Safe Speed Forums

Idon't pretend to understand it either, merely reflecting that some thought should be given to the phrase "methinks he doth protest too much" with regard to the "experts " that the government wheel out .
Perhaps it might be worth asking just how many of the government ministers etc are in favour of nuclear power and how many of them not so long ago were parading with placards against it.

Its not the idea behind AGW i dislike, but the way that the gospel according to the "experts" is being preached.
Too much like the idea about speed, too much like the idea that local councils don't make efficient landlords, too much like many of the other ideas of this government when trying to hide bad news.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The government has a responsibility to tread a path that is in the interests of the nation and of the wider good. I accept that it doesn't always get it right before we head off at an irrelevant tangent.
Furthermore, it is not a debating society, it must weigh up the information it receives and pass it on. If the weight of evidence leads it to believe that AGW is something to be concerned about then, with regards 'preaching', this is not information that affects the way a few people live their lives that could be delivered in some other way. It could ultimately affect the way we all (or our children) live our lives, passing this information on is not 'preaching'.

As i said - it may be a good idea in the governments mind at the moment - certainly a good way to back up its transport ideas, but hey if its that important how come we see so public transport pumping out so much garbage.
The information is weighed up, i agree, to see if it fits in with the political ideals.
As for treading a path chosen by blair and co - we see their ideas of the path the NHS should go - more like a dead end.
Having heard wolf so often from this lot , and the animal being called so many names ( is wolf politically correct) i would take their ideas with more than a pinch of salt ( if they didn't tell me it was bad for my health).

Then to cap it all the very party that for so long stood out against nuclear power on the grounds that it had to be paid for by future generations .....

And AGW will be bad for future generations.


Take your pick of the idea further from truth, which one will be more detrimental to the welfare of our future generations.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Now you're just rambling.

If its a government led conspiracy aimed at furthering political ideals (which is what I read the above to infer) then it is an international one of global proportions.
Too many Clive Cussler novels perhaps

What is the Kyoto treaty? - the basis of AGW ??


The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.


The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.



If its a government led conspiracy aimed at furthering political ideals (which is what I read the above to infer) then it is an international one of global proportions.


No - another idea from the EEC - being force fed by Blair and co.

Problem is that toney's old mate george bush has po poed the idea.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Ok ok, although I'm in an argumentative mood tonite there is a limit, and life's just too short to keep unravelling this lexicographical spaghetti . If you're convinced AGW (and everything else) is a Blairite plan to rule the world then fine.

OK - RP -truce - no such idea- keeping open mind on the subject -

Tale about an old time PM- short version is that only time he told the truth is when pipe in mouth - feel that way about this lot and EEC


Started this as a take the pee out of the idea -
"So can someone please tell me why we are suffering from GLOBAL WARMING, AND if we are THANK GOD.( Otherwise it might be artic temperatures in the midlands)"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Absolutely. And if cars were abolished altogether, the electrical power and/or diesel used by the additional trains & buses required to get the people around would quickly take up most, if not all, of the 10-13% that was just "saved".

The use of the "Greenhouse effect" debate by Politicians as an excuse for raising taxation really doesn't do it it's due credit. It's a fascinating subject that has been debated by some of the biggest minds on Earth.

The Earth is such a complicated system that it will take us years to even begin to understand what effect the burning of fossil fuels will have.

Remember, CO2 is "food" for plants - the photosynthesis reaction that plants carry out in sunlight converts CO2 (and water) into Oxygen and food for the plant. If CO2 levels were to rise, it would be hard to imagine plants not evolving to take advantage of the extra food source and photosynthesise faster.

At any rate, many top scientists believe that by the time we have burned enough oil to have a significant effect on the balance of gases in the atmosphere, we will have already developed clean energy alternatives such as Cold fusion reactors, hydrogen-powered vehicles etc. This stuff isn't that far off - within our Children's lifetimes, definitely.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Following up the ABD reference, there is an interesting link from thier article on "Freezelogk"

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

This guy has a totally different theory on the causes of GW, and one that fits the observations better than the CO2 theory. For one thing it can explain past warm and cols periods like the "Little Ice Age" and the Roman and Medieval warm periods. What's more, the effect of this factor can be calculated for any time in the past or future.

