Simon
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
Long post re global warming
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel.
IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum
of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a
one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in
such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified
theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going
to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar
issues.
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong
opinions...
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political
correctness strangles their voice.
Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it
has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be:
we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness
of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know
how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read
them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this
topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a
book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and
green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation
of modern leftism.
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...
A: ...I am right...
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I
don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing.
Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know
that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other
side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that
there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These
tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected
uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the
sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to
provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
Well, it makes a lot of sense, Prof Klaus.
Other parts of the interview were dedicated to the Organization of European States (and Jo Leinen), the Czech civil cold war that has already ended,
the radar for the U.S. missile defense, and his relations with the current Czech government.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
And
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and
taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the
“greatest deception in the history of science.”
Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us
and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."
Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is “very likely” that global warming is the result of human activity.
I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on Victoria Island, British Columbia, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was
connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.
Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?
A: No. It’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They
don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts
on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.
There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is
quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they’ve reduced the sea
level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.
Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC’s report -- or the summary of the report?
A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of
course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and
development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down. They couldn’t do it by attacking energy because
they know that would get the public’s back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that’s the byproduct of industry and
fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, “If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to
control.” Unfortunately, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC
process.
Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?
A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the
whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that
they get their view in? … You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on.
Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not “very likely” to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore’s private planes?
A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the
climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what’s called “The Little Ice Age” when there was three feet of ice on the Thames
River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn’t fit
with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason
for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in
the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an
ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter,
windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.
Q: What is the most exaggerated and unnecessary worry about global warming or climate change?
A: I think the fact that it is presented as all negative. Of course, it’s the one thing they focus on because the public, with the huge well of common
sense that is out there, would sort of say, “Well, I don’t understand the science, but, gee, I wouldn’t mind a warmer world, especially if I was
living in Canada or Russia.” They have to touch something in the warming that becomes a very big negative for the people, and so they focus on, “Oh,
the glaciers are going to melt and the sea levels are going to rise.” In fact, there are an awful lot of positive things. For example, longer
frost-free seasons across many of the northern countries, less energy used because you don’t need to keep your houses warm in the winter.
Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause?
A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all
and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don’t talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their
computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can’t possibly do that.
Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?
A: That’s a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000
years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That
means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself
who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn’t care about the children or the future or anything else.
Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company?
A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn’t have to drive a ’92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.
Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?
A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It’s been
rising gradually over that time. It’s risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years.
One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes’ Principle, when that ice
melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied -- even if the ice caps melt completely. What they do is they say if we estimate the volume
of water in Antarctica and Greenland, then we add that to the existing ocean level. But that's not the way it works at all. But it does work for
panic and for sea-level rises of 20 feet, like Gore claims.
Q: Why are the sea levels rising, just because we are in a warming period?
A: Yes. We are in an inter-glacial. Just 22,000 years ago, which is what some people can get their minds around, Canada and parts of the northern U.S.
were covered with an ice sheet larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet was over a mile thick in central Canada. All of that ice
melted in 5,000 years. There was another ice sheet over Europe and a couple more in Asia. As that ice has melted, it’s run back into the oceans and of
course that’s what’s filled up the oceans. But if you drilled down in Antarctica, you go down almost 8,000 feet below sea level. That ice below sea
level, if it melts, is not going to raise sea level. The other thing, just to get a little technical, is that sea level variation is called “eustasy,”
and it can vary for a whole variety of reasons. It can vary simply because of the water being a little warmer by thermal expansion. The problem with
that is, we really don’t know what sea level is. Sea level is not level. That means if you go through the Panama Canal, you are at different sea
levels on the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. There are areas off the coast of eastern North America where sea level is 100 feet higher than the
surrounding sea, simply because of different gravitational pulls within the Earth.
Q: So there is no global sea level?
A: Exactly. Then you add to that that the crust of the Earth also moves up and down. For example, if you fly into Hudson Bay, as you fly in you cross
about 150 beach lines because Hudson Bay is rising. If you looked at that and stood on the shore at Churchill on the Hudson Bay, you’d say, “Oh, the
sea level is dropping.” No it isn’t. It’s because the land is rising. That’s called “isostasy” and that, by the way, is what’s going on in the Gulf of
Mexico. People are saying, “The ocean is coming in and we’re seeing the evidence of sea level rising.” What you’re seeing is the evidence of land
sinking.
