Hybrid Car ??

It has been an interesting dicussion in that personally I have read further into it and been surprised at the strength of the opinions being put forward and the number of bodies that seem to feel a scientific consensus has been reached.

It’s heartening to know that you’ve delved a bit deeper into the mire of this issue and I can understand why you draw that conclusion.

Try looking at the other side of the argument, as well as the ‘scientific consensus’ you have found.
You might be surprised at what you find on the other side.;)

The only Hybrid cars I like are those created on Chop Shop. The Johny Vegas Golf/Subaru/Citroen (Pug?) was a stunner.

You really are a fool aren’t you , you think this earth is just here to be a habitat for the human race, and it will reset itself just to accommdate us.

That isn’t what I said at all, I was simply concurring with the idea that Earth will look after itself until it melts, just as it has for billions of years.

I also believe it will not accomodate our species for very much longer.

Just think about mars, It once had water and probably some form of microbial life,
but not any more, why because it went from one state to another, if you turn your liveing space in to a sh&t tip it will no longer be able to sustain you.

I guess those darned microbes were guilty of ruining Mars with their 4x4s and toxic waste?:D

You mentioned Royal Society.. the same Royal Society that Ridiculed Darwin for almost 50 years??

The same Royal Society that ridiculed Tesla and called him a mad man and “dangerous” when he said that “One day Man will sit at home in one part of the country and hold device that would let him hear Opera that was sang in another part of the country”???

Same Royal Society that for better part of century ridiculed theory of Continental drift and Movement of Tectonic plates and suggestions that there used to be one continent called pangea. ???

Same royal society that believed for better part of 100 years that supersonic travel by man is impossible, that laughed off suggestions of powered flight, and million other things

I do believe that’s the society being referred to as a source of fact.:D

Welcome to the fray, DJ, it’s high time we had another voice of reason on this thread about, ahem, hybrid cars.

See this is perfect example how “I chain my self to coal train” bunch use information carpet bombing of statements and facts to draw up misleading and wrong conclusion.

What does “largest extinction period” have to do with global worming in particular?? Are you saying that its only the global worming and not , Deforestation, Hunting, poaching, Polution , loss of habitat causing it? Yes the extinction is in large part a MAN issue, but dont entangle it with global worming.

You mentioned Royal Society.. the same Royal Society that Ridiculed Darwin for almost 50 years??

The same Royal Society that ridiculed Tesla and called him a mad man and “dangerous” when he said that “One day Man will sit at home in one part of the country and hold device that would let him hear Opera that was sang in another part of the country”???

Same Royal Society that for better part of century ridiculed theory of Continental drift and Movement of Tectonic plates and suggestions that there used to be one continet called pangea. ???

Same royal society that belived for better part of 100 years that supersonic travel by man is imposible, that laughed off suggestions of powered flight, and milion other things

NEWSFLASH: Scientist get it wrong all the time. Just because something is widely accepted now does not mean it will be in future.. and it usually takes one or few people who challange status quo , get ridiculed in process but in the end get proven right. It was same in 60s and 70s with “global cooling” when everybody thought we are getting into an Ice age (though strangely this is now poping up again) , in 80s and 90s when our “disapearing ozone layer” was going to be the end of us all, and now its global warming… in weeks time who knows.. it might be Cheese threatening the world 😀

Keep it civil please.

Moggy
Moderator

😀 Earth will certainly heal itself until the day it’s melted by the Sun

You really are a fool aren’t you , you think this earth is just here to be a habitat for the human race, and it will reset
itself just to accommdate us. Just think about mars, It once had water and probably some form of microbial life,
but not any more, why because it went from one state to another, if you turn your liveing space in to a sh&t tip it will no longer be able to sustain you.

😀 Earth will certainly heal itself until the day it’s melted by the Sun, but whether we earthlings are around for much longer is debateable.

It appears that GW has been taking a tea break since 1998, but it will probably get back on track eventually.

Shame we couldn’t say the same about GWB.:diablo:

The concensus is that GW is real.
The heated debate still rages on the cause and the drivers.

Another angle, from a source I don’t usually have any time for whatsoever was from a Vicar I happened to be next to in a pub one Saturday. He stated the the Earth will heal itself, anything that comes from the Earth will have a counterbalance somewhere else on the Earth. An interesting opinion that could well be true.

Anyway, onto the next debate……all pals, and both sides have read up on the others, which is forward IMO. “Challenging prejudice is the only way to know your opinion” as my Economics master told me, when I asked why he was reading the Sun and the Morning Star during the same tea break.

There is also a very interesting, independent graph here, explaining that global warming peaked in 1998:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_30-39/2008-30/pdf/42-46_3529.pdf

And we all know how much people like graphs?;)

We should all read the small print and try to balance this out with the ‘concensus’ of opinion that suits those who have something to gain by keeping the myth alive.

The whole process has become an argument between two sides, those who gain from perpetuating the idea and those who seek the truth.

If large companies were stupid enough to employ scientists, solely to quash the theory of MMGW, they would be very short sighted and have no thought for their offspring and future generations.
Does anyone here believe that is possible?:confused:

It would be much like an American or Russian President pushing the red button, just for the heck of it.

Try comparing this whole scenario with the invasion od Iraq, because someone thought they had WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes.

All 8 of their ideas of a misleading argument is countered by the sources I posted earlier, they are the same ideas relied on by the “It’s man’s fault” team.

And it could be argued that the sources you posted are countered by the Royal Society.

