Global Warming Do You Care?

[britmaveric]

Read Crichtons, State of Fear. Yes it's fiction, but he uses lot of hard scientific data that well makes one think what the true global warming agenda is.

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

[Tim207]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL

Spectacular comeback to a very embarrassing situation you placed yourself in.

[Pepe']

Read Crichtons, State of Fear. Yes it's fiction, but he uses lot of hard scientific data that well makes one think what the true global warming agenda is.

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

----------------

I read the quick wiki reference.

Based on that maybe Thais would be better off if they burned of trash (my favorites with a tire or two thrown on top) not just in the suburbs but also in designated locations throughout down town BKK....

[Tim207]

Yes. Well said.

Here’s an interesting thing (at least more interesting than dealing with the same stuff about cosmic rays, warming Antarctic, heat islands, Al Gore’s heating bill, etc., etc.,) Why don’t climate change deniers ever argue amongst themselves? In this thread many of the standard objections have been raised, some of which are:

We don’t know what’s happening

The world isn’t getting warmer (and it’s a scam to raise taxes, etc.)

It is getting warmer and greenhouse gases are causing it but it’s not significant

It is getting warmer and greenhouse gases are causing it and it is significant but there’s nothing we can do about it

It is getting warmer and cosmic ray are causing it. It’s either not significant or there’s nothing we can do about it.

Could it be that we can comprehend the difference between theory and fact. There is evidence to support most if not all of the climate theories, including the one marketed to the masses that you subscribe to. A big difference is AGW proponents want others to make major changes on the basis of their theory. It is interesting to note that many of those changes also coinside with changes that the envioronmentalist groups have been pushing for years. Is it global catastrophe they are heralding or just another well marketed theory that furthers their agenda? My mind is far from made up on climate change but I have seen enough media manipulation to know that there is an effort to convince the public that AGW is fact and not theory. Why the need for half truths and manipulation by the media if the evidence of the theory is so conclusive.

[Pepe']

-----------------------------

We will never go wrong if we live according to guidelines that would "theoretically" reduce GW.

Absolutely...

What do ya think...

[JetsetBkk]

Chloe - I'm at a loss here...how can your assumptions about my education be called facts - or is this your new theory about the word fact - "don't believe it's used as convention would dictate - just make up your own meaning"?

Okay, you seem to have missed it the first time around so here it is again, wilko, show me anywhere in any of my posts where i have written mis-information about your education.

You can't, as what i wrote was fact, but if you can tell me where you think i made assumptions about it then i am willing to be proved wrong.

"Says the 'man' who only scraped through on high school chemistry"

Oh, you mean that? I just assumed that you were not telling lies when you said

My suspicions were iron content, but as I only scraped through on high school chemistry I wasn't sure.

In you thread here > Well Water - One For The Scientists/chemists, Bleach turns my well water brown

Oh well, we know not to trust what you write in future posts then.

:D wilko - busted!!

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

"figure of speech" :bah: It doesn't get any better than this. :o

[JimsKnight]

I don't care about global warming, the reason is its highly unlikely to end mankind or threaten us, people are more likely to instead.

Preventing overpopulation from fcking up the world is the key and only China ('the bad pollutor') has actually taken steps to addressing it (I know they fcked up a bit and have a woman shortage but at least they tried / are trying).

The western worlds answer seems to be blinding everyone with this environmental alchemy and using it to get money

into the government coffers.

We can't do anything effective to change to change the planet short of changing the amount of kids popping out like popsicles every 2 seconds AND governments encouraging it.

Too many people = massive drain on resources. The less people the better as resources are more effectively managed and people can get on with inventing stuff and getting technological breakthroughs going again.

We need to address population control first, then worry about a few degrees warmer/colder here and there.

Trouble is the subject of population control to actually do anything about it gets everyone sht scared and depressed, so instead the convenient excuse is to blame pollution, CO2 etc. It creates the illusion that we can combat an illusion while ignoring the facts.

I remember about a year ago on the BBC this maverick dude came on TV to face off against Gore and his merry men arguing for controlling the population by encouraging people to have less kids rather than wasting time harping on about the environment and wasting cash on it all the time.

