True - but by the time China and all have reduced their emissions in response to our good example, it will be much, much too late to have any mitigating effect on climate change (as opposed to the merely "much too late" stage we're at now), at least on time scales relevant to anybody that's alive now.


Ok, so we should just do nothing....let's all be complacent and accept that the world is doomed.

All the effort to get people to change is very noble, but at the end of the day will have little or no effect on the situation. Global warming is real, whether man-made or not, and every country will have to deal with the consequences over the decades to come.

Give up your car if it makes you feel better, but it won't make the slightest bit of difference. I take the train because I hate being stuck in traffic on the roads, not because of GW.

Asking 'Why should I' because other countries emit more, is simply highlighting your selfishness.

My point was also that I dont think that personal/small scale carbon emissions are as big a deal as people make out, its just yet another way to get us to pay more tax. If they were such a big deal then these countries would have actually done something about their emissions instead of carrying on as normal.

But to answer your point,
I take it you don't drive then? Is it through choice, cost or inability if you dont mind my asking?

When you offer me a viable, cheaper alternative to my car then I shall use it. I dont see why I should work long, often unsociable hours so I can pay more to use public transport than what it would have cost me to use my car. It just doesnt makea ny sense. If that makes me selfish then fair enough I guess, along with the millions of other motorists who have an ounce of common sense, im a selfish person.

My point was also that I dont think that personal/small scale carbon emissions are as big a deal as people make out, its just yet another way to get us to pay more tax. If they were such a big deal then these countries would have actually done something about their emissions instead of carrying on as normal.

But to answer your point,
I take it you don't drive then? Is it through choice, cost or inability if you dont mind my asking?

When you offer me a viable, cheaper alternative to my car then I shall use it. I dont see why I should work long, often unsociable hours so I can pay more to use public transport than what it would have cost me to use my car. It just doesnt makea ny sense. If that makes me selfish then fair enough I guess, along with the millions of other motorists who have an ounce of common sense, im a selfish person.

I'd say the reason the likes of US and China don't do anything is more related to not wanting to be unpopular with voters (US) and fulfilling promises of improving living standards (China), amongst other things, and nothing to do with emmissions being no 'big deal'.

No I don't drive. I can drive, but I don't have a car. I've never needed one. I have always lived in a city. Cities tend to have adequate public transport (I won't say it's great, but it's still there if you're willing to make the effort). It is also cheaper to use public transport. One £35 payment per month and then no petrol to buy, no insurance costs, no tax costs, no costs of actually buying a vehicle in the first place, no maintenance costs. I really would be working for my car if I had one. I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford getting onto the property ladder if I had a car. So my lack of car and the money I save has greatly improved my standard of living. And yes, I agree, most motorists are selfish. So what if it takes me 45 minutes to get home on the tram, whereas a car would take 10-15 minutes. My personal time is not more valuable than the environment. No one's time is that important.

What would it take for anyone to believe GW is real?. BTW - I dunno one way or another. I just wondered what kind of event it would take to convince anyone that things must change.

If global warming is as bad as they say, the government wouldn't be talking about a few extra pennies in taxes on cars and planes, they'd be banning cars and planes altogether!
Until they do, we have nothing to worry about.

I'd say the reason the likes of US and China don't do anything is more related to not wanting to be unpopular with voters (US) and fulfilling promises of improving living standards (China), amongst other things, and nothing to do with emmissions being no 'big deal'.

No I don't drive. I can drive, but I don't have a car. I've never needed one. I have always lived in a city. Cities tend to have adequate public transport (I won't say it's great, but it's still there if you're willing to make the effort). It is also cheaper to use public transport. One £35 payment per month and then no petrol to buy, no insurance costs, no tax costs, no costs of actually buying a vehicle in the first place, no maintenance costs. I really would be working for my car if I had one. I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford getting onto the property ladder if I had a car. So my lack of car and the money I save has greatly improved my standard of living. And yes, I agree, most motorists are selfish. So what if it takes me 45 minutes to get home on the tram, whereas a car would take 10-15 minutes. My personal time is not more valuable than the environment. No one's time is that important.

I admire your principles but im afraid I just cannot agree with you there. After a crappy days work the last thing I want to be doing is sitting on a bus waiting to get home, knowing that had I driven I would have been home half an hour ago, in comfort. And like Basilrathbon said, if it was a serious issue they would ban planes, not jsut add a few quid on top of the tax. You're just making your life inconvenient for a false sense of well-being.
I can understand you using PT because its cheaper (though for my circumstances it isn't cheaper) but not for environmental reasons.

Ok, so we should just do nothing....let's all be complacent and accept that the world is doomed.

There are things that can be done to mitigate human-induced climate change - modifications to the way that rice is farmed, for one - but I don't think that significantly reducing the burning of fossil fuels is one that's going to happen. China and India together comprise, what, getting on for half the world's population. They've got rapidly expanding economies, and the winners in those economies are going to want the benefits in terms of physical lifestyle - and who are we, who already have those benefits, to say that they shouldn't?

That said, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. From a local point of view, alternatives to fossil fuels would be a great idea, to offset the frightening dependence on imported energy that we've had since the 1980s. I know that promising progress is being made in the direction of biofuels of one kind and another.

And no doubt there are things that can be done to cope with the effects of global warming. Indeed, given that these effects look like they are going to happen, maybe that's where we should be focussing most of our effort.

If global warming is as bad as they say, the government wouldn't be talking about a few extra pennies in taxes on cars and planes, they'd be banning cars and planes altogether!
Until they do, we have nothing to worry about.

Politicians don't think beyond the next election, whereas global warming is a multi-decadal issue at the least. They wouldn't do anything that's unpopular now (and the electoral system wouldn't let them), even if it's absolutely essential to prevent a complete catastrophe in the (to them) distant future.

the weather in sheffield yesterday was nothing to do with global warming

who did we blame in 1962/1990/1998 global warming did not even exist then,or did it

whatever we do in this country wont do nothing to stop global warming its started and nothing will stop it, no matter what, anybody who thinks different is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The planet will change you cannot stop it by charging people ecco tax, what a load of rubbish, it is just another stealth tax.
one power station in china cause more pollution in one day than all the cars in one year

I dont think it is global warming, it was a bit of strong wind, unfortunatley a few people were lost, but thousands of other people in other countries etc are lost in the earthquakes, tsunamis etc every year and have been happening for years. It is just the way weather is. Asked if I would leave my car (if i had one) at home and use the public transport, I would rather not because of the chaos last night, a bit of strong wind and the country goes crazy, including public transport. Also, putting the fares up will NOT get more people leaving their cars at home. If Tony Blair (the hypocrite) wants more people using public transport then he needs to sort the system out because who wants to sit on a old decrepid train or bus every night after work when they have their nice clean and warm cars that they dont have to wait in the cold for?

I admire your principles but im afraid I just cannot agree with you there. After a crappy days work the last thing I want to be doing is sitting on a bus waiting to get home, knowing that had I driven I would have been home half an hour ago, in comfort. And like Basilrathbon said, if it was a serious issue they would ban planes, not jsut add a few quid on top of the tax. You're just making your life inconvenient for a false sense of well-being.
I can understand you using PT because its cheaper (though for my circumstances it isn't cheaper) but not for environmental reasons.

I could say that you're using pretty poor justifications for your actions (just as most motorists do). I don't see it as making life inconvenient. In fact I look forward to my journey home, when I can settle down with a book for half and hour while someone else drives me home. It's all about priorities. Some of us can see past our own 'comfort' and 'convenience'.

