http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/tags.php?tag=al-will-be-along-in-a-minute The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Sun, 26 May 2013 03:29:49 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-152099 Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:14:03 +0000 Squudge 152099@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Plant some trees.<br /> ...and stop rewarding people for cutting down 500-year old hardwoods.<br /> ...and educate some of the thicker conservationists on diversity. We should be harvesting seeds from the areas where the local climate is changing fastest and moving species around (yes, that sounds arrogant, it is 'management')</p> <p>- and yes, a couple of good volcanos and Yellowstone going bang (it is way overdue), wipe out all our efforts on emissions curbing. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an effort though.</p> <p>Climate changes naturally and catastrophically every so often, but the scale of the changes we have brought about on our own is rather surprising (look at the american 'dust bowl' in the 1920s, and the amount of forests we have cleared worldwide). Do we really have to make things quite so shitty unnecessarily?</p> <p>PS: I don't believe the Thames barrier is man enough for the job. But life will go on (not all of it mind). </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-152098 Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:14:03 +0000 Squudge 152098@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Plant some trees.<br /> ...and stop rewarding people for cutting down 500-year old hardwoods.<br /> ...and educate some of the thicker conservationists on diversity. We should be harvesting seeds from the areas where the local climate is changing fastest and moving species around (yes, that sounds arrogant, it is 'management')</p> <p>- and yes, a couple of good volcanos and Yellowstone going bang (it is way overdue), wipe out all our efforts on emissions curbing. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an effort though. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-152086 Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:06:43 +0000 Ironduke 152086@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>If you build a coal fired power station and export a solar panel, does that count as offsetting (like planting a tree when you book a flight to benidorm)? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151876 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:52:12 +0000 beau-jolly 151876@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>&lt;Little squeeky voice&gt; We are influencing the <em><strong>rate</strong> of climate change</em> not causing global warming. </p> <p>I haven't heard much yet about the theory that we in the west have had our industrial revolutions, benefitted from them and then regretted some of the side effects. Emerging economies are therefore alledgedly being supressed from developing so as to avoid the pitfalls but at the same time avoid the benefits. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151813 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:40:46 +0000 Sinnick 151813@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Really good point, smithy, they're completing one a week at the last count. Mind you, it's worth pointing out that China is by far the biggest exporter of Solar panels.</p> <p>China does seem to be trying to take over the world just lately, whatever the cost. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151799 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:20:11 +0000 waylandsmithy 151799@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>2100? Fuck that. I'm ordering that Land Cruiser.</p> <p>Good luck persuading China, Oxy. There's fuck-all point shooting ourselves in the foot while they're building endless coal power stations. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151787 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 08:57:13 +0000 Oxbridge 151787@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Pascal's wager comes in here.</p> <p>We go on the basis that man-made climate change is a reality and act to curb it. By 2100, it urns out we were wrong and we needn't have bothered. What have we lost? Not a lot, maybe a few years of economic growth, though maybe the technologies we developed to deal with it have more than made up for that.</p> <p>Or we go on the basis that it's all bollocks, we don't really know for sure and Wayland's teacher was a berk. Then it 2100, it turns out we were wrong and we really did need to act but now it's too late and human civilisation is irreversibly fucked, along with most plant and animal life.</p> <p>Or we just stick to knob gags... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151781 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 08:05:41 +0000 Al OPecia 151781@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Catastrophica. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151743 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:08:19 +0000 ianslat 151743@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I think we should all be worrying about important things, like what "the baby" is going to be called. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151730 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:15:04 +0000 dvo4fun 151730@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>rikkor, I think you mean emote </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151727 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:01:14 +0000 rikkor 151727@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Wayland, DSK proves that almost dead men emit. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=4#post-151671 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:58:22 +0000 Lucy4 151671@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Crematoriums should be next to old people homes, there'd be less travelling and the heat generated could be pumped back into the home. "stick another stiff on the fire luv, it's bloody perishing." </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151667 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:04:35 +0000 waylandsmithy 151667@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>yeah, it was in a Bill Bryson book. Did you know unleaded fuel chucks out benzene? </p> <p>Slowly poisoning a generation of children is good for the planet, dead men don't emit. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151660 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:34:12 +0000 Midfield Diamond 151660@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>A possible increase in greenhouse gases or continue poisoning the planet with a pollutant that affects the central nervous system and brain development in children? Unleaded was definitely the way to go. I'd dig out the figures but, as they were measured by scientists, you wouldn't believe them anyway.</p> <p>Incidentally, did you know that the bloke who put lead in petrol also developed CFCs? <a href="http://www.psychedelicporcupine.co.uk/2010/05/thomas-midgley-jr-the-worlds-most-destructive-man/" rel="nofollow">http://www.psychedelicporcupine.co.uk/2010/05/thomas-midgley-jr-the-worlds-most-destructive-man/</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151655 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:47:25 +0000 waylandsmithy 151655@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Unleaded petrol actively worsens global warming...</p> <p>- It allows a catalytic converter to be used, which turns CO into CO2.<br /> - That cat causes engines to be less fuel efficient, and prevents the development of lean burn technology.<br /> - Rainforest is dug up to find the platinum and other metals needed in a cat.</p> <p>And to cap it all, leaded petrol was probably killing a few people off, which can only be a good thing for the planet. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151652 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:10:40 +0000 The All New Jeni B 151652@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>dvo, the cheque's in the post.</p> <p>Md - Exactly. I don't refute that we need to change our ways, nor that we must find alternative fuel sources, but I think that it's imperative that we address the root causes of the problems, such as deforestation and the population explosion. These are often third-world issues though, and I think there is a fear of a backlash from telling the indigenous peoples that they can't earn a living or have more than two children, but bunging up thousands of wind turbines is NOT the solution. