If I had wanted to "Go Green" I would have voted for the Green Party.
I want to see more concentration on policies that really concern the British people such as crime and immigration.
It has been proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that mankind’s CO2 emissions have absolutely no effect on global warming.
The true scientific facts are that volcanoes alone produce more CO2 emissions than all man’s factories, cars and planes put together.
Animals and bacteria produce even more. An even larger amount is created by dying vegetation, but the biggest by far is the ocean. In fact 95% of the gasses in the atmosphere are water vapour.
But by far the greatest effect on global warming is the sun, which all the experts somehow conveniently forget! The study of variations in solar activity exactly matches fluctuations in the earth’s temperature. It is the sun driving temperature and climate change. CO2 is irrelevant.
Global Warming, however, has become a self-perpetuating bureaucratic bandwagon. Vast amounts of money are now poured into this new minor scientific field. It has become an enormous industry and if it collapsed many thousands would be out of work.
The US Government alone spends $4 billion on this research, therefore the army of scientists involved are hardly going to deny it.
The theory of man-made global warming is no more than political propaganda based on lies and spin and is used mainly by New Labour to squeeze more stealth taxes out of us.
Disappointingly David Cameron has also jumped on the bandwagon and is becoming almost more Blair than Blair.
Deception,delusion and as you say, now disaster
Cameron will gain thousands of votes if he really looks at the truth behind this subsidised gold rush but he knows he currently stands to lose thousands too whilst the media hype continues.....
Build wind turbines or the bear gets it syndrome.
Truth must come out and I hope it will not be too late
Whatever our contribition to climate change we should all be able to do it by chioce.
Animals and bacteria produce even more. An even larger amount is created by dying vegetation, but the biggest by far is the ocean.
Ocean is a net absorber of CO2, in fact, the largest absorber in the world.
Quote:
In fact 95% of the gasses in the atmosphere are water vapour.
Only about 3000% out. It's closer to 3%.
Quote:
But by far the greatest effect on global warming is the sun, which all the experts somehow conveniently forget! The study of variations in solar activity exactly matches fluctuations in the earth’s temperature.
Except that solar activity has been dropping since the 70s.
Obviously you haven't been following the IPCC either.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
I am posting this here in case you have not yet found the other threads
For information
Eon UK reaches "five minutes to midnight" In a speech to be given today (11 June) Paul Golby, the chief executive of Eon UK addressing Prospect, the technical union, will argue that the government urgently needs to put in place the policies to encourage nuclear power, clean coal and more renewable energy, or it will leave the second "dash for gas" as the only way to keep the lights on.
Energy prices must rise Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, asks how much we should pay in our energy bills towards eradicating the threat of climate change.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
If you only look at one side of the facts that point to guilty you get a guilty verdict. The MGW lobby has nore than 100 to 1 times the money of the anti and what little the anti gets comes from the oil companies and can therefore be discounted. Of course the fact that MGW lobby is funded by politicians and industrial superstars intent on using it to justify jobs for the boys does not count as bias.
It is peer revieved and that means reviewed by those on the bandwagon with a strong even if unconcious bias. I know but can no longer prove because I was intimidated into not keeping the evidence that research grants are being withheld from projects in danger of disproving any aspect of MGW research. If you really believe give much more to projects to show the global cooling efffect of aircraft exhausts for one. This could be proven given the money.
How about the project to show that green measures have caused this no rain then torrential rain pattern we are getting. The Original clean air people predicted this side effect in the late 1950 - early 1960 if air cleaning was overdone and you want to give us more of this without funding any research to prove they were wrong.
I will vote for any party that refuses to go green expecially when they do not ensure that all grants produce a reduction not in emissions but in proven energy use, and I mean any party.
Ask ordinary people struggling to survive from day to day if they want to pay a green tax and you get a different answer to that from committed eco lobbyists.
For some of us living on the savings meant to boost pensions but now used instead of any the unemployment benefits we paid for but don't get we don't give a stuff about the environment. We have so little left we can't damage it much and we still have to pay the tax, whoops sorry levy for green energy that doesn't deliver.
We no longer have a choice, both sides are dominated by overpaid upper middle and upper class political types so no wonder the don't vote party wins every time.
I am depressed and disillusioned with politics and politicians especially David Cameron who has proved a dismal failure so far.