He pointed out that according to his research and estimates the world would be at equilibrium if there was about 1.6 billion people on the planet (compared with the 6 billion odd we have currently) with the earths resources and environment lasting so long that renewable resources would replace them before the fossil fuels were depleted.

Chloe, your sexy theories are pretty radical and are news to me babe. They make my head spin but sound the part, however you're too fresh for the stuffy conventional believers to ever follow but good luck anyway.

However you sound and look like a right-on babe for the right-wing groovers so I agree with you.

You'd be welcome on my oil rig any day to get the head honchos drilling for more oil!

MS and the other Al Gore followers, chill out , keep an open mind and stop spreading hysteria. Its all theory and convenient facts supporting a blinkered view half the time anyway. It's too late to get off the train we're all on. Just ride the waves and enjoy the ride.

[Spee]

We can't do anything effective to change to change the planet short of changing the amount of kids popping out like popsicles every 2 seconds AND governments encouraging it.

Too many people = massive drain on resources. The less people the better as resources are more effectively managed and people can get on with inventing stuff and getting technological breakthroughs going again.

We need to address population control first, then worry about a few degrees warmer/colder here and there.

I didn't think things could get further off the deep end, then these gems came along.

Who is bloody heck is going to tell people how many kids they can and can't have? There is only one answer ..... a government. How is a government going to enforce population control? Quite simple, through the use of force. A government telling people how and when they can reproduce is truly, truly scary, scary, scary stuff. A government using military force to enforce it is scarier still. If 1930's & 1940's Nazi Germany wasn't enough evidence, then present day communist China sure as heck should be. What's next after government enforced reproductive control? Telling people where they can and can't live? What they can or can't eat?

How about letting people use the resources that the supreme creator, mother nature and evolution deposited in this earth and then those less fortunate people might have an opportunity for a better longer life? How about building some electrical and desalination plants along the coasts of Africa and India and helping millions of people that do exist have a better chance at survival, if not better quality of life and chance for prosperity?

Mankind inhabits a small fraction of the planet's area. If there's too many people for you, then there's plenty of places where you can be 100's of miles from anyone else in civilization and consume as few or many resources as you please. By all means, have at it.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Spee

[chicowoodduck]

For what it's worth, I just saw this today on one of my travel email threads (airtreks.com) with regard to being a "green" traveler.

For savvy travelers and those wanting to be - In this issue…(Sustainable Travel)

The environment and our ever changing world continues to subtly present unique opportunities for us travelers to play a special part in the way we travel while conscientiously participating in conservational efforts to help sustain eco-friendly tourism so our future generations will still have a pleasant world to enjoy when we are gone. This does not mean we have to go completely "green" or join an "eco-club", but at the very least, considering a few of the following ideas before, during and after our journeys abroad will certainly help.

• Buy local – help reduce fossil fuel emissions through supporting local vendors, farmers and crafts people who grow their own food and create their own goods without relying on importation from far flung places.
  
• If going on a tour seek out eco-friendly tour operators who practice sustainable travel and give back to their local communities.
  
• Know the regulations and special concerns for the area(s) you'll visit.
  
• Help preserve the past and leave what you find. It's those all-too-memorable words we heard as kids - "Don't touch!" Funny how this still applies if we want to continue protecting against the degradation of our cultural and historical artifacts and structures including the environment.
  

Respect the wildlife – observe wildlife from a distance so they don't feel threatened, and avoid feeding them because it alters their natural behaviors and can make them susceptible to predators while relying on human handouts.

[plachon]

Read Crichtons, State of Fear. Yes it's fiction, but he uses lot of hard scientific data that well makes one think what the true global warming agenda is.

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

OK, if you want entertainment squarely in the world of "fantasy" (just as The Day After Tomorrow is).

