Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OLDFTB

Global Warming Insanity

Recommended Posts

from www.washingtontimes.com

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

Article published Sep 12, 2007

Global warming insanity

September 12, 2007

Paul Driessen - "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority," Marcus Aurelius opined, "but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 — and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate just 400,000 years ago the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today. Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change. Many U.S. temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward — along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the last 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first — followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

More scientists are citing solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate — and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Over the last year, dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories.

Eight eastern European countries are threatening legal action against European Union decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice their economic growth to climate chaos concerns.

China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading CO2 emitter. And EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster since 2002 than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials." Robert Kennedy Jr. says we should be treated like "traitors." And Rep. Jim Costa walked out on a witness who noted that proposed legislation would raise energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families — while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus" it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 billion that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations. Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the article "highly contrived" and based on "discredited" accusations about industry funding.

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, teenage drinking, terrorism, suicides and "irritability" in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this amazing tale from London's Benfield UCL Hazard Research Center:

If CO2 levels keep rising, global temperatures could soar, ice caps melt, oceans could rise dozens of feet — and all that extra water pressure could destabilize Earth's crust, squeeze out magma and cause volcanoes to erupt. The volcanic gases and dust could then cool the Earth, and cause a new ice age.

A 1993 blockbuster movie used a similar what-if pyramid scheme to generate terrifying encounters with raptors and tyrannosaurs. But when the lights came up, people knew it was just a movie.

When it comes to climate change, however, many seem unable to separate science from science fiction — or even distinguish between headline-grabbing pronouncements, preposterous disaster flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow," and pseudo-documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour." Instead of fostering rational discourse and responsible action, alarmists insist we "do something" immediately to prevent climate cataclysm.

Al Gore is buying carbon offset indulgences. Leonardo DiCaprio is replacing his incandescent light bulbs. Cheryl Crow promotes one square per trip to the ladies' room. Cate Blanchett will wash her hair less often in her new $10-million Australian mansion. Cameron Diaz promotes "indigenous" lifestyles in Third World countries. But they all support laws mandating greatly reduced energy use and economic growth — outside of Hollywood and Nashville's Belle Meade area.

In response, Congress has introduced a half-dozen "climate stabilization" bills — and state legislatures are reviewing 375 more. These bills would cost American consumers many billions of dollars a year. But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction of the 0.2 degrees F that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 (assuming CO2 is a primary cause of climate change).

It's time to ask: At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become actually "doing something" about climate change? At what point do they amount to insanity?

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death" (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started not many months ago accepting everything all the "man-made global warming" people said.

Since then I've read about it, and as this article says, there appear to be many errors in the science.

The idea that the Earth is warming is probably accepted as a given by most. But that was based on invalid temperature data!

So the first question is: "Is it actually warming?".

Then there is the 'fact' that it is man-made. Do CO2 levels affect the temperature, or does the temperature affect the CO2 levels? :)

There are many scientists, people who know a lot more than I do, who have made what I think are valid criticisms of the "man-made global warming" 'campaign'.

Try watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video. It will at least raise questions in your mind :)

The full video is now available here:

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The...Warming-Swindle

You can also download it from here:

http://www.projectalberta.com/TV/TGGWS.zip

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shut up we need an excuse to keep pumping up petrol prices and to move ahead with our personal carbon foot print tax

Dubi is expanding and that included making new islands from sand in the sea now don't you think that they have considered the rising sea levels before they commited themselves to such a massive project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer is taxes, the question was ********.

Lemme see what have we had in the last 40 years.

Killer bees. Global cooling. Acid rain. Arctic winds. Bird Flu. Melting Ice Caps. DDT. Mass starvation. Peak Oil. blah blah ******ing blah.

In short, the world is full of bad things and you must stick your hand in your pocket to give some fat politician or we are all doomed!

It's 100% ********, 100% guaranteed.

All scare stories to get a hand into your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the answer is taxes, the question was ********.

Lemme see what have we had in the last 40 years.