Sorry macwood4 the glass is either half full or half empty given a grossly one sided funding in favour of proving that it is full. The IPCC (Incredibly Profitable Climate Club) only reviews what is there but what is not there is in this case anything needed to even attempt to disprove the theory.
This makes it an issue of faith not science. We are both unconverted heretics they burn at the stake socially and emotionally if not physically.
Does anybody really want to go through all this yet again? We have looked at all these sceptic arguments in detail before, and if anyone is still listening I'll do it again, but to be honest I've got better things to do with my time. Even Dubya and Exxon Mobil have now come out of denial and stopped trying to tell us that we're not to blame for global warming.
Providor - agree that this issue of MMGW Vs NGW has been argued to death.
I don't think the protagonists will ever agree, and rightly so - those on either side of the debate, by making the other prove their assertions are adding to knowledge.
But I think there is a general consensus that GW itself is real.
I think most people also agree that mans impact on the planet is serious, and we need to address that.
Destruction of our eco systems and consumption of finite resources has got to be stopped.
While the global problems of climate change are real, and need to be resolved. Mans impact on the planet also has to be addressed.
The work to do that has to be by intergovernmental agencies, the UK government has to be involved.
But we also need to look at what needs to be done in the UK - we have our own problems to resolve.
Here in the UK we must change the structure of the way we do things so that we have a sustainable future, and do it in a way that has minimal impact on the population.
We don't have too long to achieve that - estimates are about 50 years.
One important issue - to my mind the most important is energy. (agriculture is another we have to feed our people)
For the people of the UK the cheap ready supply of energy is fundamental to our quality of life.
Our primary goal should be to secure our energy supply for the future and that must be done in a sustainable way.
I have already set out my vision of how this can be achieved elsewhere on this website.
We have the technology but we have yet to agree to take the sort of National action that is needed.
Currently the only real policies of all parties revolve around;
1/ Efficiency savings - Important, but not an answer, growth will quickly bring the total consumption curve back up to its present trend.
2/ Taxation, rationing, and artificial pricing. Again this may change habits but does not address the real issue.
3/Talking about renewables, nuclear, and unrealistic technologies like clean coal.
Individuals are trying to become energy independent, the costs are high with unrealistic payback times, out of the reach of many. Also much of the technology - such as individual wind generators on urban houses, inappropriate.
It is these issues that should be debated - we desperately need to have a national plan and action it.
If you only look at one side of the facts that point to guilty you get a guilty verdict.
Both on my own research and through debates on this and other forums, I've checked out every denialist theory I've ever heard.
Quote:
The MGW lobby has nore than 100 to 1 times the money of the anti and what little the anti gets comes from the oil companies and can therefore be discounted.
Got any evidence for these figures?
Quote:
Of course the fact that MGW lobby is funded by politicians and industrial superstars intent on using it to justify jobs for the boys does not count as bias.
What jobs? I think rather that a lot of the boys in the oil and transport businesses going to lose their jobs.
Quote:
It is peer revieved and that means reviewed by those on the bandwagon with a strong even if unconcious bias.
If you're talking about the IPCC reports, they are open to being reviewed by anyone, you and I included.
Quote:
I know but can no longer prove because I was intimidated into not keeping the evidence that research grants are being withheld from projects in danger of disproving any aspect of MGW research.
Diverted to more important research would be a different interpretation.
Quote:
If you really believe give much more to projects to show the global cooling efffect of aircraft exhausts for one. This could be proven given the money.
The reflectivity of a tiny exhaust stream is utterly insignificant compared to the hundreds of tons of CO2 the plane is putting out directly into the upper atmosphere.
I allow you to believe what you want why do you deny me the same right. The greens took us from leaders in the world in nuclear to nothings. Now they will do the same in the rest of industry and commerce by diverting funds elsewhere. What's is more I believe it is green clean up that is the cause of the dramatic increase in the shorter term known cycle of about twelve year heavy rainfall summers as was predicted in about 1960. Forget fifty year global issues forcasts when the same people can't do tomorrow correctly. The greens are the cause of a known local and now problem.
I do apologise Mr Gould - I wrote my comments on the day I joined the forum and had not had time to read all the previous year’s threads, however thanks for your fascinating insight into the new religion of “Greenspeak”.
You too have obviously been hoodwinked by the spin and waffle put out by the IPCC. A very dubious, unelected group of scientists paid for and working for Governments, spewing out the information that Governments want to hear.
