So, "greenhouse" gases are not new...
They've been around for millions of years?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Climate change
last reply
172 replies
8.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
So, "greenhouse" gases are not new...
They've been around for millions of years?
Absolutely!
If we look at the mega trend - over the last 11,000 years - the earth has been, with large fluctuations, gradually warming as we come out of the last Ice Age.
The ecomentalists sought to hide the fact that there was an unusually high peak in medieval times, so that, by comparison, they could make it look as if a huge amount of warming has occurred in the last 100 years or so, and mega warming (relatively speaking) over the last 50 years or so - the infamous and now discredited Hockey Stick graph. They also tried to hide the fact that in all historical instances of climate change, temperature leads CO2 - i.e. the temperature changes FIRST, then the CO2 levels change (higher when hotter, lower when colder. Therefore, CO2 ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be the cause of climate change - it is a symptom. They further sought to hide the fact that in fact for the last 10 years, global temperatures have been falling (this is almost certainly not a trend, just a minor fluctuation and entirely normal). But because it did not fit with with their fabricated and much touted Hockey Stick prediction, they deliberately changed the figures, so they could continue to point to the Hockey Stick and say it was man's release of additional CO2 through fossil fuel burning, that was causing global temperatures to rise at an alarming rate - when in fact it is doing nothing of the sort.
As far as we can tell from the raw data, the earth is currently still enjoying a gradual warming cycle, as it has been for the last 11,000 years or so, and that the rate of that warming, is, over the long term, unchanged.
I predict that as science and academia wake up to the enormous fraud that has been perpetrated in the name of science, it will be the largest scandal it has ever encountered. It goes right to the core of fundamental scientific principles of the search for truth. These guys wouldn't even release their data and program code that they used to massage the data, for independent scrutiny, so it could be objectively peer reviewed (i.e. checked by other suitably qualified people for it's veracity and accuracy) - another fundamental principle of scientific method. They broke the law by denying legitimate requests for the data and code under the Freedom of Information Act. They used dirty tricks and politicking to discredit anyone who didn't worship their magnificence. They attempted to tamper with the definition of peer reviewing, they sought to prevent publication of any research which contradicted theirs, they sought to influence world policy.
Really, the extent of their crimes is stupefying!!!
Quote by GnV
So, "greenhouse" gases are not new...
They've been around for millions of years?
They've been around for billions of years, the tell-tale traces of greenhouse gases are kept within the Antarctic ice pack, where core samples can show us how much was in the atmosphere at any particular time in the past and we can compare this to the present.
These core samples that are taken can show us climatological history prior to historical records and we can compare to ring patterns in trees, rock layer formation to show what was in the atmosphere at the time.
Whilst 100 years is a small amount of time to have historical records for showing climate change, our records using the ice cores go back 100,000 years and the rock strata goes back even further. This way we can get a nice graph showing the composition of the atmosphere for the past few million years. This enables an accurate plot of the climate change.
Now I don't think anyone would argue that climate is changing. It has always changed in relation to solar cycles, volcanic events, cosmic events and other naturally occurring phenomena.
Whether the changes in the latter part of the 20th century are down to man or not is open for critical debate, but would you not agree;
car exhaust causes pollution?
power station emission causes pollution?
industrial output causes pollution?
NOW wouldn't it be better to get rid of the above or reduce the emission of it irrespective of whether it causes climate change just for purely our own comfort??
