PDA

View Full Version : A Fortune Down the Drain?



M Swanson
02-Apr-13, 18:58
I've just read an interesting article in the Telegraph, concerning the current beliefs of Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, on 'global warming.' It makes for interesting reading and supports what a growing number of people believe about this historic con, which has cost us millions of pounds. And for what? What difference has this fortune, of taxpayer's money made, in improving the situation on a global basis? I can think of a million better ways to improve our lot, than throwing it down this bottomless well.

Prof Fritz, declares - 'The choice is no longer between, 'global catastrophe,' and 'economic growth,' but between 'economic catastrophe,' and 'climate sense.' Now that makes a lot of 'sense,' to me. :cool:

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html)

Phill
02-Apr-13, 19:42
Goading Rheggers are you Ms Swanson?

The global temperature is rising, so we must need more windymills, global climate trend since 1978: +0.14 C per decade.

M Swanson
02-Apr-13, 22:29
Ah! So Prof. Fritz, wrote his findings on the 'global warming,' myth especially for me to report it on the Org, so that I could goad Rheg, huh? And I really have nothing better to do with my life? Yawn! The article was posted for all who are interested to read ...... one Rheg does not a Forum make.

BTW. Any chance of an answer from you about the difference the millions of pounds that taxpayers have poured into this scam has made, globally? Or, if we were to throw every penny we have into the global pot, what difference we can expect to make, over and above the 2% that's already down to us? Or what you think about the eminent Prof's thoughts? Anything interesting, sensible and of value really! 10,9,8 ...............! :roll:

Phill
03-Apr-13, 00:33
Anything interesting, sensible and of value really! 10,9,8 ...............! :roll:I've already given you the climate change trend for the last 30 years or so.As for my thoughts on taxpayers money being spent on this folly I believe the forum has been assaulted with my ramblings previously, the clues are all there.Now, how about some interesting sensible replies to other threads you've left posts on!

M Swanson
03-Apr-13, 09:03
Well, if you consider billions of pounds spent on something that has never been proven, to be preferable to investing it elsewhere, e.g., the NHS, Welfare System, Schools, etc., then there's nothing more I can say. It doesn't get more sensible. Well said, M. ;)

Flynn
03-Apr-13, 15:01
elsewhere, e.g., the NHS, Welfare System, Schools, etc.

What use are any of those without water to drink, food to eat, land to live on?

M Swanson
04-Apr-13, 08:31
Oh! Right! So how much difference to any of that, do you believe the millions that British taxpayers have pumped into global warming has made, Flynn? And at what price to economic growth? Has America, China and Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol?

M Swanson
05-Apr-13, 19:21
Yet again, I receive no response to these questions, from those who insist they're right about this global warming con. As previously stated, we have poured millions into this project and yet there is no answer to be found anywhere for any difference this has made. What's been achieved that justifies so much of Britain's wealth being used on a theory that even scientists can't agree on? Not even Obama will risk the damage to the American economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Isn't it ironic, that whilst so much time and effort is put into this, some of our people are dying from the cold! We all pay £100 a year in increased bills to fund global warming, whilst turning a blind eye to the plight of those who can't afford adequate heating. If we're looking for major differences, then how about withdrawing from Kyoto, as Canada has done; stop using global warming as a tax cash-cow and find much better uses for the billions saved.

Flynn
05-Apr-13, 19:26
Yet again, I receive no response to these questions, from those who insist they're right about this global warming con. As previously stated, we have poured millions into this project and yet there is no answer to be found anywhere for any difference this has made. What's been achieved that justifies so much of Britain's wealth being used on a theory that even scientists can't agree on? Not even Obama will risk the damage to the American economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Isn't it ironic, that whilst so much time and effort is put into this, some of our people are dying from the cold! We all pay £100 a year in increased bills to fund global warming, whilst turning a blind eye to the plight of those who can't afford adequate heating. If we're looking for major differences, then how about withdrawing from Kyoto, as Canada has done; stop using global warming as a tax cash-cow and find much better uses for the billions saved.

Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have money in your pocket or food in your stomach?

Canada is now an international pariah. The pollution they have created in going after the tar sands is so bad it can be seen from space. They have pretty much destroyed an entire ecosystem.

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/albertatarsandsbeforeafter_zpsa4b5ce35.jpg

M Swanson
05-Apr-13, 19:46
I see absolutely no reason why I, you and everybody else can't have both Flynn. Does your pic have anything to do with global warming?

Try this. It's l-o-n-g, but informative.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/)

ywindythesecond
05-Apr-13, 19:47
Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have money in your pocket or food in your stomach?

Canada is now an international pariah. The pollution they have created in going after the tar sands is so bad it can be seen from space. They have pretty much destroyed an entire ecosystem.

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q672/Forumstufftoo/Forum bits/albertatarsandsbeforeafter_zpsa4b5ce35.jpg

Seems to me introducing tar sands is a quite different queston. MS asked in #1 "What difference has this fortune, of taxpayer's money made, in improving the situation on a global basis?" And so far nobody has addressed it.

Flynn
05-Apr-13, 20:03
I see absolutely no reason why I, you and everybody else can't have both Flynn. Does your pic have anything to do with global warming?

Try this. It's l-o-n-g, but informative.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/)

That destruction was done in the extraction of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel pollution is a big driver of climate change.

Flynn
05-Apr-13, 20:08
I see absolutely no reason why I, you and everybody else can't have both Flynn. Does your pic have anything to do with global warming?

Try this. It's l-o-n-g, but informative.

C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/)

We cannot have both. The human race lives within a finite ecosystem. We cannot have perpetual growth because we only have finite resources. If we do not switch to a sustainable model, we will all, or our children, end up starving.

Phill
05-Apr-13, 23:00
C3: Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/) Corrie 3 doing the news???

Phill
05-Apr-13, 23:01
Fossil fuel pollution is a big driver of climate change.We know that how?

ywindythesecond
06-Apr-13, 00:56
Sorry Flynn, MS asked in #1 "What difference has this fortune, of taxpayer's money made, in improving the situation on a global basis?" And so far nobody has addressed it.
And you keep avoiding answering.
What does shale gas extraction have to do with the cost of pursuance of measures to reduce global warming through renewables which was the underlying point?

Southern-Gal
07-Apr-13, 09:34
Not read the thread but I really think that to tackle the worlds global warming problem we need to limit humans effects on the world by both reducing repopulation by us and by what we do.
People are living longer and having more stuff and possessions. Its not save the world its save the human race. When we are either gone or vastly reduced by either disease or some other natural disaster the earth will cleanse itself over time.
Some measures the bodies in authority could do are stop people having loads of children at the drop of a hat by providing extra cash for every child and stopping the existing people having loads of cars and other energy guzzling gadgets by both taxing them more and actual bans on some things. For instance they could up the age when a young person can apply for a license from 17 to maybe 21 and put a limit on how many cars can be registered to one address. Obviously public transport and schemes for car shares would need to be in place first.

Some food for thought :)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l269/dona_10/404199_352276201468506_205344452828349_1316619_115 1882568_n.jpg

RagnarRocks
07-Apr-13, 19:55
I don't think people appreciate how important it is that Scotland hits its zero target emission targets ! As you're all fully aware the moment we do the climate will stabilise and we can all wear flowers in our hair! Only problem I really have is hasn't the climate been changing since the world began ?