Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. From the US Senate Report

    'Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)'

  2. Steve,

    It never was IN our control

    That's the point.

    If you are interested, the following is a link to a US Senate Minority Report which states that over 400 prominent scientists, many of whom have previously contributed to the UN IPCC seriously question the so-called 'concensus' on man made Global warming.


    So it is a blatant lie that there is even a consensus in the scientific community itself regarding this issue.

    And no one has yet explained why 2007 saw such a big drop in Global Temperatures and why they have been falling consistently over recent years.

    This is the REAL inconvenient truth.

  3. See the climate change nutters still can't let it go.

    Tell you what - if George Monbiot ever gets rid of his cars and stops flying round the World, then I might think about taking the idea seriously.

    I have never flown and I walk or use public transport as much as possible because I hate driving.

    My carbon footprint is probably about a quarter of George's and I think it's all cr*p whereas he apparently believes man made carbon is destroying the planet.

    It seems to me that people like this are either con men or hypocrites.

    Either way it doesn't look good.

  4. Firstly, I have no wish , no have I indicated here or anywhere else that climate change cannot occur independently of human activity in particular and life in general. Thus, there is no logical requirement for me to explain the existence of climatic changes prior to the industrial revolution.

    Again, I ask the question, in what way does the existence of climate change prior to the advent of human industrialisation disprove the evidence that strongly points to anthropogenically induced global warming currently occurring?

    And no, you have not answered this question at any point in this thread. I know, I've re-read your posts.

    FFS Steve, get a life.



  5. Patient - "Doctor, I have a chainsaw stuck in my face, and its pretty sore."

    Doctor - "I think maybe some acupuncture could sort that out."

    Patient - "But Doctor, its bleeding and my face and brain are all mashed up."

    Doctor - "Sure, needles in your arm. Trust me it'll make you feel so much better."

    Patient - "Doctor, I don't think you really know what you are talking about."

    Doctor - "You're so narrow minded, you just believe what you want to believe don't you? You're not a radical free thinker like me or the wizard. Governments. Taxes."

    Patient - "I think my face is going to fall off, I'm probably going to find another doctor now."

    Doctor - "Are you a Morlock?"

    You are Josef Mengele and I claim my 5 pounds!


  6. Just on a point of detail (and because I've read 'Newton was wrong' too many times!), Newton's theories and his laws of motion still stand - they are routinely used every day in engineering and physics.

    Einstein 'merely' modified Newton's universal inverse-square law of gravity when dealing with particularly massive or fast-moving bodies. In effect they are a sub set of Einstein's general theory of relativity and allow the prediction of gravity's effects from the smallest scale right up to the scale of the solar system with astounding accuracy.

    As I am not a trained scientist I now realise I am not actually qualified to comment on this post

    However, I believe that Newtons theory views gravity as a force whereas Einsteins theory views it as a distortion of space time.

    In the end Einsteins theory will no doubt eventually be proved wrong, but that does not make either Einstein or Newton any less of a genius.

    Hope I have not offended any of the Science Nazis AGAIN


  7. Yeah,

    Well I get the idea now.

    Anyone who isn't a scientist is not allowed to have a view on scientific matters or express an opinion that contradicts the received wisdom at the time.

    And I don't have anything against science, I already said that many of my heroes are scientists.

    However, before global warming, I did think that scientists were open minded, objective people but sadly I have now learned that this is very often not the case.

    Nevertheless, I will continue to have an interest and fascination in science, even though I now realize that many scientists are extremely elitist, narrow minded and intolerant people.


  8. erranta

    We already have more free energy than we could ever use.

    The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received enormous amounts of free energy courtesy of the USAF in 1945.

    All we need to do is harness this energy for peaceful purposes.

    The reason this has not been achieved already is that oil has been cheap and plentiful.

    Once it becomes scarce and expensive the problem will be solved.



  9. I love this propoganda trick:-

    Scientists are religious zealots.

    Scientists have a vested interest, not the oil companies.

    Liberals are socialists

    Freedom is slavery.

    I see it more and more nowadays, is there a name for it?

