Climate Change

There is no doubt now that the whole Global Warming thing is a joke based on crackpot science and cherry-picked data. The Creationism of the PC brigade.

The IPCC admitted this week that global temps have not increased since 1998. This is pretty shocking and should of been widely reported. But they still insist that Mankind is boiling the earth.

Meanwhile the USA is having an exceptionally freezing winter, China is currently under snow, Ireland is being battered with winter storms contrary to the endless media reports of our promised "warm Irish winters with all year round plant growth" - coupled to this Irish farmers announcing today that this has been the harshest winter in years.

Bottom Line: Al Gore's Hollywood fantasy movie was a load of rubbish, filled with lies and errors and typical Yank sensationalist clap-trap.

It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.

Other than giving Civil Servants a new agenda to waste taxpayers money on, Climate Activist trips to Bali so they prevent common people from flying, as well as giving Marxist a backdoor at which they can attack the evil West, I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to Global Warming hysteria anymore.

PS: CFC bulbs are filled with mercury in case Gormley forces them upon us in the name of saving the polar bears.

Bottom line: You're an uneducated buffoon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good

I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to my hysteria anymore.

---

Ok, I've scrunched it up, can someone lob this in the bin now please?

Just on a point of interest for Boh_So_Good, global warming is now more commonly, and accurately, referred to as CLIMATE CHANGE. I.e. that doesn't mean Ireland turns into a glorious tropical paradise but a windswept craggy isle flailing in vain to keep its head above water.

Must say any smidge of credence I afforded your posts has now evaporated. Not that that really matters, just thought I'd let you know.

The older CFC bulbs have a tiny bit of mercury in them the newer ones dont but you can't get them here !!!

I have mainly CFC bulbs i like them they last more than a few months i was constantly changing the old ones.

But This idea that the earth will boil or freeze in the next few years isnt what will happen i feel, As the ice melts the oceans will absorb more heat evoporate more water causeing more rain ( like the summer we just had ).

Thats what will catch us too much rain making it hard to grow crops other countries will get less rain making it harder to grow crops making less food available making people panic to get food meaning the rich will be able to afford it and the poor will try and rob it.

Is there Land under the north / south pole ?? i remeber watching a thing about penquins that said as the weather cooled and the ice came most animals left but they chose to stay so if the ice goes they will just live on land like they do in other parts of the world and have a easier time of it.


Im mixed on this i dont think we shoudl be wrecking the earth and even if you dont believe in global warming surely you dont want to be breathing in all that pollution now do you ? .Anyway i dont think saving the human race is all that good an idea the vast majority are parasites they are wrecking the place maybe the world would be better off wiping us out and starting on evolving the next animal to take over.

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anto1208

Is there Land under the north / south pole ?? i remeber watching a thing about penquins that said as the weather cooled and the ice came most animals left but they chose to stay so if the ice goes they will just live on land like they do in other parts of the world and have a easier time of it.

---

There isn't any land, but there is quite a lot of oil, hence the non-rush by America, Canada, Russia etc. to save it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anto1208

Im mixed on this i dont think we shoudl be wrecking the earth and even if you dont believe in global warming surely you dont want to be breathing in all that pollution now do you ? .Anyway i dont think saving the human race is all that good an idea the vast majority are parasites they are wrecking the place maybe the world would be better off wiping us out and starting on evolving the next animal to take over.

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

---

I think its very arrogant of mankind to assume we can do any lasting damage to the earth. If the earth felt like it it could crush us the way kids do ant hives, I don't think we would be able to cause anything other than a few annoying insect bites in return

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I think its very arrogant of mankind to assume we can do any lasting damage to the earth.

---

Sentiment, naturally, is spot on; this latest of our many wars is a war to save ourselves, mankind, dumbasses and all. Earth will be just fine for a few more million years. But if we want it to remain reasonably hospitable for our tender selves then a concerted global effort at all levels (from Bush to Boh_So_Good) is necessary to make our activities reasonably sustainable. I'm not seeing enough of that at all at the moment, which is why I started that 'future' thread, to which I must return post-haste.

As I'm here and in the mood for a philosophical muse, I think a bit of this is down to the old procrastination paradox; you know that, sometime in the future, something must be done/will happen but yet you just couldn't be arsed to start doing it now, or at the moment it's to your benefit not to take the necessary actions. A bit like smoking in that you know in the long-term it's a bad idea but you're just enjoying it too much at the moment to care. Or the student who goes out ten nights in row and then crams his essay into twelve manically-rushed hours. Madness maybe, but such examples are all too common (:o).