Sexpert
Rogue - I'm with you on that
I started my contributions by stating that I was a bit of an old hippy, I think it's great that we try to minimise all pollutants we manage spew out (personally I drive as little as possible - anywhere up to a mile. I'll happily walk, or up to 10 miles, I'll cycle - my cars run on LPG - my "green credentials" are probably amongst the best you can have - ok, so I do have a big motorbike too - but I'd run that on LPG if it was possible, but they don't do a conversion for it yet). I also believe we should get off fossil fuel completely, what a waste of a fantastic chemical resource, to just burn it. Then there's the politics - we wouldn't have to have anything to do with a bunch of tribal war lords, if we didn't need their oil to burn, they wouldn't have the money to fund international terrorism etc
But what we have here is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever been perpetrated
I started my contributions by stating that I was a bit of an old hippy, I think it's great that we try to minimise all pollutants we manage spew out (personally I drive as little as possible - anywhere up to a mile. I'll happily walk, or up to 10 miles, I'll cycle - my cars run on LPG - my "green credentials" are probably amongst the best you can have - ok, so I do have a big motorbike too - but I'd run that on LPG if it was possible, but they don't do a conversion for it yet). I also believe we should get off fossil fuel completely, what a waste of a fantastic chemical resource, to just burn it. Then there's the politics - we wouldn't have to have anything to do with a bunch of tribal war lords, if we didn't need their oil to burn, they wouldn't have the money to fund international terrorism etc
But what we have here is the biggest scientific fraud that has ever been perpetrated
Sex God
If we do not burn fossil fuels for energy then that leaves us nuclear power, is the waist left behind by this proses possibly far worse for future generations than fossil fuels?
Quote by Bluefish2009
If we do not burn fossil fuels for energy then that leaves us nuclear power, is the waist left behind by this proses possibly far worse for future generations than fossil fuels?
Not really if handled and stored correctly. Though I would like to see a permanent garrison with an air-defence system. Imagine a terrorist lobbing a plane in there...
I think we "the public we, not swingers" have handled the whole recycling and environmental issues totally badly and not thought what we are doing. More vehicles created to transport the recycled containers, more energy to recycle them etc etc.
You don't need to be a scientist to see that man has made a detrimental impact on the planet, and we do owe it to future generations to clean our shit up. But carbon taxes etc is not the answer, we need to re-think the whole procedure from the grass roots up.
Sexpert
Quote by Rogue_trader
If we do not burn fossil fuels for energy then that leaves us nuclear power, is the waist left behind by this proses possibly far worse for future generations than fossil fuels?
Not really if handled and stored correctly. Though I would like to see a permanent garrison with an air-defence system. Imagine a terrorist lobbing a plane in there...
I think we "the public we, not swingers" have handled the whole recycling and environmental issues totally badly and not thought what we are doing. More vehicles created to transport the recycled containers, more energy to recycle them etc etc.
You don't need to be a scientist to see that man has made a detrimental impact on the planet, and we do owe it to future generations to clean our shit up. But carbon taxes etc is not the answer, we need to re-think the whole procedure from the grass roots up.
with you on that too Rogue
I'm very worried about nuclear fission (what atomic bombs and nuclear reactors use at the moment), long half life waste products, obvious terrorist target, either to blow up, but more likely for the acquisition of "dirty bomb" material.
I remember as a bright eyed physics student, 30 years ago, nuclear fusion was being touted as the answer (I wont go in to the ins and outs, but basically the waste is more fuel, so no net waste, just have to top up a bit and feed the waste back in). However, for 30 years, it has remained "just a few more years away". Advances have been made, but it has always been the poor relation with respect to funding - Governments are more interested in weapons than the environment.
There are loads of other options viz energy, and a mixed provision approach would be best for several reasons.
One of my favourites is geothermal. the earth's crust is thin - like the peel on an orange - the rest is fucking hot molten rock!!
It only takes a 1 degree temperature differential to create a heat pump which can produce electricity
You don't have to drill down very far before water you pump in, comes out 1 degree warmer.
There's enough molten rock to power this planet for the lifetime of the solar system - and probably beyond
But do they consult me?
Do they bollocks - I should be a fucking millionaire and world hero
Nah - I just report what I read - there are loads of dilligent intelligent scientists out there trying to be heard and secure funding.
So far, the ecomentalists have held sway
Agree with you there easy, geothermal is the major player for energy. Take Iceland for example. All power is created by geothermal methods. All hot water systems for CH etc is geothermal.
All we need is a big drill...right I'm off to B & Q for a 1 metre diamond drill bit and 7 miles of extension bar...tally-ho!
All we need is a big drill...right I'm off to B & Q for a 1 metre diamond drill bit and 7 miles of extension bar...tally-ho!
Sexpert
Quote by Rogue_trader
Agree with you there easy, geothermal is the major player for energy. Take Iceland for example. All power is created by geothermal methods. All hot water systems for CH etc is geothermal.
