Of course the climate is changing, I've never said it isnt. I dispute the wild claims that we as humans are about to cause an armageddon of biblical proportions and destroy the planet in a minute lol

Jo xxx

Brilliant

Jo xxx

I don't have, and never have had, a car. Contrary to popular belief it is perfectly possible to live without one. If more people did the same not only would there be less carbon emissions, but a lot less land would be paved or tarmaced over to provide places to park them - which is one thing that the human race has done to worsen flooding problems.

According to many a previous thread on this forum, at around €50 per month my spending on electricity is much less than most people's, and I don't live without most modern appliances. Annual spending of approx. €200 per year on butano for heating and cooking doesn't indicate wasteful consumption either, and so far I have neither starved nor frozen to death, nor even come close.

We are already destroying the planet Jo, our actions are directly sending about 0.1% of the earths animals to extinction every year. Whole areas of China are no go areas and will be for centuries, the radiation from Japan is being detected in California, there is a floating mat of rubbish that's about 270,000 square miles in size that didn't get there naturally. We are changing the face of the earth, of that there is no doubt and we are most definitely changing the climate, releasing more carbon dioxide (and other toxins) into the atmosphere than at any time in the last 22,000 years.... Still, don't worry about it, I'm sure no one will worry about it...

I am not a goody two shoes, or pretend to be one. No way I get rid of my car, or my OH's car either.

in fairness rubbishmatt can - obviously

But if there were real concerns that we're really causing damage they would have to stop everything. Not just us small time folk, but everything. Our whole lives would have to turn back to how they were pre-electricity. So no, we wouldnt need roads, concreted spaces, hospitals, industrial parks, towns, cities........Think 1800s!

Jo xxx

Dont tell me, you read all of this in the Daily Mail ??? It must be true then. So you start with your life. Turn that electricity off, put your fire out and bin your car.

Jo xxx

Love it. You're either a complete denier or you want to take everyone back to the dark ages, nothing like having a sensible discussion eh?

Your ignorance is worrying. Do you ever try and read anything other than OK and Closer? The world is being raped sideways Jo, they are moving whole mountains in Russia! Australia and China, whole mountain ranges are being altered to get your energy. This isn't about either choosing to be part of the mass flock of steeple or living in hair shirts and eating mushrooms in the woods you fool, it's about adjusting the way we consume, the way we use this FINITE planet we have.

Your total lack of understanding is more worrying. Adjusting the way we consume - right, so we keep the things you want us to, but only if it doesnt put anyone out - so what shall we allow to stay?? Maybe just one little baby power station so that we're all allowed an hours worth of electricity a day?? One oil refinery?? - and all of this "adjusting" will do what exactly??? Make the world go cold again?? so that our grandchildren can live with the one power station??

You're too simplistic, you're missing out huge inaccuracies by your experts, you're being brainwashed by the tabloids who are out to sell sensationalism and you really havent grasped the whole issue - its not about the heat created by burning - heck, plants need CO2 to live and they turn it into oxygen...............So thats actually something we should think about. I've said it before, but everyone should plant at least one tree in their gardens every year - that would help and in 50,000 years time, our ancestors would have something to burn lol!!



Jo xxx

No, I know, it's about what we are releasing into the atmosphere Jo... That's what I have been saying, it's actually what that other bloke said that you so enthusiastically agreed with said, indirectly. Oh and I don't get my information from the media, I actually take a healthy interest in science and all the links I've supplied so far have been from physicists.....

All the links for both sides of the debate are from well respected scientists - its not conclusive. What "the other bloke" (I assume you mean Garbatellamike) said was that the "scientists" are more interested in protecting their hypothesis than making sense, so we shouldnt keep quoting percentage figures, links etc as if they're "god" - they're meaningless. He then went on to say that what we are doing is possibly affecting the climate, but no one can say to what degree if at all!

Thats pretty much what I'm saying - its unknown. There are the imminent armageddon theories, which you and the press pick up on from time to time and big businesses lap up. Then there are those at the other end of the scale who say the opposite - all are experts in their field - so mere mortals such as you and I, really cant judge who is right and until the "race comes in" no one can!

However, the IPCC, which is supposed to "be incharge" and know, have got it wrong a few too many times so far!



Jo xxxx

The only thing in question Jo is how fast we are damaging the climate, not if we are or not. You started off by claiming that physics was just a theory, then you said that there was no proof we were responsible for the climate change and now you are saying that we are responsible but no one can be sure exactly how much... You never know Jo, we might actually turn you into a believer.

I've never changed anything I've said or thought. I dont believe as you seem to that its imminent and we're all gonna burn and die. I certainly dont take any notice of the silly links that are posted by the "believers", nor do I like the title "believers or deniers" its far too complicated than that - which is why I dont understand how anyone can simply have blind faith and "believe" - the only scientists who act like that are those who have a hypothesis and a stipend to protect. However, I take notice of those who actually understand and appear to have some knowledge and Garbatellamike seems to have and I agree with what he says - he makes sense. So, no I will never be a "believer" that simplifies a very complicated subject and deniers - well they dont deny, they have open minds and want proof - not the silly links posted on here so please dont waste your time posting more. Its a bit like betting on a horse race - we can argue about which one is gonna win cos we "know" and we have links that prove our horse is better than yours - but its not til the race is finished that we will know the answer! All I do know is that so far, the evidence from the IPCC isnt standing up and there are far too many discrepancies

Jo xxx