Killer bees. Global cooling. Acid rain. Arctic winds. Bird Flu. Melting Ice Caps. DDT. Mass starvation. Peak Oil. blah blah ******ing blah.

In short, the world is full of bad things and you must stick your hand in your pocket to give some fat politician or we are all doomed!

It's 100% ********, 100% guaranteed.

All scare stories to get a hand into your wallet.

I so agree with you, Injin. Anyone who has studied the geological-time shifts in the earth's climate knows that the so-called 'global warming' scenario was immediately latched on to by politicians sensing a wonderful excuse to keep the sheeple in their place and tax them till they are blue in the face. Thank goodness the truth is starting to come out. And for everyone with a downer on the BBC - just look at their coverage of global warming - special programmes, reports on the news, etc - simply a government-directed wheeze to keep the sheeple in their place. You only have to look at the coverage to realise that the opposite view is being suppressed. All except for a Ch4 programme some months ago. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that "global warming" is part of the natural climate cycle. Periods in the past have been much warmer than what we see now.

Mankind is very narcissistic - we think the world revolves around us...it doesn't.

If we actually wanted to warm the planet how could we do it? CO2 would be a pi$$ poor way of going about it if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tell people that its all a hoax, they think that your just trying to be some maverick

There are scientists that are debunking the the whole global warming hoax but they risk being excluded from funding and also being ridiculed

Its now such big business and so many taxes are dependant upon it, that a U-turn by the scientific community and the governments is unthinkable. Its a runaway train that will be hard to stop.

Its a little bit like HPC a few years ago. No one knew about it and anyone that did, thought they were all crackpots. Just like today :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you tell people that its all a hoax, they think that your just trying to be some maverick

There are scientists that are debunking the the whole global warming hoax but they risk being excluded from funding and also being ridiculed

Its now such big business and so many taxes are dependant upon it, that a U-turn by the scientific community and the governments is unthinkable. Its a runaway train that will be hard to stop.

Its a little bit like HPC a few years ago. No one knew about it and anyone that did, thought they were all crackpots. Just like today :lol:

I would go so far as to say that the government suppresses any scientist who opposes the global warming scenario. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would go so far as to say that the government suppresses any scientist who opposes the global warming scenario. :angry:

It's bordering on religious mania. If you look at the film linked to you have former comedian Rob Newman ranting about "climate criminals". Whilst one of the professors interviewed states that if you question the "science" behind climate change you are treated like a "Holocaust denier". That's a very telling comment in many ways.

Don't get me wrong I am against pollution but I think Nuclear polution is of far greater concern than CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would go so far as to say that the government suppresses any scientist who opposes the global warming scenario. :angry:

Which is another reason you know it's all cobblers.

If the evidence was overwhelming, you could have a proper debate and that would be that.

"What's the weather going to be next week, Michael Fish?"

"I have no idea, but an MP has just phoned in and he says give him all your money or the seas will rise, The sun will burn the clouds out of the sky and dolphins will move into tower square."

Yet more crap designed by a huge state to stay in existence now that it's primary purpose - fending off the soviet empire - has goen the way of the Dodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is another reason you know it's all cobblers.

If the evidence was overwhelming, you could have a proper debate and that would be that.

"What's the weather going to be next week, Michael Fish?"

"I have no idea, but an MP has just phoned in and he says give him all your money or the seas will rise, The sun will burn the clouds out of the sky and dolphins will move into tower square."

Yet more crap designed by a huge state to stay in existence now that it's primary purpose - fending off the soviet empire - has goen the way of the Dodo.

People aren't going to abolish states in favour of one world government or global anarchy just because man induced global warming is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People aren't going to abolish states in favour of one world government or global anarchy just because man induced global warming is a myth.

They aren't going to abolish them at all. Probably ever.

Most folks see the state as a moral instituion and a requirement for a civilised way of life......

.......n the face of all the evidence, but when has evidence meant anyhing to the bulk of humanity?

So it's same old, same old. Nonsense scare stories and pay them taxes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

Denial in the face of an unstoppable force of nature is always fun to watch.