Some of us can see past our own 'comfort' and 'convenience'.

Why though does public transport have to be uncomfortable and incovenient ?

If some effort were put into making it less so, people might be more inclined to use it.

I used public transport for the last seven years of my working life and the thing I most looked forward to about retirement was not having to use public transport. If I had lived within 30 minutes walking distance of work I would still be working , - if only part time.

Sorry....a long way off topic :)

Really to me it doesn't matter if the climate is changing or not - I have no viable alternative to the car either way.

why not? I'm sure if you really had to you could find alternatives.

no it hasnt

one power station in china cause more pollution in one day than all the cars in one year

No doubt you have researched this claim at length. It is a rather convenient way of justifying our wasteful consumption of energy.

The attititude that we can do nothing is typical "I just want to do what I like" thinking. If we brought about cultural change whereby everyone was conscious of saving energy then things may happen, for example, if people by habit, turned lights off, or walked rather than got in the car or didn't heat there houses quite so much. Its only through a collective conscious effort that we'll get anywhere. If people would stop with this lazy believe that you can't make a difference then we all could be better off.

(Oh and obviously you can't blame a bit of wind on GW)

Why though does public transport have to be uncomfortable and incovenient ?

Because our oligarchical masters have deemed that public transport should be a money-spinning venture, rather than a subsidised public service designed to make people's working lives easier (and thereby make the economy run smoother), as in more developed countries.

I could say that you're using pretty poor justifications for your actions (just as most motorists do). I don't see it as making life inconvenient. In fact I look forward to my journey home, when I can settle down with a book for half and hour while someone else drives me home. It's all about priorities. Some of us can see past our own 'comfort' and 'convenience'.

Why should I have to justify my actions? But if i must, then

I enjoy driving. I am prepared to pay the taxes and charges involved with driving because I like it.

Thats my justification.

Why should I have to justify my actions? .

Because some would argue that there is a moral obligation on us all to do our best to ease global warming.

Because some would argue that there is a moral obligation on us all to do our best to ease global warming.

You are assuming that your view on global warming is fact. Many of us do not believe that it is. At the very least the jury is still out on it for me.

You are assuming that your view on global warming is fact. Many of us do not believe that it is. At the very least the jury is still out on it for me.

You and george bush. All you need to do is turn your tv off standby, switch off lights you don't need, stop driving when you don't need to, buy veg that hasn't been flown over here from australia that sort of thing. We all just need to be conscious of saving energy. Its too easy and rather selfish to think, "it won't happen and even if it does it won't affect me in my lifetime".

Because some would argue that there is a moral obligation on us all to do our best to ease global warming.

Some, but not me. Once this problem starts getting taken seriously by world leaders then I may think about changing my habits. But until then, I shall continue using my car as and when I please.

Like I said earlier though I do admire your principles, and im not knocking you in any way for them, I just happen not to agree.

why not? I'm sure if you really had to you could find alternatives.


There's a few things here. The first being "if you really had to", which, as it happens, I don't and the second being that the alternatives have to be suitable, which they currently aren't.

If you know that little about weather you are automatically disqualified from passing an opinion. Go learn some basic, elementary details on the subject first, please?

Give the guy a break you pedant. When you have learnt the difference between a question and an order you too may pass an opinion.

I don't think that the weather yesterday was due to global warming, as lots of people have said, just normal occasional winter weather. But I do think we will start to see weather like this a lot more frequently.
If I had a car(!) I would have driven it to work yesterday... but when the weather gets better I wouldn't be driving, I'd be walking or getting the bus.

I'd love to leave my car at home, but as the council won't be letting the people in my house each have a parking permit, I'll have to take my car on the road.

P.S. We are currently in an interstadial - period between ice-ages - hence it is expected for the mean temperature to rise.

Global warming is a natural phenomenon - get used to it

That's the thing, everyone *will* have to get used to it.

If anyone thinks that anything serious will ever get agreed to do anything about it by all countries, they are fooling themselves.

And even if there was something substantial agreed, it wouldn't make any difference, it's going to happen anyway.

It's not all doom and gloom though, we will adapt like we always have, its just that there might not be so many of us in 100 years.

Again, another excuse you hear regularly from motorists when you challenge them to stop using their cars. The point is we have to start somewhere. How can we even begin to ask China or the US to tackle their carbon emmissions if we're not prepared to do it ourselves. A colleague always says to me that there's no point in her using public transport, because one car less on the road won't make a difference. The problem is everyone thinks like this. If everyone stopped thinking so negatively and did stop, then it would make a HUGE difference.

Asking 'Why should I' because other countries emit more, is simply highlighting your selfishness.


The somewhere to start is not the 5% of CO2 that comes from cars in the UK, it's the 95% that comes from industry, mainly from power generation.

What is “The Real Deal”


First look at the immutable effects of global warming. The increase in temperature will melt some of the ice and increases the sea levels, the increase in sea level and therefore area, subjected to the increased temperature, causes increased evaporation, resulting in more clouds and rain. The accumulative results of this will be more surface water which further increases evaporation, hence even more clouds and rain. These effects will increasingly cause less sunlight to reach the earth until equilibrium is achieved. The planet will now be a little warmer and a little moister, an ideal condition for a burgeoning of vegetation in previously arid areas. The resulting increased photosynthesis will replenish the depleting O2/CO2 ratio at the same time dramatically increasing the world’s food production.
Of course it should now be obvious that as the planet warms, there will be no need to burn fuel to heat our homes so less CO2 will be produced, as I dream of sitting in my verdant Eden, it occurs to me that the motor trips and airline flights to find kinder climates will also be unnecessary, further reducing CO2 emissions.
In reality as I sit in a house I can only afford to heat for four hours a day, I can only say
”BRING IT ON”

I think your 'real deal' pocket science analysis is seriously flawed.
Firstly the difference in evaporation between land/sea is relatively insignificant. So rainfall won't increase significantly.
If it did any change in albedo that occurs due to greater cloud formation will be more than offset by the massive loss of ice and subsequent exposure of land at the arctic.

There's quite a lot of interest at the moment in the theory of equilibrium points and abrupt climate change. Look up the younger dryas and equilibrium points.

The majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere doesn't come from heating requirements, nor from air travel, it comes from industry, and there's also the small problem that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas and is related to food production, not energy.
You could look up methane hydrates in the ocean floor as well, and wonder what the effect of a couple degree rise in temperature would be on those. And for additional reading, look up the stall of the gulf stream and the effect of arctic freshwater ice melting.
Pretending that climate change isn't happening is sticking your head in the sand.
Quantifying exactly how much of that is human related is difficult, but climate change is happening and we do have the capability to affect it, in either direction.

This potentially is a sign of global warming, the high winds. Are you convinced that leaving your car at home is the way forward?

Hasn't there been high winds in the past then???

All this convinces me of is the government using the media weapon for Green Tax!!! And this bit of unusal bad weather:suspect: is helping them - it is winter you know, we should get bad weather.

I recommend people watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
It was extremely interesting and the way it was put across made it easy to understand whilst not patronising.
Has anyone else watched this? In my opinion it showed without a doubt that global warming exists and we really need to act now, no matter the cost because it is going to increase dramatically if we wait.


I thought the last section where he showed the MPG of cars in America, China and Europe made a huge point. America who sees themselves as more progressive than China has much lower MPG cars.