In other words, as we battle to sustain our species just how high and conspicuous a hurdle is the human instinct to wallow and not care much for future concerns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anto1208

Feck it the sun is going to run out in 4 million years then we're all done for anyway .

---

That's more like 4 billion years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

That's more like 4 billion years.

---

Thank god !
Anto had me worried there for a sec..... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevB76

Thank god !
Anto had me worried there for a sec..... :D

---

Otherwise it was going to be a close call.:eek:

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam

---

Bossman, you're going soft .

Climate change is important but idiotic posters on the matter deserve no mercy.

The best way to deal with idiots is to demonstrate their idiocy. Ball's in your court I reckon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I'm leaving this open since climate change is an important subject that warrants discussion, although I've changed the thread title to make the OP look slightly less idiotic.

adam

---

I read the opening post. The whole "Title changing" thang didn't work...

Who said anything about Climate Change not happening. Were I am sitting now was under a mile of ice 40,000 years ago. The title of the thread was about "Global Warming" and Al Gore's hysterical polemic...GLOBAL WARMING is what they said we were getting until the global temp stopped rising in 1998.

It the notion that humans are raising world temp with C02 which remains unproven. Read the IPCC reports in full. They are all "may lead to", "is a possible issue" and so on and yet we get press confs were they come out and say that there is total scientific agreement on the issue when there isn't.

But we were here before with the whole "New Ice Age" of the 1970's.

Besides, all the other planets in the solar system have shown temp increases on par with the Earth's which suggests that the sun is the main driver. I would also like to point out to Jebus that this "uneducated buffoon" happens to be an Astronomer who has been paying attention for decades now, and not since Al Gore's Hollywood movie.

I also do not like being insulted by a moderator. Not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good

GLOBAL WARMING is what they said we were getting until the global temp stopped rising in 1998.......

It the notion that humans are raising world temp with C02 which remains unproven.

Read the IPCC reports in full. They are all "may lead to", "is a possible issue" and so on and yet we get press confs were they come out and say that there is total scientific agreement on the issue when there isn't.

---

A link to the USA's Environmental Protection Agency - from their front page on the "Future Climate Change" section.

Quote:

---

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007)

---

as you can see, an IPCC is quoted.

Here is a link to some IPCC reports - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Here are some excerpts from the "Frequently Asked Questions" section -

Quote:

---

What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?
There are three fundamental ways to change the
radiation balance of the Earth: 1) by changing the incoming solar
radiation (e.g., by changes in Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself); 2)
by changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (called
‘albedo’; e.g., by changes in cloud cover, atmospheric particles or
vegetation); and 3) by altering the longwave radiation from Earth
back towards space (e.g., by changing greenhouse gas concentrations).
Climate, in turn, responds directly to such changes, as well
as indirectly, through a variety of feedback mechanisms.

---

The key point here is point 3.

Quote:

---

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change
and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing
changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases,
aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known
contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases
carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols
affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-
going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy
balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of
these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the
climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750),
the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming
influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly
exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as
solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

---

Look at that last sentence again - the human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes

Here are some excerpts from Section 9 - "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" -

Quote:

---

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without
external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known
natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the
ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural
external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

---

Quote:

---

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50 years.

---

(Words in italics are from the report, not my editing)


From section 10 - "Global Climate Predictions" -

Quote:

---

Temperature Extremes
It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
episodes are projected to decrease signifi cantly in a future warmer
climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are
projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures,
leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in
the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in
growing season length.

---

Quote:

---

Snow and Ice
As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent
decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance
of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This
contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous
generation of models in the TAR. There is a projected reduction
of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic
with a rather large range of model responses. The projected
reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project
summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission
A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century. Widespread
increases in thaw depth over much of the permafrost regions
are projected to occur in response to warming over the next
century.

---

I would argue that the pieces of the IPCC reports I've quoted paint a very different picture of both the existence of and reasons for climate change and global warming than you suggest, Boh so Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boh_So_Good

There is no doubt now that the whole Global Warming thing is a joke based on crackpot science and cherry-picked data. The Creationism of the PC brigade.

The IPCC admitted this week that global temps have not increased since 1998. This is pretty shocking and should of been widely reported. But they still insist that Mankind is boiling the earth.

Meanwhile the USA is having an exceptionally freezing winter, China is currently under snow, Ireland is being battered with winter storms contrary to the endless media reports of our promised "warm Irish winters with all year round plant growth" - coupled to this Irish farmers announcing today that this has been the harshest winter in years.

