UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Film Reviews, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
The media are promoting the global warming scare based on gasses being let out into the atmosphere even though the globe has been warming and cooling since before time began long before we appeared and will continue long after we are all gone, but the scare this time is that due to gas prices ( that are set to rocket even worse soon ) fertiliser factories are closing and not producing co2 to be used in production and packaging of meats and poultry products, this is about to get worse and combined with transportation issues may result in less product getting to market and this will probably drive prices up aswell .
There is no link the latter is fact.
I heard that there will only be sufficient fresh meat for a few weeks only - guess that supports last years promotions of vegetarian diets becoming the norm.
What is also fact is that the current global warming catastrophe we are facing is up to 100% caused by man. Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
Whilst it is true to say that the earth’s temperature changes naturally over time. Variations in the planet’s orbit, solar cycles, and volcanic eruptions can all cause periods of warming or cooling.
However, reputable climate scientists unanimously agree that none of these natural causes can explain the earth’s current warming trend.
Those 'reputable' scientists all work and are paid by the government. You will not find one genuine independent climatologist agreeing with you. If you are being paid highly to find evidence for something - you would be a fool to prove otherwise.
I absolutely agree that treatment of animals bred for slaughter is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated in any civilised society. I also agree that pollution should be tackled on a mammoth scale. This is a real priority and a good start would be to ban the huge amounts of unnecessary packaging that is used in practically everything we buy.
On the subject of global warming it is easy to take the view that because a large number of reputable scientists support the fashionable vogue that humans can change the course that our climate is heading, that global warming is a cut and dried fact. Surely it is only right to consider the opinions of other reputable scientists who do not follow the prescribed mantra but put forward alternative explanations on the subject. Surely we should be entitled to an open debate in which all views are examined? Instead, only the one side of the debate is heard and that is pushed on us from every direction as "fact" that shouldn't be questioned.
Don't forget that climate scientists were telling us, when I was 8 years old, that we were about to enter an ice age. It is all done on modelling, much of which is not based on pure fact.
I totally agree with you. There is no room for debate anymore - not when the government is promoting something or other. The views of independent scientists are not allowed, nor are sensible arguments raised by the public allowed. This is a dictatorship application. Democracy allows for open debate by which everyone benefits in finding the truth - but the truth is being hidden.
Yes, in the 1980's, the media was full of Global Freezing. If you try to find that fact on the internet now you won't be able to because any such reference has been deleted.
Another so called concern is that Russian ships have been seen in British waters - if the Russians wanted access to our waters for any reason, they only have to disguise a ship as a fishing vessel and no-one would take any notice. But common sense reasoning is heavily subdued because people are meant to believe what they are told. Well, if nothing else, it sorts the wheat from the chaff.
You wonder why so many went down this man-made global warming route when it is and was clear that both our input and natural cycles gave room for argument.
Whatever your views on global warming you cannot argue with the pollution that blights our lives.
Giving people an obvious point of disagreement, however weak, was a great mistake.
If you don't believe in man-made global warming fine but give me an argument that the world isn't polluted.
I have never heard one that was even remotely cogent.
The World? Do you mean our planet or do you mean the Universe?
If you mean our planet, only 0.03% of our planet is inhabited, i.e for every1000 acres of land, humans use just 3 acres. Out of the number of countries in the World, one quarter of those 3 acres are without industry. The most polluted areas are built up areas that prevent natural air flow - so when the air moves to uninhabited areas i.e over the oceans - it cools and is absorbed by the water. Chemicals in the water, in addition to the water cycle dissipate any pollution that it once contained. Or, Air is dissipated in rainfall and falls to the ground and absorbed by flora and fauna etc., The air flow / water movement are very complicated on the planet and are not fully understood by any scientific expert, therefore it is impossible to program climatic events electronically for there is no pattern to them. In the past, the Earth has had far more pollution exuded into the atmosphere than there is around at present - think even of WW2? Seen any London smogs recently? Man cannot affect nature - nature is far too powerful.
The World? Do you mean our planet or do you mean the Universe?
If you mean our planet, only 0.03% of our planet is inhabited, i.e for every1000 acres of land, humans use just 3 acres. Out of the number of countries in the World, one quarter of those 3 acres are without industry. The most polluted areas are built up areas that prevent natural air flow - so when the air moves to uninhabited areas i.e over the oceans - it cools and is absorbed by the water. Chemicals in the water, in addition to the water cycle dissipate any pollution that it once contained. Or, Air is dissipated in rainfall and falls to the ground and absorbed by flora and fauna etc., The air flow / water movement are very complicated on the planet and are not fully understood by any scientific expert, therefore it is impossible to program climatic events electronically for there is no pattern to them. In the past, the Earth has had far more pollution exuded into the atmosphere than there is around at present - think even of WW2? Seen any London smogs recently? Man cannot affect nature - nature is far too powerful.
But Prof you haven't met even my basic challenge.
Just a cogent argument that the world isn't polluted I suppose because you haven't got one.
The quaint idea that mother nature cleans up after us is not grounded in sense or reality.
Oh and as you bought in the Universe(?) we are surrounding our planet with space junk.
Chemicals in the water, in addition to the water cycle dissipate any pollution that it once contained.
Really, you believe that or have you just chosen the wrong word?
Yes, in the 1980's, the media was full of Global Freezing. If you try to find that fact on the internet now you won't be able to because any such reference has been deleted.
That's because it wasn't the 1980's, it was at the end of the 1950's/early 1960's.......I remember reading about it at that time on the front page of the Daily Express - I'd suggest you look up their archives to confirm.
