This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Cooling????

ps Why are air flights so damned cheap anyway
there should be a massive tax on them - carbon tax, resources tax, pollution tax, whatever you want to call it/them.

As Smurf said somewhere, the end of fossil fuels is just around the corner folks. ( And the US military is using it up at a massive rate - etc.)

When that happens (i.e. we all run out - except perhaps what is stockpiled in America or somewhere) there are gonna be a lot of cheap aeroplanes up for sale (you'd think)
 
Not if Richard Branson gets his way, as i posted in renewable energy news he plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year Should be interesting to watch and hope he pulls it off as there are a lot of sceptics out there.

Rest of the article here

Heres an interview with him, quite interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16190265/
 
BB thanks mate -
Branson plans to have a trial plane in the air running on Biodiesel next year
hope the plugs don't carbon up
just have a sacrificial Virgin out on the wing to change em I guess.
PS make that the injectors lol
 
so in summary
1. I think Al Gore is talking the talk AND because his role in this is to educate ...
he is simultaneously walking the walk.
I'm sorry to have to laugh, but I'm LMFAO at that one.... walking the walk AHAHAHAHA.

That is worthy of any political spinmeister.

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?

Most absolutely not. Gore's agenda is different to anything you can imagine, but will leave you to ponder on that one.

It will result in massive taxation on the middle classes, with a clever sleight of hand that will ensure the "elite" will continue unaffected.

True change will mean dismantling the entire banking system. Why? Because the way money is created relies on ever increasing debt and ever increasing economic growth. What we need right now is a few steps backward (with some concurrent steps forward in other areas).

The current banking/money system cannot survive that, and they won't go there.

"Real" change, I will support. Gores version is largely propaganda to a certain end. I will vote against Gores vision.
 
well I'm happy if I'm unintentionally funny, and made you laugh - Not much else to laugh at on this topic

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?
btw, when I asked this, I was only referring to whether a pollie's attitude to doing something about man-made global warming would affect your vote.

Speaking of which - you're allowed to say
"I guess not", or
"it's a difficult one" or
"depends how you define etc etc"

PS Maybe I should have said
Is either Al Gore's message or the IPCC's message going to figure in your voting choice. ?

The message implied in the Nobel Peace Prize maybe?
 
Wayne , from your reporter friend...

1. straw man (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)
2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence. since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears
3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).

My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) , - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.

I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff. That's what this thread is about surely.

And doing something about it - like electing people who care.
 
Wayne , from your reporter friend...
1. straw man (so it's 10 foot "soon" and 20ft "later") - tell you waht - let your reporter friend go toNauru etc and say that rising sea levels aren't a problem - (I suggest he wears a teethguard.)
The problem with tis argument is that we are never told whether, the land mass thas is Naru is stable, rising or falling. The problem I see with the rising levels at Naru, is that it is not observable anywhere else. The land could be sinking, but we don't know cause we are not told. This and other inconsistencies make me highly suspicious.
2. claiming impossible evidence, in the same sentence lol as claiming Gore doesn;t have evidence. since this is a trading website - ramping down the number of bears
If you want 100% credibility, you better have "good" evidence and not selective spin. Just as if a witness lies in court over one matter, his whole testimony becomes suspect.

3. attacking the man (as he does through his entire post).
I'm not one for ad hominem attacks... unless they are deserved. In this case they are and it is material to his point.

My problem is with a Global Warn ing (and sure I have more respect for the IPCC than for Gore) , - but what I don't need is a Gore warning, which also plays down the problem.
There are those who wish to play down or ignore the problem, but there are numerous reasons that have been argued here why Gore/IPCC could be intentionally barking up the wrong tree. As I've stated before, I am firmly of the belief they are.

I posted a heap of stuff back there by IPCC, including some incontrovertible stuff. That's what this thread is about surely.
Not many deny GW, the argument is whether it is anthropomorphic or not.

And doing something about it - like electing people who care.
If you think ANY politician cares, you're dreaming. What they are interested in is votes. If being "green" means winning more votes than they lose, even Dubya would become a greenie.

The people who matter are US, you and me & Bobby McGee and the bloke down the road. The truth is, I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of people give a toss. The typical attitude is "I be dead anyway" (and this is something they say in front of their children! )

I remain very skeptical on AGW, but am deeply concerned about those other things I've outlined previously, so I care enough to DO SOMETHING MYSELF and politicians be damned!! People will never follow politicians with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

(But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )
 
So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!

(But don't be a nazi about it, they won't listen, be subtle )
no argument from me about doing something
including drumming up public awareness ( which is where I started)

and we've gone full circle on the question of me claiming that STFU is wrong attitude.
 

A documentary on the subject of the effect of particles in the air reported that when air traffic was grounded after 9/11, rainfall increased. This was attributed to increased solar radiation in the absence of particles from aircraft causing increase in evaporation from standing water eg lakes & rivers etc, and hence more rainfall. The effect of particles when present was called "global dimming". This effect it was claimed does not cancel "global warming" as heat is still prevented from escaping the atmosphere by CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
 
So If you're serious about this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT, teach your children to do something about it, try and influence your friends.... GET ACTIVE!
I'd better stop reading this thread. Sitting here coming up with lots of ideas on how to make my new house more energy efficient.

Then I realised just one problem. Not only haven't moved in yet but no power connected at the moment either. I guess you could say that makes it the ultimate in energy efficiency.

So my short term intention is to make it MORE polluting not to destroy the earth, but because I do like the idea of having lights that work and being able to cook. No power would keep me off ASF too...

Nothing structural to change but there's resisitive heating, peak rate hot water and not a single energy efficient light there at the moment. First power bill from that lot is sure to be a rather blunt reminder to get on with the energy efficiency real quick.

Either that or "electric" Smurf will have to work out how to get the wood fire going... (Woodheaters, now there's something that causes lots of argument about the environment!).
 
I think this proves the North Pole is getting warmer and the South Pole is getting colder. Therefore part of planet Earth is the subject of Global Warming and the other part is the subject of Global Cooling. It could be that Earth has been jolted off its axis by different Polar winds. Soon the Polar winds will change plunging Australia into a new ice age.

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record​

 
Wouldn't that have been noticed?
I doubt it!
When did you ever see Santa deliver his presents?
Last year Santa DM'd with news that global warming caused him to abandon his North Pole abode due to warehouse flooding.
His new home at the South Pole is absolutely cool, however, the relocation of his abundance of presents has caused a few wobbles of our planet's axis.

I admit to being very confused about this global warming hoax. The temperature of my fridge has been the same for at least 30 years, and I don't have any trouble getting ice from the freezer.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...