Reply to: Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

[TimberWolf]

That is the current thinking by experts. How long before it changes again?

When they discover dinosaur bones buried in young rock. That would confuse 'em, until they discover they are really cow bones planted by creationists.

[BrilloPad]

Yep, and still out by a factor of 800,000.

That is the current thinking by experts. How long before it changes again?

[Mailman]

Shut it, twunt. Your contribution to this discussion is equivalent to a noxious but not very powerful fart.

Mrs Palmer not putting out any more guru?

Mailman

[TimberWolf]

Are you trying to bash the British Bishops?

<pedant mode>
more than 4000 is 4001, 4002, ..., 5999. All less than 6000
</pedant mode>

Yep, and still out by a factor of 800,000.

[BrilloPad]

Okay, 6000 - I did say more than 4000 There are plenty of fundamentalists in America though (GW for instance).

Are British Bishops at odds with fundamentalist views too?

Are you trying to bash the British Bishops?

<pedant mode>
more than 4000 is 4001, 4002, ..., 5999. All less than 6000
</pedant mode>

<fundamentalist mode>
The great flood would mess up any dating methods
</fundamentalist mode>

<chico mode>
Not every bit of the bible is to be taken literally. Particularly parts of the old testament + revelation. There are songs, stories sometimes giving a sense of what happened.
I wonder how many bishops believe the bible creation is literal?
</chico mode>

[TimberWolf]

How do you know they were formed 4000 years ago?

And biblical fundamentalists believe earth is 6000 years old. Not that there are many of those about these days - the mainstream church disagrees with them.

Okay, 6000 - I did say more than 4000 There are plenty of fundamentalists in America though (GB for instance).

Are British Bishops at odds with fundamentalist views too?

[BrilloPad]

I hope the good Bishop is aware that much climate change data is obtained from ice cores dating back more than 4000 years - i.e. before the Earth was even formed

How do you know they were formed 4000 years ago?

And biblical fundamentalists believe earth is 6000 years old. Not that there are many of those about these days - the mainstream church disagrees with them.

[dang65]

I hope the good Bishop is aware that much climate change data is obtained from ice cores dating back more than 4000 years - i.e. before the Earth was even formed

Very good.

[TimberWolf]

Not that climate change is a religious debate...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-Bishop.html

I hope the good Bishop is aware that much climate change data is obtained from ice cores dating back more than 4000 years - i.e. before the Earth was even formed

[BrilloPad]

DO you understand enough about modelling (statistical theory etc.) to know that this is true? It really is an epistemiological question that few of us are qualified to answer wouldn't you say?

I did weather modelling as part of my degree. And I read the stats book you recommended.

Scientists seem to keep changing their minds. Quite possibly rightly in the light of new information. IMO we should question what we are being told.

For me the biggest issue with 4x4s is not polution. It is that when my gf walks the kids to school (and is one of the furthest from school) she has to run the gauntlet of mothers(always women) with large 4*4, 1 small child in back, driving like loonies. Intresting white van man always is considerate. But in the press white van man is evil, mothers saints. Another reason why we should question what we are told by these so-called experts who just spout any old rubbish.

[TimberWolf]

A message from God on climate change

Climate change deniers are not child abusers (just in case you were wondering). There's no mention about whether you are an axe murderer though, so don't get all cocky.

I am in no way trying to imply that people who ignore climate change are child abusers

...unfortunately you are as guilty as Austrian child abuser Josef Fritzl though.

You could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is.

Damn you all to hell!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-Bishop.html

[gingerjedi]

I have to confess that I know sod all about the difference between diesel and petrol's environmental credentials.

This article seems to suggest that diesel is considered to be greener though?? Maybe things have improved since the days when you used to cycle to work. I cycle to work now and it's only rarely that any vehicles are noticeably smelly these days. There was a particularly grotty old pick-up that went past this morning with black smoke coming out of his exhaust, but that's rare enough that I remembered it.

Another take on it

"Generally speaking, diesel cars are worse than petrol models in terms of poisonous emissions, but they're significantly more fuel-efficient and hence better in terms of global warming. As such, diesels are generally a greener choice for people living in the countryside, but city dwellers concerned about urban air quality might prefer to plump for petrol".

It depends on what type of pollution and where you want it I guess.

[DodgyAgent]

I dont know what you lot are banging on about as if you can possibly do anything about GW. Jonathan Dimbleby's TV program last night revealed via a Russian scientist that felling of trees will remove 25% of the planets ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In addition the destrudtion of the forests is causing the soil/frozen land to melt releasing vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere which is far more harmful than CO2.

If you really want to do something about GW then I suggest that you don your extra weatherproof anoraks and eff off to Siberia with your placards.

[DodgyAgent]

This public transport issue is a difficult one. From what I understand (and it's fairly obvious to anyone that travels on it) the rail network in many parts of the country is completely overloaded already. It's hard to see how that could be sorted out. Making the carriages cleaner and fitting nice modern toilets doesn't help to reduce crowding. Maybe they could add more carriages and build longer platforms? That would just increase the bottlenecks in other places, as thousands more people try to squeeze through ticket barriers etc.

It's the same with the roads, where they build bigger and bigger carriageways and bypasses, which just jam up within a couple of years or months.

As others have said on here, stuff like home working, financial encouragement for cycling (same mileage allowance as cars for example), and maybe much bigger discounts when the trains are off-peak to encourage flexible working... that sort of thing might help a bit.

Certainly the money taken off of those that insist on carrying on driving should be passed on to those who are willing to try other options.

outsourcing to India

[dang65]

If you examine the tax bands and compare like for like the diesel version of any particular model with comparable performance will have lower co2 emissions therefore a lower tax band, so if you do take GW out of the equation it makes no sense as diesel is dirtier and more damaging to the environment than a modern lean burn petrol engine.

When I used to cycle to work it was always obvious when the vehicle in front was a diesel as you could literally taste the fumes.

I have to confess that I know sod all about the difference between diesel and petrol's environmental credentials.

This article seems to suggest that diesel is considered to be greener though?? Maybe things have improved since the days when you used to cycle to work. I cycle to work now and it's only rarely that any vehicles are noticeably smelly these days. There was a particularly grotty old pick-up that went past this morning with black smoke coming out of his exhaust, but that's rare enough that I remembered it.