Needless to say the IPCC aren't interested.

Personally I have been interested in climate for a long time, basically since childhood, and although I have no qualifications in the subject I have done a lot of reading over the years. This is why I an sceptical about the CO2 theory, although I cannot rule out the possiblility that there could be some truth in it. I am particularly sceptical about any claims to be able to predict future climate based on a single factor, and about mandkinds ability to to anything sensible to control it. I suspect the truth is that CO2 concentration is one of the factors that affects climate, but not a major one in the current atmospeheric concentrations.

But we shall soon know if there is any truth in Dr Landscheidt's theory. He is predicting major cooling in the next few years, and another "Little Ice Age" by 2030. The next few years are going to be interesting.

That's right, Gizmo. We have perhaps 20 more years and that's the end of it. It'll make Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 911, the tsunami and both world wars seem like a teddy-bears’ picnic, and BP is trying to change the way it runs out with an advert!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'll wager that in ten years time, or less, it'll be almost impossible to find a single person who'll admit to having believed in the AGW theory.
But, by then, the damage will already be done - to the tune of billions, if not trillions - to the worldwide economy.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Would you have wagered 10 years ago that no-one would believe in AGW today? Of course, your prediction would have been hopelessly wrong if you had.

So what has changed since then other than more industrial air pollution, more ice-cap and glacial melting, greater certainty over Atlantic Conveyor Shutdown, fiercer storms than ever, and a vastly higher carbon count?

I actually hoped you are right, but sadly you are not - we live on a finite planet and we are abruptly finding the limits.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I thought we were supposed to be getting milder winters....oops got it wrong again.

Sounds like the stuff they were saying in the 70s.......Over population, global food shortages, oh yes and the oil should have run out by now.

I think we have got a few years to go yet if you ignore the Doom Watch muppets.

Any how I thought an Asteroid was going to kill us all. Maybe tomorrow.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

..according to some

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Do you accept that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased ~ 25% since the 50's due largely to air pollution?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I can't imagine how you learned that the gulf stream shutdown would bring warmer weather. I think we face a climate similar to Newfoundland and Labrador, but without any hydro to keep us warm!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hmmm.. Interesting. What chemical reaction was that then, and which pollutant degenerates into CO2 (CO2 is itself, of course, not alpollutant but a natural constituent of the atmosphere).

But just becuase something has changes does not mean you can necessarily attach any other meaning to it. ISTR reading some years back, a book that claimed that the electoral fortunes of British political parties were statistically related to the sunspot cycle. But which way round was it, was it the sun that was affecting political opinion or politics that was affecting the sun? I suspect the latter, since our government claims tom have the ability to alter our climate. What better way than by adjusting the sun a bit? If we want to turn the sun down, perhaps all we need to do is vote Labour (or Conservative, I can't remember which way round it worked).

Of course, real air pollution is much reduced, at least in Britian, compared to 50 years ago. That would naturally allow more sunlight to reach the surface, so why wouldn't that cause climatic warming?

The argument A has changed, B has changed so A causes B (or is it B causes A) is not sufficient. Your theory needs to have accurately predicted something first.

I don't suppose I do actually. Got a reference?

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

Sorry I missed the start of this.

Can I reccomend two websites of interest to this discussion.

http://www.junkscience.com/

www.iceagenow.com

The former has an interesting live clock of the money being spent on the Kyoto agreement and it's effect on the global temperature.

The latter warns of the imminent (for the next 10,000years) ice age. (sorry can't get that link to work at the moment I will investigate)

The global temperature goes up and down by five degrees Centigrade every 100,000 years and by one degree centigrade every 1,000 years. We are just coming out of a mini ice age and warming up a bit. Mans puny effect on the global temperature is too small to be measurable unless you take into account the vast areas of crops throughout North America and the disappearing rain forest in South America.

To us in the UK the salinity of the gulf stream in the north Atlantic is of major concern.

This is a huge topic but one thing is for sure our cars are having neglible effect so all this talk about slowing us down to protect the planet is a load of old codswallop.

I'll calm down a bit now.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2

_________________
I stole this .sig