Better still, if you enjoy something well written, meticulously researched and in the factual realm, do yourself a big favour and read "Collapse - How societies choose to fail or succeed" by Jared Diamond (author of the brilliant "Guns, Germs and Steel" book in 1997). Diamond doesn't just consider global warming, but explores how use and abuse of the environment have led to some spectacular collapses of societies in the past, from the Anasazis of North America to the Vikings of Greenland. He argues that there has been a fundamental pattern of environmental catashtophe which has literally wiped out whole peoples from a given geographical area, because the people or their leaders were unable to adapt and adjust their cultures/lifestyles/economies in time. However, now the situation is different and the odds are raised significantly because the threat of collapse is not local but global and we have been ignoring the warning signs for too long. Although he finishes the book suggesting "it's not too late to avert collapse", this level of optimism depends on widespread change in behaviour and practice, not only by leaders but also by ordinary folk like you and me.

Follow the link below to find out about Jared Diamond:

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

After you read Diamond, you'll realise that the "Eco-terrorists" of Crichton's imagination are really people like Bush, Cheney, oil corporation chiefs and the ones that defend their position in denying manmade global warming.

[wilko]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL

Spectacular comeback to a very embarrassing situation you placed yourself in.

Heh! Heh! - Not bad eh?!?!

[a2396]

I have just been watching BBC world news and its plight against global warming, where by the reporter was in India pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that someone who has more money a car/apartment etc… uses more CO2 then someone who cant afford to buy excesses of food a car etc…. (The BBC had more reporters then any other foreign news network in the last US elections so they don't really care about global warming)

In the UK we have recently had Lord Goldsmiths son Zac, a 30 year old who has wealth in the region of 100s of millions pounds bracket, who I am presuming has several properties throughout the world, servants, flies first class etc etc……, and basically has a huge as they say "carbon footprint".

We have also recently had the hypocrite Al Gore win a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change yet in government CO2 emissions in the USA increased. I also would be willing to bet he enjoys the same extravagances as Zac Goldsmith.

Now as it is in the news all the time about the imminent threat of global warming, with the wealthy claiming to care yet living as if there was no tomorrow I am of the opinion that all of us in THAILAND who travel frequently, either couldn't care less about global warming or are just hypocrites.

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

Or if it is the liberal media making there own agenda.

What is the relevance of global warming to those living in Thailand? Sounds like you think global warming is an invention of the liberal media. If so, tune in to Fox news. They will make you feel better. Global warming or no global warming, there are to many people in the world competing for diminishing resources. Many of our fine religious leaders, who prefer to live in the mentality of a society that existed 2,000 years ago, seem to think we should breed like rabbits or not at all.

[ZukiSuzuki]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL now that's what i call making yourself look like a complete knob, not that you needed any help from the lovely Chloe.

[Upcountry]

This thread is a bit of in indication of how Al Gore's powerful if imperfect message is just a drop in the ocean.

Way too many people still view "green" issues as something they can just flick off their shoulder, or if cornered by them respond aggressively in self-defense.

Whether we have the time to spare or not, it will probably take a generation for the general attitude toward our environment to change, not to mention the technology and economics to support it.

[JimsKnight]

This threads a nest of vipers for all you do-gooders and pipe-dreamers isn't it.

An alternative is suggested and out come the attacks. The blind shall lead the blind.

Look, the green issues are just a possible theory supported by the latest trends and politics. Its not gospel.

I mentioned population control and all of a sudden (like I thought) I get a sht scared response!

It doesn't have to be nazi control and commie oppression it just needs to be made part of the government agenda to 'encourage' people to stop fcking like rabbits and use birth-control.

All you left-wingers seem to forget that during the Aids epidemic of the 1980s the british government kicked arse and hammered home via advertisement the need for safe sex. A similar agenda can be done for cutting down on the amount of kids each family has.

[Doza]

Is global warming attributable to human activities?

Studies of ice core records show that the present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has not been exceeded for the past 420 000 years, and possibly not for 20 million years.

The observed changes in climate, especially temperature increases since about 1970, cannot be explained by natural causes such as solar activity.For the past 420 000 years global atmospheric carbon dioxide has only varied between about 180 and 280 parts-per-million (ppm), and stayed steady at about 280 ppm from 1 000 to 250 years ago.

