Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
dubsie

Will House Prices Matter When Global Warming Starts To Cause Climate Chaos

Recommended Posts

While we all sit here and winge on about house prices has anyone thought what the affects of global climate will be. Despite the obvious end of the word thing it will have a massive impact on economics.

I work in the heating trade and we're being trained on geothermal, biomass boilers, solar and wind power as we've been told that it won't be economical to heat a home on gas in 15 years.

Not only is there an energy crisis but burning all this carbon is accellerating global warming and we could see massive temp changes in just 35 years rather than 70 years. No one really knows what the result is going to be but I think we all agree its going to change.

We are heavily dependent on the utility companies providing water, heat and electricity and as a result houses today might be worth nothing in the future. Just turn off your power, water and gas and consider if that sqaure of land is worth 250,000.

Housing estates need to have communal water cleaning facilities, wind farms and solar & geothermal heating systems.....is barratt or wimpey doing this??

Take a look at these: http://www.forevergreen.org.uk/Photographs...sselfbuild.html

Also with so many humans in the world is it right that houses can be bought and sold as they are now. Perhaps we have to ration housing? Perhaps we need to free up green belt land for self build eco housing schemes but protect them by a covenant to prevent them from being sold.....basically they can be passed down a generation but can never be sold or auctioned.

Houses are not just investments they are a place to exist and bring up a family. We are still animals and we need a place that we feel secure and relaxed...A home. Does it really matter is it can't be sold as long as we can pass it down a generation.

Somewhere in the last 20 years the brits have lost the plot and forgot about living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need to free up green belt land for self build eco housing schemes

Can't do that as we're going to need all of the land we've to grow food, due to the impending peak oil crises.

Yep, house prices really are pretty irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the last 20 years the brits have lost the plot and forgot about living.

The sad thing is that the new part L regs have completely missed the point. Thermal mass anyone? Nah, I'll take the cheap single skin breeze blocks thanks....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it'll be like when the oil runs out in a few years time - we'll just cope with it when it happens

Suddenly all the supressed technologies will "suddenly appear" as if they'd been invented recently, power will shift (might explain the recent 'terrorist'/invading middle east countries strategy - to democratise/stabilise the region when it runs out) and everybody will live happily ever after

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it'll be like when the oil runs out in a few years time - we'll just cope with it when it happens

Suddenly all the supressed technologies will "suddenly appear" as if they'd been invented recently, power will shift (might explain the recent 'terrorist'/invading middle east countries strategy - to democratise/stabilise the region when it runs out) and everybody will live happily ever after

Wow, that's pretty far out, and that's speaking as a bit of a paraniod conspiracy theorist myself. Shirely the only reason TPTB would invade an oil rich region would be to grab the oil producing assets? Why would they give a sh!t about the middle east if they thought there was no oil left in the region?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, on a positive note. that hacker bloke who spent 3 years reading top secret Nasa and US military files reckons they have reversed engineered an alien space craft they shot down, and know how to produce free energy. It's just not the right time to start using it.

He seems very convincing to me: Interview with Nasa Hacker

Top right, bloke who looks a bit like an alien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirely the only reason TPTB would invade an oil rich region would be to grab the oil producing assets?

Another reason might be to shut them down and reduce the supply... or to use oil as a diversion whilst they conduct mysterious rituals in what was once ancient babylon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason might be to shut them down and reduce the supply... or to use oil as a diversion whilst they conduct mysterious rituals in what was once ancient babylon.

Wouldn't be surprised! Or is the the oil asset grabbing in the middle east the western powers' (logical?) reaction to peak oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be surprised! Or is the the oil asset grabbing in the middle east the western powers' (logical?) reaction to peak oil?

One of the first 'conspiracy' sites I got into years ago was lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, 'exposing' peak oil years before it got mainstream.

Then I got into Alex Jones who basically says peak oil is being deliberately engineered by the globalists for their own nefarious purposes.

Now I'm listening to stuff exposing Alex Jones as a tool of the zionist media whose purpose is to create the seat of the anti-christ in Jerusalem for the next Pope!

Money, sex, power, religion, oil, ...

I believe in Guns, Gold and God!

--Alex Jones

Edited by www

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first 'conspiracy' sites I got into years ago was lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, 'exposing' peak oil years before it got mainstream.

Then I got into Alex Jones who basically says peak oil is being deliberately engineered by the globalists for their own nefarious purposes.