Q: Is there any aspect of global warming alarmism that you are worried about?
A: There are a couple of very minor things. I’m interested in and need more research done on commercial jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The
research that’s been done so far says no, it’s not an issue, but I think the jury is out on that still. The other concern I have is that we’re totally
preparing for warming. The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that
I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we’re going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we’ve got completely the
wrong adaptive strategy.
Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?
A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and
changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we’ve known about for 150 years, but we’re still telling our students that the orbit around the sun
is a fixed elliptical orbit and the tilt is an unchanging 23.5 degrees. Neither of those things are correct.
The question is, why are we still teaching our students that the orbit is a fixed, relatively small, unchanging ellipse? The answer is because the
whole of our view of the world -- in the Western world at least -- is something called “uniformitarianism.” This is the idea that change is gradual
over long periods of time. It was basically established out of Darwin’s view, which had to overcome the church and accommodate his evolutionary
theory. So what it means is that we are all educated to see change as gradual over long periods of time. So any sudden or dramatic change is seen as
either wrong or unnatural. Of course, that plays into the hands of the environmentalists, because it means all of this is not natural, it is something
humans are doing, when in fact nature varies tremendously all the time.
Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media’s spin on global warming, where should he go?
A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are
retired. That’s called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science
side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that’s run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and
CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.
Q: If you had to calm the fears of a small grandchild or a student about the threat of global warming, what would you tell him?
A: First of all, I probably wouldn’t tell him anything. As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and
the grandchildren are going to have no future,” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it’s almost like the race
card. It’s not to say that it isn’t valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the
rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical. To give you an example, I was talking to a group in
Saskatoon and a woman came up after and she said, “I agree with you totally. We were having a party for my 7-year-old. I went into the kitchen and
there was a bang in the living room. I went back and a balloon had exploded. The kids were crying and I said, ‘Why are you crying?’ And they said,
‘There’s going to be another hole in the ozone.’”
It’s completely false. There never were holes in the ozone, by the way. But when we start laying those kinds of problems onto shoulders that are very
narrow, that is criminal. My comment to her was, I said, “Look, let the kids get on with the party. Give them another beer. Let 'em enjoy
themselves.”
So I wouldn’t raise these kinds of fear with the children. What I would do with my children and grandchildren is what I’m trying to do with the public
and say, “Look, here’s the other side of the story. Make sure you get all of the information before you start running off and screaming ‘wolf, wolf,
wolf.’”
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 09:31 PM |
|
|
I think that all this Global Warming and Vechile road charging is just our country's and the USA's way of taking our focus off the balls
up they have made in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Climate change will happen with or without us.
How can you trust a countrys evidence on Global Warming, when they couldn't even prove that Saddam had WMD !!!
[Edited on 16/2/2007 by nitram38]
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 09:45 PM |
|
|
A politician says global warming is a myth so therefore it's true. Thabo Umbeki, president of south africa, said that AIDS was a myth. That
must be untrue also.
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
Sorry, had a few beers and couldn't be arsed reading all that but...
I'm all for a couple of degrees more warmth.
If you want snow, go abroad for winter.
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 09:49 PM |
|
|
Having just spent 2 weeks in China under a permanent smog, never once saw blue sky, something is happening, that amount of pollution as got too be
doing something somewhere, whilst I agree it may well "warm up" (for want of a better phrase) whatever we do I'm pretty sure we are
speeding things up a little.
Whats Saddam got too do with it ?
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
Sorry, had a few beers and couldn't be arsed reading all that but...
I'm all for a couple of degrees more warmth.
If you want snow, go abroad for winter.
Pat...
If in fact global warming does happen as predicted, we (the UK) will in fact become much colder. Our mild climate, for our given latitude, is due to
the gulf stream and this of course will cease to flow if the ice caps melt.
So Sandvic studs all round then! 
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Johnmor
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 11:43 PM |
|
|
Reported today that 50% of tropical glaciers ( high altitude) could be gone within 5 years.
I don't believe every thing i read but:
Cut my grass in Novenber for the last two years. Never done that before.
Now able to grow Eucalyptus trees (been trying for 15 years).
Stick your head in the sand if you want, but global warming is a fact, if man is a cause his affect may be minimal, and difficult to prove.