Back then, CO2 levels were much less, as there were far fewer cars on the road and mass jet travel hadn't taken off. There was no way of knowing that emissions would mushroom so much in the following 50 years. The predictions of a new ice age were purely based on the geological record of past ice ages, which were found to occur at 10,000 year intervals. And with the last ice age ending about 10,000 years ago, the timing was/is right for another one.
Imo, they were right in their conclusion and we should be on the way to a new ice age. However, there's so much CO2 in the air now, that global warming has won out, more than reversing the expected ice age.
On the subject of global warming it is easy to take the view that because a large number of reputable scientists support the fashionable vogue that humans can change the course that our climate is heading, that global warming is a cut and dried fact. Surely it is only right to consider the opinions of other reputable scientists who do not follow the prescribed mantra but put forward alternative explanations on the subject. Surely we should be entitled to an open debate in which all views are examined? Instead, only the one side of the debate is heard and that is pushed on us from every direction as "fact" that shouldn't be questioned.
Don't forget that climate scientists were telling us, when I was 8 years old, that we were about to enter an ice age. It is all done on modelling, much of which is not based on pure fact.
97% of scientists support the anthropogenic climate change theory. They agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. It is "extremely likely" that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.
So yes, in the 1950s they were looking at a generally colder future.
And dissenting scientist's views have been considered, and proven erroneous. Scientists (the vast, vast majority of whom aren't paid by some shadowy government) have assessed millennia of data. Their conclusion is that after the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 started rising, then since the 50's human activity is the dominant cause of greenhouse gasses. The consequences of which are blindingly apparent the world over, from ice sheets melting, oceans becoming acidic, rising seas to extreme weather.
They've had debates. They've listened to the 3%, a great many of whom are in the pay of fossil fuel corporations. The conclusions are the same. Similar to the Covid debates, scientists and the medical profession the world over are in agreement. But there's always some crank ready to lead low rent thugs into railing against facts.
97% of scientists support the anthropogenic climate change theory. They agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. It is "extremely likely" that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.
So yes, in the 1950s they were looking at a generally colder future.
And dissenting scientist's views have been considered, and proven erroneous. Scientists (the vast, vast majority of whom aren't paid by some shadowy government) have assessed millennia of data. Their conclusion is that after the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 started rising, then since the 50's human activity is the dominant cause of greenhouse gasses. The consequences of which are blindingly apparent the world over, from ice sheets melting, oceans becoming acidic, rising seas to extreme weather.
They've had debates. They've listened to the 3%, a great many of whom are in the pay of fossil fuel corporations. The conclusions are the same. Similar to the Covid debates, scientists and the medical profession the world over are in agreement. But there's always some crank ready to lead low rent thugs into railing against facts.
The media with regard to Global Freeing may have begun in the 1960's but it was still being published in the 1980's. I think some people have got this Climate Change thing a bit twisted - correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it in the 1950's/60's when most people had coal fires? When Steam engines were still being run? When the iron industry had coal burning furnaces? When power stations were all using fossil fuels? Etc., Was there not far more CO2 around then? So what is it to be - more CO2 leads to Global Freezing, or more CO2 leads to global warming?
An ice age in fifty years?? I don't think so! An Ice age doesn't just pop up now and then and disappear, it takes around a 100,000 years to form. Just as the hot summer we had with around 35/40 degrees heat, you will not see that again for around fifty years or so.
Unless you mix within the circles of scientific personnel - you are highly unlikely to know just what their real views are for these will never be allowed to be published. Yahoo and Facebook would remove any opposing views and ban the author from the sites.
The media with regard to Global Freeing may have begun in the 1960's but it was still being published in the 1980's. I think some people have got this Climate Change thing a bit twisted - correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it in the 1950's/60's when most people had coal fires? When Steam engines were still being run? When the iron industry had coal burning furnaces? When power stations were all using fossil fuels? Etc., Was there not far more CO2 around then? So what is it to be - more CO2 leads to Global Freezing, or more CO2 leads to global warming?
An ice age in fifty years?? I don't think so! An Ice age doesn't just pop up now and then and disappear, it takes around a 100,000 years to form. Just as the hot summer we had with around 35/40 degrees heat, you will not see that again for around fifty years or so.
Unless you mix within the circles of scientific personnel - you are highly unlikely to know just what their real views are for these will never be allowed to be published. Yahoo and Facebook would remove any opposing views and ban the author from the sites.
A) wasn't it in the 1950's/60's when most people had coal fires?
B) When Steam engines were still being run? When the iron industry had coal burning furnaces? When power stations were all using fossil fuels? Etc.,
C) Was there not far more CO2 around then? So what is it to be - more CO2 leads to Global Freezing, or more CO2 leads to global warming?
A) People swapped their coal fires for gas fires, which emit CO2 just like a coal fire.
Central heating (gas) began to make an appearance in the average property.
B) On the railways, steam engines were replaced by diesel engines, which also emit CO2.
Steel furnaces used gas or electric (generated by fossil-fuelled power stations).
C) Records show there was well less CO2 in the atmosphere in the '50's/'60's than now.
A) People swapped their coal fires for gas fires, which emit CO2 just like a coal fire.
Central heating (gas) began to make an appearance in the average property.
B) On the railways, steam engines were replaced by diesel engines, which also emit CO2.
Steel furnaces used gas or electric (generated by fossil-fuelled power stations).
C) Records show there was well less CO2 in the atmosphere in the '50's/'60's than now.
Ah! But local was referring to 'pollution' like as as in 'smog' pollution which we do not have now.
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found