However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, some 250 years ago, the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased dramatically.

Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), land clearing and agricultural practices have:

increased carbon dioxide by more than a third

increased nitrous oxide levels by about 17 per cent

methane concentrations have more than doubled.

The observed changes in climate, especially temperature increases since about 1970, cannot be explained by natural causes such as solar activity.

Scientists use computer models to simulate past and future climate variations. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1 000 years indicate that this recent warming is unusual and is unlikely to have resulted from natural causes alone.

Simulations of the 20th century have been driven by observed changes in various factors that affect climate.

When only natural factors, such as volcanic and solar activity, are included in the models, the simulations do not explain the observed warming in the second half of the century. Natural factors contributed to the observed warming of the first half of the 20th century. However, most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-induced increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Source: CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) http://www.csiro.au/org/AboutCSIRO.html

But of course, the CSIRO are a leftist, hippy, scaremongering, bangwagon jumping, credibility-less, fake-science-espousing, BBC and Fox News loving organisation who only distributes this sort of research because they get huge sums of money for it (even though the Aussie govt have long been AGW deniers and had nothing to gain from this research) and want us all to get taxed to the hilt for it because..................umm......whatever. But DON'T BELIEVE THEM! Instead turn to a science fiction writer for your 'facts' and focus on Al Gores mistakes.

Deny deny deny. And hope it goes away. And sound 'cool' cause you are rebellin against the 'system' like, you know. And keep polutin yo!

[wilko]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL now that's what i call making yourself look like a complete knob, not that you needed any help from the lovely Chloe.

I wouldn't be too sure about lovely.....I reckon that it is most probably a man....then it's up to you anyway?

[Chloe82]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL now that's what i call making yourself look like a complete knob, not that you needed any help from the lovely Chloe.

I wouldn't be too sure about lovely.....I reckon that it is most probably a man....then it's up to you anyway?

I have never looked through your 2000+ post, I simply clicked on your topics and saw that one about the water, but what is it with you wilko? It’s like your obsessed with me, the amount of post’s you make with reference to me is scary, and now you say you suspect I’m a man. Geeze some people are really screwed up.

I put forward my beliefs and defended them when criticized, can a female not have strong opinions on global issues? Or are we allowed them so long as they don’t conflict with yours? Okay, I made you lose any credibility you may have had on the forum in the past, but you cant blame me for that surely? After all, all I did was point out some truths and you did the rest, showing yourself to be the bumbling fool that you so obviously are.

Anyway, I have more to add to this thread which is on topic so will try to no longer have these childish exchanges with the likes of your ilk.

[Upcountry]

Anyway, I have more to add to this thread which is on topic so will try to no longer have these childish exchanges with the likes of your ilk.

Choe, Wilko, and all,

Do you grok the concept of "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"?

I started a negative response with my first gut reaction to something Chloe said, and I later apologized because I realized that it it was rude and unproductive.

It doesn't matter if you come from the right, left or in between, when you knee jerk and lower yourselves to name calling, inserted into your arguments, you undermine your credibility. Both, all of you.

None of us has a corner all the best side of the argument. Clearly there is a lot of equivocal science on the issue of man's effect on the environment. Science being science, and the weighted, ideological drive that often colors research ensures that the debate will continue for a long time.

The main reason I keep reading this thread, other than the guilty pleasure of the cock fight, is to hear some semblance of cogent argument that will help me understand the climate debate a little better.

If we all took deep breaths (hopefully when someone isn't burning a pile of trash! ) and thought about the other's argument and how to carefully respond in a way that is at least intelligent sophism, we might learn from each other.

Wouldn't that be more entertaining, really?

I'm not going to call anyone a troll, but unfortunately, some posters on this forum really just want to get other posters' goats, so by refraining you avoid that trap as well.

[gregb]

This thread has been an interesting ride for a few days. I've been very busy with real work and no time to play, but seeing as it's Friday night and all, thought I'd jump in finally.