Its not the change of temp that is the problem, its the speed of change that is way beyond all historic data going back thousands of years.
The difference in average temp between now and the middle of the last Ice age is 5c ,so if we increase the average by 5c you can see what sort of
effect this will have .
In the word of Private Fraser
"we're doomed, we're a doomed"
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 11:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
A politician says global warming is a myth so therefore it's true. Thabo Umbeki, president of south africa, said that AIDS was a myth. That
must be untrue also.
The second section of the post is by a Canadian climatologist, not a politician. And Czech president has some very valid points, the IPCC is
certainly not an independent scientific body is it?
By the way Mbeki did not say that AIDS was a myth, he argued that HIV was not the cause of AIDS.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 16/2/07 at 11:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Johnmor
Its not the change of temp that is the problem, its the speed of change that is way beyond all historic data going back thousands of years.
We don't really have very good records about speed of temperature change during the last ice age, but we do know that we are due another one at
some stage.
Personally I am all for reducing fosil fuel consumption, but only to conserve what we have left and minimise local polution.
The government in this country (and many others) are concerned only with one aspect of "global warming", and that is how to make it as tax
profitable for them as possible. If anyone truly believes that the government are concerned about the wellbeing of the planet they are deluding
themselves IMO.
|
|
|
zetec7
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 03:18 AM |
|
|
Funny - when I completed my two honours degrees in science (in the late '70's), there was lots of talk about these same climate changes
(which are now being called "global warming" , and it was universally accepted by scientists as being the result of regular, cyclical
warming and cooling trends taking place over tens of thousands of years, and having been occurring for millions of years. Suddenly it's trendy
to say we were responsible for it all along (even though the empirical data does not support the conclusion that we've had anything to do with
it). If we listen to the alarmist faction, man was responsible for this all - it must have been the polluting cars we drove a million years
ago....blame Fred Flintstone!
http://www.freewebs.com/zetec7/
|
|
|
macnab
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 04:15 AM |
|
|
Seeing that Fred's car was human powered, I guess he (and everyone in Bedrock) therefore farted a lot whilst driving to produce the seen
effects, must have been all those spicy dinosaur ribs...
I have no problem with the Gulf Stream stopping, as they say that we will end up with a climate similar to that of Alaska. Well seeing that Alaska is
warming up so much that the ice is melting and becoming like us now, that means really we will be back to normal over here…so no change for us
then.
Besides no snow in winter also means no salt on the roads and less rust on my cars and I know which bothers me most…
And yes it's 4.15 in the morning and I'm still up. Busy in the garage again...
[Edited on 17/2/07 by macnab]
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 09:37 AM |
|
|
Couldnt get me damn solar panel to work the house on friday it was covered in Snow
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
andyps
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
As far as I can tell, MikeRJ has hit the nail on the head. If we are all convinced that global warming is real and is caused by our activity we will
not complain too much about taxes being imposed and other restrictions because "they are for the good of future generations". However, if
the above people are correct we are all being conned, and plenty of people will try to keep them quiet. The second part of the article is very similar
to something which was reported in the Telegraph last year, but again, it was kept quiet because it disagreed with the report from Rod Eddington who
was paid by the treasury to come up with a report about climate change and its effects - strangely the treasury came to the conclusion that taxing us
is the solution to what they paid someone to report.
If you are offered lots of money to find out something for someone, you are likely to do so - most of what we hear about global warming happens in
this way. When someone challenges it, people ask about their credentials, but forget about the credentials of the others. Rod Eddington wasn't
even very good at running BA - what does he know about the environment?
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 11:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Johnmor
............
Now able to grow Eucalyptus trees (been trying for 15 years).
Gum trees grow high up in the mountains in Aus. They'll grow anywhere, from desert to ice covered. Just slower in the cold.
They don't like cat p1ss or dog p1ss though!
Nice to see in that big report that the man mentions sunspots and sun activity.
The sun is our major source of energy input. Funny how very, very few acknowledge that.
The earth has been in these cycles since time began. It is very arrogant of a few people to think that Man alone can change them. These cycles will
continue long after Man has gone. Just differently, that's all.
