|
U-Know! Forum » The Great Global Warming Swindle |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 10:44
|
||
|
Didn't see it. My opinion, however, FWIW, is that even if CO2 emissions AREN'T contributing to Global Warming it doesn't mean we should just go on gaily burning fossil fuels, building more cars and more roads and making more plastics because ASIDE from the issue of Global Warming, fossil fuels are running out. Fossil fuels put other pollutants into the air apart from CO2. Fossil fuels cause people like Bush and Blair to go round invading middle eastern countries under the pretence of ridding them of weapons of mass destruction. Fossil fuels cause people in the pharmaceutical industry to become revoltingly rich and to form unholy alliances with corrupt politicians. Fossil fuels make us lazy; we're so dependent on our cars now it's not true, and because more people drive cars for more journies than are necessary, more people are getting asthma from the other pollutants in petrol and mineral diesel. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity puts sulphur into the atmosphere which causes acid rain which causes all manner of problems. So as far as I'm concerned, Global Warming is just ONE issue and even if it does turn out to be a load of old bollocks, I for one won't be thinking 'Oh well that's ok then let's all just carry on EXACTLY as we are'. We have no choice but to change our behaviour, and no amount of 'scientists' disproving Global Warming is going to change my opinion on that one.
|
|||
|
wychburyman 951 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 10:48
|
||
|
hey riverman was it you that moved to the UK recently? Am I thinking correctly? If so how did it go and where are you settled?
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 10:50
|
||
|
See I'm wondering if we DO all have to have electricity. African tribespeople have dealt quite nicely without electricity for thousands of years. Their sustainable lifestyles should be encouraged rather than 'westernised' and nobody misses what they've never had. Sorry that probably sounds horribly patronising - it isn't meant to be and I know not everyone in Africa lives as a tribesperson! The point is, though, that just because people in the UK have become dependent on electricity and cars and things and other such stuff that's ultimately bad for us and environmentally damaging, does that mean people that are doing without such stuff have an entitlement to it too? I don't have a cleaner or a nanny looking after my kids or a swimming pool or a cocaine habit but I'm managing quite nicely without all of that, and just because some people do have all that stuff doesn't mean I should too. Sorry, probably not making my point too well but you know what I mean!
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 10:53
|
||
Climate change has occurred over geological time for sure, ice ages, droughts - you name it. And yes there's no reason that shouldn't happen now that man is on the planet. Maybe our own CO2 emissions aren't the issue, but I still think we should do what we can to reduce them (see posting below!)
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 11:27
|
||
|
DarkMagus, I love how last time you did climate denial you said brusquely that it wasn't that you didn't believe in anthropogenic climate change, just that because the theory couldn't be conclusively proven it was therefore nonsense like believing in the tooth fairy. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/32192/threaded/404954 It's funny how now you can tell us that far from being fools for thinking we can understand it, climate science is actually 'very simple'. As long as it is against anthropogenic climate change. Just like the people on the programme last night. People like Professor Philip Stott. I've read every peer-reviewed paper he's written on climate change. So have you. That's because there aren't any. Saying climate change is part of a darker misanthropic shady agenda of environmentalists, as if people like Stott doesn't have his anti-recycling, pro-GM, stance! Funny how he ignored uncertainties with GM yet sings them from the rooftops with anthropogenic climate change. Patrick Moore, ex-Greenpeace, these days a stout defender of biotechnology, logging and mining firms, saying it's just environmentalists who think all humans are scum. Ranking sustainability over profit makes me scum, but logging Canada's old growth forests makes you so nice and cuddly, eh Patrick? Yes, there were some of the climatologists on the IPCC who fundamentally disagreed with the findings. They have spoken out against it and withdrawn from future research. There are also scientists who say the IPCC is too conservative, that in trying to amalgamate all the opinions of the experts who contribute it waters it down. Over 98% agree with the findings. Hey, less than 2% of climatologists can't be wrong, right? But CO2 isn't much of the atmosphere! We're all made of carbon, it's not bad! And anyway, oceans and decaying vegetation give off more than fossil fuels! The question isn't whether CO2's in the atmosphere, whether it's a cartoon good guy or bad guy. The issue is what happens when you start messing with the proportion. Vegetation's CO2 was recently absorbed from the atmosphere, it's part of the carbon cycle; fossils add more to the cycle. There's nothing in earth's history that shows CO2 ever affecting temperature! The end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago. There were volcanic eruptions that put vast quantities of CO2 and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. It caused a global temperature increase of 6 degrees in a very short space of time. But two crap solar panels weren't enough to power a clinic! That's not an argument for fossil fuels; it's an argument for more, better and mixed sources of sustainable power. Global cooling was wrong so global warming must be too! Yes, that's right; if someone's ever been wrong on a climate prediction then all predictions by anyone must forever be wrong. (And the theory behind the industrial emissions cooling idea seems to have been correct, it's just that it's more than outweighed by the warming factors).
|
|||
sttomas 1123 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 11:47
|
||
That was kind of what I was trying to say last night, but it was way past my bed time!!
|
|||
|
sttomas 1123 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 11:49
|
||
Agreed, even if our lifestyle emmissions aren't contributing to climate changfe, then I think it's fair to say that they are contributing to things like air pollution, and we all want clean air to breathe!!
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 11:49
|
||
|
My only question is: Who are these scientists getting paid by? DuPont? Exxon?
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 12:28
|
||
Totally! Not much to ask is it?
|
|||
|
Daminxa 1415 posts |
Mar 09, 2007, 12:32
|
||
Patrick Moore? SAY no fecken more! That man is a fraud and a charlatan (and a Tory...) and frankly anything he puts his weight behind - well I'm inclined to dismiss it as bollox straight away. Not very scientific, not very grown up of me but as far as I'm concerned he's a registered bullshit trademark.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