Bottom Line: Al Gore's Hollywood fantasy movie was a load of rubbish, filled with lies and errors and typical Yank sensationalist clap-trap.

It has got to the stage now where if I hear another gob****e warning about "Man Made Global Warming" I just have to laugh.

Other than giving Civil Servants a new agenda to waste taxpayers money on, Climate Activist trips to Bali so they prevent common people from flying, as well as giving Marxist a backdoor at which they can attack the evil West, I see no reason for any objective person to pay attention to Global Warming hysteria anymore.

PS: CFC bulbs are filled with mercury in case Gormley forces them upon us in the name of saving the polar bears.

---

Someone's been reading Michael Crichtons State Of Fear
Me too and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would suggest all those who are so sure that Global Warming is an imminent threat or is even in fact a reality at all should read it before making sweeping comments like jebus here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Bottom line: You're an uneducated buffoon

---

So Michael Crichton knows more than 1000's of scientists who are experts in this field? Has his book been peer-reviewed? Because all of the work of the IPCC scientists has. The debate is over - climate change is happening and it is caused by human activity. In fact, there was never any debate to start with - just confusion caused by charlatans funded by Exxon and others, based on the policy of sowing confusion pioneered by the tobacco companies. When you are finished Crichton's book I suggest you read George Monbiot's "Heat", or the latest IPCC report.
Really, one book by a pop scientist and that tv programme that wasn't even by a scientist and suddenly everybody is an expert. There are 1000's of scientists the world over studying this topic and there is consensus on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

Someone's been reading Michael Crichtons State Of Fear
Me too and I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would suggest all those who are so sure that Global Warming is an imminent threat or is even in fact a reality at all should read it before making sweeping comments like jebus here

---

I've said it before in a climate change thread and I'll say it again, even George W. has reversed his opinion on climate change, yes THE George W., so I stand by my comment, and refuse to debate this with people who are slower on the uptake than America's glorious leader. The only thing I will ask you to do is to look up images of the polar icecaps ranging from 1988-2008, if you still think global warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs, well then there really is no hope for you to be honest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I've said it before in a climate change thread and I'll say it again, even George W. has reversed his opinion on climate change, yes THE George W., so I stand by my comment, and refuse to debate this with people who are slower on the uptake than America's glorious leader. The only thing I will ask you to do is to look up images of the polar icecaps ranging from 1988-2008, if you still think global warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs, well then there really is no hope for you to be honest

---

I certainly do not think Global Warming is an excuse to sell lightbulbs
don't know where you got that from what I said. Ive seen the Sat Images of the Polar Icecaps. if you go back 50 or 60 years before that you'll see similar fluctuations (melting and reforming)in fact there is an equivalent ammount of Ice on antartica now as there was in the 1880's the Icecap has been expanding for the past number of years and only in more recent times has began to rescind. The Icecaps have been in constant flux for millennia, with overall average volume of Ice barely changing in centuries. or if you look at Sat images of Greenland and Iceland 1988-2008 you will see an increase in Glacial growth,for every piece of evidence "Proving" Climate change there is evidence "Disproving it" seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

for every piece of evidence "Proving" Climate change there is evidence "Disproving it"

---

No there is not. References please (and nothing from charlatan Exxon funded organisations please).

Quote:

---

seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.

---

Seriously, if you have researched it as you say you cannot but have found that the evidence is overwhelming; I have and it is, end of. In fact, I cannot believe I am even responding to your posts. (My wife is a meterologist with a PhD in atmospheric physics and she has the good sense to simply laugh at anybody who questions the reality of climate change. There is no question amongst anybody working in the field.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

There is no question amongst anybody working in the field.)

---

Here's One
Some More
More World reknowned Scientists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

seriously research it as I have as I like to Check all sides of a story before ramming facts down peoples necks.