I try to save energy through energy efficient light bulbs making sure lights and other things that use power are switched off when not in use

i've got a theory its not the most popular theory ever but i believe its true.

the planet was around for a long time before we - as a species - got here. its also going to be around for a long time we - as a species - are gone.

does anybody really think the planet can't look after itself? are people so arrogant that they believe they fully and totally understand the intricacies of the global weather and how it behaves? i'm not denying global warming is happening but what you need to consider is this.

we've only been measuring weather for a couple of centuries, not all that accurately. how come all of a sudden people know, beyond all doubt, that global warming is our fault and we can control it? the thing is we know very little about the planet. why are we so certain we can control it?

The average american consumes about 20* the energy of the average for the entire world. It's the most proligate nation in the world. It's industries are (compared to the more recently developing nations) heavily regulated and monitored though.

Why can we control it.
Because we have the capability to massively alter the composition of the atmosphere. Even if climate change hadn't been affected by the massive amount of CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere and was a natural process, it doesn't mean that a) we should ignore it or b) we should allow it to happen.
It's almost certain that life will carry on on the planet, but species and habitat loss will cause massive economical problems for us with subsequent social problems. It's in our own interests to put together a best guess model of the dynamics of the planet and then manage it and ourselves to keep that model stable.
There are definitely natural fluctuations that take place, consider
http://www.answers.com/topic/little-ice-age - the little ice age 1400 - 1800 (recent history)
The Little Ice Age brought bitterly cold winters to many parts of the world, but is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice. The first Thames freeze was in 1607; the last in 1814
and also http://www.answers.com/younger%20dryas - the younger dryas period.
It was a brief (approximately 1300 ± 70 years [1]) cold climate period between 11.5 thousand and 12.7 thousand years ago.
The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900 – 11,500 years before present (BP)[2] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so. Data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicates that the summit of Greenland was ~15 °C colder than today during the Younger Dryas [3]. In the UK, evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately -5 °C [4], and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas [5]. Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since [2].

The prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America [5]. The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water "lid" from the north Atlantic Ocean.
Large dump of freshwater... Possibly replicated by the melting of the arctic ice cap if temperatures rise too high.

The average american consumes about 20* the energy of the average for the entire world. It's the most proligate nation in the world. It's industries are (compared to the more recently developing nations) heavily regulated and monitored though.

Why can we control it.
Because we have the capability to massively alter the composition of the atmosphere. Even if climate change hadn't been affected by the massive amount of CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere and was a natural process, it doesn't mean that a) we should ignore it or b) we should allow it to happen.
It's almost certain that life will carry on on the planet, but species and habitat loss will cause massive economical problems for us with subsequent social problems. It's in our own interests to put together a best guess model of the dynamics of the planet and then manage it and ourselves to keep that model stable.
There are definitely natural fluctuations that take place, consider
http://www.answers.com/topic/little-ice-age - the little ice age 1400 - 1800 (recent history)

and also http://www.answers.com/younger%20dryas - the younger dryas period.
Large dump of freshwater... Possibly replicated by the melting of the arctic ice cap if temperatures rise too high.i'm really not going to get into a science debate with you because simply i'll embarrass myself. i did say it was just a theory.

i just think the planet can take care of itself and it will continue to do so. hence the reason for major extinctions. i think of them as a sort of planetary spring clean.

Some, but not me. Once this problem starts getting taken seriously by world leaders then I may think about changing my habits. But until then, I shall continue using my car as and when I please.

Like I said earlier though I do admire your principles, and im not knocking you in any way for them, I just happen not to agree.

OK, so, just for a second let hypothesise - there are two parties, exactly the same issues (you'd vote for them). One party says they've examined the facts and they are going to ban domestic flights, pump billions into research (via extra duty on fuel) and generally inconvenience you (as a car driver).

Who would you vote for?

And do you see why its never going to change radically through government?

Public Transport needs renationalising and investing in. Rail travel needs more capacity for a start, bus services need fares subsidising. All this is unpopular with car drivers (who don't see the benefits) so it is difficult for any government to make a stand.

We need to invest in the MagLev train and renewable energy. The government can't just tax the nation and offer no alternative. Car taxes have gone up but as public transport costs too much and pollutes, why would we use it.

I agree with Green taxes as long as they are reinvested in providing alternatives to fossil fuels. Also, we cannot solely rely on nuclear for our power.

We need to invest in the MagLev train and renewable energy. The government can't just tax the nation and offer no alternative. Car taxes have gone up but as public transport costs too much and pollutes, why would we use it.

I agree with Green taxes as long as they are reinvested in providing alternatives to fossil fuels. Also, we cannot solely rely on nuclear for our power.

I would probably agree with this but the ecco taxes are not being used correctly the government are useless

...Because we have the capability to massively alter the composition of the atmosphere.

Unfortunately your arguements are so typical of the pseudo-science media driven hype that is being propogated by the government. Just because everyone says something, it isn't necessarily true.

We are not 'massively' changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Currently we are in a volcanically stable period - one good-sized eruption would make our input into the system insignificant.

Even if climate change hadn't been affected by the massive amount of CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere and was a natural process, it doesn't mean that a) we should ignore it or b) we should allow it to happen.

What you are advocating here is that we should control the atmosphere of the planet even though climate change is a natural phenomenon.

We are only short-term inhabitants of this planet - this is due to our position as a k-selector species - we will die out, it is inevitable.

Sitting there going 'it's natural' would be a pretty stupid response to any event with the possibility to kill either an individual or the species.
Frankly I'd hope that the human race collectively would manage to get off their asses and do something about any natural or unnatural thing that threatens said species.

Call it what you like, I think a 50% increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 in the last 50 years is a massive change.

The current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, at 380 parts-per-million, is the highest level recorded over the past 650,000 years.
from http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1128-climate.html

I agree broadly with discodowns last statement, the planet will probably take care of itself, we won't completely destroy the climatic equilibrium.
That's not the point though. Even if another ice age is perfectly natural that doesn't mean that we should practice our skiing, if we have to terraform the earth to maintain our social and economic structure then so be it.

Unfortunately I don't have much choice and generally need my car for most things as I find it difficult to get around.

What I can't understand is despite all this global warming, they're making more and more places one way and changing roads so you've got 3 times the distance to go than before!

Surely this can't help?!

They've known about this for ages and in my opinion, more money should have been put into finding ways around it. People won't stop using their cars now, we're all too comfortable we should have started looking into working around this problem way before we did.

don't believe in global warming we add the same winds in the seventies saw a block of eight council garages roof rip off and smash in to a building was amazing that was about 30 years ago these are just cycles. the vikings was nearly wiped out by an eleven year winter what was the excuse then there was no spotty four eyed little freak walking round with a placard say the end of the world is nigh as there is now.

you get the meaning



.

don't believe in global warming we add the same winds in the seventies saw a block of eight council garages roof rip off and smash in to a building was amazing that was about 30 years ago these are just cycles. the vikings was nearly wiped out by an eleven year winter what was the excuse then there was no spotty four eyed little freak walking round with a placard say the end of the world is nigh as there is now.

you get the meaning



.

Yes, we get the meaning, you've got your head stuck in the sand.

Yes, we get the meaning, you've got your head stuck in the sand.

i don't reply much these days but you always seem to be there when i do no my head isn't in the sand unlike yours just believing the hype i think for my self unlike you i weigh things up for my self i haven't the time nor the typing skills to reply in full but there's pages of reasons why they would fabricate such a story if you lack the intelligence to figure it out thats your loss get off my case

After I moved to this country, I was flabergasted to see some how the UK doesn't respect our planet (and sadly that now includes me). I came from a country that could respect its natural resources at bit better, but I am shocked at how far the UK is behind Canada.