All we need is a big drill...right I'm off to B & Q for a 1 metre diamond drill bit and 7 miles of extension bar...tally-ho!
Yeah, being volcanic, they take advantage of being able to pump water to very shallow depths and get steam. which is even more useful for electricity generation and direct heating. Mind you, their frozen food range is not as extensive or as price competitive as my local 24hour Tesco megastore
Quote by Rogue_trader
snip ...
Now I don't think anyone would argue that climate is changing. It has always changed in relation to solar cycles, volcanic events, cosmic events and other naturally occurring phenomena.
Whether the changes in the latter part of the 20th century are down to man or not is open for critical debate, but would you not agree;
car exhaust causes pollution?
power station emission causes pollution?
industrial output causes pollution?
NOW wouldn't it be better to get rid of the above or reduce the emission of it irrespective of whether it causes climate change just for purely our own comfort??
I like that...
Another possible theory to consider is what one might call "earth shift" the proof of which is that every couple of years, true north on aviation and shipping maps are realigned by a couple of degrees to magnetic north. That must account for something?
The earth is a living planet and subject to constant - if subtle changes when measured against our own insignificant existence in the greater order of nature.
To claim an ability to change the climate in 50 years or less when the world has been doing quite well for itself for billions of years is crass in the extreme and nothing more than an excuse for raising further money from taxes since they have run out of excuses for other means.
True north is always to the poles. Magnetic north moves slowly due to the rotation of the inner-core of molten iron....eventually the field will "flip" (change polarity). The "flip" will take a few thousand years. In the time in between the fields not existing and then changing....most life will suffer quite drastic changes.
Quote by JTS
True north is always to the poles. Magnetic north moves slowly due to the rotation of the inner-core of molten iron....eventually the field will "flip" (change polarity). The "flip" will take a few thousand years. In the time in between the fields not existing and then changing....most life will suffer quite drastic changes.
Well, you get my drift.. is there a pun there?
Nice pun GnV!
The molten rock beneath our feet is caused mainly by the radioactive decay of uranium, potassium and thorium, so the entire earth behaves like a nuclear fission power station.
This source of energy is practically un-exhaustible so it would make sense to have electric vehicles that are powered by the electricity generated by such measures. Cut emissions to zero. and if we go back to planes having propellers and those propellers driven by electricity then we have zero air emissions similarly with ships.
The technology is there, its just the will that is required.
The molten rock beneath our feet is caused mainly by the radioactive decay of uranium, potassium and thorium, so the entire earth behaves like a nuclear fission power station.
This source of energy is practically un-exhaustible so it would make sense to have electric vehicles that are powered by the electricity generated by such measures. Cut emissions to zero. and if we go back to planes having propellers and those propellers driven by electricity then we have zero air emissions similarly with ships.
The technology is there, its just the will that is required.
Quote by Rogue_traderchange the word "will" for profit in this last sentence and i would be more inclined to agree with most of what you've said r.t.
Nice pun GnV!
The molten rock beneath our feet is caused mainly by the radioactive decay of uranium, potassium and thorium, so the entire earth behaves like a nuclear fission power station.
This source of energy is practically un-exhaustible so it would make sense to have electric vehicles that are powered by the electricity generated by such measures. Cut emissions to zero. and if we go back to planes having propellers and those propellers driven by electricity then we have zero air emissions similarly with ships.
The technology is there, its just the will that is required.
I was looking into the changeover from horses to cars on the net. There isn't a great amount of detail. But the change was very rapid, within a few decades. I don't know if there was another idea that encouraged people to change. But it seems it did not take much persuading.
So I think the main outcome of climate awareness will be the replacement technologies, which manufacturers are already gearing up for profitability.
So I think the main outcome of climate awareness will be the replacement technologies, which manufacturers are already gearing up for profitability.
Whilst on form in the pun department, there is great store being placed on the development of new technologies for electric cars.
Do I understand this correctly? these cars require some of the worst type of material available for their batteries making their "carbon footprint" many times worse than their carbon (petrol or diesel) equivalent.
And will GB save the world again by going to Copenhagen 2 days earlier than originally planned? Milliband must be spitting feathers as it is clear GB can't trust him with anything other than making the tea.