---

I have, and I've found people who say climate change is a smokescreen are morons to be honest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

More World reknowned Scientists

---

One of the questions they ask themselves is will the Day After Tomorrow happen, forgive me for having stopped reading at this point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

Here's One

---

A civil engineer

Quote:

---

Some More

---

Please, I did ask for no references from Exxon-funded charlatans
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=87
(see, how clever they are at creating confusion)

Quote:

---

More World reknowned Scientists

---

Who are the CEI? Is this paper peer-reviewed? At least there are some references, but how do I know if they are selectively quoting? (In fairness, this one at least looks interesting and I will read it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I have, and I've found people who say climate change is a smokescreen are morons to be honest



One of the questions they ask themselves is will the Day After Tomorrow happen, forgive me for having stopped reading at this point

---

I think you'll find it was an FAQ page as in Frequently asked questions. If enough morons ask a question then obviously they'll be compelled to answer it.

to clear things up I don't not believe that Global Warming is A. happening and/or B.Is a threat. I don't think there is enough evidence either way to know for sure . It just bug's me the Media jump on a subject and repeat Press releases verbatim as fact which is then consumed by the viewer and regurgitated.when in fact much of what is been reported as cold hard facts is still being hotly debated.
If there is a Campaign to pull the wool over our collective eyes then it is obviously not geared at selling more lightbulbs as was suggested above. I believe it would be more geared towards keeping third world countries from becoming Industrialised and competing in an already saturated market place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

More World reknowned Scientists

---

Woops, you've done it again. I asked for no references to Exxon-funded charlatans.
The CEI (who I now know are "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace." - so an unbiased viewpoint there) has as one of its initiatives the globalwarming.org website, which features a Chris Horner, and what do you know, there he is:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=281

You see just how damn sneaky they are, giving their websites serious names with .org addresses, but they are all funded by Exxon to create confusion.
But in fact, the CEI are upfront about it; from their own website:
"The lead editorial in the December 4, 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “Global Warming Gag Order—Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up,” hits Sens. Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV's letter to ExxonMobil telling the oil company to stop funding “global warming deniers” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While CEI has previously responded to the Snowe-Rockefeller missive, we welcome the Journal's defense of free scientific debate—and our role in it. "

TBH I would skeptical of some of the solutions we provided with.

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices). Considering how little power lights use could more power be used in producing & transporting the bulbs?

We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce. Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them. Secondly is the carbon footprint really bigger for a cargo ship to transport food in bulk across the globe or farmer to drive his jeep across Ireland to 'farmers market' with days worth of produce? The farmers return journey is worthless while you can be sure the ship is productive on return journey...

China & India are polluting like its 1850 all ovr again so does it really matter what we do in Europe? Do we have the right to stop developing countries from polluting?

Surely the best arguments for Reduce Reuse and Recycle are economic not environmental.
A Carbon Tax, CFC lightbulbs, Banning 4x4's, Congestion Charges, etc all seem very negative and punative with it seems to me anyway very little impact and in turn very few supportive measures for encouraging alternatives to oil.

The consumer changes in the west will it seems be offset by the damage caused by emerging economies anyway. Surely the answer to reducing mankinds impact on the environment will only be solved by scientists coming up with real alternatives to oil and the economic benefits therein?

While I make an effort to recycle I wonder where it all goes. Is there a point in shipping plastic half way across the world for it to stacked in "plastic markets" ? How much ends up in landfills here too? Does the state regulate this?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebs23

The consumer changes in the west will it seems be offset by the damage caused by emerging economies anyway.

---

Agree and what better way for the west to ensure market share than to scapegoat these countries and sign treaties preventing them doing what we done at the turn of the last century because it's "Killing the Planet". Oil Company may be spreading mis-information against Global Warming but don't for one minute think that the Scientists finding "Proof" of impending doom due to climate change are not being funded by big business that is cacking itself at the thought of competing with African and Asian companies on a level playing field

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

TBH I would skeptical of some of the solutions we provided with.

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices). Considering how little power lights use could more power be used in producing & transporting the bulbs?

We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce. Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them. Secondly is the carbon footprint really bigger for a cargo ship to transport food in bulk across the globe or farmer to drive his jeep across Ireland to 'farmers market' with days worth of produce? The farmers return journey is worthless while you can be sure the ship is productive on return journey...

China & India are polluting like its 1850 all ovr again so does it really matter what we do in Europe? Do we have the right to stop developing countries from polluting?

---

I'd agree with a lot of that. Minor annoyances for myself at the moment is designer eco-bags made in China(or wherever), it seems there is a new must-have one every other week. Couple that with China, India and America dragging their feet over reducing their omissions and I do see why people are wondering if changing their lightbulbs will make a difference. That said, I don't see that the Power of One campaign has done any harm whatsoever, as I do agree with the principle that if we all change one thing then we can make a difference, the problem again is whether people will do this by their own choice.

I agree completely with the idea that we should leave 3rd world produce alone is ridiculous however, and I have read pieces in the Guardian where writers have been listed as saying that we should buy 3rd World produce in one article, and we shouldn't for climate change reasons in another, that to me is where people think climate change is just another neo-left wing stick to beat us with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

We are told to turn off lights when not in use but light bulbs last longer when left on (especially the florescent versions used in offices).