Not only should we leave our car at home but we need to recycle and composte more. However, our governments don't necessarily make it that easy. Recycling programs and public transport could definitely be improved.

In Northern Ireland, there will be a charge for water and water meters installed for those who want them. As much as this has created some controversy (even in my own household), I applaud the change. Every single one of us should be held responsible for our actions and we all should treat the earth with more respect. We continue to blame the likes of the US and China (which I agree with by the way), but we also need to look at ourselves to see if there is anything we as individuals can do to help sustain our natural resources and make this a better place to live.

I use to have a car in Canada; I'm not sure if I will get one here. Sure, I got caught in the rain yesterday on my way to the shops, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world. I'm not quite sure when that well be though......

Not only should we leave our car at home but we need to recycle and composte more.

Composting, done incorrectly, creates methane - a gas 800% worse than CO2 as far as being a "greenhouse gas" is concerned.

How come we never hear about that?

Currently, there is an oversupply of waste paper - to the extent that the cost has plummeted and newspaper collected for recycling is now being dumped into landfill - what we should be doing with this, is using it to dry out hands on, instead of using blow-dryers, and then burning it. This would generate heat, it would stimulate the paper markets - which in turn would stimulate the planting of trees - all positive moves...

So actually, less recycling please...

Composting, done incorrectly, creates methane - a gas 800% worse than CO2 as far as being a "greenhouse gas" is concerned.

How come we never hear about that?

Currently, there is an oversupply of waste paper - to the extent that the cost has plummeted and newspaper collected for recycling is now being dumped into landfill - what we should be doing with this, is using it to dry out hands on, instead of using blow-dryers, and then burning it. This would generate heat, it would stimulate the paper markets - which in turn would stimulate the planting of trees - all positive moves...

So actually, less recycling please...

Some good points there. Incineration of waste sounds like a good idea in general (so long as it doesn't produce loads of toxic gas -- I'm guessing that burning at a high enough temperature would achieve this). In particular, burning waste paper would be like using biofuel, with the added advantage that it would already have been used once (but the disadvantage of having to be transported more times).

Recycling of metal, especially aluminium, makes sense (I'd guess) economically as well as environmentally, because of the large amounts of energy required to extract it from its ores.

Composting is probably still on too small a scale to make a significant difference (again just an informed guess). The biggest human-induced excess source of methane is wet rice production. Cows have a measurable effect, but nowhere near as big (sorry, I haven't got the figures to hand). One reason why methane would be a good thing to focus on is that it only hangs around in the atmosphere for, on average, something like 8 or 10 years, so by controlling emissions now you can start to reduce the greenhouse effect within a decade or two -- the timescales for CO2 are longer.

Could this idea work, do you think?

from today's TelegraphOnline

The US government has called on the world's scientists to research using giant mirrors or reflective dust to slow global warming.

It says learning how to block sunlight would be "important insurance" against rising emission, the Guardian newspaper has reported.

The government has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.



Full story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/27/nsun127.xml)

They'd have to be bloody big mirrors; then again, if you're building such things anyway, you might as well use solar panels instead of mirrors. While blocking out the heat, you're also converting a chunk of it into electricity and wiping out fossil-fuel usage; two birds with one stone.

If you could harness The Suns energy that fall on The Earth in one hour, it would meet over 50% more than the entire Worlds energy requirements for one year, I seem to remember from somewhere.

Solar power really is the way forward, but the technology is neglected.

If you could harness The Suns energy that fall on The Earth in one hour, it would meet over 50% more than the entire Worlds energy requirements for one year, I seem to remember from somewhere.

Solar power really is the way forward, but the technology is neglected.

Of course it's neglected, it isn't going to make anybody rich and powerful at least not in the long term.

I would have thought that the Arab States might have been investing in it, as the oil may run out soon.
They have the space and the sunlight for it.
But then agai they were sitting on vast oilwells for millenia, until the westerners found it and developed it.
It will be the same with solar power, when the oil runs out, they will go back to poverty.
Then a western scientist will develop a solar power arrangement.
The engineers will say 'The Arabian Desert is just the place, theve been burning camel dung for the last fifty years since the oil ran out. It would be the ideal place, and bring a bit of money to them'

And the whole cycle will start again. :(

Of course it's neglected, it isn't going to make anybody rich and powerful at least not in the long term.

Short term?

They're pinching my idea!

I've been thinking: why not shoot millions of silvery balloons up into orbit with a giant 'Saddam-style' cannon?

People could pay to have their face on them and thus defray the expense.:)

Later we could use the gun for 'other purposes'.

If you paint all the buildings in the world white then this will reduce the global temperature by as much as it is predicted to rise in the next 30 years. No need for mirrors, just plenty of paint.

Short term?

They're pinching my idea!

I've been thinking: why not shoot millions of silvery balloons up into orbit with a giant 'Saddam-style' cannon?

People could pay to have their face on them and thus defray the expense.:)

Later we could use the gun for 'other purposes'.

Don't you think that's a bit cruel.

Oooops sorry I thought you said Baboons. :hihi:

Oooops sorry I thought you said Baboons. :hihi:

You've been watching too many re-runs of Planet of the Apes on your DVD Player! :)

Be serious!!!

Isn't this 'Supergun-City'?

We should be angling for the contract now!!!

We can sort out those bloody baboons later!!! ( using the gun)


( Isn't the 'pc' term Barbary Apes now?)

We can get the lasses to save the world, all they need to do it is open their Powder Compacts, mirror pointing at the sun for 1 hour per day and we shall all be saved.

So girls, do what you are famed for and SAVE MANKIND FROM ITSELF! :hihi:

Be serious!!!

Isn't this 'Supergun-City'?

We should be angling for the contract now!!!

We can sort out those bloody baboons later!!! ( using the gun)


( Isn't the 'pc' term Barbary Apes now?)

Ahhh a common misconception, the Barbary Ape is not a Baboon. Anyone who has visited Gibraltar and seen the famous Apes has unwittingly met a Barbary Ape as that is what they are.

However if they had met a Baboon or indeed a troop or congress of Baboons, after having met a Barbary Ape, they would be in no doubt that they are not, in, fact Barbary Apes.

I am not sure of the PC term for a Baboon although the PC term for a Baboons arse is I believe a 'Jade Goody' :D

Ahhh a common misconception, the Barbary Ape is not a Baboon. Anyone who has visited Gibraltar and seen the famous Apes has unwittingly met a Barbary Ape as that is what they are.

However if they had met a Baboon or indeed a troop or congress of Baboons, after having met a Barbary Ape, they would be in no doubt that they are not, in, fact Barbary Apes.

I am not sure of the PC term for a Baboon although the PC term for a Baboons arse is I believe a 'Jade Goody' :D


We can sort out that problem too!!! :

"Necessary testing etc etc.....most unfortunate series of errors etc etc.......4 ton howitzer shell on BB house most regretable etc etc.....lessons will be learned etc etc...."

I would have thought that the Arab States might have been investing in it, as the oil may run out soon.


No no no. The place to put them is in space; if you build them in space, you can build them ten thousand miles across with no problems of gravity.

This is interesting.

In Bristol Alliance against 4x4's decided to take action against people who drive 4x4's, they put fake car parking tickets on their cars.

Now does this group genuinely care about the environment, or is it just another case of the Green Brigade pushing Hard working people around again.