Do I understand this correctly? these cars require some of the worst type of material available for their batteries making their "carbon footprint" many times worse than their carbon (petrol or diesel) equivalent.
And will GB save the world again by going to Copenhagen 2 days earlier than originally planned? Milliband must be spitting feathers as it is clear GB can't trust him with anything other than making the tea.
All the 'lecky cars will use Lithium-ion batteries.
The worlds supply of Lithium comes from Bolivia.
They have already stated they will not continue selling the raw material.
The reserves of Lithium are calculated to last ten years at current usage.
Not only that, but with usage of other rare metals such as Indium, Tantalum, Gallium and also Platinum increasing to fuel demand for consumer electronics (flat-screen television, mobile phones and photovoltaic cells) we may soon reach a point where the supply cannot meet demand. (Platinum is also used in catalytic converters) (the price may soon reach a level where thefts of catalytic converters may increase)
Maybe some are already seeing the reason for the clamour for reduction of production ?
The worlds supply of Lithium comes from Bolivia.
They have already stated they will not continue selling the raw material.
The reserves of Lithium are calculated to last ten years at current usage.
Not only that, but with usage of other rare metals such as Indium, Tantalum, Gallium and also Platinum increasing to fuel demand for consumer electronics (flat-screen television, mobile phones and photovoltaic cells) we may soon reach a point where the supply cannot meet demand. (Platinum is also used in catalytic converters) (the price may soon reach a level where thefts of catalytic converters may increase)
Maybe some are already seeing the reason for the clamour for reduction of production ?
Sexpert
Quote by JTS
All the 'lecky cars will use Lithium-ion batteries.
The worlds supply of Lithium comes from Bolivia.
They have already stated they will not continue selling the raw material.
The reserves of Lithium are calculated to last ten years at current usage.
Not only that, but with usage of other rare metals such as Indium, Tantalum, Gallium and also Platinum increasing to fuel demand for consumer electronics (flat-screen television, mobile phones and photovoltaic cells) we may soon reach a point where the supply cannot meet demand. (Platinum is also used in catalytic converters) (the price may soon reach a level where thefts of catalytic converters may increase)
Maybe some are already seeing the reason for the clamour for reduction of production ?
All good points - haven't researched the rare metal/battery/cat situation, from what you say, we'll have to develop alternative technologies for these applications then.
I'm a big fan of fuel cells, but they've never been developed (yet)
I think ultimately we'll have to go electric, even with existing motors, the energy efficiency is around 80% (as opposed to around 25% for petrol/diesel) - they've recently made big advances in recharging batteries (something to do with micro tunnels in the molecular structure). Pundits were saying we're only a couple of years away from 5 minute re-charge for mobiles and other low current devices, with the potential to get to the same level for automotive batteries - so if you had a car that did 0-60 in 4 seconds, gave you a 200 mile range at over 100mph, with a 5 minute full re-charge, costing around £3, I know I'd be interested
It scares me that so many people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming despite all the evidence.
The rate of warming cannot be explained without taking the massive amounts of human sourced CO2 into account. The effects of this warming is not certain, but I say we have to err on the side of caution and act as fast as possible.
The rate of warming cannot be explained without taking the massive amounts of human sourced CO2 into account. The effects of this warming is not certain, but I say we have to err on the side of caution and act as fast as possible.
Sexpert
Quote by EvilAsh
It scares me that so many people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming despite all the evidence.
The rate of warming cannot be explained without taking the massive amounts of human sourced CO2 into account. The effects of this warming is not certain, but I say we have to err on the side of caution and act as fast as possible.
If you read back through this post and the other one, it is surprising how many people still do believe in anthropogenic warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and in the face of hard evidence of massive fraud by the CRU team. Climate gate is only a couple of weeks old, the initial analyses are only just coming in, but even so, more and more duplicity is being revealed daily.
When the academics have had a chance to pore over the data and program code, complete their own analyses and write their papers, I think this will go down in history as the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated.
The data show the long term rate of warming to have remained unchanged for 11,000 years as we continue to leave the last ice age. There is no post industrial rise in the rate, and in fact the last 10 years has shown cooling, which is one of the things the CRU team have covered up. As their emails clearly show, they used outright fraudulent data "trick"(s) to "hide the decline" in the rate of warming, as it does not fit with their "hockey stick" projection.