---

The problem with switching lightbulbs on and off isn't to do with lifespan, but with the extra power usage of the starter in fluorescents.

Quote:

---

Considering how little power lights use

---

Individual thinking.

Quote:

---

We are told not to buy food from across the globe due to carbon footprint & buy Irish produce.

---

You're told this by people who haven't thought it through. Be more selective in your advisors.

Quote:

---

Firstly the third world depends on us buying food off them.

---

We're talking about climate change here, not charity. Focus on a topic for once in your life.

adam

Some good points above. In my view, the solutions have to implemented on a political level rather than reliance on the individual. It take political will to implement the changes required for wholesale reductions.
Biofuels are definitely not the answer. The second biggest source of greenhouse gases in recent years was deforestation, much of it in Malaysia and Indonesia where rainforests were cleared for Palm Oil plantations. (Plus, in the long run the west will pay more for biofuels than the 3rd world can pay for food.) They have a role, but a limited one.

BTW, far from wanting to stifle competition, Big Business is dying to see 3rd world countries develop as these are new markets for their goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

In my view, the solutions have to implemented on a political level rather than reliance on the individual.

---

No, sorry, it needs both. Climate change needs action at every level, by every person, business and politician, otherwise it's just not going to work. We have to drill it into everyone's head that we're in big trouble here, and expecting someone else to sort it out is just plain murdering our descendants.

Quote:

---

Biofuels are definitely not the answer.

---

Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

No, sorry, it needs both. Climate change needs action at every level, by every person, business and politician, otherwise it's just not going to work. We have to drill it into everyone's head that we're in big trouble here, and expecting someone else to sort it out is just plain murdering our descendants.

---

Absolutely, it needs both. In editing my post before finalising I deleted the bit about individual responses helping; but there needs real political will to implement change for major reductions to happen. For example, the biggest source of greenhouse gases is power production - politicians need to make the changes here.

Quote:

---

Again, sorry, but no. Biofuels are not the answer on a wholesale level in Ireland, and in other countries they're causing major problems because of the greed and ignorance of people growing the crops. If you educate those people, and remove the source of greed, locally produced and used biofuels can work very well.

adam

---

Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.

US and (to a lesser degree) EU policy is leading us down the road of biofuels with targets that if met would cause huge problems for world food production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monutdfc

Absolutely, it needs both. In editing my post before finalising I deleted the bit about individual responses helping; but there needs real political will to implement change for major reductions to happen. For example, the biggest source of greenhouse gases is power production - politicians need to make the changes here.

---

The energy generation thing drives me demented. We have a country literally surrounded by waves and wind, and we're talking about "the nuclear option"? And it's not just the usual ignoramuses either, even the shiny new nutjobs won't rule it out for fear of upsetting their masters. Does nobody get the whole "nuclear waste" thing? Do they even know what the phrase "half life" actually means?

Quote:

---

Agree, they have a role, and I have said so. But they are not the answer (and reading your post I think we are agreed on this) that some people have thought, seeing them as a silver bullet.

---

There's no silver bullet, certainly. Silver bullets are fairy stories and steorns.

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Does nobody get the whole "nuclear waste" thing? Do they even know what the phrase "half life" actually means?

adam

---

That's the problem with the current nuclear debate - it is focussed on the dangers of production (a 9-11 strike or a Chernobyl) whereas the real issue is the problem of nuclear waste

Has anybody seen a documentary called The End of Suburbia. It is a frightening look at peak oil, and the consequences.

And in case you think it was made by environmental-nutjobs, one of the contributors was an energy adviser to George Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

We're talking about climate change here, not charity. Focus on a topic for once in your life.

---

You cannot deal with topics in isolation hence the issues with biofuels & cost of food production. See your own posts.

Proof!

"global warming" stopped in 1998. Not only on earth, but on Mars, Venus and Jupiter. See that yellow ball in the sky... It's called the sun. It's made of lots and lots of fire. Some times the fire is really hot and other times it's really, really hot. It has fluctuated like this for about 6 billion years.

"Climate Change" is the phrase the Gore shower came up to cover their asses when global temps level out. "you deny Climate change!" - talk about moving the goal posts.

The term "Climate Change" is so meaningless as of course the bloody climate changes! That's not what Gore and Co were flapping their arms over it was GLOBAL WARMING.

Global Warming was and is a fraud.

QED