If you want an alternative, or at least different, view, then read Revelation in the Bible. Put it in context with modern times, and you'll come
to realise that a small (self) select(ed) group of people run the world. They are also edging toward total control, bit by bit. How long has
'globalism' been bandied about? Not long. Global economies, Global trade, Global Control, ......Global climate change??????????????
Notice how the EEC became the EC then the EU? Without even a mention to the man in the public.
Cheers,
Syd.
[Edited on 17/2/07 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyps
As far as I can tell, MikeRJ has hit the nail on the head. If we are all convinced that global warming is real and is caused by our activity we will
not complain too much about taxes being imposed and other restrictions because "they are for the good of future generations". However, if
the above people are correct we are all being conned, and plenty of people will try to keep them quiet. The second part of the article is very similar
to something which was reported in the Telegraph last year, but again, it was kept quiet because it disagreed with the report from Rod Eddington who
was paid by the treasury to come up with a report about climate change and its effects - strangely the treasury came to the conclusion that taxing us
is the solution to what they paid someone to report.
If you are offered lots of money to find out something for someone, you are likely to do so - most of what we hear about global warming happens in
this way. When someone challenges it, people ask about their credentials, but forget about the credentials of the others. Rod Eddington wasn't
even very good at running BA - what does he know about the environment?
Another vote here for the above and MikeRJ's opinions too.
We have been conned for long enough, and I for one am fed up with it.
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
"....about taxes being imposed and other restrictions because "they are for the good of future generations"."
I can't see how raising taxes can possibly help the encironment. Eg Gordon Brown puts £200 on my road tax, I stillbuy road tax and still
drive; therefore sole beneficiary is the incompetent twat in No 11 who can't keep UK taxpayers' money in their own country. If he chucks a
grand on my road tax, I buy a horse, and commute to work on that. Then I hold everyone up (rich (read politicians and friends) people) who have to
drive their cars slowly (and very inefficiently) behind me - you think I'm getting out the way?
Also, don't forget, my farting horse wil chuck out quite a lot of CO2 and METHANE!!
The other thing I'm likely to do, given the lack of prison space, is not bother paying for RFL.
Chucking tax on flights just makes the flight more poluuting (per passenger head) as number flying down but flight still occurring
The ice caps didn't exist 64m years ago, nor did they exist 32m years ago. Strange that what's next after 64 then 32 is now. oooooooo
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 17/2/07 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
Of course, the thing I forgor to mention, was the global population growth.
Up till about 1500, the world's population had grown slowly over the previous millenia to about 120,000,000, since then it's gone to
6,000,000,000.
Perhaps now is the time to get the "B Ark" sorted out!
Non Adams fans see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/golgafrincham.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy under Golgafrincham
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
Anyone see 'The great global warming swindle' on C4 the other night? Whole programme is on google vid now.
Global warming swindle
[Edited on 11/3/07 by Benzine]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
Global warming may well be true but it is definitely not man made.
I really get annoyed when I see man made Co2 emission blamed for global warming, The mindless greens will soon be burning people at the stake for
uttering anything so counter to the widely held crede. Fortunately unlike Galileo Galilei we live in an age where the minds of sheep and those who
seek high office have short attentions spans, the zeitgeist will change to some other witch hunt.
However we have 1001 other good reason to cut back on fossil fuel consumption.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
The mindless greens will soon be burning people at the stake
No, they won't. Burning carbon based things is hereasy. They're more likely to compost you at the stake.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
It's on again on More4 at about 10.00pm on Monday
Bring a green friend in and watch a brown friend leave.
Enjoy
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Bring a green friend in and watch a brown friend leave.
It was a good show, thanks for the link though, now dowloaded for further viewing
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 09:01 PM |
|
|
In my last year at school (30+ years ago) i remember a geography lesson, the lesson was completely taken up with changing maps of the world due to
higher water levels lower water levels and land erosion.
We are coming out of an ice age and 1 degree is the difference between water and ice, it will get warmer the teacher said.
CO2 nuts to that, the industrial revolution saw skys like jon ison witnesed in china who just happen to be burning up the worlds resources to make
crap (another issue)
I'm more woried about how to get rid of theses all year round flys
[Edited on 11/3/07 by bob]
|
|
|
G.Man
|
| posted on 11/3/07 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
what a cock..
is he a president or an ostrich.. lol
Opinions are like backsides..
Everyone has one, nobody wants to hear it and only other peoples stink!
|
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