There are of course temporary deviations from the underlying trend, as now for example when average global temperatures have fallen for the last 10 years. There was a mini ice age about 6,000 years ago I think (can't be arsed to look it up just the now), and substantial warming in the medieval times.
The key issue is whether the rate of warming has changed since we started burning fossil fuels - the plain fact of the matter is, it hasn't.
In the analyses I've read concerning the cycles of warming and cooling which have taken place in recent times (i.e. since the appearance of life, temperature rise and fall leads the corresponding rise and fall in atmospheric CO2. I.e., as it gets warmer, the CO2 levels rise and vice versa. CO2 levels are a symptom of the process, not the cause!!
Sex God
What if..whilst sitting round waiting for more research we miss the boat and find our paddles floating downstream(sorry about the mixed metaphor)
As for the limits of climate records....Archaeologists have been plotting and following climate change going back for thousands of years for quite a while now using core samples and dendrochronology etc.
As for the limits of climate records....Archaeologists have been plotting and following climate change going back for thousands of years for quite a while now using core samples and dendrochronology etc.
Sex God
With most things in life I can be convinced one way or the other with a reasoned argument but years down the road in this debate and I have yet to see anything other than polarised positions and expansive sound-bytes about the climate situation (drought) in north east africa, the floods in Bangladesh and the receding Arctic. It is as if these emotive situations demand an acceptance that global warming is man made but the pure logical arguments have NEVER been presented to the general public.
These are my points which I have never seen answered:
1) Why can't we, the world population, be trusted to see the raw temeprature data and if necessary and explanation as to why corrections are added and what is the result when the corrections are added - ie before and after.
2) When I was at school I was told the Carbon Dioxide is an important part of the atmospheric cocktail because it provides nourishment for all plant life. Also I was told that carbon dioxide is a heavier than air gas meaning that it sinks to the surface. Why then are aircraft singled out as "super polluters" giving inference that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that it is not a heavier than air gas. Also how is carbon dioxide measured against altitude when it is very much heavier than air and if this is the case, would low lying land not be subject to more global warming than higher land?
3) How exactly is carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere? If it retains heat more than nitrogen and oxygen how come we still get bitter frosts on cloudless nights and how come it is always colder on a cloudless night than on a cloudy night.
4) On a cloudy day, even in the middle of summer we don't feel the heat like we do on a cloudless day when the sun is beating down. Taking into account the points made in (3) about clouds and the point made here about clouds surely the biggest effect on temperature is water vapour? Bright sunshine on solid ground makes the ground hot and the adjoining air is hot too, this does not happen on a cloudy day. Bright sunshine on the sea does not make the adjoining air hot - in fact we know all about on shore and off shore breezes.
5) Volcanoes chuck out a gazillion times more carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, methane and carbon dioxide than we humans can produce and they are accepted by the pro lobby as serious greenhouse gasses but we have no control over them whatsoever and yet one of the busiest times for volcanoes was in the last ice age.
6) When I was growing up in the time of coal fires, you could hardly walk the streets at night in Winter because of smog and pollution. Did that not have an effect on the climate?
These points are in the forefront of mind because they are basic facts that were taught at school and I just want to see a non polarised debate where these issues can be reasonably discussed and I would be willing to be swayed, one way or the other. I am just somewhat sceptical that after a billion years of earth's existence, we now claim that in the last few years that we humans are affecting the earths climate - I think that is a touch arrogant.
These are my points which I have never seen answered:
1) Why can't we, the world population, be trusted to see the raw temeprature data and if necessary and explanation as to why corrections are added and what is the result when the corrections are added - ie before and after.
2) When I was at school I was told the Carbon Dioxide is an important part of the atmospheric cocktail because it provides nourishment for all plant life. Also I was told that carbon dioxide is a heavier than air gas meaning that it sinks to the surface. Why then are aircraft singled out as "super polluters" giving inference that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that it is not a heavier than air gas. Also how is carbon dioxide measured against altitude when it is very much heavier than air and if this is the case, would low lying land not be subject to more global warming than higher land?
