Sanity really has broken out in the US
17 April 2009, 10:15 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sanity really has broken out in the US
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
17 April 2009, 10:29 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
From the article ... " ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... " ...
To put it into it's correct form ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious tax revenue generation scam now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... "
Ever stood back and thought why they're looking at sh(te like this when the worlds economies are down the pan??????
Dave
17 April 2009, 10:42 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
wasting our time and money
have a read
NPR: NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming
even one fo the head guys at nasa thinks its a waste of time to try to sort out global warming
have a read
NPR: NASA Chief Questions Need to Address Global Warming
even one fo the head guys at nasa thinks its a waste of time to try to sort out global warming
17 April 2009, 10:43 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This totally political decision will have negative effects on the rest of the world for many years to come. Best stop breathing now Martin, that CO2 you breathe out is a 'dangerous pollutant' ......
From the article ... " ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... " ...
To put it into it's correct form ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious tax revenue generation scam now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... "
Ever stood back and thought why they're looking at sh(te like this when the worlds economies are down the pan??????
Dave
From the article ... " ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... " ...
To put it into it's correct form ... "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious tax revenue generation scam now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson ... "
Ever stood back and thought why they're looking at sh(te like this when the worlds economies are down the pan??????
Dave
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe, just maybe there might be something to all the climate change stuff.
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe this is a much bigger issue than the short term economic crisis
Have you ever stood back and thought the the US government under Bush spent an awful long time trying to deny the science..why do you think that was?
Have you ever stood back and thought that the reason the US government are reacting to this is because they believe the science and know they must act and lead by example?
Have you ever stood back and thought that it might be even remotely possible that you are wrong?
17 April 2009, 11:02 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wouldn't want to disappoint you .... 
Ever stood back and looked at the evidence yourself? As you previous replies/comments on these threads indicate that you haven't .... You just repeat the party (socialist) line ....
Dave
Dave
17 April 2009, 11:03 PM
#7
R.I.P.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thats are surprising response....NOT
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe, just maybe there might be something to all the climate change stuff.
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe this is a much bigger issue than the short term economic crisis
Have you ever stood back and thought the the US government under Bush spent an awful long time trying to deny the science..why do you think that was?
Have you ever stood back and thought that the reason the US government are reacting to this is because they believe the science and know they must act and lead by example?
Have you ever stood back and thought that it might be even remotely possible that you are wrong?
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe, just maybe there might be something to all the climate change stuff.
Have you ever stood back and thought maybe this is a much bigger issue than the short term economic crisis
Have you ever stood back and thought the the US government under Bush spent an awful long time trying to deny the science..why do you think that was?
Have you ever stood back and thought that the reason the US government are reacting to this is because they believe the science and know they must act and lead by example?
Have you ever stood back and thought that it might be even remotely possible that you are wrong?
Trending Topics
17 April 2009, 11:11 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
" ... The report from US-based research firm SBI predicts that while the global carbon market will contract 29 per cent this year to just $84bn (£56bn), it will recover quickly over the next four years, growing at an average of 68 per cent a year to be worth $669bn by 2013 ... " .
Oh, who mentioned Al Gore? Maybe Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
" ... Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.... ".
Shall we get real now??
Dave
PS: and who the hell has a wife called 'Tipper'????????????????
17 April 2009, 11:20 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Politicians, environmentalists, climatologists and thousands of others are all incentivised to believe in AGW. Many academics I've come across become experts in securing funding. Now which is the path of least resistance?
Politicians, environmentalists, climatologists and thousands of others are all incentivised to believe in AGW. Many academics I've come across become experts in securing funding. Now which is the path of least resistance?
17 April 2009, 11:57 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 April 2009, 11:58 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 April 2009, 11:59 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Politicians, environmentalists, climatologists and thousands of others are all incentivised to believe in AGW. Many academics I've come across become experts in securing funding. Now which is the path of least resistance?