Climate science is so complicated most people can't get their heads round it. That makes it perfect fodder for governments to exploit it to raise taxes, industry to invent carbon "offsetting" (a concept that is fundamentally flawed) to make money for nothing and as a cause for people looking for meaning in their life. None of these things do anything to reduce the validity of the science.

I'm impressed at how much nonsense gets listed as an environmental issue. Saving water is apparently environmentally friendly, so the prices get put up. No, water shortage is a product of squeezing too many people into too small an area. Recycling is an environmental issue, but I'd argue its more a resource and land management issue, half of which could be resolved with less packaging.

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, it was full of half truths and outright lies, not to mention an emphasise of emotive issues, rather than hard science. They also offered no data to back up their primary theory and omitted lots of data that contradicted it (watch out for all the graphs that end in the 1980s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people on here seriously doubt the credibility of 'global warming'. The question remains, however, what are we going to do about it? Also, where is it all going to end?

I am sick to death of being preached to by imbeciles about how I should revert back to living in the stone age. The other week BBC breakfast had a feature about climate change every single goddam day!!! How on Earth can these people peddle such pseudo-scientific nonsense and blatantly mislead so many individuals? It seems that where ever I turn I am reminded about global bloody warming, from billboards to tv adverts!

When there is no catastrophic 'doomsday scenario' are the experts merely going to say: "erm we got it slightly wrong?" and refund our taxes as we watch a superior Indo-China laugh in our faces?!

AAAARRGH!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denial in the face of an unstoppable force of nature is always fun to watch.

Climate science is so complicated most people can't get their heads round it. That makes it perfect fodder for governments to exploit it to raise taxes, industry to invent carbon "offsetting" (a concept that is fundamentally flawed) to make money for nothing and as a cause for people looking for meaning in their life. None of these things do anything to reduce the validity of the science.

I'm impressed at how much nonsense gets listed as an environmental issue. Saving water is apparently environmentally friendly, so the prices get put up. No, water shortage is a product of squeezing too many people into too small an area. Recycling is an environmental issue, but I'd argue its more a resource and land management issue, half of which could be resolved with less packaging.

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle, it was full of half truths and outright lies, not to mention an emphasise of emotive issues, rather than hard science. They also offered no data to back up their primary theory and omitted lots of data that contradicted it (watch out for all the graphs that end in the 1980s).

The only evidence for global warming is coming from proven liars or people paid for by proven liars. The solution to global warming just so happens to massively benefit those proven liars in the form of more control and more taxes.

Peopel who are asking simple questions or deny global warming are being derided. Since when has making an honest mistake in thinking needed derision? Anyone would think that there was a multi billion pound scam being underpinned by gibberish or something.

The last 100 or so scare stories have gone nowhere (apart from raise control and or taxes) ...I see a pattern of behaviour that's a lot more easy to see than alleged links between me driving my car to tesco causing east anglia to lose a bit of coastline. Global cooling was the issue 20years ago. Killer bees were an issue, blah blah blah.

/sigh

Just follow the money. I see no evidence of global warming at all. What I do have evidence for is every householder in britain dividing their rubbish into different groups so that it can be sold to prvate companies at a profit or paying a fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
I would go so far as to say that the government suppresses any scientist who opposes the global warming scenario. :angry:

How do you mean? Without many years experience, it would be difficult to credibly oppose the whole theory (if a whole established theory actually exists, which I doubt), but if they are older and more established, the government can do little to supress them - academics are notorious for moving round the world, it would be easy for them to move to a foreign institution and continue to publish.

There are many scientists who question some of the theories surrounding climate change - they study the data, they do more field work, they theorise, and further the field. They may demolish old theories and make new ones, or they may refine and strengthen them. But the whole CO2 from burning fossil fuels theory is so strongly backed up by solid evidence its difficult to see how it could be refuted.