First, I don't believe any rational, honest person can deny there is a component of the current warming trend that is attributable to anthropogenic causes. If you can't at least admit this, I would propose that you are delusional. Whether it is the only cause, or what percentage exactly is attributed to human responses is still a subject of some debate, however I think most people who have actually looked at the research can agree that whatever this number might be, it is clearly significant and deserving of some attention by the global population.

Having said that however, I will admit I have been seriously unimpressed by the most recent IPCC report, the "Fourth Assessment Report". (which I have actually attempted to read on several occassions - comprehensible only after several bottles of environment polluting Tiger Beer) You can read it for yourself here at http://www.ipcc.ch.

The problem here is that for all the money and all the research they did, not once did they give a serious accounting of the ramifications of peak oil on the issue. This unfortunately means that even their least serious cases still grossly over estimate the situation.

I'm not doubting that there could be serious consequences of global warming, but the IPCC does absolutely zero to convince me, and in fact just makes me angry. I'd just once like to see a non politically influenced report that realistically examined global warming while simultaneously looking at the mitigating effects of peak oil and fossil fuel depletion. As a concerned global citizen, I would honestly like to see a realistic presentation of the problems facing us.

Dave Rutledge at Caltech has at least tried to make an honest assessment of these conditions. (http://rutledge.caltech.edu)

I would like to see serious political pressure placed on climatologists globally to consider real world fossil fuel depletion in any future work. Without that, their reports all seem to be politically motivated and as such, suspect in their entirety. Even if they contain very valid work, they will be discounted unless they treat this situation with integrity.

While I accept the possibilities of global warming, I simply can't state how much credence I give to the fears about it. Sadly, this is due to the abject failure of the UN and IPCC to do any research remotely associated with true global realities. Until I see some acceptance of peak oil within the climate change community, I simply can't take them seriously. I would like to. I consider it to be extremely unfortunate and a poor reflection on them that I can't respect their work.

If you really want to be an activist for climate change, push whatever organization you are working for to study peak oil and include the effects of fossil fuel depletion in any future analysis. Failure to do so only makes you look like unsuspecting servitors of political agendas. It does a disservice to the entire cause.

[HS Mauberley]

That’s a very good point but unfortunately one which will no doubt be jumped on by the deniers, who say, “told you so” to pretty much anything. Opinions are divided on this but I think the best that one can hope for in terms of peak oil mitigating climate change is that post-peak, industrial activity slumps in a world recession and so the growth in emissions slackens. Of course, this is hardly without its own problems. What’s more likely is that peak-oil (and, worse, peak-gas which is breathing down our necks) will precipitate a massive increase in coal-based energy (CTL, for example). Unfortunately, as far as the climate is concerned this will be an absolute disaster...But I quite agree that this is a serious omission in the IPCC reports (and more broadly within all work on climate change, where peak oil is only very rarely addressed).

[Pepe']

Can we all agree that doing our best to live according to "green guidelines" would be best for current and future generations?

Just asking a simple question...

[Upcountry]

Pepe, I've been trying to make a related point, that the things we can do to try to mitigate climate change (at least in regard to oil) are many of the same things we can do to reduce our dependency on oil, not to mention things like the cost of food (badly sourced ethanol) and the quality of the air we breath (which is an issue regardless of what the air can be proven to do to the change of the climate).

I think this thread has been sidetracked into flaming so that the most active posters have not found it useful discuss the upside of trying to pollute less regardless of the larger global warming debate. But then, this thread is focused on global warming as an issue in and of itself, isn't it?

So those who want to push the point that global warming is a fallacy are basing much of their argument on a "Libertarian" point of view. This means that "left wing" behavior modification types are trying to tell others what they can and cannot do based on "information" that Libertarians are not willing to accept. It is a political/philosophical world view thing, and there is currently not yet enough "proof" to convince everybody.

We have to accept that and deal with it. Eventually, if those of us who believe we are causing global warming are right, those who are reluctant to accept it will finally see the light or simply be in too much of a minority to do anything about it. No insult meant to posters here, but if we can have 'environmental terrorists' who commit unreasonable acts in the name of the environment, then I suppose the opposite can happen as well.

