pistonbroke Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 So all we need do is mount a ruddy great mirror on top of every car to reflect the suns heat back into space Problem solved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SADDLEWORTH Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 Just looked out the window ..... A star in the east ........ must be an omen Stop drinking that tizer bernie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 It`s all your fault Paul, you started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SADDLEWORTH Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 It`s all your fault Paul, you started it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 ghtwscc - Thank you for your posting, it is a pity that there are not more around with your reasoned approach to this subject. I sometimes call what is happening now, the King and his magic suit of clothes syndrome. For those of us less well advanced in years, who might not know the story, it was based on a King who encountered a charlatan who managed to convince the king that he could (at great expense) make the King a magic suit of clothes. which in fact did not exist, but which only `clever' people (including the King of course) could see. So the King goes around stark b*llock naked, and all the `clever' people not wishing to appear stupid, jumped on the band wagon and told the King how wonderful his magic suit of clothes looked! all that is ,untill a small boy who did not know the background to the story pointed out that in fact the King was Stark b*llock naked. The channel 4 programme was that little boy. Too many people who have not even bothered to look at the Earths climatic history, to gain context, have jumped on the eco band wagon. helped by vested interests on both sides of the argument, not least those who winced every time a block was knocked out of the Berlin wall. As Geelhoed points out we must NOT just take on and believe the garbage we are being fed, by politicians and the media and certain other groups with vested interests. but do a bit of thinking of our own. If the Channel 4 programme (even if imperfect) caused even a few people to do that, it was worth putting on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Although the program started this and many other debates, it's title is too crass. And led many people to believe CO2 is not influencing the climate. It does! It is not the only cause of change but it is a cause and denying that immedeately disqualifies you from being taken seriously! (As does denying solar influences, clouds, etc ) This is what I I'm fighting against and judging on the reactions in the start of the topic this was higly necessary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Geelhoed - I would not argue against the fact that emissions from human sources are having an effect, although I would argue that that effect, is not yet quantified for certain at present. I do get irritated when the ecomentalists carry on about the emissions, but their view appears myopic in that it seems only to land on the things they want it to, completely ignoring, or worse still arguing aginst other elements of the issue which also have a bearing, but which dont fit their agenda. As posted elswhere they are like firemen who having arrived at a fire want to flap away at the smoke, but completely ignore the fire which creates the smoke in the first place. If as some believe the probelm IS being caused by emissions from human sources, why do they not see the problem posed by a human population which is rising at an unprecedented rate (the real hockey stick graph), but which has already caused the destruction of habitat and species like never before. If the problems caused now are considered to be bad, what will they be like when the population has risen to 9.6 billion as predicted by 2050? Even if everyone saves whatever they can the outlook can only be that things will be worse rather than better than they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Taxing children is the obvious next step! That'll get the population down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelcoombs Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Taxing children is the obvious next step! That'll get the population down! Now there is a tax i would support! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Some would say that (Quite truthfully) that children are expensive enough as they are at the moment, But I guess that taxes which take in the environmental aspect of producing kids might be brought in. Unfortunately when one has a child one is also responsible for all the resource use and resulting emissions that the child in question then goes on to generate in `their' lifetime (they could turn out to be speed freaks like us! who want to burn hydros at max rate!). But as pointed out with regard to the road pricing issue, the net result of this, may be that only the rich will be able to afford to drive or have kids! and that doesnt sound right either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wood Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE Now there is a tax i would support! Bl**dy right. It could be based on behaviour too. That'd make the parents think twice before bringing up a kid to be a little scroat! Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 But as pointed out with regard to the road pricing issue, the net result of this, may be that only the rich will be able to afford to drive or have kids! and that doesnt sound right either. That would be completely Darwinian, If you are smart (or lucky) enough to be rich you must have good survival skills and therefor should have an advantage in the genepool. The same is happening in the world now. The rich countries will survive a global climate catastrophy, but poorer countries will see their population decimated. Does that sound right? The bishop of Bergtesgarten ehhhhhhhh the Pope could help a bit by allowing preservatives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 History and evolution seems to show that whatever species has an `edge' be it tooth, claw or technology, the `slightly ?' more advanced is usually the one which survives best. If we could bring someone back from tudor times, they would be gob smacked at what we can do. Now.... if a species comes in from outer space, the bottom line would be that if they reach us, before we manage to recah them. We will be the one`s that get st*ffed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Since we havent found any radio signals in the close vicinity (50 light years) of earth I sincerely doubt that there is a civilisation that can build enough spaceships to reach us and wipe out a whole planet. At least in my and my great great grandsons lifetime! We'll all be dead from GW before they reach us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Since we havent found any radio signals in the close vicinity (50 light years) of earth I sincerely doubt that there is a civilisation that can build enough spaceships to reach us and wipe out a whole planet. At least in my and my great great grandsons lifetime! We'll all be dead from GW before they reach us! Aren't you making a big assumption in that there would be radio signals? Scientists of the past wouldn't have received our radio signals because they didn't understand radio. We cannot receive 'their' sub-ether hypermagnetic signals 'cos we don't understand sub-ether hypermagnetic signalling. In 'their' world radio might be "so last millenium, darling". How much time do we spend looking for semaphore signals? None, because we don't believe anyone uses semaphore anymore. Thus is might be with the Little Green Men from Beteljuse, or wherever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.