Now I'm listening to stuff exposing Alex Jones as a tool of the zionist media whose purpose is to create the seat of the anti-christ in Jerusalem for the next Pope!

It's confusing with so much conflicting information.

There was a guy I went to university with who once went off on a rant about how "there is no truth".

I think he was wrong, there is truth but you have to decide it for yourself.

I listen to all these conspiracy theorists, Michael Ruppert and Alex Jones, and have read pieces about

how they are both disinformation agents. If that is the case they are both very good actors. It is also

very strange that they attack each other when it seems they pretty much agree about everything

except the idea about peak oil.

I'm not inclined to believe that peak oil is a myth, but I think there is a very real possibility that free energy

technology is being suppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming

Yet another tax on the west.

Dont See them slating India and China, yet they are todays culprits, and our Governments promote it.

History has shown that the world has always been changing, does mankind actually think that by taxing people it can change that?.

There are more toxic gases emitted from a single volcano eruption than mankind has created in the history of his time on this planet.

Lets forget about a bunch of hippies living on the North Pole, wearing Jesus boots and smoking weed, and get on with the real issues that we can have an influence on.

Technology is always suppressed it would be foolish to think othewise.

The worlds military have always had the state of the art technology and they will no way share it until they find a superior replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's pretty far out, and that's speaking as a bit of a paraniod conspiracy theorist myself. Shirely the only reason TPTB would invade an oil rich region would be to grab the oil producing assets? Why would they give a sh!t about the middle east if they thought there was no oil left in the region?

1. they are RICH - rich enough to cause trouble if they wanted ie when the oil runs out - democratisation takes power from the despots with loads of cash

2. recent global growth/democratisation (eg china) has increased oil demend - to stop prices sky rocketting even further they needed greater control of the oil supply

So....not one, but two big reasons why they did what they did

PS these anti-war protesters in the UK would't be driving around in their 4x4 if we didn't kick ass in the middle east - they'd certainly winge if their petrol was £10 gallon - Bush/Blair were never going to 'win' whatever they did...

Edited by dnd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in the heating trade and we're being trained on geothermal, biomass boilers, solar and wind power as we've been told that it won't be economical to heat a home on gas in 15 years.

We are heavily dependent on the utility companies providing water, heat and electricity and as a result houses today might be worth nothing in the future. Just turn off your power, water and gas and consider if that sqaure of land is worth 250,000.

On the bbc if oil runs out they mentioned people would "need to buy new cars but be unable to sell the old ones" - because of the need to use less oil/use hybrid I assume - but even making a new car would be so much more costly most people would have to do without ...

Who do you work for? Who trains you? I think looking at other heating and energy methods is what we should be doing. The world climate politically isn't going to be very nice as gas and oil prices go up and more countries looking at taking over control of their natural resources.

It'd be nice to see a mainstream party in the UK turn round and say something bold and brave - like having an oil free economy, by being self-sufficient in fuel and food.

It isn't going to happen though - probably not even after we end up battering each other at the pumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the first 'conspiracy' sites I got into years ago was lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, 'exposing' peak oil years before it got mainstream.

Then I got into Alex Jones who basically says peak oil is being deliberately engineered by the globalists for their own nefarious purposes.

Now I'm listening to stuff exposing Alex Jones as a tool of the zionist media whose purpose is to create the seat of the anti-christ in Jerusalem for the next Pope!

Money, sex, power, religion, oil, ...

I believe in Guns, Gold and God!

--Alex Jones

It is hard to know what to believe, isn't it - and that is a state of affairs that's in all kinds of people's interests!!

Here's an interesting discussion of oil from a source I really trust - greg pallast on the long-established pacifica radio (a daily news programme called democracy now). Well worth a watch/listen.

greg pallast interview

And if you want to hear some chilling phone calls - Enron arranging for a power station to be taken off line during power shortages in the 90s - listen to this. There are several excerpts from tapes used in the case. One generally assumes that people aren't actually evil but my goodness the boys making these calls were.

click on 'listen to segment'

Edited by North London Rent Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Because we'll probably be dead. Oil will last until I'm dead. After that we have enough nuclear/coal to last us a fair while. We can probably grow trees to burn after that. Somebody will probably invent rain power and turn manchester into a rain power station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Because we'll probably be dead. Oil will last until I'm dead. After that we have enough nuclear/coal to last us a fair while. We can probably grow trees to burn after that. Somebody will probably invent rain power and turn manchester into a rain power station.