The IPPC is predicting disaster as a result of global warming while totally ignoring all previously proved climate science, including the effects of the sun.
If you read down the list of IPCC scientists you will see many whose names are still there even though they have resigned through their dismay at the distortion of the facts, the lies and the spin.
Global warming hysteria surrounding Green Fascism coupled with eco-warriors and the Nanny State has reached epidemic proportions.
Our impending doom is simply peddled by politicians for tax purposes and pop stars and celebs for self glorification.
However I did not intend to become involved in a debate about global warming.
I only wanted to express my dismay that Cameron has also become sucked into and appears to be concentrating all his efforts on this hysteria, when the average man in the street is much more concerned with the problems created by unlimited immigration, out of control crime and rapidly disintegrating public services.
I allow you to believe what you want why do you deny me the same right.
Now there's a good question. There are all kinds of ethical angles on that one.
I could just say that this is a public forum whose main purpose is debate. But that's just passing the responsibility to you. I believe I am to some degree responsible for my communications.
I will attempt to be more considerate before replying to you in future and apologise for any undue discomfort I may have caused you.
You too have obviously been hoodwinked by the spin and waffle put out by the IPCC. A very dubious, unelected group of scientists paid for and working for Governments, spewing out the information that Governments want to hear.
My definition of a conspiracy theorist is someone who believes a theory even though there exists an overwhelming body of evidence that proves the theory is wrong.
For someone to believe that the hundreds of scientists linked to the IPCC, and the tens of thousands who have chosen not to dispute the IPCC's findings, are part of a global conspiracy that somehow excludes the US fits my definition permanently.
Quote:
The IPPC is predicting disaster as a result of global warming while totally ignoring all previously proved climate science, including the effects of the sun.
Read the reports! In the last summary, there is a whole page of graphs showing the effects of the sun vs the effects of CO2.
Quote:
If you read down the list of IPCC scientists you will see many whose names are still there even though they have resigned through their dismay at the distortion of the facts, the lies and the spin.
If you insist on promoting this deception, I'm going to insist you to prove it. Names please.
Quote:
However I did not intend to become involved in a debate about global warming.
See my post above.
Quote:
I only wanted to express my dismay that Cameron has also become sucked into and appears to be concentrating all his efforts on this hysteria, when the average man in the street is much more concerned with the problems created by unlimited immigration, out of control crime and rapidly disintegrating public services.
Mr Gould, you really are the most pompous know all.
All your carefully constructed replies are, I’m afraid typical “Greenspeak” distortion of the truth.
I’ll take CO2 production as one example and that is my final comment because I am now totally bored with the argument. I only ever wanted to say that Cameron’s obsession with Greenspeak is disastrous for the party, is disillusioning party members, is loosing the support of the public, and is now loosing the support of Conservative MPs.
A small percentage of atmospheric gasses are greenhouse gasses. In it’s turn CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas, being only .054% of the atmosphere. Of that tiny amount only a very small part is produced by humans. Of that minor, tiny, very small amount which is the total world production, only 1.9% is produced in the UK
From that it is not difficult to work out that man made CO2 is so minute as to be insignificant, therefore all the sacrifices and taxation we are being asked to accept are not only unnecessary but will have absolutely no effect on global warming whatsoever.
Please, Mr Cameron, let’s have some strong leadership and let’s have some real policy statements on real issues not wishy washy waffle on something which may or may not ever happen.
If we don’t, New Labour will be in power for another 10 years.
Mr Gould, you really are the most pompous know all.
Oh dear. Ad hominem attack for merely having the temerity for correcting your disinformation.
Quote:
I’ll take CO2 production as one example and that is my final comment because I am now totally bored with the argument.
... and can't answer any counter arguments.
Quote:
In it’s turn CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas, being only .054% of the atmosphere.
Luckily you're wrong again, it's less than that at 0.393% last I checked.
Were it 0.054% we would be in serious trouble. Providor can probably tell us how many cities would be under sea level within 50 years.
Quote:
From that it is not difficult to work out that man made CO2 is so minute as to be insignificant
In that case, swallow a pint of water that is 0.054% botulism toxin if that amount is so insignificant. Just make your will out to the IPCC before you do.
Providor can probably tell us how many cities would be under sea level within 50 years.
