For heaven's sake.

[John Hill]

Like you John- you fcuking bedwetter.

Ohhh! I do so love it when you talk dirty....you swine tupping minge rag, you.

[Undried Plum]

Somebody here introduced a clip of a truly brilliant bit of cinematographical commentary on The American War and other American wars:

(Best played at full blast on stereo headphones or very large speakers)


It's the bit at the end which says it all.

It sums up The American War.

[bob2s]

Just so John does not feel left out.

[John Hill]

Ooops, flash in the pan!

[John Hill]

Just so John does not feel left out.

Don't fret, we are quite used to Australia sneering at NZ and we can only assume it all helps them cope with their congenital feelings of inadequacy.

[AtomKraft]

Llondel.
Quite agree.
Nobody has a problem with improvements in efficiency, like you describe.
Similarly, nobody has a problem with measures to reduce pollution- clearly a good thing.

The AGW lobby though, are saying there is an Emergency, a crisis- and intend to force us to alter our lifestyles and to make us all pay more tax.

I don't want to change my lifestyle, or pay more tax. I guess some gullible people do?

The truth is, there's not much in this AGW racket. There's no Emergency, and no Crisis- but go ahead and alter what you do or pay extra tax if you want to.

The clue is in the IPCC report itself, not the panicky claptrap published in newspapers or on the TV.

The IPCC themselves say the following.

1. Economic growth is c. 2% per annum.
2. So 2% compounded up over 60 years, that's 'til the end of the century, is c.400%
3. They are trying to limit temp rise to 1.5 C by then end of the century.
4. If they fail, and temp rise is 5 C, then economic growth over the same period would reduce to c.384%

Now, that leaves me sufficiently unbothered to not give a damn.

What's being presented is not complete bs, but is in fact a mix of three things.

1. Truly good measures, as you pointed out. Efficiency improvements, reductions in pollution etc.
2. Total bollocks like 'We are in charge of the climate, and we are going to control it'.
3. Left leaning politics.

I call bs on 2 & 3.

Even if it gets a bit warmer, we can and will adapt. Nature controls the climate, not us. Learning to adapt to the changes will keep us safe in the long run better than trying to stop the bloody weather like some latter day Canute.

[Dushan]

If he does not want to be part of the solution he should find a nice beachfront cottage and enjoy whatever is ahead of us.

What exactly is "the solution"?

[John Hill]

You should join him in the shade drinking your beer.

[boing]

I live on the West Coast of the US at approximately the same latitude as Bordeaux. I also live on the glacial moraine left behind when the ice of the last ice age retreated. I also live about 50miles away from the volcano named Mount St Helens.

Knowing that there was once solid ice cap hundreds of feet deep from the North Pole to my house and having witnessed the amount of ash thrown into the air by Mount St Helens I must admit that I find the idea that man will somehow influence the climate noticeably in the near future somewhat unlikely. I am all for controlling toxic waste and household/industrial waste. I am all for keeping the oceans clean and gradually reducing our use of fossil fuels but I do not see this as a reason to enter a short term panic.

Perhaps if the US treated fusion research as seriously as it once treated the space race we would reach our energy goals more rapidly.

I would say that the first nation to successfully achieve and adopt fusion power will become the leader of the World.

.

[TheGreenGoblin]

you swine tupping minge rag, you.

You Kiwis do have the art of cussing down to a T!

[Bob]

This Climate bollocks is utterly out of control!

There is NOTHING happening!

I feel like I'm trapped in a world populated by masses of stupid people.

Sure, reduce pollution, do more with less- no problem, but us in charge of the climate? Gimme a break!

The Climate here gets warmer, and cooler- get used to it. Maybe it's us, maybe the planet- either way we have to adapt.

FCT7bBmXEAA0OKe.png (425.45 KiB) Viewed 658 times

[AtomKraft]

At least that guy has a sense of humour- I hope!

[AtomKraft]

I know there's no truth in this debate, but here is some balanced comment- which is probably the best that we can hope for.

[John Hill]

John Mashey describes the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s policies, and notes a pattern of “profit-protective priorities, which might be cast as: kill mosquitoes and viruses, but burn coal, eat sugar, and thank you for smoking.”

In a speech given to Australia’s National Press Club in December 2013, CCC president Lomborg said that his center’s study titled “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?” had found that “until about 2070 global warming is a net benefit to the world,” Graham Readfearn reported in The Guardian.

Global warming is surprising, because the impact now is positive. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer. At the same time, the number of people dying from heat waves are more that outweighed by fewer people dying from fewer cold waves. In all, global warming benefits have increased from 1900 to almost 1.5% of GDP by now, but by 2025, they will peak and begin a rapid decline, leading to a net negative towards the end of the century.”

..................oh well, that's OK then.

[TheGreenGoblin]

John Mashey describes the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s policies, and notes a pattern of “profit-protective priorities, which might be cast as: kill mosquitoes and viruses, but burn coal, eat sugar, and thank you for smoking.”

In a speech given to Australia’s National Press Club in December 2013, CCC president Lomborg said that his center’s study titled “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?” had found that “until about 2070 global warming is a net benefit to the world,” Graham Readfearn reported in The Guardian.

Global warming is surprising, because the impact now is positive. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer. At the same time, the number of people dying from heat waves are more that outweighed by fewer people dying from fewer cold waves. In all, global warming benefits have increased from 1900 to almost 1.5% of GDP by now, but by 2025, they will peak and begin a rapid decline, leading to a net negative towards the end of the century.”

..................oh well, that's OK then.

Tell this garbage to those who live in arid and semi arid parts of the world. Talk to those who are watching reefs die or become bleached due to warming and higher than normal salination etc.etc. I shouldn't respond to such Panglossian drivel but sometime I just can't help myself.

While a small minority might benefit in the very short term, the majority face an ongoing spiral into extreme weather (flooding, drought, heavy snowfall and other extremes) and what this "genius" fails to address is how do you stop the feedback effect of this heating once has it started? Don't waste our time with pseudo science!

[John Hill]

I am not sure he is such a Panglossian, more like a conniving arse-wipe who has found the riches to be gained by telling ignorant selfish idiots what they want to hear.

[TheGreenGoblin]

I am not sure he is such a Panglossian, more like a conniving arse-wipe who has found the riches to be gained by telling ignorant selfish idiots what they want to hear.

Akin to telling your neighbour, whose house burned down, that it wasn't a catastrophe as you were able to toast your marshmallows in the flames!

[John Hill]

I should make an offer for his land before some greedy developer guzzumps me!

[AtomKraft]

Ask yourself, would you rather it was getting a little warmer, or a little colder?

Or would you prefer it stays exactly as it is today, forever?

[Undried Plum]

Ask yourself, would you rather it was getting a little warmer, or a little colder?

Or would you prefer it stays exactly as it is today, forever?

I'd prefer to have the relative stability that that we had for ten thousand years before we started burning silly amounts of hydrocarbons.

Here's a graph of what happened when we started to **** things up by pumping silly amounts of carbon into the atmosphere by discharging it through chimneys and exhaust pipes.