    I wonder if there is a way of telling who is using it for propoganda, and who is using it because they believe the propoganda they have been fed?

    Everyone has a vested interest - the mistake is to think that Oil companies do, but that scientists do not.

    And the very term 'climate change denier' suggests that Global Warming has now become a pseudo religion, with its own heretics being those who hold any form of opposing view.

    Actually, many of my heroes are scientists, although apparently unless I have a rigorous scientific training I am not allowed to have any interest in or opinion on the subject.

  10. Steve,

    There is plenty of evidence out there and plenty of reputable scientists who disagree with the theory.

    The trouble is, as soon as they stick their heads above the parapet they are denounced as heretics - 'climate change deniers' and ostracized by their peers.

    As I said, this has all the hallmarks of an extremist religion and it seems to me that if people are so convinced they are right, they would be far more tolerant of people expressing an opposing view.

    As for your views on the future, they are extremely depressing and fatalistic.

    How you manage to get out of bed every morning I do not know.


  11. Mirage,

    I don't need a scientific education to recognise a patronising pedant when I speak to one.

    And your definition of 'evidence' itself is extremely simplistic - as you well know.

    Newton’s theory of Gravitation explained what was then observed perfectly - all the scientific evidence supported it and Newton was a genius, but he was wrong.

    The history of science IS the history of people being proved wrong.

    And there is plenty of evidence that Solar activity is the main driver of Global climate changes, however, many scientists choose to ignore this evidence because admitting they were wrong would make them look like idiots and put them out of a job.


  12. I don't see how returning to subsistence farming would help future generations.

    It seems to me it would just condemn them to the sort of life people in the 3rd World are living now. Poverty, starvation and war.

    Well your kids can live in a mud hut or a cave, trying to scrape a living from the land if you like.

    But I would prefer my kids to be driving a hydrogen fueled car to Tesco's and buying food there before returning home to their nuclear fusion heated home where they can watch Comic Relief 2050 still trying to raise money for starving Africans.

  13. If anyone is interested, the following is a link to an article which illustrates that Global warming is not universally accepted and that there are other perfectly sound scientific theories to explain Global climate changes


    The fact that a few hundred scientist who get huge amounts of funding to do research in this area say that man made CO2 causes Global warming is hardly incontrovertible evidence that this is the case.


    Although I realise that holding this view is considered heresy.

  14. Mirage,

    When Galileo argued that the Earth orbited the Sun and not vice versa, he was one scientist against all others who supported the status quo.

    I doubt many of the engineers working on nuclear fusion believe in man made Global warming, but they just keep their heads down and get on with the job.

    On the other hand most of the scientists who claim to support the hypothesis, depend on it for their funding, so I am inclined to treat what they say with a good degree of skepticism.


  15. Steve,

    So what you are saying is, unless I can explain to you the technological advances that will enable the human population to continue to expand indefinitely, then my argument is fallicious.

    Either you are being deliberately dim, or you are just winding me up.

    My argument is that unforseen technological advances have so far enabled the human population to expand way beyond the limits set by people making exactly the same argument as you in the past.

    I have tried to give some examples of technologies that are already in development that will sustain this growth for the next few centuries.

    In five Billion years or so the Sun is going to explode, so I suppose you will be proved right in the end -

    Unless of course we have developed space travel by then.


  16. I work on the following assumptions Bardon:

    1) No population can indefinitely grow, given real environmental constraints

    2) If a population once grows beyond renewable environmental constraints due to a short term, non-renewable influx of resources there will come a point where that population simply must reduce to accommodate the reduction in supply of those resources or where the population remains at its current level but with a much impoverished quality of life

    3) The above is, in principle, applicable to any form of life.

    4) There is no obvious reason to suppose that humans are any exception to the assumptions outlined in 1), 2) and 3)

    Energy from nuclear power either fission of fusion is limitless, the only reason we use fossil fuels is because the oil is there and we will continue to use it until it runs out.

    And as for number 4 - that is the biggest load of twaddle I have ever read. The OBVIOUS reason why humans are an exception is that, as far as I know, chimpanzees have never managed to build a nuclear reactor or produce genetically modified banannas.


  • 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.