Pete, check the New Jersey shore in the summer. Thousands of 'em, mostly in floral print one-piece suits!:uhoh2:
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete, check the New Jersey shore in the summer. Thousands of 'em, mostly in floral print one-piece suits!:uhoh2:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::thumbsup:
Right there with you Pete - especially when they could be going after the whale exploders! YouTube - The Exploding Whale
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
<BOD>LONDON: British public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading poll has found.
The proportion of British adults who believe climate change is ''definitely'' a reality has dropped from 44 per cent to 31 per cent in the past year, according to the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.
Overall, about nine in 10 people questioned still appear to accept that some degree of global warming is happening.
But the steep drop in those who have no doubts may mean it will be harder to persuade the public to support action to curb the problem, particularly with higher prices for energy and other goods.
The poll also found a significant drop in those who said climate change was caused by human activities. A year ago this number was one in three, but this year just one in five people believed global warming to be caused by people, according to Edward Langley, Ipsos Mori's head of environment research.
''It's going to be a hard sell to make people make changes to their behaviour unless there's something else in it for them - [such as] energy efficiency measures saving money on fuel bills,'' Mr Langley said.
The latest poll, taken at the end of January, follows two months of allegations which claimed climate scientists might have manipulated and withheld data, and the inclusion of a flawed statement on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report on climate change by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, a recent poll for the BBC suggested these events had had less influence than had the cold winter.
The poll questioned more than 1000 people: 31 per cent said climate change was definitely happening, 29 per cent said ''it's looking like it could be a reality'', and 31 per cent said the problem was exaggerated, a category that had risen by half.
The proportion of British adults who believe climate change is ''definitely'' a reality has dropped from 44 per cent to 31 per cent in the past year, according to the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.
Overall, about nine in 10 people questioned still appear to accept that some degree of global warming is happening.
But the steep drop in those who have no doubts may mean it will be harder to persuade the public to support action to curb the problem, particularly with higher prices for energy and other goods.
The poll also found a significant drop in those who said climate change was caused by human activities. A year ago this number was one in three, but this year just one in five people believed global warming to be caused by people, according to Edward Langley, Ipsos Mori's head of environment research.
''It's going to be a hard sell to make people make changes to their behaviour unless there's something else in it for them - [such as] energy efficiency measures saving money on fuel bills,'' Mr Langley said.
The latest poll, taken at the end of January, follows two months of allegations which claimed climate scientists might have manipulated and withheld data, and the inclusion of a flawed statement on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report on climate change by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, a recent poll for the BBC suggested these events had had less influence than had the cold winter.
The poll questioned more than 1000 people: 31 per cent said climate change was definitely happening, 29 per cent said ''it's looking like it could be a reality'', and 31 per cent said the problem was exaggerated, a category that had risen by half.
the web of deceit is slowly becomeing untangled
German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return.
read more here Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle ? The Register
German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return.
read more here Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle ? The Register
Thanks for sharing this mate, couldn't be any better, and it's actually quite conclusive in the end.
It's just so unfortunate that "belief" and "faith" are tought to us by family and society as good things. This is why so many of us get involved and active in stuff they have no clue about. Believing something means making a virtue out of not thinking.
It's a huge stupidity that we let down nuclear power - there will be a rebirth, the question is just how long it will take for society to become mature enough.
My personal hypothesis for this development is the decreasing interest in maths, science and engineering in many of the (falling) western countries. Society doesn't understand that this is what made it to what it is now (or was). It's the people's own fault, and a logical outcome when they send their smartest kids to lawschool instead of making them building the future. I'm a science student and am living in Australia at the moment - 90% of my fellow students are from India, China and related (booming) Asian countries. (Un)fortunately, there's enough iron ore and coal here in Australia to be exported, helping to keep the status quo.
Germany by the way installed 6 Gigawatts of electric solar power (mostly photovoltaic) in just the last year - that's as much as 2 to 3 nuclear power plants supply, with the difference that they would have taken about 20 to 30 years to build. No matter how big the fuck up is, there's a technical solution to it!
