geelhoed Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I've noticed the discussion has turned a little away from the arguments. Nobody with a real response to professor Wunsch? Or Martin Durkin's record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Perhaps read also this: http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html taking the 'documentary' apart step by step! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeyboy Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Probably because, like global warming itself, everyone has got bored with listening about it and can't be bothered to trawl the web to post links of boffins who dispute the other boffins claims. Instead they are thinking "I think I'll put my super fast boil 3kW kettle on and create a bit more CO2 from the nice coal fired powerstation" I'd love to see you persuade my friend on this matter, one of his choppers burns around 40 gallons of fuel an hour! I can just see him selling all his choppers to save the planet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I allways find it odd that the those who believe that humans are causing the CURRENT round of global warming, are often those that do not recognise the link to human population levels. Why are we cutting down huge tracts of rain forest to make grazing land for cattle? Why are we depleting fish stocks in the sea to the point of extinction? Last time I looked, car dont run on fish. Why are we flooding huge areas of land to generate hydro electricity? and getting methane from the rotting vegetation which results. Why are we cutting down square miles of forest to set up palm oil plantations? for soap etc. why are clearing huge areas to make space for more and more houses Which emit more C02 than cars. The simple answer is to provide for the needs of a burgeoning population. In the David Attenborough programme State of the Planet. an idiot tried to show David Attenborough the good old hockey stick graph, Strangely he completely forgot to overlay the human population level graph. If you REALLY want to see a real hockey stick graph, THATS the one to go and look at! Makes no difference wether we spend all our days making corn dollies,/contemplating our navels and getting around on pogo sticks there will come a point in time when the Earth cannot sustain the numbers of humans on it. By increasing our population at the rate we currently are all we will do is 1. Bring forward that point in time, ba 2. increase the numbers who will have to face it. If anyone wants to see the ROOT cause of they issue, all they have to do is look into the nearest mirror...... I just did! Soylent Green anyone?............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh another Malthusian! I'll stick to the no-more-kids-than-parents rule. And if those damn Indians would only do the same..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_m Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Perhaps read also this: http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html taking the 'documentary' apart step by step! The problem with Scientists working in this field is that so much cash has been thrown at them that they have little choice but to agree with the racket. How do you know which ones are honest and telling the truth ? Anyway, even if GW is happening and it is caused by mankind and it is caused by CO2 etc etc...(big if's) there is still no point us doing anything about it unless the developing countries like India, Africa and China do the same... and that's about as likely as me being the next Prime Minister, attractive though that may seem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The problem with the Science is that they are dealing with a small sample of the planet's history and trying to make it fit a future model. We have leant more in the last 20-30 years than we did in the last 30,000 and just because there are differences of temperate and possible co2 levels today than we think there was years ago does not mean that this is not some kind of blip. How many times have been told that something is OK or bad for you then a few years later been told to do the opposite? As Douglas Adams once wrote “the problem is that you don’t understand the question” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The problem with Scientists working in this field is that so much cash has been thrown at them that they have little choice but to agree with the racket. How do you know which ones are honest and telling the truth ? Well the independent article with prof Wunsch opinion at least tells you not to believe Martin Durkin. The vast majority of scientists are convinced that manmade emissions are adding to the warming up of the earth (which is undisputed) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_m Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 The problem with Scientists working in this field is that so much cash has been thrown at them that they have little choice but to agree with the racket. How do you know which ones are honest and telling the truth ? Well the independent article with prof Wunsch opinion at least tells you not to believe Martin Durkin. The vast majority of scientists are convinced that manmade emissions are adding to the warming up of the earth (which is undisputed) Who is Wunsch ? Somebody who's popped up to stake his research grant on GW ? I don't know if it's undisputed or not, I suspect there may be a minor contribution but probably below the level that's even measurable. The fact remains that Bliar can tax us however he likes, its not going to make any difference at all to GW. The best thing we can do is to reduce our reliance on oil, simply because it is running out and in 100 years it will be a lot more expensive because it'll be harder to extract what's left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8grunt Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 As a leading scientist I would just like to add... I can subtract and divide, but have difficulty in adding up. so a lot of what I say doesn't add up. Can I just change my mind on the above comments as I have just received a cheque from the government for £50 Squillion pounds and will say whatever they want me to say... Yes now I'm rich beyond my wildest dreams I can confirm that due to Co2 rises from over use of motor vehicles, it is going to rain "Ham and eggs" tomorrow. Ham and eggs... A days work for a chicken... A lifetimes for the pig! Must go full frontal lobotomy needed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Tenure at MIT seems independent enough to me. His interview was abused and placed in a wrong context bij teh so-called director. And he's not the only one. http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_m Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Tenure at MIT seems independent enough to me. His interview was abused and placed in a wrong context bij teh so-called director. And he's not the only one. http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ MIT is subject to the same funding issues that other research institutions are, politics now not only creates the fund of cash for the research but also influences the direction the research should take. I would much rather take the opinion of crusty old retired scientists and politicians who have nothing to gain or loose than the word of the same but younger and currently employed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeyboy Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Humans are parasites, I suggest a cull (like they do with pigeons and wild deer). If it's good enough for widelife who are destroying the surrounding habitat it's good enough for chavs, gypo's and maybe the oxygen thieving scum seen on the news with 10 children and no job (and possibly the odd politician) In fact they could start with that fat kid on the TV last week, he must generate a fair bit of CO2 and methane, closely followed by his mother who likes to smoke in bed, genrating deadly smoke clouds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8grunt Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I have said this before.... ALL new houses should be fitted with solar panels. These panels are manufactured at the "Local" government run and owned factory. The factory workers are the locals who have not/don't want a job. If they don't work there they have their dole pay stopped and can crawl in to a corner and die. This will never happen, because... All homes will eventually become self sufficient and the government will not get any money like they do at present with VAT on fuel bills.. But wait when they realize that a tax on solar panels say ...£500 a year if your house is fitted with them will balance out there initial loss..... We just might see that happen. And any do gooder out there who says you can't do that to the jobless "cause they will turn to crime". OK let them. But three strikes and it's up against the wall... there's your answer to the population explosion. (Calmly puts soap box back under stairs) "Grunt for President" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Were all doomed , doomed I tell you 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.