Politicians, environmentalists, climatologists and thousands of others are all incentivised to believe in AGW. Many academics I've come across become experts in securing funding. Now which is the path of least resistance?
18 April 2009, 12:05 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever stood back and thought 'how could I make a financial killing from gorebal warming'? Oh look, how about some of this ... Global carbon market to hit $669bn by 2013 - 16 Apr 2009 - BusinessGreen.com
" ... The report from US-based research firm SBI predicts that while the global carbon market will contract 29 per cent this year to just $84bn (£56bn), it will recover quickly over the next four years, growing at an average of 68 per cent a year to be worth $669bn by 2013 ... " .
Oh, who mentioned Al Gore? Maybe Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
" ... Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.... ".
Shall we get real now??
Dave
PS: and who the hell has a wife called 'Tipper'????????????????
" ... The report from US-based research firm SBI predicts that while the global carbon market will contract 29 per cent this year to just $84bn (£56bn), it will recover quickly over the next four years, growing at an average of 68 per cent a year to be worth $669bn by 2013 ... " .
Oh, who mentioned Al Gore? Maybe Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
" ... Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere." But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.... ".
Shall we get real now??
Dave
PS: and who the hell has a wife called 'Tipper'????????????????
If you really are cynical enough to see everything as a conspiracy then I'm sure that stuff like this floats your boat... but it really doesn't change the science one way or the other does it?
Trust me an open mind is liberating....you should try it
18 April 2009, 12:30 AM
#14
More lip service....Funny how US regs on NOx for a long time was far stricter than EU regs on the same toxic gases....who at the time were all focusing more so on CO and CO2. In fact Tier 2 federal emissions standards are still stricter than EU4, and in some classification bands stricter than EU5.
But oh, no its not CO2, so it doesn't matter
NOx still is a nasty pollutant far worse than CO2, yet how often do we hear of it in the news? Not to forget the other rarely mentioned combustion pollutants other than CO2.
Sometimes we're a bit too quick to judge a country, which had strict emissions control systems including catalytic converters and strict emissions standards (see the 1970 amendments to clean air act: EPA ) A full 17 years BEFORE the UK!
In other words; Whilst we were still using leaded fuel in our Austin Metros, the USA had unleaded fuel, 3 way catalysts, EGR (to limit NOx), evaporative emissions control, and many cars had closed-loop controlled EFi. All long before such like was seen as mandatory fitment on a UK car. (and notably of which the Metro fell foul upon on a few occasions, with the A-series initially not being compatible with unleaded fuel, and the post 1992 catalyst equipped Metros failing their first MOT on, yup, emissions! )
Seems a bit rich and hypocritical for the UK to tell the US to play "catch up" when we dragged our heels for 17 years on the same issues.
But oh, no its not CO2, so it doesn't matter
NOx still is a nasty pollutant far worse than CO2, yet how often do we hear of it in the news? Not to forget the other rarely mentioned combustion pollutants other than CO2.
Sometimes we're a bit too quick to judge a country, which had strict emissions control systems including catalytic converters and strict emissions standards (see the 1970 amendments to clean air act: EPA ) A full 17 years BEFORE the UK!
In other words; Whilst we were still using leaded fuel in our Austin Metros, the USA had unleaded fuel, 3 way catalysts, EGR (to limit NOx), evaporative emissions control, and many cars had closed-loop controlled EFi. All long before such like was seen as mandatory fitment on a UK car. (and notably of which the Metro fell foul upon on a few occasions, with the A-series initially not being compatible with unleaded fuel, and the post 1992 catalyst equipped Metros failing their first MOT on, yup, emissions!
)Seems a bit rich and hypocritical for the UK to tell the US to play "catch up" when we dragged our heels for 17 years on the same issues.
Last edited by ALi-B; 18 April 2009 at 12:31 AM.
