change then? now i'm confused  

global warming would actually plunge us into a deep deep ice age if the atlantic cooled sufficiently for the gulstream system to shut down

I was born on the 27th of march 1964 and my mother told me there was 2' of snow on the ground that day.. so whats new.

[Nickbat]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I couldn't give a monkeys about the environment - that doesn't mean I buy into the "Climate Change Hoax" conspiracy.

A few lone voices in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence won't convince me - this guy John Coleman may not believe in climate change but most of his peers do.

I'm sure you'll find respected members of society who refuse to believe in evolution - doesn't mean they're not cranks

Keep on burning the fossil fuels - eventually they'll disappear.

Keep on polluting the atmosphere - it doesn't affect me.

So the question is - even if it IS a lie - don't you think theres nothing to be lost being a bit more green, using less of our planets dwindling resources?

I wish I believed it was all hype - but then speak to someone whose house hasnt flooded in 100yrs, yet has flooded twice in the last 5 and now can't get insurance, speak to people in the caribbean and southern states of the US who've been devasted by hurricanes - yes floods and storms have always happened - but they're increasing in intensity and frequency.

I don't like whats happening but it IS happening - i'm not a scientist - but even the biggest sceptic can't deny that our climate has changed!

No, they're not!

"For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the World Meteorological Organization, "Reliable data ... since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."

Gulev, et al (2000) employed NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data since 1958 to study the occurrence of winter storms over the northern hemisphere. They found a statistically significant (at the 95% level) decline of 1.2 cyclones per year for the period, during which temperatures reportedly rose in much of the hemisphere.

"Global warming causes increased storminess" makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history."


Above taken from an excellent (if rather long) summary of all global warming matters, by the Canadian group entitled "Friends of Science" which is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.:

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

[hersham boy]

I could go on and on about all of this but the whole thing boils down to 1 thing and i thing only. in the early 80's the uk gov gave a group of scientists 20 million pounds to come up with a reason that we could not use coal any more as they wanted to crush the miners. What did they come up with.. you guessed it global warming. the problem is global warming as turned into a multi billon dollor business and they an't going to let go. No one can deny that the earth as warmed up as its been doing that since the last ice age. its mans contrbution that we are talking about. and as i volcanic eruption will put more co2 into the atmosphere than man as in the last 200 years, if we stopped producing co2 altogether it would not make one little bit of differance. i studied this subject for years and its just a crock of ****.

[Kevin Wood]

The problem with climate change is there's so much rubbish on both sides of the argument to wade through that the answer, assuming it's there, is lost in the noise somewhere. Which scientists aren't biased? Which ones don't have huge research grants from the government / oil companies, etc. hanging on them coming up with the "right answer"?

It's become a "religious" issue as far as I'm concerned. You either believe blindly, despite the absence of any concrete proof that is worthy of a second look, or you disbelieve, despite the fact that we're told the world is falling apart around us.

What concerns me more than the environment is that we currently have no security of energy supply, largely due to political ineptitude demonstrated in steering a course through all the environmental claptrap that has been spouted over the last decade and forming an energy policy based on which industry can invest when providing infrastructure.

That is going to cripple this country, and sooner then "climate change" will. Going away from fossil fuels IS the answer to that one. If it keeps the nut munchers happy as well, that's a bonus, except that nuclear power is the only sensible alternative for the time being, and they don't like that either.

There are 2 other options:

1) Admit that we can't live the lifestyle that we currently have and we can't use as much energy - we need to give up the things that cause energy consumption.  Note that doesn't mean giving up "gas guzzlers", foreign holidays and putting windmills on our chimneys. It means giving up the real things in life that consume energy: living in warm homes, wearing clean clothes, showering regularly in warm water, eating a wide variety of fresh foods from all over the world, having a decent standard of sanitation and healthcare, etc... the list goes on.

2) Admit that we can't support as many people as we have living our current lifestyle. We need draconian controls on population worldwide.

Kevin

[hersham boy]

The problem with climate change is there's so much rubbish on both sides of the argument to wade through that the answer, assuming it's there, is lost in the noise somewhere. Which scientists aren't biased? Which ones don't have huge research grants from the government / oil companies, etc. hanging on them coming up with the "right answer"?

It's become a "religious" issue as far as I'm concerned. You either believe blindly, despite the absence of any concrete proof that is worthy of a second look, or you disbelieve, despite the fact that we're told the world is falling apart around us.

What concerns me more than the environment is that we currently have no security of energy supply, largely due to political ineptitude demonstrated in steering a course through all the environmental claptrap that has been spouted over the last decade and forming an energy policy based on which industry can invest when providing infrastructure.

That is going to cripple this country, and sooner then "climate change" will. Going away from fossil fuels IS the answer to that one. If it keeps the nut munchers happy as well, that's a bonus, except that nuclear power is the only sensible alternative for the time being, and they don't like that either.

There are 2 other options:

1) Admit that we can't live the lifestyle that we currently have and we can't use as much energy - we need to give up the things that cause energy consumption.  Note that doesn't mean giving up "gas guzzlers", foreign holidays and putting windmills on our chimneys. It means giving up the real things in life that consume energy: living in warm homes, wearing clean clothes, showering regularly in warm water, eating a wide variety of fresh foods from all over the world, having a decent standard of sanitation and healthcare, etc... the list goes on.

2) Admit that we can't support as many people as we have living our current lifestyle. We need draconian controls on population worldwide.

Kevin

I agree. but everything in live is driven by money!! and making as much of it as possible.