After all, I'm sure if we all drive round in Nissan Micras, global warming would stop overnight.

Global warming may well be true, and might happen anyway whether we are causing/contributing to it or not. Given that the human species hasn't been around all that long in geological terms, it doesn't make a scrap of difference if we become extinct or not. The earth will continue to evolve.

We tend to think we are the most important things on earth and call ourselves homo sapiens sapiens but we can't even regulate our own sh*t. Until we learn to be humbler and understand how to fit in with the earth's eco-systems we won't begin to see how to resolve this problem. Unfortunately every nation suffers from pride and puts its self-interest before others.

Anyone see the 1950s film The Day the Earth stood Still? It will take something universally catastrophic before the nations begin to cooperate. We can all do our little bit and of course we should, but until we radicalise entire populations and persuade them to put pressure on governments to take the problem seriously, very little will be done.

Mirror mirror up in space,
Can you save the human race?

Mirrors in the sky?

If the US government wants to do it, it must be a great idea. Just look at some of their other recent ideas, like invading Iraq, and what about the brilliant idea of denying there was any global warming until about a week ago.

These people are really on the ball. We should do whatever they say. If they're suggesting giant mirrors, you can be sure the Bush family have large quantities of shares in a mirror factory somewhere, and whatever profits the Bushes is always for the common good - apparently.

Perhaps you can make mirrors from a by-product of oil?

If you paint all the buildings in the world white then this will reduce the global temperature by as much as it is predicted to rise in the next 30 years. No need for mirrors, just plenty of paint.
:hihi: nobody noticed this? :suspect:

the same old statistic gets trotted out all the time of how the city is always a couple of degrees hotter of a night than the surrounding countryside of a winter....

of course it is :confused:

it's the same in the summer ;) How do you think storage heaters work?
... the bricks heat up, and store heat, slowly emitting it back out as the temperature drops - buildings and storage heaters are both made with bricks (or a similar material)

Painting buildings white only serves to reflect heat off them, which keeps them cooler, so there is less heat to emit back out during he night

the same calorific value of solar energy has still leaked through to our planet in a day though :P

:hihi: nobody noticed this? :suspect:

the same old statistic gets trotted out all the time of how the city is always a couple of degrees hotter of a night than the surrounding countryside of a winter....

of course it is :confused:

it's the same in the summer ;) How do you think storage heaters work?
... the bricks heat up, and store heat, slowly emitting it back out as the temperature drops - buildings and storage heaters are both made with bricks (or a similar material)

Painting buildings white only serves to reflect heat off them, which keeps them cooler, so there is less heat to emit back out during he night

the same calorific value of solar energy has still leaked through to our planet in a day though :P

I suppose we'll have to throw them into space once we've painted them....though I'm not sure what with.....perhaps a giant trebuchet?....their inhabitants can pass the time trying to spot the balloons with their faces on as they float about.:)

I suppose we'll have to throw them into space once we've painted them....though I'm not sure what with.....perhaps a giant trebuchet?....their inhabitants can pass the time trying to spot the balloons with their faces on as they float about.:)

I don't think an old eastern block car is going to have enough oomph to get itself and the accompanying load of buildings into orbit.

ooops sorry I thought you said Trabant. :hihi:

I'll get mi coat

I recommend people watch Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

This film is being shown as part of Sheffield is My Planet (http://sheffieldismyplanet.com/programme.php) if anyone wants to see it.

"Man 'responsible for global warming'"

I have seen this headline in many papers and on many websites today.

I hope that you share my relief in hearing this announcement.

The sooner that they identify this man and subject him to the rigours of British Justice, the sooner we can go back to leaving our lights on, driving our cars and claiming back our Passenger Departure Tax!

Hey better than that - I watched a telly prog t'other day about Global Dimming!

No it wasn't about Big Brother audiences (surprisingly) but it was very informative & ironic that it even occurs.

"Man 'responsible for global warming'"

I have seen this headline in many papers and on many websites today.

I hope that you share my relief in hearing this announcement.

The sooner that they identify this man and subject him to the rigours of British Justice, the sooner we can go back to leaving our lights on, driving our cars and claiming back our Passenger Departure Tax!

I bet it's a women trying to blame a man for something that he has never even done.

I knew it would be a man that was responsible :hihi:

[QUOTE=cgksheff;1914760]"Man 'responsible for global warming'"

QUOTE]




Is that not an offensive quote?, I'm a man, and I'm deeply offended in fact I'm suffering from trauma.

Believe me, this is not a victory for the Bigots... !!!

Man is the root of everything... trouble is the woman has to wash it, peel it and stew in in.

Man is the root of everything... trouble is the woman has to wash it, peel it and stew in in.

So why is it so difficult to swallow? :mrgreen:

cgksheff
Sat here in fits, great post.

So why is it so difficult to swallow? :mrgreen:

Depends on who you are married to .:D

We wouldn't be discussing the same poor bloke who is knocked down somewhere in the country every 15 seconds would we?

I hope they sort him out.

A superdooperstarshiptrouperASBO.

Or a stint in an Open Prison.

(Hold the back page: Council Tax will be going up soon. Make some room for the can't-pay grannies....and me.)

Does anyone else get frustrated or annoyed with people who say that if the weather is slightly different, its down to Global Warming?

Take today for example, its snowed. Im sure some people have said 'must be global warming' No its called Winter. Same goes for hotter than usual days (well not the snow obviously)

Does anyone else get frustrated or annoyed with people who say that if the weather is slightly different, its down to Global Warming?

Take today for example, its snowed. Im sure some people have said 'must be global warming' No its called Winter. Same goes for hotter than usual days (well not the snow obviously)

I get annoyed with people who think global warming's a load of rubbish just because of an occassional cold snap. This winter has not been 'slightly different', it's been record breakingly warm. It's still cold at the poles but the ice caps are melting at an alarming rate.

I have not heard anybody connect the snow to global warming. Who has said this?

Not all unusual weather is due to global warming. There have always been weather anomolies, however, the general trend is that things are getting warmer, we cannot deny it & must do something about it.

Global warming is the new "buzz" word

we're all guna die, fair enough we might be getting hotter, however is this global warming or a natural cycle. how did we get out of the last ice age? (cavemen weren't driving v8s were they)

but anyway scientist can't agree, but government will tax anyway

but anyway scientist can't agree, but government will tax anyway

Not true. The evidence is overwhelming and the scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced. People pick out one or two nay-sayers but they are a tiny minority.

The government wouldn't bring in green taxes if the majority of people actually chose to conserve energy and took responsibility for their lifestyle choices. But they don't.

Does anyone else get frustrated or annoyed with people who say that if the weather is slightly different, its down to Global Warming?

Take today for example, its snowed. Im sure some people have said 'must be global warming' No its called Winter. Same goes for hotter than usual days (well not the snow obviously)

I know what you mean!! Bugs the hell out of me :rolleyes:

Not true. The evidence is overwhelming and the scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced. People pick out one or two nay-sayers but they are a tiny minority.

The government wouldn't bring in green taxes if the majority of people actually chose to conserve energy and took responsibility for their lifestyle choices. But they don't.

er yeah it is true

why dnt the government introduce cheap alternatives, tax the multi nationals and not the consumer.

talk with the worlds biggest polluters? they'll not do that they'll fall on the easy way out encouraging people by using tax that will fall into the black hole money pit that is this government and not bother putting the green taxes towards green things

I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet.

I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet.