Did Gore get his nobel for global warming? That makes two that got the nobel for nothing!
Stefan,
I saw in Italian TV a program on electric solar power. They noted that a (if I remember correctly) a 20 x 20 km grid in the Libyian desert could power all of Europe or all of the world. I don't remember, but in either case, all of Europe would be phenomonal.
With Libya or any country in that part of the world, political stablity is an issue. But in Oz or the USA, we have plenty of open space where similar systems can be established. if Germany built 6 Gig of output, and did it quicklyl, it only makes sense to give it a try. I am astounded that our politicians are not saying anything.
Al, they actually got a nobel for something, BS !!!
I saw in Italian TV a program on electric solar power. They noted that a (if I remember correctly) a 20 x 20 km grid in the Libyian desert could power all of Europe or all of the world. I don't remember, but in either case, all of Europe would be phenomonal.
With Libya or any country in that part of the world, political stablity is an issue. But in Oz or the USA, we have plenty of open space where similar systems can be established. if Germany built 6 Gig of output, and did it quicklyl, it only makes sense to give it a try. I am astounded that our politicians are not saying anything.
Al, they actually got a nobel for something, BS !!!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks mate, I like that quote "believing makes a virtue out of not thinking". Well said.
They are already on their way. A megaproject to source most of the electricity in Europe from solar power.
DESERTEC Foundation: Start
DESERTEC Foundation: Start
Exactly how many feel about religion...
Please... are you suggesting anyone who thinks or thought that there was reason for concern about climate change due in part to that data is an idiot? Many people "believed" that the data was a hell of a lot better than data they themselves may have had (most likely none). There's a difference between heeding the words of an expert and drawing your own conclusion, and blindly following someone. It's not like mankind has no history of screwing the environment up.
Many scientists did not come out with the plain truth, which is that they simply can't say whether it's solar activity or human made CO2, or any other reason, etc. The reason for that might have been their associated funding which would have been taken away if they would have been upright. No one wants to fund your research if you, in the end, can't give definite answers. If you sell the story right, and you make people believe that tomorrow is the end of the world and you are trying to change this, then you will elevate yourself to the "god" status. This is called religion and this is our #1 problem in this society. We'll have to fix this up first. It's not global warming we have to deal with today.
We've definitely made history concerning environmental pollution. What comes to mind here is the
"Blacksmith Institute's list of the world's most polluted places".
Not to mention the
"concrete lake"
with the potential of polluting half the globe in case of leakage into the Arctic.
Man is not mature yet to get all this under control - the whole principle of having different countries with all their different rules for instance is so childish: I'm born here so that's mine and you are born there so that's yours, deal with it. If we don't give up on things like Patriotism, we're not gonna go anywhere. Patriotism is my favourite, feeling great for something which was nothing but arbitrary: birth in a particular place somewhere in the universe. When we talk about patriots, we talk about cavemen who haven't realised yet that it wasn't their action, that changed the weather to good. And then we still have our Kings and Queens, the heads of the state, as we had them thousand years ago. You can still inherit, the whole principle of heritage is so ridiculous that I can't express in words how degenerative and contra-evolutionary I feel when I look at life on planet earth. If we would randomly meet people from all around the world, we couldn't talk to 9 out of 10 of them, due to the fact that we wouldn't even speak the same language, LOL! We're living in the stone age, most people don't even ever move out of the city they were born in (!), half the globe is fighting and killing because their parents told them "don't think, don't ever use your brains" - I wish I was smart enough to build a time machine and leave this place for a few thousand years...,
A time machine - there's no reason why we couldn't build one. Einstein has given us the blueprints two generations ago. If we had a rocket which, after taking off, would constantly accelerate with 1g, we would be close to the speed of light after just about 1 year. If we'd continue flying for 4 more years, then turn the spaceship by 180 degrees and fire the engines up for another 10 years, we'd be on our way back to planet earth (again, with a speed close to the speed of light), now we'd have to turn around the spacecraft once more and fire it up for 5 more years to slow it down and softly land on earth. That's 20 years in the spacecraft, by the time we'd get back, we'd just be 20 years older, but due to time dilation, life on planet earth would be about 340 years older. Such a spaceship is something we could build, if we wanted to build it, just as we wanted build Saturn 5 to set foot on earth's moon. But we don't want to do things like this, we want to fuck over others, pull as much money in as possible and measure ourselves by how much we have materialised in our lives... what a great purpose of life that is! We're a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, not old enough yet to eat or shit by ourselves.
