I wish I had a hippy to kick!

[medwayjon]

Global warming? Global warming my arse.

I hope all the tree-hugging soap-dodging dole-scrounging do-gooding stinking hippies are starting to feel a little bit silly today.

If their doom & gloom predictions of global warming are so accurate perhaps what I am seeing out of the window today is a mirage?

Infact the next hippy idiot who mentions global warming to me is going to get a size 10 up the khyber.

My advice to them? Shut up, have a wash, get a job.

 

[GB72]

Global warming is s cyclical event anyway. Take Greenland for example. The Vikings were not known to be an ironic race and they named it Greenland because it was just that, lush and green. Temperatures have always changed and always will.

 

[medwayjon]

Exactly GB72, the earth doesnt just rotate on its own axis, it rotates closer and further from the sun over millions of years, this is why we had ice ages.

I think that these hippies will only find another "cause" to champion as they are terrified or work, responsibility, and soap.

 

[madandra]

GLOBAL WARMING translates into TAX THE BASTARDS !!!!!!

 

[toonarmy]

I'm not alone at last!

The abandonment of all logic in this so-called debate does my nuts in. How many times do you hear 'climate change' or 'global warming' being discussed as if they were actually unequivocally proven? To assume that the actions of 20th century Western civilisation has had this much effect on the globe's climate is beyond arrogant.

Never mind the hippies, if I ever meet man-bear-pig hunter Al Gore, I'll wear the leather out on my shoe from the kicking he'll get.

 

[billyg]

Expect a snow tax and evidence it's the wrong type of cold weather for the polar bears which can only be resolved by increasing council tax and the TV licence fee again......soon

 

[madandra]

Once China and Indai and the U.S.A get their house in order then I will cut back.

And another thing ... I do not have a carbon footprint as I drive everywhere.

 

[grumpyjock]

Global warming will mean more fresh water being released into the artic ocean up by greenland and iceland.
This will effect the Gulf stream (ie warm water) becoming switched off this will allow cold air from the north pole to blow down the coast bring us into line with Moscow and have colder winters with more snow and ice.

 

[Dave3498]

According to this oceanogrphic site, http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/hilo.php?port=dover the highest predicted tide at Dover will be 7.27m in 2015. It falls back to 6.97m in 2022 and it was 7.20m in 2006. So much for sea level rises.

 

[grumpyjock]

Its not the sea water rise its the effect of fresh water turning off the gulf stream

 

[Dave3498]

To assume that the actions of 20th century Western civilisation has had this much effect on the globe's climate is beyond arrogant.

You're quite right toonarmy. The real problem is that we cannot appreciate the size of the planet, and we cannot get it across graphically. If, for example you wanted to show the Titanic to a scale of 1/10,000, which would make it about 1 inch long, and then show it's relationship to Ireland and USA to the same scale, you would need a piece of paper some 1,650 feet long. It just can't be done. The media present situations like this on our TV screens where the Titanic is represented as being about 500 miles long.

The same applies to all graphic representations on global warming scenarios. They are wildly out of scale and give the general public the impression that the world is tiny and vulnerable.

Have I invented another branch of philosophy here?

 

[USER1999]

Petrol in the states was working out at £25 per tank full, 400 miles to the tank (4.5l V8 lincoln).

Diesel here, £75 to the tank full, same 400 miles.

WTF is going on.

UK alone cannot reverse climate change, no matter how much tax we pay.

 

[GB72]

yes but if you put a green tag on it people do not whinge so much about tax increases. The Government preaches that it wants people out of cars but could not last without the tax on fuel in the same way that it wants everyone to quit smoking but would be up the creek without the tax on fags.

 

[backwoodsman]

Well guys, may as well make my 100th post a good one. I haven't read such ill considered, naive, and selfish bullsh!t for ages.

And the "others ain't trying, so I ain't trying" argument is just tosh. If the chinese fed their kids cornflakes & dog-turds - would you do the same?

Me, I ain't got kids, so as far as future generations are concerned, the world can go to hell in a handcart for all I care. But I thought those of you who do might care a little bit about what you leave 'em?

Climate changing - definitely. Caused by us - who knows? But one thing's for sure - we've already bollixed up plenty and can readily bollix up plenty more unless we think about what we do and how we do it.

 

[toonarmy]

Well guys, may as well make my 100th post a good one. I haven't read such ill considered, naive, and selfish bullsh!t for ages. Climate changing - definitely. Caused by us - who knows? But one thing's for sure - we've already bollixed up plenty and can readily bollix up plenty more unless we think about what we do and how we do it.

I bow to your superior intellect and astutely evinced opinion...

Of course the climate is changing - it's always bloody changing! But it is a fallacy to suggest that the climate is only 'now' changing because of carbon emissions. Not least of all because the flora and oceans have been pumping out more CO2 than we can ever hope to manage since time began.

Global temperatures in the last 10 years are lower than at any stage since 1961 - but don't let a simple thing like facts get in the way.

Let's have more reactionary gumpf pedalling a fund-raising agenda from Western bloc governments instead!