Roll on food shortages, flooded countries, masses of sun related cancers, animal extintion and the disruption of the food chain. Lets mess with the fine balance of nature and really f**k the world up good and proper.

Ahhhh....I've completely mis understood the title of this thread...I'll get my coat..........

I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet.

If the gulf stream changes course, our local climate will actually be on a par with Scandinavia.

If the gulf stream changes course, our local climate will actually be on a par with Scandinavia.

Oh well, you can't win 'em all.

er yeah it is true

why dnt the government introduce cheap alternatives, tax the multi nationals and not the consumer.

talk with the worlds biggest polluters? they'll not do that they'll fall on the easy way out encouraging people by using tax that will fall into the black hole money pit that is this government and not bother putting the green taxes towards green things
A number of points, first of all most of the 'green tax' proposals put forward by the major parties involve moving from conventional to green taxation not adding green taxes on top of what we already have so the overall burden of taxation should remain about the same.

Secondly government measures are affecting both business & consumers, climate change is caused by overall human activity not just that of one narrow sector. Consequently we all need to change our behaviour we can't just pass it on to 'big business'.

Thirdly what 'cheap alternatives' are these? Don't you think that if there was a 'cheap alternative' to fossil fuels we'd already be using them?

So, the "Islington Set" have found a new way to terrorise us into paying more for everything!. What's new about that!

How nice it must be to "plant a tree" to offset thousands upon thousands of air miles to visit the holiday spots of choice, get a free holiday in Florida, courtesy of the Bee Gees, cycle to work in the House of Commons with a taxpayer's limousine following behind with a shirt and tie in it, do a tour of the USA to pick up an Award for "Green" policies combined with a few "made up" "official" meetings.....................etc, etc, etc

You are suckers for believing the hype........

Today......£250 to take a second suitcase onto a long haul flight! £125 to do the same on a short haul flight....go on then......pay, if you're daft enough. :hihi:

You'll believe anything........and continue to pay for it!

signed............someone with more sense than to believe it!

I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet.
You're trolling right? Just incase you aren't trolling and really as ill-informed as your post makes out climate change will not simply mean that the world will just get a few degrees warmer with everything else staying the same.

Climate change will lead to big changes in weather patterns which will likely lead to increased droughts in some areas and increased flooding in others, climate change could stop the gulf stream meaning that we get not 'short mild winters' but Scandinavian winters in the UK. As for your 'tropical planet' are you not aware that climate change will in all likelihood lead to more frequent and increasingly severe tropical storms?

ul find that they re introducing taes on all cars that are "un" green. i for one dnt want sum crud hybrid that costs 18k. the services suchas buses are overpriced, cramped, unreliable and every bus i follow is pumping out black plumes of smog. same goes with trains

-road taxation "black boxes"that wont dent the economy and force haulage firms off the road spreading costs on to the consumers?

same with airlines and air haulage

-kill the motor industry as people can't afford to run motor cycles and cars etc

-nomore sunday drives etc- mmmm the price of our so called freedom

the green policies mentioned are unrealistic and will cripple this country and prob dent our freedoms too making travel a thing for the rich

additionally, how bout these house taxes, that put council tax up because double glazing is a luxery item, but they put your council tax up if you dn't because ur ungreen- great

:loopy: [QUOTE=Corr_Blimey;1933034]I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet

what planet are you on?????
dont you want your childrens children to have a decent life .
people like you want re educating.
try watching the the film by al gore
;an inconvenient truth;
it might open your eyes and yiur brain.

that film is so bias i'd swear that michael moore had somthing to do with it

forgive my ignorance but isn't el nino due to happen again very soon which may have something to do with the erratic weather?

i'm not saying thats the sole cause before people dive on me and beat me with their little facts and links and argumants

forgive my ignorance but isn't el nino due to happen again very soon which may have something to do with the erratic weather?

i'm not saying thats the sole cause before people dive on me and beat me with their little facts and links and argumants

El nino only affects the weather afterwards, not before.

El nino only affects the weather afterwards, not before.i stand corrected

2000 of the worlds top scientists on the subject agree that man's activities are causing the global climate to change.
So because we have a bit of snow does this mean to you that they are wrong.

Article here (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2208257.ece)

i do have one question.

are the predictions the worst case scenario?

since theres no way of accurately predicting the global weather patterns all the research really is is guesses of varying degrees of accuracy using the data available, evidence, computer simulations and using what we know of weather patterns before.

actually i have another question. is there any evidence which shows how much of global warming is down to people and how much is due to natural weather patterns?

Global warming is the new "buzz" word

we're all guna die, fair enough we might be getting hotter, however is this global warming or a natural cycle. how did we get out of the last ice age? (cavemen weren't driving v8s were they)

but anyway scientist can't agree, but government will tax anyway

Again read this link (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2208257.ece)

:loopy: [QUOTE=Corr_Blimey;1933034]I welcome global warning. Who wouldn't want warmer summers and shorter more mild winters? Sure a few ice caps might melt and several low lying country's might dissappear but it's not like people haven't had ample warning to move. Polar bears will climatise eventually, as will penguins so all in all I say roll on a more tropical planet

what planet are you on?????
dont you want your childrens children to have a decent life .
people like you want re educating.
try watching the the film by al gore
;an inconvenient truth;
it might open your eyes and yiur brain.

Oh get over yourself. If you didn't take what I said as the joke that was intended, you either have no sense of humour or probably hug trees for a living.

Can anything we do in a nation the size of Britain really effect “Global Warming”, will what we do influence American policy?

Can we say to developing nations like China, you can’t have cars, central heating/air conditioning, fridges or any of the other things we take for granted in Europe?

Are people prepared to get out of their car and walk/ cycle to work or go to the East coast on holiday instead of the Med, I don’t think so, there are plenty of noble words being spoken but it’s a case of NIMBY.

Not true. The evidence is overwhelming and the scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced. People pick out one or two nay-sayers but they are a tiny minority.

The government wouldn't bring in green taxes if the majority of people actually chose to conserve energy and took responsibility for their lifestyle choices. But they don't.

Purdyamos I agree with you completely.

Can anything we do in a nation the size of Britain really effect “Global Warming”, will what we do influence American policy?

Can we say to developing nations like China, you can’t have cars, central heating/air conditioning, fridges or any of the other things we take for granted in Europe?



No we can't tell developing nations to not do what we have been doing for the past 100 years. Yes a country the size of ours can effect " Global Warming ". For the size of our "Small Country" we have a high population. A large population that feels it's their right to consume as much as they can and burn as many fossil fuels as we wish.

For the size of our "Small Country" we have a high population. .

Our population is small when compared to America and even smaller when compared to China; the powers that be say that in the near future China will overtake America when it comes to consumerism.

I think any effect we can make will be dwarfed by China alone and that’s not considering other developing nations like Pakistan, India or Korea.

Our population is small when compared to America and even smaller when compared to China; the powers that be say that in the near future China will overtake America when it comes to consumerism.

I think any effect we can make will be dwarfed by China alone and that’s not considering other developing nations like Pakistan, India or Korea.

You're absolutely right if India, China and even Africa start living by the greedy standards we have set over the past 40 years then our children and grandchildren aren't going to inherit much of a place from us. But hey we'll be long gone.

Who here is doing their bit?

Anyone replaced normal bulbs with low energy ones?

Who turns off their computer rather than leaving it on 24 * 7?

Anyone tried to not use the car now and then?

Global warming is here and will continue coming. I don't think there's much we can do now - but we can at least give it a try.