I listened to a few people speak at the Hay festival this week, including Al Gore, basically he said that global warming is and has happened. Peak oil is an issue and he alluded that when he gets in power it will be the main stay of his policy and is basically expecting the coming hurricane season to bring the issue of global warming home to the american people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concentrating on one issue amidst your ridiculous rant:

You have been fed a lie on volcanic vs man-made gas emissions - in terms of greenhouse gas, CO2, man-made emissions DWARF volcanic...

in fact major volcanic eruptions have a net COOLING effect on atmospheric temperature because the different kind of particles they emit.

I'd be delighted to hear the source of your misinformation - I would put money on it either being some extremist, right wing rag or out-of-date crap from a US 'Thinktank'

Global Warming

Yet another tax on the west.

Dont See them slating India and China, yet they are todays culprits, and our Governments promote it.

History has shown that the world has always been changing, does mankind actually think that by taxing people it can change that?.

There are more toxic gases emitted from a single volcano eruption than mankind has created in the history of his time on this planet.

Lets forget about a bunch of hippies living on the North Pole, wearing Jesus boots and smoking weed, and get on with the real issues that we can have an influence on.

Technology is always suppressed it would be foolish to think othewise.

The worlds military have always had the state of the art technology and they will no way share it until they find a superior replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to a few people speak at the Hay festival this week, including Al Gore, basically he said that global warming is and has happened. Peak oil is an issue and he alluded that when he gets in power it will be the main stay of his policy and is basically expecting the coming hurricane season to bring the issue of global warming home to the american people.

IMO anybody who grabs the headlines does it not for morality but for money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key point here as far as the HPC is concerned is that oil / gas are going to become far more expensive than at present. Serious effects of climate change are still some time off - we're not going to be flooded by rising sea levels this decade or next unless something far worse than even the doomsters predict happens. But we're already running into trouble with oil globally and gas in UK, North America and also New Zealand has problems with running out of gas.

Just wait until oil isn't even remotely affordable as a direct replacement for gas in countries with gas shortages. Not sure about the UK but the US is certainly using quite a bit of oil for power generation etc when gas is short. New Zealand has been burning a lot more coal (forget Kyoto - it's just not happening no matter what some say (compliance with the protocol that is, climate change is probably happening) and has converted one major power station (orignally oil-fired) from gas back to oil whilst also building a new oil-fired plant (it was the only option that could be built quickly enough).

Just wait until Canadian gas production falls seriously and the likes of Australia have fully committed their reserves either to domestic consumption or export. Then Russia / OPEC becomes the marginal global supplier of gas with no competition in addition to dominating oil production. ANYTHING will be more affordable than heating a house with oil/gas (or electricity produced from oil or gas) once that happens. And it's not that far off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that if the Ross ice shelf (the size of France) completely detaches en masse, it would likely destabilise the Earth's spin, causing slippage of the crust over the molten core. It would cause all the world's volcanoes to erupt, and global tsunamis in the order of 5 to 10 miles high across all the world's oceans, swamping all the shores. Now that, gentlemen, is a top doomster.

the worlds land masses have split and moved apart many times due to teutonic plate movements and it never caused the doom you are predicting.

i think that sums my argument to the contrary up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it'll be like when the oil runs out in a few years time - we'll just cope with it when it happens

Suddenly all the supressed technologies will "suddenly appear" as if they'd been invented recently, power will shift (might explain the recent 'terrorist'/invading middle east countries strategy - to democratise/stabilise the region when it runs out) and everybody will live happily ever after

It can't work like that. We need to prepare for it now as new technology won't happen over night. Energy security affects the price we pay to heat our homes, fuel our transport etc. In 15 years there will still be oil and gas and plenty of it but just not enough to go around. Prices will cripple domestic users and curb food imports and manufacturing....with the ecomomy in tatters how on earth will people be able to afford to convert their homes.

And remember of we carry on polluting - winters could be colder and summers could be warmer...? Remember that the global climate model is based on what we are using now and doesn't take into account that the USA carbon emissions are growing by 1% a year and China plan to build a coal fired power station every severn weeks for the next 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think of when I see these maps showing how the UK will be flooded making many cities and towns impossible to live in will be the nimbies rioting to prevent any new houses being built. "Townies" will end up living on floating rafts a la "Waterworld".

