Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Game_Over

  1. As I said before, the climate is changing, it always has and always will. The question is to what extent, if any, the changes that are occurring are due to human activity.
  2. Seriously, you should stop worrying so much and I genuinely don't mean this in a patronising or condescending way. All my life politicians have been creating false threats and crises which they then use as cover for their own corruption and incompetence. When I was in my teens, twenties and thirties I took all these scams as seriously as you are taking MMGW because I genuinely believed that if the government or scientists said something was true, then it was true. As I have said, I even read some of the earliest books written about Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis. In my forties and fifties, however, I realised that 99% of what I am told is propaganda and outright lies. Trust me, the World will not end in my lifetime, or yours, or my kids, or our great, great, great etc grandchildren's. The World will end when the Sun dies and that will be Billions of years after every last trace of humanity has been eroded to dust and subducted into molten rock by plate tectonics.
  3. I admire your persistence, but, as Lovelock himself now realises, this theory has replaced religion for many people. You might as well argue with Christian or Moslem fundamentalists as try and debate with these people I only do it when I am a bit bored because their reactions are hilarious
  4. At the end of the day this argument is now entirely academic because all major nations are now either building coal fired stations or nuclear or they are planning on investing heavily in shale gas extraction, of which there is a couple of hundred years supply. More wind turbines will be built, where contracts have been signed but in the majority of the World the game is up for green subsidy chasing
  5. What this actually means is that the interest rate on these loans is so punitive that most people will not clear the principle within the 30 year 'cut off' Of course, over the course of those 30 years the interest paid back will far exceed the original loan amount. What they are also not saying is that at some point in the next 30 years they will probably extend the period from 30 to 40 years, they may even deduct the outstanding amount form your estate if you die. I also think that if someone emigrates, they won't let them take any capital out of the country if they still have a loan outstanding. Basically, student numbers have dropped as a result of this policy and they are now trying to plant a seed in peoples minds that they will be somehow 'let off' this money at some point in the future. That isn't going to happen - quite the reverse. Going to Uni is now a mugs game I'm afraid - unless your parents can afford to pay up front. My daughter has got on a training scheme with a blue chip company that pays her a salary whilst giving her day release to study a professional qualification. After 2 years she will go onto the Graduate programme and will be on the same scheme as people who have left university with a degree, only she will be a year younger and instead of being 10's of k in debt she will have 10's of k saved towards the deposit for a house (after prices have crashed). The problem is, positions like this are as rare as hens teeth and getting it was ten times more difficult than getting my sons into Russell group Unis before the fees went up. I really do feel extremely sorry for anyone leaving college with good A levels now whose parents aren't filthy rich because the new fees regime is just debt slavery.
  6. Yes but think of the money people could make from Government subsidies.
  7. Just thought I'd point out that one of the founders of the green movement shares exactly the same views that I have been ridiculed for here on Wind Turbines, 'renewable energy', shale gas, nuclear power and climate modeling. The fact that he cannot bring himself to go the final step is understandable under the circumstances
  8. According to this 1939 report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1937_1.pdf)(warning: pdf) the death rate in the U.S. actually remained pretty steady from 1929-1937, between 10.7 (in 1934) - 11.9 (in 1929) per 1,000. Compare that to 1928, when the death rate was 12.1/1,000. In fact, the death rate from 1932-1935 was actually lower than previous or subsequent years. There was a pretty steady decline in live births during those years, but the population continued to grow from 116.3 million in 1929 to 129.2 million in 1937. Hunger, yes. But "millions starving?" The data don't reflect it.
  9. Personally I do not believe that it will ever be possible to model the climate, no matter how powerful computers become because clearly the Sun's energy output varies considerably over time and unless this happens in some type of stable cycle, any kind of prediction will always be completely unreliable. In fact output could vary in a stable cycle for millions of years, then just change unpredictably so even if stable cycles could be identified any model could only predict based on a balance of probabilities. Even extremely simple systems where all starting conditions are known behave entirely unpredictably, let alone systems as complex as the Earth's climate.
  10. Surely true capitalism is self regulating because if everything we need is produced without human intervention who will buy what is produced and with what will they buy it?
  11. We haven't had capitalism in the West since the end of WW2 and what happened in 2007 was the inevitable consequence. What we have had is people voting for whichever politician promised them the most free stuff until we have reached the point where there are more people taking out than paying in. This is why IMO the electorates in most western democracies are split almost 50/50, because this is the tipping point where those taking out bankrupt the system but have the electoral numbers to vote against any politician brave enough to propose doing anything to reform the system. If you think about it logically, the only way out of this impasse is some sort of collapse. I really don't like this conclusion, because it is very 'tinfoil hat' and I am not a 'tinfoil hat' type of person but try as I might, I really can't see any other possible outcome. Scary.....
  12. Not in as much trouble as Obama As he will now get the blame as the US economy implodes. It seems to take at least 2 or 3 electoral cycles for crises like this to play out. After 1929 the Sh*t didn't hit the fan until the late 1930's and 1940's and the same thing is happening now. Unfortunately
  13. Well you're not actually under any obligation to reply at all
  14. He isn't senile and he's no fool. I read about the Gaia hypothesis decades ago in Nigel Calders Spaceships of the Mind (published 1978). Prior to Lovelocks recent statements, I argued here that MMGW had all the hallmarks of a religious cult. He also shares my views on nuclear power, shale gas and wind turbines - which make no sense in the UK either economically of environmentally. Regarding MMGW itself, he acknowledges that the computer models have completely failed to predict what has actually happened to the climate which is another of my 'hobby horses'. He also acknowledges that it is a 'theory' not the 'truth'. I think the problem is that many scientists, including Lovelock are relying on data produced by other scientists who have actually 'fiddled the figures' to varying degrees. Under these circumstances you can hardly blame many people for believing the theory, but you also cannot blame people for questioning it either.
  15. Given up highlighting parts of the article, as it is all very relevant. TBH, apart from still believing that MMGW is occurring, however slowly and erratically, his views and mine are virtually identical on this subject. As he is only 91, I suppose there is still some time for him to go the whole hog and recant completely.
  16. Here's an interesting article about James Lovelock - for those who lie awake at night worrying about 'Global Warming' http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/father-of-global-warming-changes-his-mind-says-doomsday-scenario-not-likely Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic. His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances. Among his observations to the Guardian: (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.) (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
  17. You guys are completely mental. When I was a teenager people were worrying about us having another mini ice age because it was getting colder. And a few hundred years ago people were making human sacrifices otherwise the sun might not rise. If you want to worry about something, worry about a massive asteroid strike, because that could happen at any time and potentially could kill billions. And if you think politicians are really engaged in a struggle to save the planet for future generations then you really do need your heads examined.
  18. Brilliant, because one of the main reasons the TPTB are continuing to flog this dead pony is because they are using it to overcome previous ecomentalist objections to nuclear power.
  19. That's apparently because all the Sulphur from Chinese coal fired power stations is causing a cooling effect which is exactly balancing out the warming effect of the additional CO2 !!!! But when this effect ceases Global warming will resume at an even faster rate - apparently. So when temperatures stop falling and start rising again, as they inevitably will we will be treated to a second round of MMGW propaganda.
  20. And what does a University Chancellor earn? and how much are UK universities selling degrees to foreign students for these days?
  21. Actually it is a historically recorded and documented fact as is the little Ice Age. You can't simply dismiss hundreds of years of human history as a statistical anomaly.
  22. I would also like to add that my recent experiences of academia are that scientific integrity and academic excellence now take a very poor second place to the pursuit of money.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.