18 April 2009, 12:38 AM
#15
BANNED
18 April 2009, 12:47 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 April 2009, 01:00 AM
#17
BANNED
. Plus i have better things to do
18 April 2009, 09:03 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
18 April 2009, 09:56 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Martin I see no 'open mind' over at your keyboard. I have posted FACTS above. There is no need for an open mind. Just the ability to see things that are true and exist. 'Carbon trading'[ is just another scam to rake in billions for those that have billions already .... at the expense of you and me!
Dave
Dave
18 April 2009, 10:17 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What chance do you think there is of getting research funded and a paper published in a peer reviewed pro-AGW journal? Good old publication bias, likely to give false results from the gold standard of meta-analysis, and lead to apparently established conclusions being eventually overturned. The very idea of a "consensus" would make many scientists shudder.
Last edited by john banks; 18 April 2009 at 10:23 AM.
18 April 2009, 10:18 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Whatever the arguments over Global Warming -- err now called Climate Change, presumably because GW is a little to specific, and after all climates change anyway (that is one of the pre-requisites of a Climate) so difficult to disprove either way
Are we really saying, under the current construct of the world economic order, anything will change, even if every American rides to work on a bike everyday
India/China – when they really come on stream as 1st world societies (not economies) i.e. big middle class that demand cars/air con/dishwashers etc etc etc
What then?, or are we saying those countries exist purely to supply us with cheap crap and should keep there aspirations very low, leave all the funky stuff like cars/dishwashers/TV’s etc etc to us, but hey we will install low voltage light bulbs and put a wind turbine on our chimneys
Are we really saying, under the current construct of the world economic order, anything will change, even if every American rides to work on a bike everyday
India/China – when they really come on stream as 1st world societies (not economies) i.e. big middle class that demand cars/air con/dishwashers etc etc etc
What then?, or are we saying those countries exist purely to supply us with cheap crap and should keep there aspirations very low, leave all the funky stuff like cars/dishwashers/TV’s etc etc to us, but hey we will install low voltage light bulbs and put a wind turbine on our chimneys
18 April 2009, 10:36 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol, one of my biggest life regrets is that I'll not live a long enough life span to laugh heartedly into a cup of tea at the very notion of how much we, as humans, got our knickers in a twist over our carbon footprint and global warming at the start of the new millennium.
18 April 2009, 10:40 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Martin I see no 'open mind' over at your keyboard. I have posted FACTS above. There is no need for an open mind. Just the ability to see things that are true and exist. 'Carbon trading'[ is just another scam to rake in billions for those that have billions already .... at the expense of you and me!
Dave
Dave
Dave
18 April 2009, 10:44 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
So that just leaves Scoobynet to be convinced....I'll not hold my breath
18 April 2009, 10:47 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See post #19, and then wait for Martin's long winded explanation about how concerned he is about climate change, but requires a 350bhp gas guzzling air conditioned monster to get around in.
18 April 2009, 10:54 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Paul.
So, another hypocritical GW advocate then. I meet so many in my job you'd be amazed. They fly all over the world to do lectures on " environment this, environment that ", then they turn up at anti-airport rallies and what not, crying over the state of the planet, before returning home to their 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
Makes me want to puke.
So, another hypocritical GW advocate then. I meet so many in my job you'd be amazed. They fly all over the world to do lectures on " environment this, environment that ", then they turn up at anti-airport rallies and what not, crying over the state of the planet, before returning home to their 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
Makes me want to puke.
18 April 2009, 11:30 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Paul.
So, another hypocritical GW advocate then. I meet so many in my job you'd be amazed. They fly all over the world to do lectures on " environment this, environment that ", then they turn up at anti-airport rallies and what not, crying over the state of the planet, before returning home to their 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
Makes me want to puke.
So, another hypocritical GW advocate then. I meet so many in my job you'd be amazed. They fly all over the world to do lectures on " environment this, environment that ", then they turn up at anti-airport rallies and what not, crying over the state of the planet, before returning home to their 5 and 6 bedroom houses.
Makes me want to puke.
What a feckin stupid post...why is it that not completely dismissing the notion of AGW is taken as completely buying into it?
Can you not grasp this?
Your ignorance makes me puke