Global warming and "convenience"

magyar

Cor, the things that happen when I go away for a few hours.

Moonrakerz, you're wrong. There was no 'prediction of ice ages in the 1970s'. One man does not make a scientific concensus.

Can't be bothered to find the many, many posts I have quoted with evidence of why this is in fact a complete myth. If you're interested search on the forum for them.

geordie_joe

magyar wrote: »

Moonrakerz, you're wrong. There was no 'prediction of ice ages in the 1970s'.

Oh yes there was, I was around at the time and it was something that interested me very much. I remember reading many books and articles on the subject.

magyar wrote: »

One man does not make a scientific concensus.

I suspect you were not around at the time, or were too young to be interested, and have fallen for the Al Gore "The Ice Age was only one article" line.

It fools the youngsters that want to believe him, but doesn't fool the people who were around at the time and remember it well.

magyar wrote: »

Can't be bothered to find the many, many posts I have quoted with evidence of why this is in fact a complete myth. If you're interested search on the forum for them.

I bet if I do search all I'll find is Al Gore quotes and links to web sites produced by global warming mongers.

magyar

geordie_joe wrote: »

Oh yes there was

No there wasn't. Find some evidence then come back. I'm tired of explaining this one.

geordie_joe

magyar wrote: »

No there wasn't. Find some evidence then come back. I'm tired of explaining this one.

I don't need to find evidence, I actually read it at the time.

If you didn't bookmark the sites you posted in the past then that doesn't bother me, I didn't keep the books I read in the 70's, nor the articles and newspapers.

geordie_joe

Moggles wrote: »

Well, it's taken the Green lobby nearly 30 years to convince government it should take global warming and climate change seriously. (Until former Chief Government Scientist, Dr David King, spoke out in early 2005, Blair was still firmly in denial).

If Blair was "firmly in denial" until David King spoke out in 2005 why was the BBC reporting, in 2002

Tony Blair is urging world leaders to do much more to tackle global warming.

The UK prime minister told an audience in Mozambique that the world needed to go beyond the Kyoto agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2228741.stm

Doesn't sound like a man in denial to me.

But it does sound like someone read the words "Until former Chief Government Scientist, Dr David King, spoke out in early 2005, Blair was still firmly in denial" and believed them enough to regurgitate them.

magyar

geordie_joe wrote: »

I don't need to find evidence, I actually read it at the time.

If you didn't bookmark the sites you posted in the past then that doesn't bother me, I didn't keep the books I read in the 70's, nor the articles and newspapers.

No I bookmarked them alright, I just can't be bothered posting them again for the twentieth time.

I also read the same books you're talking about at the time, suffice to say that the media (as they do now) misrepresented the scientific concensus.

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

So who said otherwise?
In fact there is very good reason to think that the Global Warming theory is stressed to achieve that laudable aim of reducing consumption, and enable the Government to increase their Tax revenue. The decision to retrospectively raise VED on cars built post 2001 being a good example.

On what economic theory is this based on? Tax revenue is increased by increasing consumption, more fuel used means more fuel duty, more cars sold means more registration tax. That is why governments are schizophrenic, they have to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of GW, yet this conflicts with their ideology of thrift and excess to support growth. Most business supporters just dig their head in the sand or claim that something called 'sustainable growth' is possible. A few support ignoramuses such as Nigel Lawson who feeds nonsense into the minds of scientifically illiterate citizens who just want to believe him. Unfortunately the damage these people do will be irreversible.

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

A few support ignoramuses such as Nigel Lawson who feeds nonsense into the minds of scientifically illiterate citizens who just want to believe him. Unfortunately the damage these people do will be irreversible.

I think the above quote sums up reasoned debate nicely;

Nigel Lawson is widely regarded as being intellectually brilliant, by friend and foe alike.

However being sceptical about some aspects of the ‘man-made global warming’ theory, and daring to state those views, is sufficient for him to be branded an ‘ignoramus’ and anyone who thinks that those views have some merit, ‘scientifically illiterate’!

I haven’t a clue who is correct, and neither have you! The difference is you 'Believe' and opposition to that belief draws the reaction above!

thescouselander

I think the idea of trying to stop climate change through reducing CO2 is flawed anyway (whether the climate change is man made or not).

The idea that CO2 emissions can be cut from current levels, given the expanding econimies of China and India etc, is unrealistic.

Also, the climate change lobby's insistance that the debate is over Re. the cause of climate change is dangerous. We must consider the possibility that climate change could be caused by forces beyond our control or that we may fail to control CO2 emissions. . In this case it would be better to spend money on mitigating the effects of climate change rather than trying to stop it - as far as I can see this is not happening.

west_is_best

magyar wrote: »

It's far less overall than cars, isn't it? Or are you talking about 'per mile'?

I would argue that car usage is far worse for the planet than aircraft, which fulfil the basic logic of 'lots of people travelling in the same thing' rather than individual transport.

Well well well....... and I thought you had studied things like this, as you mentioned in another thread.

An aircraft travelling to America (1 way) from the UK consumes as much fuel as 10 cars travelling 24 hrs a day for a whole year!!!!!! well ok, its 9.8 cars (where they get the 9.8 from... could be a 3/4 of a car!!!! ha ha ha)

So tell me, how many planes travel to the USA EACH day from the UK???

Your sounding like Cameron, cycling to work everyday and a car carrying his briefcase following him!!!!!!!! douhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! :rotfl: