Rog Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Do you agree with his other beliefs? For example: "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." He may be a "nut job" or he may not, but on this he's right and I agree with the proposal. If it had been done when the disease first emerged there would not be the problem there is in the world today, and the money being wasted on this disease of immorality could be being spent on finding cures for cancer. As for global warming, personally I believe that though ot may be a natural cyclical phenomena mankind’s actions have destroyed the mechanism to prevent runaway temperature rising taking place. What is also significant in the amount of pollution released by sixteen of the largest cargo ships in use today equals the total pollution emitted by ALL the worlds cars. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...cars-world.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...cars-world.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a thing's true, then does it really matter what the source is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a thing's true, then does it really matter what the source is? Of course it matters. For example, I pretty much ignore everything you say as bigoted hate filled nonsense even if you might fluke being correct once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 If a thing's true, then does it really matter what the source is? Of course it matters. For example, I pretty much ignore everything you say as bigoted hate filled nonsense even if you might fluke being correct once in a while. But my dear child, the truth is always the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 But my dear child, the truth is always the truth. OK, I'll bite. It may be true that those tankers pollute as much as cars, even though the research attached to the article looks rather shaky. What's your point? Those emissions should be reduced, it doesn't mean car emissions shouldn't be reduced too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 My point is that while cars are being attacked for being so polluting little to no attention is being given to a major source of pollution that, owing to the amount of sulphur is more environmentally damaging than vehicle exhausts. In fact it is being deliberately shoved to one side by big business while Joe Public constantly gets clobbered with “Green” taxes and restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 My point is that while cars are being attacked for being so polluting little to no attention is being given to a major source of pollution that, owing to the amount of sulphur is more environmentally damaging than vehicle exhausts. In fact it is being deliberately shoved to one side by big business while Joe Public constantly gets clobbered with “Green” taxes and restrictions. Did you read the article? The rules for emissions have been changed, and emissions will have to half by 2012, then drop further after that. I agree generally though, aviation and shipping should both be hit harder, but that doesn't mean personal motorists shouldn't also be expected to clean up. Don't you think the headline is missleading though: "Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year. With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars." That's saying the maximum amount of sulphur they're permitted to emit is equivalent to the worlds fleet of cars, not that they do emit that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 It is interesting that Monckton has become a spokesman for those who deny the importance of Anthomorphic Climate Change. The guy really has very little credibility. Monckton's deliberate manipulation Other Monckton schenanigans Over the shenanigans at the University of East Anglia - I think they are serious, not as serious as the type of things Monckton gets up to, but serious enough for there to be a board of inquiry. One suggestion I saw was to get Lord Lawson to chair it. He's firmly on the sceptical side, but doesn't deliberately make things up as those like Monckton do. I think such a panel would be useful - it would make the scientists explain themselves, knowing their careers were on the line, but would hopefully be able to persuade a sceptic of the value of their research. Quite definitely I would also want competent, peer-accepted experts on climate science on the panel to ensure Lawson doesn't start ignoring accepted science (say the carbon cycle, which I genuinely think Monckton doesn't understand!), but I don't think Lawson would do that and so having him as chair would send a message, and hopefully a successful one showing the value of climate science - as long as the scientists have been ethical in what they have been doing - which on the whole I think they have - getting pissed off with poor science put out by sceptics isn't unethical, but may well be impolite! Edited to clarify Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warmin...t-does-it-mean/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warmin...t-does-it-mean/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0 What's that Skippy? Uncle Wayne's fallen down a mine shaft? Strewth! We better skip along and rescue him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Don't forget the logo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 With the Copenhagen Climate Conference iminent the International Panel on Climate Change has published an update to its last report. The figures for it are here. Take a skim through it - look at the data and level of effort to understand the world - they take their job so seriously they even examine the type of bucket used to measure sea temperature samples and correct for their effects. Those types of "tricks" are vital if we are going to understand climate change, but that effort is now being turned against the scientists in a most crass and political way. I can understand the anger expressed in their emails against those who deliberately go out of the way to waste their time and try to distort their work for political advantage. The science in these graphs is the settled opinion of the world's climate scientists - whether they are from the US, UK, China, India, South Africa etc. I would find claims that this is all a conspiracy exposed by a set of emails form the University of East Anglia farcical if it wasn't so serious. The consequences of doubling CO2 are massively disturbing as I showed in the economist video above - hundreds of millions without sufficient food etc. Look at the trends in the graphs - compared to early projections what is happening is as bad or worse than the worst case scenarios they projected. The science was conservative and has underestimated the risks over the last 10 years. All the while lobbiests connected to the coal and oil industries have successfully attacked good science. Sad, really sad to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) It's time the scientists made an effort to understand that the opposition is by no means all political. The ordinary man in the street has become sick of listening to voices of authority - churches, then politicians and now scientists - telling him that he is responsible for all the world's ills. Like the early church they use terminology that most people don't understand, often with a lofty air of superiority that turns people away from listening. We are not scientists! We do not want to be scientists! If there is a problem, explain it to us in simple terms that we can understand and then tell us what the governments, the industries and the scientists themselves - who are the truly culpable ones - are going to do about sorting it out. Because, quite simply, the more they preach the less we'll listen. If they can't understand that then their much-vaunted intelligence is a myth. Edited November 24, 2009 by Terse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.