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all doom and gloom when it comes to global warming, but we are all assured that the solution comes in the form of paying more tax on energy..........................so I think we can all forget about Global Warming and see it for the cash cow it currently is in employing many thousands of people around the world to take on highly paid non jobs at taxpayers expense flitting around the globe making false statements.

The world has been changing for millions of years, there is nothing being produced on a mass scale that this planet cannot handle.

If the Governments want to save a planet, then they could clear up the mess of sunken nuclear submarines rusting away in the oceans, or Blair could cancel all the contracts to process other nations nuclear sh1t, storing it on our Island.

Face facts, Global warming is not proved, not even slightly. In fact as fast as they manufacture evidence, other scientists quickly dispute it.

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!

by Professor David Bellamy

Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.

Dreaded

To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'

You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'

At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.

And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.

Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.

Melted

The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

Ignored

But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all doom and gloom when it comes to global warming, but we are all assured that the solution comes in the form of paying more tax on energy..........................so I think we can all forget about Global Warming and see it for the cash cow it currently is in employing many thousands of people around the world to take on highly paid non jobs at taxpayers expense flitting around the globe making false statements.

The world has been changing for millions of years, there is nothing being produced on a mass scale that this planet cannot handle.

If the Governments want to save a planet, then they could clear up the mess of sunken nuclear submarines rusting away in the oceans, or Blair could cancel all the contracts to process other nations nuclear sh1t, storing it on our Island.

Face facts, Global warming is not proved, not even slightly. In fact as fast as they manufacture evidence, other scientists quickly dispute it.

I wouldn't say it's a myth but it is nothing that hasn't happened before & been overcome.

A bit like world wars really, they just get more devastating as time goes on.

Obviously house prices won't matter but HPC is just a matter of conjecture at present, like the second coming or aliens. Again nothing that hasn't happened before.

The fun part is debating the point & the differing views experienced & knowledge gained along the way.

One day somebody will be sat on the top of a hill wearing a seaweed saying "I told you so!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Its all doom and gloom when it comes to global warming, but we are all assured that the solution comes in the form of paying more tax on energy..........................so I think we can all forget about Global Warming and see it for the cash cow it currently is in employing many thousands of people around the world to take on highly paid non jobs at taxpayers expense flitting around the globe making false statements.

The world has been changing for millions of years, there is nothing being produced on a mass scale that this planet cannot handle.

If the Governments want to save a planet, then they could clear up the mess of sunken nuclear submarines rusting away in the oceans, or Blair could cancel all the contracts to process other nations nuclear sh1t, storing it on our Island.

Face facts, Global warming is not proved, not even slightly. In fact as fast as they manufacture evidence, other scientists quickly dispute it.

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!

by Professor David Bellamy

Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

Of course when doing scientific research I often turn to the Daily Mail, rather than any of the many peer reviewed journals available.

However, since I can't currently be arsed, here's what google gives:

Correspondance between George Mombiot & David Bellamy which gives, shock horror, more than one opinion.

George & David

The Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine, what a grand title for an organisation with "six faculty staff" only one of whom is paid full time.

Much as I hate ad hominem attacks, they are always justified when I use them :) :

By all accounts, Arthur Robinson was a talented biochemist prior to founding the OISM. His early promise as a student won him a job as an assistant chemistry professor at the University of California-San Diego, where he struck up a partnership with his mentor, Linus Pauling, the only individual ever to receive two separate Nobel awards (for chemistry in 1954 and peace in 1962). Pauling and Robinson shared an initial enthusiasm for Pauling's controversial theory (which has since been rejected by most researchers) that high doses of vitamin C could ward off colds, mental illness, cancer and a host of other diseases. Robinson and Pauling formed the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine to explore Pauling's theory, but the partnership ended badly in 1978, when Robinson's research led him to conclude that high doses of vitamin C might actually be harmful instead of beneficial. Pauling's leftist leanings also clashed with Robinson's conservative political views, and other trustees at the Pauling Institute accused Robinson of poor management. Pauling forced Robinson to resign from the Institute and terminated his research, labeling it "amateurish" and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute for $64 million. After a bitter, four-year legal battle, Robinson received an out-of-court settlement of $575,000."

Source

Now Laurejon, you should be very careful when making such bold statements erroneously stating that a single volcano can produce more non-descript "toxic gases" than all mankind.

I went to a lecture by Andy Sauders of Leicester Uni recently - his, albeit rather rough, calculations suggest that during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction when the Siberian traps were erupting 250 million years ago they were producing roughly the same amount of CO2 as we are producing right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.