The future is always interesting.

[Pepe']

Pepe, I've been trying to make a related point, that the things we can do to try to mitigate climate change (at least in regard to oil) are many of the same things we can do to reduce our dependency on oil, not to mention things like the cost of food (badly sourced ethanol) and the quality of the air we breath (which is an issue regardless of what the air can be proven to do to the change of the climate).

I think this thread has been sidetracked into flaming so that the most active posters have not found it useful discuss the upside of trying to pollute less regardless of the larger global warming debate. But then, this thread is focused on global warming as an issue in and of itself, isn't it?

So those who want to push the point that global warming is a fallacy are basing much of their argument on a "Libertarian" point of view. This means that "left wing" behavior modification types are trying to tell others what they can and cannot do based on "information" that Libertarians are not willing to accept. It is a political/philosophical world view thing, and there is currently not yet enough "proof" to convince everybody.

We have to accept that and deal with it. Eventually, if those of us who believe we are causing global warming are right, those who are reluctant to accept it will finally see the light or simply be in too much of a minority to do anything about it. No insult meant to posters here, but if we can have 'environmental terrorists' who commit unreasonable acts in the name of the environment, then I suppose the opposite can happen as well.

The future is always interesting.

--------------------------

I don't know. I just keep thinking GW/green living is not that complicated.

I guess I'm out of touch...

[Upcountry]

Pepe',

You're right, it doesn't have to be complicated, but it does take some discipline and the desire to make the necessary choices.

From what I can see on this forum, and from other sources, not everyone is ready to accept the premise (conveniently or not). But we can't win the argument here, over beers or by force.

Only a combination of good science and good PR will eventually win most people over.

In the US, a recycling program (which is probably ongoing in most cities) allowed us to leave bottles, paper, cans, and other things in special bins out in front of our homes once a week (instead of daily for regular pick up). Otherwise decent human beings would completely disregard this option because they did not believe that doing their small part would make any difference or was worth their effort.

Knowing about how long it takes a car has to warm up in cold weather, I would start my car just a few seconds before driving off, but I had a neighbor who would remotely start his car and let it idle until the heater had warmed up the interior, and longer. I commented that it wasn't' worth the energy to do it, but his response was "I'm worth it".

So, it takes all types to make the world go around. Those of us who believe that a small effort to recycle or save a gallon of gas is worthwhile simply need to accept that not everyone feels that way. Hopefully, enough people on the planet do or will feel that way to make a difference.

[Pepe']

Pepe',

You're right, it doesn't have to be complicated, but it does take some discipline and the desire to make the necessary choices.

From what I can see on this forum, and from other sources, not everyone is ready to accept the premise (conveniently or not). But we can't win the argument here, over beers or by force.

Only a combination of good science and good PR will eventually win most people over.

In the US, a recycling program (which is probably ongoing in most cities) allowed us to leave bottles, paper, cans, and other things in special bins out in front of our homes once a week (instead of daily for regular pick up). Otherwise decent human beings would completely disregard this option because they did not believe that doing their small part would make any difference or was worth their effort.

Knowing about how long it takes a car has to warm up in cold weather, I would start my car just a few seconds before driving off, but I had a neighbor who would remotely start his car and let it idle until the heater had warmed up the interior, and longer. I commented that it wasn't' worth the energy to do it, but his response was "I'm worth it".

So, it takes all types to make the world go around. Those of us who believe that a small effort to recycle or save a gallon of gas is worthwhile simply need to accept that not everyone feels that way. Hopefully, enough people on the planet do or will feel that way to make a difference.

----------------------

I see your point...

[Tim207]

Only a combination of good science and good PR will eventually win most people over.

The PR machine is working overtime, your problem is the good science.

In the US, a recycling program (which is probably ongoing in most cities) allowed us to leave bottles, paper, cans, and other things in special bins out in front of our homes once a week (instead of daily for regular pick up). Otherwise decent human beings would completely disregard this option because they did not believe that doing their small part would make any difference or was worth their effort.