3) How exactly is carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere? If it retains heat more than nitrogen and oxygen how come we still get bitter frosts on cloudless nights and how come it is always colder on a cloudless night than on a cloudy night.
4) On a cloudy day, even in the middle of summer we don't feel the heat like we do on a cloudless day when the sun is beating down. Taking into account the points made in (3) about clouds and the point made here about clouds surely the biggest effect on temperature is water vapour? Bright sunshine on solid ground makes the ground hot and the adjoining air is hot too, this does not happen on a cloudy day. Bright sunshine on the sea does not make the adjoining air hot - in fact we know all about on shore and off shore breezes.
5) Volcanoes chuck out a gazillion times more carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, methane and carbon dioxide than we humans can produce and they are accepted by the pro lobby as serious greenhouse gasses but we have no control over them whatsoever and yet one of the busiest times for volcanoes was in the last ice age.
6) When I was growing up in the time of coal fires, you could hardly walk the streets at night in Winter because of smog and pollution. Did that not have an effect on the climate?
These points are in the forefront of mind because they are basic facts that were taught at school and I just want to see a non polarised debate where these issues can be reasonably discussed and I would be willing to be swayed, one way or the other. I am just somewhat sceptical that after a billion years of earth's existence, we now claim that in the last few years that we humans are affecting the earths climate - I think that is a touch arrogant.
Nobody has yet managed to explain why the 5% (4% production, 1% land-change) of the CO2 in the atmosphere that WE put there has such a dramatic effect on climate that the other 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is not the result of human activities) does not.
In THEIR world (climate-change-scientists) they can only explain the effect by hypothesising an "unknown forcing mechanism" to cause the "warming".
In a world of sense, scientists would not just say "the warming must be due to mankind but since we don't know why we'll have to invent a reason that is not known to explain it"
The REAL reason why scientists and politicians will NEVER let-go of AGW is because of the money involved.
The amount of money is staggering: Some tens of trillions of dollars. Everyone wants a slice of THAT cake.
And that does not even take account of the political control of the population that is involved.
Have a read of to get an idea of exactly WHY polos are really keen on "climate change"
Or maybe a read of for a thoughful look at the warmist world.
Or maybe even approach to global "warming"
In THEIR world (climate-change-scientists) they can only explain the effect by hypothesising an "unknown forcing mechanism" to cause the "warming".
In a world of sense, scientists would not just say "the warming must be due to mankind but since we don't know why we'll have to invent a reason that is not known to explain it"
The REAL reason why scientists and politicians will NEVER let-go of AGW is because of the money involved.
The amount of money is staggering: Some tens of trillions of dollars. Everyone wants a slice of THAT cake.
And that does not even take account of the political control of the population that is involved.
Have a read of to get an idea of exactly WHY polos are really keen on "climate change"
Or maybe a read of for a thoughful look at the warmist world.
Or maybe even approach to global "warming"
Global cooling suits as well as global warming: They're both climate change.
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a !
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a !
Sex God
Quote by JTS
Global cooling suits as well as global warming: They're both climate change.
Maybe you don't remember the mid 1970's with its "we've got to change or we'll cause another ice age".
The REAL reason for the "climate-change-wars" has just been published HERE in all its inglorious inanity.
Rea and digest just WHY everyone has to change.
And never forget, in the green mind this country is grossly overpopulated; by at least 40 million.
And also consider that control of population, by control of the birth rate, will never produce a viable society.
Soon the clamour that "the old have had their lives so they should let us have ours" will start..................................................................................
Somehow I think that scientists and politicians will be exempt from the "save the world by euthanasia" movement.
And now there's a PETITION !
I can remember clearly being terrified as a very young boy by the fact that we were heading into the next ice age.... Keep them scared and under control
Sex God
Clear skies for a week and nightime temperatures down to minus 10 - is anyone surprised? No, of course not, clear skies in Winter have always been associated with ice and frost. Question is - in all seriousness - where is the global warming effect (blanket effect) of the the CO2 in the air? Perhaps we should just wait for the clouds to come back for a real blanket effect? I always understood that water vapour was more of a "warmer" than CO2 which is actually an invisible and vital atmospheric gas.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
Happy New Year all - Global Warming my Arse.
