Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 27, 2025 22:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:21 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
SafeSpeed wrote:
basingwerk wrote:
Of course, just follow the money. The firms making money from destructive behaviour will try to spin it out as long as they can. As ever, fear and greed is behind it all.


Yeah, but you have to follow the right money. Global warming theory is an industry in its own right, paid for by governments. The oil companies are late in the game and it's dangerous to their profitability to go against the PC global warming view.


BP made $16.2bn in profit last year. Shell did well too, as did top US oil firms. You're looking at maybe $75 or $100 bn profits shared among the top firms, and billions more for smaller ones. That's industry, and it will only recognise the problem now that it is too late to deal with it!

Yet global warming is the true threat to pollution profits, not scientists. Could they be throwing out chaff, like this News Week distraction?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:38 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
_Tc_ wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that it's been taken out of context to further an agenda. Likewise the Torygraph.


Why should the tories have an anti-global-warming agenda, when it was probably them who started the scare in the first place?
The scare started just at the time when Mrs. Thatcher appeared to be losing the battle against the striking coal miners. All of a sudden, global warming was mentioned, and both the Hadley Centre for climatic research and the IPCC were set up within an indecently short period of time.

Quote:
If you think that climate change isn't happening, and the environmentalists are doing this purely to stop you from enjoying your car, then you're getting the cart before the horse, and I'd seriously consider getting some perspective.


Of course climate change is happening. It changes all the time, always has and always will.
And it's not the environmentalists behind it - it's control-freak governments. The environmentalists simply jumped on the bandwagon.
I would suggest that you do some reading up on the stuff, and then you can make up your own mind - it's all available.

Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:45 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
basingwerk wrote:
BP made $16.2bn in profit last year. Shell did well too, as did top US oil firms.


And Gordon Brown got £30-something billion from fuel tax.

Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 13:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
_Tc_ wrote:
Climate change is fact, not PC. I'd stake every last bit of my reputation on that. I very much doubt the governments of the world would want to fiddle with the political hot potato of reducing emissions by curbing car use if the evidence wasn't pretty compelling.


The average household produces more than twice the amount of CO2 that the average car does. So why then, if the evidence is so compelling, do they not tax heating fuel and electricity at 300+% as they do with petrol and diesel?

Quote:
most of the science behind the global warming theory is sound.


If that were true then few people would be arguing the issue.
As for 'scientific consensus', well that's an oxymoron, if there ever was one.

Suggest you look at the work of highly reputable scientists and climatoligists such as: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Philip Stott and a host of others.

Cheers
Peter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 13:27 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Pete317 wrote:
basingwerk wrote:
BP made $16.2bn in profit last year. Shell did well too, as did top US oil firms.


And Gordon Brown got £30-something billion from fuel tax.


Yes – creating more pressure on oil companies to besmirch environmentalists – even our national treasury profits from oil usage. Are you for pollution curbs, or against them?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 13:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:20
Posts: 62
Pete317 wrote:
Suggest you look at the work of highly reputable scientists and climatoligists such as: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Philip Stott and a host of others.


There are 7 respected scientists that dispute the theory, compared with roughly 10,000 who argue that it is likely true. Of those 7, at least 4 of them are raking in large consultancy dealings with ExxonMobil, Royal Shell, UNOCAL and Sun Oil, and the leading light in the US has close ties with the Moonies.

Look - you may or not believe this, but sometimes governments do good things.

Tc.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 14:16 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
basingwerk wrote:
Are you for pollution curbs, or against them?


Depends what you call polution... :?

Lead...yes
Carbon Monoxide...yes
Sulphor... yes
Soot... yes

Co2, no. You can breath as much as you like and you won't drop dead.
An average car on average mileage makes as much co2 as two dary cows. Nature handles Co2 very well. In fact it needs co2.

If it were so bad it would be banned from fizzy drinks, fire fighting equipment, refrigeration, welding and hundreds of other uses.

Methane has a greater greenhouse factor yet we are increasing re-cycling and composting which is releasing millions of tonns of methane into the atmosphere.

Then we get to the global warming myth don't we.. :wink:

If global warming is not caused by Co2 there is no reason to pay the tax we do. So a good reason to keep the myth alive if you are in government.

Could be the biggest conspiracy ever.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 14:42 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Gizmo wrote:
If global warming is not caused by Co2 there is no reason to pay the tax we do.