Recycle programs are another good example of the environmentalist machine pushing an agenda through pr and not good science. It is a feel good program boondogle. The pr push started with a falicy that landfill space was running out and there was an impending crisis if nothing was done. The stats did show that the number of landfills was dwindling. What they failed to tell us was that this was due to the increased size of landfills. Capacity was actually increasing, not falling.

As for recycling, it costs more, uses more energy, and creates more pollution to recycle paper and plastic than to make it. I am not sure about glass but aluminum is one thing it makes sense to recycle. The general public assumes it is good science to recycle do to the environmentalist pr machine but that doesn't make a sound practice. Before you get upset, I recycle my plastic bottles to make the neighbors happy because it really doesn't matter much either way. The fact still remains that my collection bill is higher. Those bottles are collected by a second truck spewing fumes into the atmosphere from burning fosil fuels. They are deposited at a plant where they are sorted by machines using electicity. The usable portion is then processed by other machines and the unusable is hauled off to the landfill. I do have a nice picnic table made from recycled plastic but don't kid yourself, that table created more pollution and burned more fosil fuels than if it had been made from scratch.

[wilko]

Now THAT's what I call anal.....you've actually been through 2000 of my posts.........you are soooo wierd and sooo unlikely to recognise a figure of speech!

What that says about you is quite ...well .disturbing....are you in therapy?

LOL now that's what i call making yourself look like a complete knob, not that you needed any help from the lovely Chloe.

I wouldn't be too sure about lovely.....I reckon that it is most probably a man....then it's up to you anyway?

I have never looked through your 2000+ post, I simply clicked on your topics and saw that one about the water, but what is it with you wilko? It’s like your obsessed with me, the amount of post’s you make with reference to me is scary, and now you say you suspect I’m a man. Geeze some people are really screwed up.

I put forward my beliefs and defended them when criticized, can a female not have strong opinions on global issues? Or are we allowed them so long as they don’t conflict with yours? Okay, I made you lose any credibility you may have had on the forum in the past, but you cant blame me for that surely? After all, all I did was point out some truths and you did the rest, showing yourself to be the bumbling fool that you so obviously are.

Anyway, I have more to add to this thread which is on topic so will try to no longer have these childish exchanges with the likes of your ilk.

Yes Chloe - you weird me out - I'm slightly miffed by my own stupidity in talking with you - as I said only a fool talks to a fool...but there are a few things about you that I find odd.....

I don't actually care what gender you are (if any) but I'm pretty convinced you're choosing to lie about yours.

The other thing I find weird is the very small number of posts you've made........yet

i get the feeling this isn't your first web site...but why pick on a Thai web site to discuss global warming....did you already know about the web site - do you have any interest in Thailand? Why choose a non-THai topic to start or do your go looking for G/W topics around the net - How many ID's do you have and how many sites have you been banned from - it all looks like a bit of a scam to me.

This subject to me interesting but not the place to discuss it....in this way...I'm much more interested in the kind of people and thinking that ardently does believe in Global Warming and the human factor - the Flat Earth Brigade - of which Chloe you seem to be one.

(BTW - misuse of "ilk")

[wilko]

"So, it takes all types to make the world go around." - and only one type to stop it

[mogoso]

Spee and most other flat earther posters doubting the causes and mechanisms AGW on this thread are just plain ignorant of mainstream science and want to hear a theory that fits their own indivdual worldview and prejudices and it is probably too late to convince them any differently HS Mauberly. That is why I saw it was rather a waste of time and effort and gave up some 3 or 4 pages ago.

Mainstream science is hardly fit to be put forth as your knight in shining armor. 40 years back proponents of plate tectonics and the destruction of the dinosauers due to a meteor strike would be giggled at openly by mainsteam scientists.

You explain why other planets are heating up, why with the withdrawal of glacier ice, trees 7000 years old are being uncovered, innumerable geologic evidence of heating cooling, rising and lowerering of sealevels etc.

The people that seem to be hidebound and set in the way are the people so firmly entrenched in the global warming er climate change crowd. Funny how it dovetails with their political leanings in most cases.