We're all going to burn/drown/freeze/blow away tomorrow I tells ya unless we all stop swearing at missed putts!

 

[backwoodsman]

But it is a fallacy to suggest that the climate is only 'now' changing because of carbon emissions..

Hmmm.... Not sure I did actually say it is changing now because of carbon emissions - think I said "don't know". But, it is wrong-headed to blindly keep doing something on the assumption all is hunky-dory when a) you don't know that, b) scientific evidence suggests it's doing harm. Nor does it make sense to keep doing something because some else hasn't stopped

Take smoking as your example .... 50 years ago no-one gave a toss, 30 ago scientific evidence suggested it was a major source of harm to us, today we know it does and only a few of us, me included, persist in thinking we can get away with it. (Ok, the dates might not be spot on, but the example stands). And if I keep smoking, it shouldn't prevent you from stopping if stopping is like to be of benefit to you.

Not least of all because the flora and oceans have been pumping out more CO2 than we can ever hope to manage since time began.

Errr..... I think you might want to check up on that one.


I only threw in the argument to counter what seemed to be blind reactionary views. A bit disappointing that only one rose to the bait. In any case, it's worth thinking about if only, for example, to save somewhere like Montrose Medal links. 4th oldest course in the land(??? I'll stand corrected, but it is one of the old ones), and a damn fine course too, will only take minor change in sea level to be swept away - its under threat enough even now.....

 

[toonarmy]

Hmmm.... Not sure I did actually say it is changing now because of carbon emissions - think I said "don't know". But, it is wrong-headed to blindly keep doing something on the assumption all is hunky-dory when a) you don't know that, b) scientific evidence suggests it's doing harm. Nor does it make sense to keep doing something because some else hasn't stopped

Not saying you did say it, I was speaking generally. I would also like to point out that I am quite up on my green matters and don't do the bad stuff. I just really, really object to being told crap by the ill-informed i.e. Government.

Errr..... I think you might want to check up on that one.

Don't need to mate, already have! Carbon dioxide is a naturally forming gas and is NOT dangerous to the planet in the quantities 'man' puts out, which as I say is considerably less than the oceans produce.

I only threw in the argument to counter what seemed to be blind reactionary views. In any case, it's worth thinking about if only, for example, to save somewhere like Montrose Medal links. 4th oldest course in the land(??? I'll stand corrected, but it is one of the old ones), and a damn fine course too,

Now that makes some sense at least

will only take minor change in sea level to be swept away - its under threat enough even now.....

Sea levels are another of Mr Gore's fabulously inaccurate horror stories that stand up to no scrutiny whatsoever I'm afraid. They are currently a bit on the up (and it is 'a bit') but it appears that it is part of a cyclical pattern i.e. nothing to really worry about.

The IPCC are oft quoted as being 'the source' but they are far from impartial and it is the introduction section that Governments are tending to quote from, which is mostly contradicted by the main report, which no-one is paying any attention to! Why? Because it kind of shatters most of the myths being pedalled by profiteering ar$emunchers like Mr Brown.

Still, the world ever 'twas and will be...

 

[backwoodsman]

Montrose is in trouble - a minor rise is all it will take. (quite frankly it's in trouble even if nothing changes which is the shame of it).

But do check out the plants & oceans bit - I think you'll find that the oceans are the biggest absorber of CO2 rather than producer......

 

[billyg]

Hmmm.... Not sure I did actually say it is changing now because of carbon emissions - think I said "don't know". But, it is wrong-headed to blindly keep doing something on the assumption all is hunky-dory when a) you don't know that, b) scientific evidence suggests it's doing harm. Nor does it make sense to keep doing something because some else hasn't stopped

So by the same logic it's therefore right to tax and scare based on nothing more than 'don't know and 'scientific evidence suggests'?

...and yes, the idea that unilateral action (via taxes and half baked recycling initiatives) can chance the global pattern of the enviroment is utter poppyc@ck.

The whole thing is a case of The Emporers Clothes for weak minded lentil knitters.

Until such time as there is a global independently ratified scientific consensus backed up with independently ratified global action it remains nothing but a domestic tax sham.

if there was the slightest hint that scientific evidence suggested walking caused some unspecific effect deleterious to life in Ulan Bator (or some other remote enclave) you can be sure the heavy hand of taxation wouldn't be far behind.

The only reason we put up with it is because an over-vocal minority of over -educated, politically active, Guardian reading,mung bean snorting, lhama farmers in Hampstead say it's right to do so.

Were being conned at our expense. No more , no less.

 

[toonarmy]

But do check out the plants & oceans bit - I think you'll find that the oceans are the biggest absorber of CO2 rather than producer......

Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. Plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming.

Not saying this is unequivocally true, but then neither is any of the other nonsense being presented as 100% fact.

Anyone else noticed the worrying similarities between this green agenda and scary cults? And even more worrying, the fact that if you dare to disagree, you are labelled as some sort of Luddite or worse, a denialist - and there's only been one other context in which 'denialist' has been used before...

If you tell a big enough lie enough times to enough people...