We should not just print off the bank notes and use those to pay for roads, education and health, pensions etc. They tried that in Germany between the wars and it was a bad idea. Nope – you have to pay for your public services, I’m sorry to say.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 14:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:20
Posts: 62
Gizmo wrote:
If global warming is not caused by Co2 there is no reason to pay the tax we do. So a good reason to keep the myth alive if you are in government.


[HOMER]

Explain how...

[/HOMER]

Taxes are also good - I like the idea of there being a safety net if my life hits the buffers through no fault of my own.

Tc.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 15:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
_Tc_ wrote:
There are 7 respected scientists that dispute the theory, compared with roughly 10,000 who argue that it is likely true. Of those 7, at least 4 of them are raking in large consultancy dealings with ExxonMobil, Royal Shell, UNOCAL and Sun Oil, and the leading light in the US has close ties with the Moonies.


Have you seen the fiercely independent Oregon Petition?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

Any advance on 19,700? :)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 15:25 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
A recent documentary examined the phenomenon known as Global Dimming as was able to make a definite link between it, global pollution and the changing climate over northern Africa.
The evidence was compelling, and I'm also convinced that this is a problem we cannot ignore. Going in to denial over global warming now, only to be proved wrong later, would be a tragedy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 15:50 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
Rigpig wrote:
A recent documentary examined the phenomenon known as Global Dimming as was able to make a definite link between it, global pollution and the changing climate over northern Africa.
The evidence was compelling, and I'm also convinced that this is a problem we cannot ignore. Going in to denial over global warming now, only to be proved wrong later, would be a tragedy.


I saw the programme and found nothing "compelling" about it except the obvious one-sidedness.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 15:50 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Rigpig wrote:
A recent documentary examined the phenomenon known as Global Dimming as was able to make a definite link between it, global pollution and the changing climate over northern Africa.


I saw it too. very compelling. But only gave one side of the story. I did not buy into the vapour trail threory. That got a bit daft. I have never seen skys like that whenever I have been there, even near major airports in LA and Chicago.

I suspect there may be another side to the story but as ususal we get "spoon fed" the facts from the TV.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 15:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:20
Posts: 62
Frederick Seitz (primary signator of the Oregon petition) was the chief medical officer for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hardly the kind of person I'd liek to see wielding control over pollution research.

Anyways, even if the high-falutin' science of Global Warming/Dimming is arguable, Peak Oil is very much a common-sense reality.

Sooner or later, we *are* going to have to give up the internal combustion engine. Hopefully we'll have some kind of replacement by the time we do*...

Tc.

* - Though it is possible to run a diesel engine off hemp oil. ;) :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:15 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Observer wrote:
I saw the programme and found nothing "compelling" about it except the obvious one-sidedness.


What do you mean by one-sidedness? The programme examined a particular phenomenon and offered plausible explanations for the effects that had been discovered. What other side would you have liked to have seen discussed? Perhaps there just is no 'other side' to this phenomenon i.e. polluted atmosphere - we have effect, less pollution - effect diminishes.


Last edited by Rigpig on Wed May 04, 2005 16:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
Observer wrote:
I saw the programme and found nothing "compelling" about it except the obvious one-sidedness.


What do you mean by one-sidedness? The programme examined a particular phenomenon and offered plausible explanations for the effects that had been discovered. What other side would you have liked to have seen discussed?


How about photometer records?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
Observer wrote:
I saw the programme and found nothing "compelling" about it except the obvious one-sidedness.


What do you mean by one-sidedness? The programme examined a particular phenomenon and offered plausible explanations for the effects that had been discovered. What other side would you have liked to have seen discussed?


How about photometer records?


But it was those very records, and the varying levels they recorded that led to the disdcovery of the effect in the first place.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:56 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
_Tc_ wrote:
Frederick Seitz (primary signator of the Oregon petition) was the chief medical officer for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hardly the kind of person I'd liek to see wielding control over pollution research.


Yeah - I looked up this Seitz fellow too, and it turns out he's a right 'un! Does this person have a ' fiercely independent' bone in his body?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:58 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Rigpig wrote:
But it was those very records, and the varying levels they recorded that led to the disdcovery of the effect in the first place.


That's right, and those Australian blokes with thier evaporation dishes. You can't pull the wool over thier eyes!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 16:58 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
_Tc_ wrote:
Sooner or later, we *are* going to have to give up the internal combustion engine.


Not true. We have hydrogen, ethenol etc just around the corner. Both can be used in conventional engines.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.029s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]