Actually Dave, if Macwood is already bored with this thread I'd much rather let it die off. We've already been through most of the popular sceptic stuff, some of it several times, and I doubt that anybody here is paying much attention any more. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter whether people think GW is man-made or not, we have to get off the fossil-fuel treadmill anyway so let's talk about solutions rather than endlessly going over the same old arguments about how much CO2 there is and whether water vapour is more important etc etc.
The MGW lobby has nore than 100 to 1 times the money of the anti and what little the anti gets comes from the oil companies and can therefore be discounted.
Got any evidence for these figures?
No I actually couldn't find any of the projects needed to rebut the MGW theory at all and was just allowing for the possibility I had missed a few.
If DC or any of his advisors read any of this have they done a survey of the whole spectrum of the public to see how many really want green taxes, levies disincentives or whatever you wish to call it?
Most people I know either worship green policies but use resources like there is no tomorrow or have had to tighten their belts so much they dread the words green taxes. I have yet to meet one not in either of those groups but I did read about one in the paper.
Most people I know either worship green policies but use resources like there is no tomorrow or have had to tighten their belts so much they dread the words green taxes. I have yet to meet one not in either of those groups
Well I certainly don't fit into either of those groups, and whilst I'm aware of a few people who do, I know a lot more that don't. A surprising number seem to think that taxation is the way to go, but I'm not one of them.
what little the anti gets comes from the oil companies
Who are these anti groups who get money.....?
I know only those funded by voluntary contributions.
I am anti the methodology used to promote this technology as you must all be aware.
The current problems re the technology itself, gear boxes, blade repair, is now of great concern and must be worrying to investors
We need security of supply as without this the energy we dont have will be the most costly for all.
Out of interest people who believe that 'Global Warming isn't because of human activity', did you watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' on Channel 4? If you did... it turned out to be a swindle in itself and Channel 4 are now distancing themselves from the program.
Sorry Lizabeth I was referring to research projects I tried to trace looking at global warming from a non partisan stance and found no evidence of any in either camp. MGW is state funded and delialist is oil company funded. Honest independent research I found no trace of at all. I am trying to find a decent sized project with more that 500 sites world wide measuring the incidental solar radiation at high and low levels as a measure of the effect of pollution. Not temperatures as they will not prove anything to a sceptic only to the MGW faithful.
Any references anyone please?
As to backtracking by the TV companies, the vicious attacks by the ecofaithful are enough to make even quite powerful organisation quake in their boots. Individuals who oppose MGW dogma just take up knitting or something instead of environmental studies.
amberlina
Have you seen the Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore?
Do you now there are solar panels on Kilimanjaro?
The best related DVD I have seen and had hoped to send to Blair is entitled 'Above the Earth' It covers the controversial wind farm developments in the Sedgefield area. Not yet ready for distribution it was put together in a balanced way by two very talented students as part of their degree course in media studies
No vested interest.
When you start on your career remember you need only truth and balance in your reports
Watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' in my science classes and had to write a report on it. Was certainly enlightening. I was more than sceptical before that, I will admit.
When you start on your career remember you need only truth and balance in your reports
Well said Lizabeth! If only we could rely on the media to give us truth and balance it would save us all such a lot of time trying to find out the truth for ourselves!
Amberlina - Whilst Al Gore's film was indeed enlightening, and he got the science more or less right, you shouldn't rely on it as the last word on the subject - he did go a bit OTT on some aspects and glossed over some important details. If you're interested in science, the physics of the climate is a fascinating subject and well worth studying in detail. But don't rely on the media or the politicians to give an accurate account!
If you're interested in science, the physics of the climate is a fascinating subject and well worth studying in detail. But don't rely on the media or the politicians to give an accurate account!
Oh, don't worry. I've had to study it in-depth for both geography and my physics exam so I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable on the subject but in truth it's hard to know exactly what to believe.
The truth is all you need to believe.
I know it is difficult to decide just what that is,unless you are actually part of it. Keep looking, it is out there.
Regards and wishing you success in your career.
1#Adopt a vegetarian diet.A Cow eats ten times more crops than a human.
2#Stop letting thousands of immigrants into our country.More people equals more consumers thus creating more waste,more wasted energy.
Also I would suggest some of you MP's start pacticing what you preach.Try taking some holidays in Britain for a change or downsize your people carriers to more smaller cars.