"Opposing global warming" is such a vague term (unless you're talking about certain scientists who are more like media whores - on both sides of the debate) that its a bit meaningless. What if they agree with the principle but question the rate of change. Are they suppressed? What if they work on a seemingly unrelated field that could impact it like solar physics - are they supressed? The idea that you can supress science is somewhat contradicted by history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

You know, the more I read the posts on threads like this, the more impressed I am by the government.

They've taken a problem that requires expensive and painful short - medium term action to prevent long term problems (which will happen after their term has long finished), exploited it with taxes that raise money from the average worker without actually changing anything, they've then tagged on other things (rubbish, water, etc) that hacks everyone off and makes everyone sceptical, so the public become sceptical of the original theory and start to question it and fight it.

As a result:

-More tax is raised

-The oil industry isn't affected

-People don't trust the scientists

-The government doesn't have to do anything. When its too late they'll be out of office anyway.

Yes, there's a government conspiracy here. And you sheeple have fallen for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
Just follow the money. I see no evidence of global warming at all. What I do have evidence for is every householder in britain dividing their rubbish into different groups so that it can be sold to prvate companies at a profit or paying a fine.

Well that's a well reasoned argument. To expand upon it ...

I see no evidence of global warming at all ... What I do have evidence for is every householder in britain dividing their rubbish as we're only a small island and we're running out of landfill sites.

Personally speaking, I see no evidence for the world being spherical. What I do have evidence for is that the moon landings were a hoax because the moon is made out of cheese.

Personally I think global warming is inevitable now. Not because we can't find alternative forms of energy, but because of the same characteristics that cause asset bubbles and crashes: greed, denial and then fear. The posts on this thread are an example of this. It ends when it can go no further.

The sooner we run out of oil and the sooner the planet warms up the better as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the answer is taxes, the question was ********.

Lemme see what have we had in the last 40 years.

Killer bees. Global cooling. Acid rain. Arctic winds. Bird Flu. Melting Ice Caps. DDT. Mass starvation. Peak Oil. blah blah ******ing blah.

In short, the world is full of bad things and you must stick your hand in your pocket to give some fat politician or we are all doomed!

It's 100% ********, 100% guaranteed.

All scare stories to get a hand into your wallet.

Nice post. For once I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

I cannot figure out why people think that if a politician exploits a problem it eliminates it. Haven't you considered the possibility they make it worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from www.washingtontimes.com

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

Article published Sep 12, 2007

Global warming insanity

September 12, 2007

Paul Driessen - "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority," Marcus Aurelius opined, "but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 — and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate just 400,000 years ago the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today. Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change. Many U.S. temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward — along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the last 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first — followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

More scientists are citing solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate — and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Over the last year, dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories.

Eight eastern European countries are threatening legal action against European Union decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice their economic growth to climate chaos concerns.

China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading CO2 emitter. And EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster since 2002 than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials." Robert Kennedy Jr. says we should be treated like "traitors." And Rep. Jim Costa walked out on a witness who noted that proposed legislation would raise energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families — while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus" it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 billion that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations. Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the article "highly contrived" and based on "discredited" accusations about industry funding.

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, teenage drinking, terrorism, suicides and "irritability" in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this amazing tale from London's Benfield UCL Hazard Research Center:

If CO2 levels keep rising, global temperatures could soar, ice caps melt, oceans could rise dozens of feet — and all that extra water pressure could destabilize Earth's crust, squeeze out magma and cause volcanoes to erupt. The volcanic gases and dust could then cool the Earth, and cause a new ice age.

A 1993 blockbuster movie used a similar what-if pyramid scheme to generate terrifying encounters with raptors and tyrannosaurs. But when the lights came up, people knew it was just a movie.

When it comes to climate change, however, many seem unable to separate science from science fiction — or even distinguish between headline-grabbing pronouncements, preposterous disaster flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow," and pseudo-documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour." Instead of fostering rational discourse and responsible action, alarmists insist we "do something" immediately to prevent climate cataclysm.

