howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#2
It's amazing how the author of the article has totally missed the point.
It's not just a matter of global warming, but the overall effects of carbon pollution that are at the base of the carbon emission laws. Carbon and chemical pollution may or may not cause global warming, but it certainly does have a negative effect on nature
Shame on the author for presenting such a spin!
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#3
I think you'll find, Alexander, that plants tend to thrive in an atmosphere where there are higher concentrations of C02. This is why some growers who propagate their fruit or vegetables actually blow C02 into the greenhouses in order to increase yield and hence provide more food for the world.
There is no such thing as carbon pollution. Without carbon dioxide we would all be dead.
But this is precisely what some environmentalists want. Population control. Their mantra is that the World has a cancer and man is that cancer.
Fruitcakes the lot of them.
Delingpole puts no spin in his book. He merely asserts correctly that environmentalism is a proxy for socialism which died a death some years ago and good job too.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#4
Philip, OK, there isn't such a thing as carbon pollution, as you say.
Alright, Co2, possibly carbon dioxide, is good for you, if you say so.
But, Philip, do you have carbon monoxide for breakfast on your green-house produced vegetables? I bet you don't!
Now tell me sincerely if you believe that there is not such a thing as carbon pollution. What's that stuff called that comes out of exhaust pipes then?
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#5
Actually I do have carbon monoxide for breakfast - it's there alongside other chemicals in the first cigarette of the day which I enjoy with a nice cup of tea.
What is more of a worry, apparently, is di-hydrogen monoxide which causes immense problems to people all over the world. Tonight we are set to experience this chemical in it's frozen state so don't slip up on the pavement.
If you are so worried about carbon monoxide I hope you are fully committed to your concerns by refusing to travel in motor cars and avoid the use of buses.
Oh and don't try eating food. They use lorries to deliver your food to the supermarket.
Presumably, by your logic, the end purpose is to ban all motor vehicles.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#6
Philip, so you agree there is such a thing as pollution caused by some form of carbons.
The point is, then, that this pollution may, or may not cause global warming, but it does have negative effects on people's health, and no doubt on nature.
The idea would be to find ways of reducing it. Reducing the carbon footprint is one.
Electric engines on public transport is another.
But the author of the article is in complete denial about the negative effects of exhaust carbons and chemicals, and tries to converge the whole topic on "global warming".
His theory is: no global warming = no pollution = no problem!
This is a complete spin-off.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#7
I thought the main point of the article was that the science is being manipulated by those with a different agenda - politicians, big business who want to trade carbon credits for profit and tree huggers who want to turn it into an emotional issue.
He also makes the point it is scientists and technologists who are coming up with processes for reducing chemical pollution and giving us cleaner atmospheres in the developed world, and the developing world needs to catch up.
There is, always has been and always will be cycles of global warming and global cooling caused by natural processes over which we have no control, and in spite of all the scare stories the real science now shows there has been no warming for the last 15 years.
As PhilipP says, CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely natural, life on earth would die without it. Increased levels of CO2 result in increased levels of plant growth so there's a feedback mechanism that locks the CO2 back into plant material at a faster rate then returns the levels back down, can't be a bad thing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#8
Bang on Ray, bang on the nail.
Unfortunately, like many issues we face, unless one immerses oneself in a particular subject and tries to see both sides of it, those who shout the most or have friends in influential and high places set the tone of the debate and shut out more reasoned voices.
This is how it is with this debate although it's not confined to only this issue.
Essentially left wing views, cultural Marxism as Delingpole would put it, reigns supreme in the UK and most of Europe.
Lefty, liberal ideas which have seeped onto the mainstream political agenda over the past fifty years have done much to impoverish us all. The issue of climate change is one such manifestation of this and in the end is set to destroy our economy and competitiveness but also to create more poverty amongst the poorest.
It really is a scandal and is the reason I shall not be voting in any election be it general or local knowing that all three mainstream parties support these utterly mad and dangerous policies.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#9
how to knock the green thinking,...eat plenty of fiber like backed beans and sprouts,then let rip with the methane gas.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#10
As said, Ray, it's a spin-off. The author is not being objective, realistic, to the point, but doing a light and shade picture. Highlighting spins and shading out facts.
Scientists and technologists are producing aeroplanes for passengers in ever-increasing numbers, to sell them all over the world, for people to fly by plane.
They are not warning people to avoid the plane and to rather choose the train, for example.
What damage is caused by thousands of planes up in the atmosphere at any given moment, is anyone's guess. Where the particles of chemical pollution go, and where they float, and what they cause in the air, which is made up of nine natural gases, has not been fully realised, or it has been deliberately shaded out.
The Australian government is very concerned, because, owing to their geographical position, Australia is very hard hit by the negative effects of the ozone hole.
Scientists and technologists do not encourage people to use less the car, but promote car sales far and wide. Oh how better were the days when people in China all went to work by bike. Now they have become addicted to the western car!
"He also makes the point it is scientists and technologists who are coming up with processes for reducing chemical pollution and giving us cleaner atmospheres in the developed world, and the developing world needs to catch up."
This is fine thinking, wishful, but far, far from reality!
I'll leave nuclear pollution in brackets here, shaded out of the context, as we don't really know for full what damage was caused by the Japanese nuclear disaster. And Chernobyl...well...
But Ray, if the author had said we should regret the day we started selling cars and car-building technology to China, and left them to the bicycle, and that we too should promote bicycle paths and bike-riding in the West, then the phrase of yours I quoted might fit in and be well-earned.
Alas!