G

Does anyone else get frustrated or annoyed with people who say that if the weather is slightly different, its down to Global Warming?

Take today for example, its snowed. Im sure some people have said 'must be global warming' No its called Winter. Same goes for hotter than usual days (well not the snow obviously)

last night a cup fell from the top shelf onto my temple on my head causeing quite a bump, i wondered if this falling could be blamed on global warmong too... ???:rolleyes:

google evidence against global warming, oh look theres lots of phd's on there too

i do have one question.

are the predictions the worst case scenario?

since theres no way of accurately predicting the global weather patterns all the research really is is guesses of varying degrees of accuracy using the data available, evidence, computer simulations and using what we know of weather patterns before.

actually i have another question. is there any evidence which shows how much of global warming is down to people and how much is due to natural weather patterns?take it nobody knows then?

google evidence against global warming, oh look theres lots of phd's on there too

Yes and they're in a minority. The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that climate change is real and that mankind is having a major impact upon it.

no there not in the minority, eg the whole of the canadaian universities seem to think that its a cycle the earth is going through

and in fact dnt u think its a bit hypocritical, preaching about global warming on a computer which uses energy generated by coal fired power stations?

and in fact dnt u think its a bit hypocritical, preaching about global warming on a computer which uses energy generated by coal fired power stations?

a) I'm not preaching
b) How do you know where my energy comes from?

i dnt see no wind turbines in hillsborough. and unless uve got a reactor in ur garage ur using the national grid, power from this area comes from coal fired stations

i dnt see no wind turbines in hillsborough. and unless uve got a reactor in ur garage ur using the national grid, power from this area comes from coal fired stations

What of it?

i dnt see no wind turbines in hillsborough. and unless uve got a reactor in ur garage ur using the national grid, power from this area comes from coal fired stations

Have you not heard of green energy suppliers (http://www.energylinx.co.uk/green_energy.htm)

One major volcanic eruption can affect the worlds weather how will you stop that happening.

Climate change has become the latest cause celebre of the hectoring classes (and how they love to hector).

Climate change has become the latest cause celebre of the hectoring classes (and how they love to hector).

Indeed. Climate change exists, but then it always has. That's the point of the climate - it changes continually and would continue to do so even if mankind were wiped from the planet.

When you see one of these hysterical documentaries about how we're all going to die 'cause of global warming, listen carefully to the verb used; you'll find that the 'experts' are describing what "could" happen, rather than what "will" happen. Because sensationalism sells more than boring facts, the predictions will be wildly distorted. I saw one recently where the global warming obsessives had roped in a clearly-confused David Attenborough to give creedence to their wild predictions.

In our lifetimes, chances are the only effects of climate change will be an almost-imperceptable increase in average temperature of about a degree or so. As for what happens to your children or grandchildren, if it worries you that much, don't have kids! If the world wasn't so overpopulated we wouldn't need to burn so much fuel!

In our lifetimes, chances are the only effects of climate change will be an almost-imperceptable increase in average temperature of about a degree or so. As for what happens to your children or grandchildren, if it worries you that much, don't have kids! If the world wasn't so overpopulated we wouldn't need to burn so much fuel!

Ah, but I'd have to take issue with your 'almost - imperceptible' increase in average temperature - the changes in our climate are clearly noticeable now. The seasons are much less well - defined than they were and winter has become a total non-event. I had roses in bloom a couple of weeks ago. That certainly didn't happen in January when I was a child.

sorry just returned from giving the car a thrash as "we re all going to die" thort i best do it while ive still got the chance

I saw one recently where the global warming obsessives had roped in a clearly-confused David Attenborough to give creedence to their wild predictions.





Actually, Basil, you couldn't be more wrong. Far from being 'clearly-confused', David Attenborough has resisted joining in the debate on climate change for years, refusing to comment until the weight of evidence became overwhelming and pretty much irrefutable. The fact that he finally chose to use his authority and reputation to add his voice to the cause is in fact the very opposite of 'sensationalism'.

Actually, Basil, you couldn't be more wrong. Far from being 'clearly-confused', David Attenborough has resisted joining in the debate on climate change for years, refusing to comment until the weight of evidence became overwhelming and pretty much irrefutable. The fact that he finally chose to use his authority and reputation to add his voice to the cause is in fact the very opposite of 'sensationalism'.

Absolutely, purdyamos, well pointed out. Attenborough's no fool, he knows his stuff.

Strangely, the one thing which is not linked to global warming in current discussion of the issue is population growth. This is particularly odd, because it is the one variable which, directly and indirectly, is probably most responsible for global warming. I remember attending an environmental conference some years ago in Germany at which a professor gave a talk in which he said that even if the world's population consumed virtually nothing in the form of material goods, they would still affect the global environment simply by breathing.

We know of course that the six billion plus people on the planet do have material needs for consumer goods etc. The same of course is true of the UK population. I think a concerted effort to reduce the world's population through inducements to reduce the number of births would probably have far more effect on the problem than wind farms, solar panels or emissions trading etc. However, the reverse appears to be happening. The population of the world, and the population of the UK, are both growing, the latter through policies of neglect or even of encouragement on the part of the UK government.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Please read and then pass your comments are we all being fooled the very fact that this is in a scentific magazine does it mean they may not be wrong

is this the reason USA never signed the kyoto treaty was there intelligence correct on this

This guy used to edit New Scientist? ...at what point did he completely lose all understanding of how science works?

I read the same article over the weekend....same source. :)

The scientist doing this work has been studying the effect of cloud formation with respect to radiation from outer space for quite some time.

On the other hand, politicians everywhere have been studying how best to scare folks into new forms of revenue extraction from Joe Public and how best to justify more and more behaviour control over the way we live. :)

I bet if this chap is right, and the jury is out on this one at the moment, he'll have one hell of a job to get a hearing in the Halls Of Political Self Servers/Control Freaks and lobbyists with something to gain from their activities. :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Please read and then pass your comments are we all being fooled the very fact that this is in a scentific magazine does it mean they may not be wrong



Actually this article was brought up already by LordChaverly in the main climate change thread here:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1943431#post1943431

I have already posted my thoughts in the main thread but I have copied it below anyway.:

The author may not be in the pay of the oil companies but he IS promoting his new book!!

"Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

For one that has only a "theory" about climate change he is very quick to dismiss others. His 90% comment about Nuclear Fission is hardly relevant, the US administration was 100% certain that Saddam had WMDs... so what?:suspect:

His 90% comment about Nuclear Fission is hardly relevant, the US administration was 100% certain that Saddam had WMDs... so what?:suspect:

And we were persuaded by both the American administration and Mr. Blair that the prospect of Iraq having WMD's was also a 100% certaincy! :)

This despite the experts on the ground in Iraq (the U.N Weapons Inspectors) being sceptical about the situation!

I refer you all to my previous post above! :)

And we were persuaded by both the American administration and Mr. Blair that the prospect of Iraq having WMD's was also a 100% certaincy! :)

This despite the experts on the ground in Iraq (the U.N Weapons Inspectors) being sceptical about the situation!