We've definitely made history concerning environmental pollution. What comes to mind here is the
"Blacksmith Institute's list of the world's most polluted places".
Not to mention the
"concrete lake"
with the potential of polluting half the globe in case of leakage into the Arctic.
Man is not mature yet to get all this under control - the whole principle of having different countries with all their different rules for instance is so childish: I'm born here so that's mine and you are born there so that's yours, deal with it. If we don't give up on things like Patriotism, we're not gonna go anywhere. Patriotism is my favourite, feeling great for something which was nothing but arbitrary: birth in a particular place somewhere in the universe. When we talk about patriots, we talk about cavemen who haven't realised yet that it wasn't their action, that changed the weather to good. And then we still have our Kings and Queens, the heads of the state, as we had them thousand years ago. You can still inherit, the whole principle of heritage is so ridiculous that I can't express in words how degenerative and contra-evolutionary I feel when I look at life on planet earth. If we would randomly meet people from all around the world, we couldn't talk to 9 out of 10 of them, due to the fact that we wouldn't even speak the same language, LOL! We're living in the stone age, most people don't even ever move out of the city they were born in (!), half the globe is fighting and killing because their parents told them "don't think, don't ever use your brains" - I wish I was smart enough to build a time machine and leave this place for a few thousand years...,
A time machine - there's no reason why we couldn't build one. Einstein has given us the blueprints two generations ago. If we had a rocket which, after taking off, would constantly accelerate with 1g, we would be close to the speed of light after just about 1 year. If we'd continue flying for 4 more years, then turn the spaceship by 180 degrees and fire the engines up for another 10 years, we'd be on our way back to planet earth (again, with a speed close to the speed of light), now we'd have to turn around the spacecraft once more and fire it up for 5 more years to slow it down and softly land on earth. That's 20 years in the spacecraft, by the time we'd get back, we'd just be 20 years older, but due to time dilation, life on planet earth would be about 340 years older. Such a spaceship is something we could build, if we wanted to build it, just as we wanted build Saturn 5 to set foot on earth's moon. But we don't want to do things like this, we want to fuck over others, pull as much money in as possible and measure ourselves by how much we have materialised in our lives... what a great purpose of life that is! We're a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox, not old enough yet to eat or shit by ourselves.
Last edited:
It's fine to believe in Global Warming if that works for you, but to subject the world to Cap and Trade to redistribute wealth is BS. Cap and Trade could give a damn about the world, the aim is money, and I don't think that Al Gore thinks about anything but money. His concern about the earth is BS, he has been plotting this for years and has made a lot of money on conjured up fear science. I wonder who put the guys at Anglia up to fudging the info? I wouldn't be surprised if Gore had a finger in that! If he were so concerned, you would think he would reduce his own massive carbon footprint, a monthly electric bill that is more than most people use yearly, and private jet everywhere!
Global warming doesn't "work for me", at least not in the extreme put forth by some - but I do believe that we need to be more careful with how we use energy. My problem is the seemingly outright and total refusal of some to even consider it when they are bashing one side's origin of facts while they receive their own from basically the same pool. Climate change may have become something a bit out of control, but that shouldn't annihilate the whole thing. You guys talk a lot about Gore, which you may very well be right about, but what really gets me thinking is the fact that Bush actually started down this road near the end of his presidency. For a Republican to even talk about spending money on something like this means something else must be going on (a means of making financial deals with other political states.) The over zealous camps always exist.
I agree with you about funding issues, but it's not all bad and sinister like you portray. If no one got any funding and things turned for the worse, then they would blamed for not doing their job.