Al Gore is buying carbon offset indulgences. Leonardo DiCaprio is replacing his incandescent light bulbs. Cheryl Crow promotes one square per trip to the ladies' room. Cate Blanchett will wash her hair less often in her new $10-million Australian mansion. Cameron Diaz promotes "indigenous" lifestyles in Third World countries. But they all support laws mandating greatly reduced energy use and economic growth — outside of Hollywood and Nashville's Belle Meade area.

In response, Congress has introduced a half-dozen "climate stabilization" bills — and state legislatures are reviewing 375 more. These bills would cost American consumers many billions of dollars a year. But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction of the 0.2 degrees F that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 (assuming CO2 is a primary cause of climate change).

It's time to ask: At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become actually "doing something" about climate change? At what point do they amount to insanity?

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death" (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).

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

Interesting article. It's almost becoming the new racism where anybody that dares to disagree with a word the control freaks say is branded the equivalent of a nazi. The whole thing has become an enormous, unstoppable bandwagon with all the usual suspects jumping on for a free ride.

The world has been warming up and cooling down all by itself for millions of years and will continue to do so :rolleyes:

Personally, I rather like the idea of warmer summers although I suspect the politicians will find a way to tax me for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot figure out why people think that if a politician exploits a problem it eliminates it. Haven't you considered the possibility they make it worse?

I cannot figure out why otherwise rational people think an agency that routinely uses force on pensioners and single mums over the TV licence, will kidnap you and put you in a room with rapists and murderers if you disobey it's whims, will bomb peasants in 3rd woirld countries into atoms for the sake of a few barrels of oil, that has killed millions of it's own citizens in pointless wars in the last 100 years alone...couldn't be making up random gibberish to get another pound off you.

If you can't see these people for what they oh so very obviously are are, how am I supposed to give you any credibility when agree with some government funded scientist who says that my toaster is causing floods in pakistan?

It's.

All.

Bobbins.

Problem, reaction solution and all that other good marxist claptrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most people on here seriously doubt the credibility of 'global warming'. The question remains, however, what are we going to do about it? Also, where is it all going to end?

I am sick to death of being preached to by imbeciles about how I should revert back to living in the stone age. The other week BBC breakfast had a feature about climate change every single goddam day!!! How on Earth can these people peddle such pseudo-scientific nonsense and blatantly mislead so many individuals? It seems that where ever I turn I am reminded about global bloody warming, from billboards to tv adverts!

When there is no catastrophic 'doomsday scenario' are the experts merely going to say: "erm we got it slightly wrong?" and refund our taxes as we watch a superior Indo-China laugh in our faces?!

AAAARRGH!!!!!

I try and do my bit. I drive a car with a 2.8 petrol engine and I welly it as often as possible. I leave the water running when I brush my teeth and I turn my thermostat up a degree whenever some tw@t tells me to turn it down and save the world :lol:

Right that's it, I'm off to turn all the taps on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Interesting article. It's almost becoming the new racism where anybody that dares to disagree with a word the control freaks say is branded the equivalent of a nazi. The whole thing has become an enormous, unstoppable bandwagon with all the usual suspects jumping on for a free ride.

The world has been warming up and cooling down all by itself for millions of years and will continue to do so :rolleyes:

Personally, I rather like the idea of warmer summers although I suspect the politicians will find a way to tax me for it.

I've noticed that very few people actually question the science, but seem to think that attacking the culture surrounding climate change does the same thing. Politicians & celebrities that jump on the bandwagon tend to be idiots, I agree, but they don't have any effect on the science, except maybe to increase the rate of CO2 build up from their conferences, concerts and eco-awareness tours.

And yes, the earth's climate changes, but this is at an unusually high rate. Our eco-system and agriculture has evolved in a period of reasonable stability, we don't want to encourage change, it'll hurt.

Oh, and more heat equals more energy. So yes, it'll be warmer, but also wetter and windier depending on local climate changes. The Gulf Stream's not going to die though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot figure out why people think that if a politician exploits a problem it eliminates it. Haven't you considered the possibility they make it worse?

That's a valid point. I personally do not believe global warming is caused by mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • 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.