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151632 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:49:29 +0000 Midfield Diamond 151632@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>It seems to me that there is a choice, whether or not you believe that the human race is adversely affecting the planet with its behaviour. The choices are a) do nothing in the hope that the scientists are wrong or b) change human behaviour to try and reverse or at least contain the damage (if there is any). Personally, I'm in favour of b).</p> <p>The biggest problem is that it takes a long time to change human behaviour (unfortunately, governments and politicians have to get involved) and even longer to measure the effect. Plus, as Jeni says, it costs money to develop 'green' alternatives to previous practices, hence the scepticism.</p> <p>But surely even the climate change denial brigade are in favour of unleaded petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycling rubbish instead of dumping it, even if they aren't tirelessly campaigning to save the Amazonian rainforest or knitting their own free-range GM-free organic yogurts. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151631 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:42:17 +0000 dvo4fun 151631@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Good point Jeni, you seem just the sort of woman who would appreciate a new environmental product I've got coming to the market shortly. If you'd like to be in the first wave of happy customers please send a cheque (made to 'cash') to PO Box 17 Walsall </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151623 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:43:55 +0000 The All New Jeni B 151623@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Until such time as Governments stop using Climate Change as a means by which they can further tax the population, people will be sceptical. Why should they trust the word of successive Governments who are consistently shown to lie, cheat and steal from the very people they supposedly represent the interests of?</p> <p>I'm sceptical, doesn't make me a loonie, it means that I've been taught to question, analyse and question again all information made available to me. That is what will ensure I become a good lawyer, but it also ensures that in my private life, I am less susceptible to being conned by shysters. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151619 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:10:38 +0000 waylandsmithy 151619@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Car engineers don't spend quite so much time rubbishing their critics, though.</p> <p>Scientists are pretty arrogant: have been throughout history. And when someone disproves something later on, they just say 'bit of course, we know more now. That was old research, we've got a better computer since then.'</p> <p>So why trust the latest findings unquestioningly? It's Catch-22: if you question a conclusion you're an idiot with a Republican Brain Problem. But if you point out where science has been wrong in the past, it's dismissed as a 'completely understandable mistake'.</p> <p>Engineers do what anyone can do, they just do it cheaper. They also use 'engineering factors' in calculations, which make allowances for scientific models being wrong. If they didn't, bridges and stuff would fall down a lot more often.</p> <p>Never get on a plane designed by scientists. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151613 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:56:48 +0000 Sinnick 151613@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>As a footnote, I don't mean to knock climate-change sceptics individually, just to point out that it's an understandable reaction to something so massively complex, unimaginable and potentially disastrous. This denial was famously reported when Galileo discovered that Jupiter has moons, but I don't think many people still deny that.</p> <p>However, extrapolating this denial to decry Science, and capitalising on it to sell crap books and newspapers, etc is reactionary, immoral and culpable. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151602 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:20:50 +0000 Al OPecia 151602@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>In what way are scientists arrogant? Anymore arrogant than wine merchants when you ask them about wine? Or doctors when you ask them about what ails you? So is your basic premise don't trust anyone who is an expert? "Oh those car engineers are an arrogant bunch, I wouldn't get in a car designed by one of them, only one I designed myself"?</p> <p>Just chatting. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151601 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:02:10 +0000 waylandsmithy 151601@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>'I think there may be some holes in your methods, and the conclusions you've come to don't seem to be fully supported.'</p> <p>'Oh. You're obviously a mental. We'd better carry out some research into that.'</p> <p>The arrogance of scientists. 'I'm not sure how accurate a book called 'Republican Brain Science They (sic) Reality' is.'</p> <p>Judging from the title, it's complete, unscientific bollocks. The trouble is, you seem to want to believe it might be legitimate research. That's not very scientific of you at all. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151596 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:44:27 +0000 Al OPecia 151596@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>What Sinnick said, again.</p> <p>For a decent look at the psychology of the deniers and assorted loonies have a look at:</p> <p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republican-Brain-Science-They-Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1354524327&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republican-Brain-Science-They-Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1354524327&amp;sr=1-1</a></p> <p>Some interesting research here, don't know how balanced it is because it's not my area. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151553 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:55:34 +0000 Bourbon 151553@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Jumpers and sheep dear sinnick, jumpers and sheep. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151550 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:28:16 +0000 Sinnick 151550@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I'm glad someone remembers this is a comedy site. No surprise Economides &amp; Glover are trying to flog a book on the back of their hilariously ill-informed &amp; ill-represented version of Science. At least they're on the ball, when 99% of scientists have obviously just got it wrong.</p> <p>A better use of their time might be to understand this denial - the psychology is quite interesting: not just limited to this topic, but also applies to flat earth, moon landing, earth-centric universe, etc, etc </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151546 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:00:15 +0000 Bourbon 151546@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Extra time </p> <p><a href="http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151545 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:34:34 +0000 Al OPecia 151545@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Game over:</p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151543 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:25:06 +0000 Gerontius 151543@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>It's ALL a bit irrelevant really.<br /> You know - which argument is right and which is wrong.<br /> Because neither of you are going to change your ways.<br /> Right?<br /> So why get all hot under the collar.<br /> We know we should cut back on our excess.<br /> But apart from financial restraints I really don't see many people making a significant effort to change their ways.<br /> The only way people like Bono and Sting will have a positive impact on the planet will be when they die.<br /> I'll bet the Irish eco-warrior's own personal carbon footprint would swamp our combined efforts a 1000 times over.</p> <p>(shouldn't the duck be wearing wellingtons?) </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=52533&page=3#post-151534 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 15:12:32 +0000 Al OPecia 151534@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Exactly so. </p>