I refer you all to my previous post above! :)

That's really my point, just because the concensus gets it wrong occassionally, that doesn't mean that just because there is a concensus it must be wrong then, and it certainly is not a good enough argument on which to base his own hypothesis.
Calder is making out that those who believe in human indused climate change all have hidden political agendas, some may but some certainly won't.
And don't forget Calder has a hidden agenda of his own in this article,he is promoting his own book, even going so far as to let us know who the publishers are!
My argument is if this guy really does have such a credible alternative theory then why can't he just pulblish a free paper or make it freely available freely to everyone online instead of charging people to buy his book.
Seems to me, Calder is as guilty as the those he accuses, in lining his own pocket whilst this climate change debate still has milage.:suspect:

It's impossible to identify isolated incidents as part of global warming, and I suspect that wet and windy weather (even very windy like at the moment) is actually fairly normal for the UK in January.

Oh for goodness sake...No one is saying that because this year has been wet, windy, sunny, particularly hot etc that this is evidence for climate change. It is based on several thousands of independent scientists who have spent their entire careers researching the subject. The subject is extremely complicated and we have to trust the scientists on this one. Read the IPCC report. Scientists will never say we have definitely caused climate change because this is the nature of rigorous science. It really can't be proven but if they say they are 90% sure then this translates as 'it's down to us'. If you aren't prepared to do anything about it then that's your decision but don't put unscientific rubbish like this for other people to get exasperated at.:rant:

Oh for goodness sake...No one is saying that because this year has been wet, windy, sunny, particularly hot etc that this is evidence for climate change. It is based on several thousands of independent scientists who have spent their entire careers researching the subject. The subject is extremely complicated and we have to trust the scientists on this one. Read the IPCC report. Scientists will never say we have definitely caused climate change because this is the nature of rigorous science. It really can't be proven but if they say they are 90% sure then this translates as 'it's down to us'. If you aren't prepared to do anything about it then that's your decision but don't put unscientific rubbish like this for other people to get exasperated at.:rant:ll bet he forgott


The highly qualified scientists said in 1952 that the UK coal supplies would only last for 20 more years. The research scientists using complicated research said in 1972 that there was 25 years supply of oil in the world.
If anyone can point to any scientific predictions that have stood the test of time please let me know. Science is not wisdom. Predictive science is based on current trend mathematical models, sometimes they forget to things like all the steam trains were relaced by diesels, or the known oil reserves double in quantity. In the global warming model I will wager they have forgotten some changing dependancy, since some scientist was proposing to send devices into space to shield the earth from the sun, I will wager that he had forgotten the effects that the increase in cloud cover will have, and there will be may more yet unknown effect that will redress the balance.
Just don't worry about a thing.

Thanks,

I'm much reassured now.

To be honest Low Carbon I agree with TonyRevitt.
The reason why this is getting so much publicity is (IMO) because it give the Govt an easy way to tax us. Look at Gordon Brown, recently increased airport tax labelling Climate Change as a reason why. But will it really prevent anyone from flying? No. Its just another way to squeeze more money out of us. Perhaps if there were more positive measures being implemented (Better, cheaper public transport, more investment in renewable energy sources, cheaper Hybrid cars (perhaps the govt could help us to afford one,) as opposed to more negative measures (TAX TAX TAX) I'd take it more seriously.

To be honest Low Carbon I agree with TonyRevitt.
The reason why this is getting so much publicity is (IMO) because it give the Govt an easy way to tax us. Look at Gordon Brown, recently increased airport tax labelling Climate Change as a reason why. But will it really prevent anyone from flying? No. Its just another way to squeeze more money out of us. Perhaps if there were more positive measures being implemented (Better, cheaper public transport, more investment in renewable energy sources, cheaper Hybrid cars (perhaps the govt could help us to afford one,) as opposed to more negative measures (TAX TAX TAX) I'd take it more seriously.

this might sound selfish, but the more i am taxed on 'enviromental issues', the less likly i am to stop polluting - why should i, im paying for it?!

I use the buses everywhere and dont own a car and I cant drive. I do intend to learn how to drive but affording a car at the moment is a bit of a tricky one.

Lets look at it this way! All these experts telling us that gw is getting worse it just a waste of time because people wont listen untill its too late. People attitudes nowadays as someone else said are really selfish and dont care about what they are doing to the world.

The only way that something is going to get done is the government imposing some king of bill to be passed where there should be no more than one car per household etc. Obviously people rely on more that one car per household so maybe then its up to the government to do something about this. This is only one of my ideas and untill something like this happens people wont do anything about it. In my view its the way of the world.

Personally Im as bad as all the rest as If I had a car I would use it to go to work rather than getting wet.

There is much debate and research showing that there is Global warming on Mars, a report below shows "Mars is coming out of an ice age".

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FINAL FRONTIER
Global warming on Mars – without SUVs!
Planet experiencing increased temperatures despite lack of humankind

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


© WorldNetDaily.com

Though not subject to pollutants of human habitation, Mars appears to be undergoing global warming, with new data suggesting the planet is possibly emerging from an ice age.

According to a report in Space.com, NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter has spotted seasonal changes, such as the advance and retreat of polar ice, but it also is gathering information pointing to long-term trends.


Is NASA rover to blame for global warming on Mars?


William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory tells the site the current climate conditions, including too much frozen water at low-latitude regions, suggests something is out of equilibrium on Mars.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman told Space.com. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."

So is this suppose to suggest that man has nothing to do with Global warming? Scientists already accept that planet Earth has experienced global warming before, even those that believe in manmade global warming think that solar activity is probably the cause of previous global warming, before man began to burn fossil fuels. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the current global warming here on Earth is solely caused by the sun and man has had no influence as some have argued. Like the vast, vast majority of people who hold an opinion on this subject, I am no expert in climatology of the Earth, but from what I have read the solar activity theory doesn't explain the current rise in temperature, as no significant increase in solar activity has occurred in the last 30 years.
I've heard some references to not only Mars warming but also Saturn and Titan. Although I think it's a little fool hardy to try and explain what's happening on other planets when it's quite clear that Man barely understands what's actually happening here on Earth!:loopy:

Well, it seems the jury's still out on all this.........

BBC today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm)

Sorry... a bit off-topic.....the link refers to Earth, not Mars etc. :)

LOL @ Is NASA rover to blame for global warming on Mars?

think it takes more than one lunar rover tbh

think thats a lame attempt to make out humans DONT cause global warming....obviously it happens naturally cos the earths come out of an ice age before and the hot / cold places have changed, HOWEVER i do believe we dont help, and may help bring on global warming unnaturally

Well, it seems the jury's still out on all this.........

BBC today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm)

Sorry... a bit off-topic.....the link refers to Earth, not Mars etc. :)

Well I'm not sure if this is anything new, quite a few people probably think that the effects of Global Warming might not be as catastrophic as has been claimed, but few argue that we are going through a period of climate change man made or otherwise nonetheless, and it's how mankind will be able to adapt and cope with any warming that seems to be the real issue here.

LOL @ Is NASA rover to blame for global warming on Mars?

think it takes more than one lunar rover tbh



I happen to agree with you melthebell, but I think the comment about the NASA rover was a rather weak attempt at sarcasm.

It seems there is some confusion between normal planetary climate change - which happens very slowly - and human inuced climate change (a.k.a. global warming) - which has happened very quickly. Using climate changeon Mars doesn't prove that we aren't to blame for it here.

The last IPCC report claimed there is over a 95% chance that humans are responsible for the change in climate. Those people know their ****.

How long are some people going to make snarky comments and bury their heads in the sand for?

How long are some people going to make snarky comments and bury their heads in the sand for?
till it goes away or we all die horribly

whichever happens soonest, lol

till it goes away or we all die horribly

whichever happens soonest, lol

What's happened to thi' coyt Mel.......has tha' left it somewheer' ??

'appen thar't last of the NASA rovers........................