"Chris, the point the climate change people wanted you to believe is that it is the new religion that would save the world. So, Brisc's comments are pretty much right on with your statement." No - I disagree. The problem is religion is based on FACTLESS faith, whereas science is based on facts which anyone can go out and find for themselves, and here's the really important difference - by doing their own experiment or finding another example of whatever was found. The difference is, science allows new facts to be found and change the current thinking on something (which some love to equate to faith and belief which is another fallacy), religion will never allow that because it is written and written for good. (Well, until King James or someone else comes along but that's yet another topic.) Now, your point is that many people out there WILL see this as "a new religion" and believe whole heartedly until the end.... And you're right. BUT in no way should their irrational actions negate the reality that we should be investigating this and doing what we need to do if indeed something is found. Again, the scientific community for the most part is investigating this rationally and only saying that the changes that may happen will affect things like food supplies and water supplies which is extremely important, by the way. The extremists (typically the non-scientists) are the ones inflating it into the Earth's immediate demise. But then, there are people who are just as extreme reacting to them by saying there is absolutely nothing to worry about and let's go on blindly doing everything we've been doing because it's convenient and they don't want to have to put forth any effort or make any sacrifices.
It's a case of too many people receiving too much information and not knowing what to do with it.
I agree with you about funding issues, but it's not all bad and sinister like you portray. If no one got any funding and things turned for the worse, then they would blamed for not doing their job.
"Chris, the point the climate change people wanted you to believe is that it is the new religion that would save the world. So, Brisc's comments are pretty much right on with your statement." No - I disagree. The problem is religion is based on FACTLESS faith, whereas science is based on facts which anyone can go out and find for themselves, and here's the really important difference - by doing their own experiment or finding another example of whatever was found. The difference is, science allows new facts to be found and change the current thinking on something (which some love to equate to faith and belief which is another fallacy), religion will never allow that because it is written and written for good. (Well, until King James or someone else comes along but that's yet another topic.) Now, your point is that many people out there WILL see this as "a new religion" and believe whole heartedly until the end.... And you're right. BUT in no way should their irrational actions negate the reality that we should be investigating this and doing what we need to do if indeed something is found. Again, the scientific community for the most part is investigating this rationally and only saying that the changes that may happen will affect things like food supplies and water supplies which is extremely important, by the way. The extremists (typically the non-scientists) are the ones inflating it into the Earth's immediate demise. But then, there are people who are just as extreme reacting to them by saying there is absolutely nothing to worry about and let's go on blindly doing everything we've been doing because it's convenient and they don't want to have to put forth any effort or make any sacrifices.
It's a case of too many people receiving too much information and not knowing what to do with it.
No concern. Plotting this for years. Thinking about money. Conjured up fear... boy, sure sounds a lot like Cheney and the Iraq war. Thousands of people died and are still dying because of that... Where was all this energy then when we needed it? :huh:
Chris,
You have been doing fine in discussing your views on global warming/climate change and I am sure that reasonable people can agree with some of your points. But I have to take you to task on getting off subject with regards to Bush/Cheny war mongering. That is a very pointed leftist view and political in natute that does not pertain to the subject being discussed. I have many friends of every political persuasion that I respect and love, but I have seen this regressing to the war bullshit every time someone who leans left in their point of view gets caught in an argument that he thinks he is losing. Whatever your point of view on Bush II, keep the discussion focused on the climate debate and leave the political posturing on other aspects of government actions to another forum or start a new thread.
Garry
You have been doing fine in discussing your views on global warming/climate change and I am sure that reasonable people can agree with some of your points. But I have to take you to task on getting off subject with regards to Bush/Cheny war mongering. That is a very pointed leftist view and political in natute that does not pertain to the subject being discussed. I have many friends of every political persuasion that I respect and love, but I have seen this regressing to the war bullshit every time someone who leans left in their point of view gets caught in an argument that he thinks he is losing. Whatever your point of view on Bush II, keep the discussion focused on the climate debate and leave the political posturing on other aspects of government actions to another forum or start a new thread.
Garry
