Addenda To Recent "global Warming" Debate

[Biggles]

Our most celbrated eco-warrior over here is Swampy. Swampy's heart is in the right place (although not for the want of a few road builders wishing to re-position it). However, I would not like to share a billet with Swampy - so called for his digging in and staying there abilities (we are talking weeks).

Still no one can accuse him of being afraid to roll his sleeves up and get his hands (face, body, arms and legs) dirty.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by vidcc+24 January 2004 - 18:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 24 January 2004 - 18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@24 January 2004 - 23:10
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

@24 January 2004 - 18:00
for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.

Tell it to the Chinese


Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm

erm when i say we i mean mankind... or did you arogantly assume i just mean the USA?.....you kind of helped my point though.
i could go through a list of the worst poluters who just don&#39;t give a damm and i could go through those that say they want to help but in reality are just talking out their backsides but my point is a global issue about mankind.
i am not pointing a finger at any one nation ( if you want to do that be my guest, as long as you can judge your own nation with the same critical standard ) [/b][/quote]
No I just wanted to point out this monstrous figure that was just reported by the Chinese state media outlet XIN HUA.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@25 January 2004 - 00:44


Our most celbrated eco-warrior over here is Swampy. Swampy&#39;s heart is in the right place (although not for the want of a few road builders wishing to re-position it). However, I would not like to share a billet with Swampy - so called for his digging in and staying there abilities (we are talking weeks).&nbsp;

Still no one can accuse him of being afraid to roll his sleeves up and get his hands (face, body, arms and legs) dirty.

I appreciate your sentiment.

However I find it difficult to admire someone whose sole talent would appear to be lying in his own shite for a fortnight. I have heard him speak, he is an arse.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

I suspect public speaking is not something he highlights in his resume. His primary strength appears to be his ability to dig himself a hole and jam himself in at a remarkable rate of knots. He is bulldozer stopper rather than an orator. This is good if the road in question is going through ones back garden, bad if one has shares in a road building company. I think it is one of those perspective things.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@25 January 2004 - 03:29
J&#39;Pol

I suspect public speaking is not something he highlights in his resume. His primary strength appears to be his ability to dig himself a hole and jam himself in at a remarkable rate of knots. He is bulldozer stopper rather than an orator. This is good if the road in question is going through ones back garden, bad if one has shares in a road building company. I think it is one of those perspective things.&nbsp;

If said road intends to go through my back garden I will deal with the situation myself.

I have no need to procure the services of some hybrid human / mole to prevent it&#39;s destruction.

[vidcc]

I believe the manifesto behind Mr. Swampy et al is that the government should have been looking at better ways to curb traffic than encourage it through the building of roads on already scarce greenbelt land.
Obviously they failed to prevent the plan taking off so took a more direct approach which also produce a far greater degree of publicity. I amire any person that is willing to stand up for his or her beliefs in a non violent manner, even if i don&#39;t agree with those beliefs.
Don&#39;t misunderstand me i am not an eco warrior and i do drive a sodding great big V8 SUV ( don&#39;t tell any of the other Americans in here but i prefer to drive my minivan (people carrier)) but then petrol is about 70 pence per gallon at the moment . I am not proud of the fact that i only get about the same M.P.G. as an articulated lorry in Europe. So i am just as guilty of poluting the world as the next person.
I am a married man with 3 children and my wife is expecting so a small car along the lines i used to drive when we lived in England isn&#39;t practical and it&#39;s nigh on impossible to find a large size family vehicle that is as effiecient as the European counterpart.

[FatBastard]

j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@25 January 2004 - 05:30
j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?

FB-

I don&#39;t believe I have equated any of these concerns as "a load of bollocks".

Nor do I discount the concern expressed by those who care for the environment; I include myself as among the concerned, though perhaps from the standpoint of informed stewardship.

I am not, however, in favor of oppressive, biased measures like Kyoto (my opinion; am I still entitled?) which are designed to be especially costly to the U.S. (please, no lectures about how we can afford it), when other countries (whom world opinion inveighs against us helping) literally have rivers of shit running through their cities; say what you want about everything else, the "shit" is a more immediate-though less easily dealt with-concern.

Bottom line:

If what is bandied about re: global warming, etc., amounted to PROOF, we would not be debating the point, would we?

PROOF would preclude debate.

As I said:

Stewardship? YES.

Caution? YES.

Oppression? NO.


EDIT: If you believe my opinion to be "bollocks", feel free to say so, please.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by FatBastard@25 January 2004 - 09:30
j2, l read that article with interest, and it got me to wondering why you posted it. It does not support your view that global warming, and the consequences some speak of, are a load of bollocks. It does not dismiss the possible dire consequences of our continued polluting either. Nor does it claim that agreements to limit the damage are wrong per se.

We appear to have basically two roads to travel; we can take your advice and do nothing, or we can be cautious, and take the possible consequences seriously.

If you&#39;re proved, with hindsight, to have been wrong, we&#39;re fucked&#33; If the *Greenies* are proved wrong, then what? Will we choke on the clean air?

I would go further..

The article quite clearly states that man made CO2 emmisions will cause approx a 1C increase in temperature (and remember he&#39;s a conservative).

It also states that water vapour in the air is as harmful, if not more so..

If you increase the temperature by 1C, then the Law of Physics would appear to say there will be a lot more water vapour in the air also, which increases it further (another 1C minimum?)....

With just a 2C increase in temperature, we have rising sea levels..and more water vapour, due to a larger surface area of water...








My head hurts now...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 January 2004 - 19:13
My head hurts now...

As well it should.

So it&#39;s all or nothing, eh?

Either buy the whole ball of extremist wax or piss off?

No middle ground?