I doubt that any one of us here on this forum is anything more than a layman regarding this subject, so we take the word of experts to base our own theories on.

Indeed. There are also out there a number of extreme views arguing that Global Warming has already reached the runaway stage where the Tundra is now melting and methane will make the result unstoppable – whatever we do.

I suppose it is for us as individuals to look at the various opinions, reports and campaigns and judge those who are putting them forward, try to see if they have an agenda in so doing, and then make up our own minds.

It has been an interesting dicussion in that personally I have read further into it and been surprised at the strength of the opinions being put forward and the number of bodies that seem to feel a scientific consensus has been reached.

Thanks

If serious global warming is fact and not simply mass hysteria, if nothing else, it’s obvious that sea levels would be rising at an unusual rate?

There are hundreds of scaremongers telling us that sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
According to one expert, who doesn’t work for a large company that is trying to convince us it isn’t true, he states that some of the claims have been falsified.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, began his studies in the early 60s, took his thesis in 1969 and retired in 2005.

One interesting interview with Dr Mörner:
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

Another interesting observation:

Back in carbonate sedimentation 101 at Southampton University in 1964/5 I can remember being taught how atolls keep pace with a subsiding seafloor or a rising sea level (different phenomena, by the way!) by constantly growing upward and outward.

http://globallychanging.blogspot.com/2005/12/prof-nils-axel-mrner-on-rising-sea.html

Let’s face it, global warming is better than global cooling, which would cause the need for the use of even more fossil fuels, while we await that seemingly unobtainable goal of safe, re-usable energy.

I doubt that any one of us here on this forum is anything more than a layman regarding this subject, so we take the word of experts to base our own theories on.
It’s my belief that not only us, but most world leaders, governments and people in high places are in the same boat, relying on the same experts, while those experts rely on someone to pay their salaries.
Whether or not many of those experts are worth the investment is questionable and I cite the IPCC as a good example of a very bad investment.

At the end of the Royal Society webpages on theis subject, it states : This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.
No names.
All 8 of their ideas of a misleading argument is countered by the sources I posted earlier, they are the same ideas relied on by the “It’s man’s fault” team.

In 20 years time, you can drag this thread up to compare and contrast. The Earth will be a little warmer than now, the hole in the ozone will be gone or just normal in the months it’s supposed to be. The Polar bears may be dead, but the penguins in the Antarctic will be flourishing, it’s getting colder there as we speak. Man will be producing very little Co2 and it will have made feck all difference. The Sun decides. That’s why the surface temperature on Mars has been getting warmer in the past few years. Mans fault of course…..that probe that bounced instead of landing must have set a reaction off.
The earth has always changed, and yes it is sunspot activity, the old 7 to 11 year agricultural cycle is just doing its turn, like it always has done.
Oh, and dont forget the Moon. As it moves further away, 2 inches per year, its gravity is less upon us. Apart from tides, what else is that MASSIVE effect changing on our bit of terra firma? It must be slowing our spin for a start, it may be introdcing a wobble, we’ve been dancing as a pulled pair for a while now. It may even be altering our tilt.

I’ll only bother to answer the last comment, in that one fair sized volcanic eruption does more natural harm to the atmosphere than the last 100 years of unnatural motorised transport has.

So I present evidence from a respected scientific body and you challenge it with an unsubstantiated statement? And then you say:

to ignore any evidence that what you believe in might be wrong is lunacy.

Ok, lets look at this source you posted:

More here:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

It is an interesting claim but it is a press release to promote a book, and such things are usually senstionalised, to attract attention for the book. Hence it needs careful attention to separate the facts.

He claims: “more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.”

But he does not say out of how many. Is that half, a fifth, less than 5% of scientists or scientific opinion? So a big number but meaningless without a comparison. Also, a scientist agreeing with the majority of a body of research but refuting one element, does not bring the whole edifice down. In an area of research as wide as climate science there will be claims made which are refuted, and others that are proven correct. What is important is the overall view.

So, interesting but overblown and unsubstantiated. Like many statements from politicians – which I why I didn’t mention Al Gore.

BTW I would counter Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle with Iain Stewart’s Earth: The Climate Wars.

Absolutely, but so could all those clever scientists, not to mention your goodself?

I haven’t expressed an opinion either way up to now. Or did you miss that, in your haste to deliver yet another snarky comment?

Being convinced of something is fine, but to ignore any evidence that what you believe in might be wrong is lunacy.

Excellent advice, and what a shame you seem unable to follow it yourself. Childish labels such as “the brainwashed” add no weight at all to your argument. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you wish to be taken seriously, please treat others with respect.

How much long will it take before the brainwashed take note of some recent changes?

Global temperatures have dropped so much since January 2007 that all evidence of warming over the last 30 years has completely vanished. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has turned cool again and, if history is any indicator, this means global temperatures will continue to fall. Despite an 800% increase in carbon emissions, global temperatures have dropped about 0.3 degrees Celsius since 2005.

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/global-cooling/evidence-manmade-global-warming-exist/

Being convinced of something is fine, but to ignore any evidence that what you believe in might be wrong is lunacy.

Edit: And by the way, being in the majority doesn’t make anything right, look at how well Britain is doing under ZanuLabor?

Of course, you could be wrong.

Couldn’t you?

Absolutely, but so could all those clever scientists, not to mention your goodself?

:rolleyes:

Nice one Moggy, in true moderator style.:D

I didn’t mention Al Gore – but yet you feel it necessary to attack his lifestyle, not the evidence for his campaigns.

What evidence that hasn’t been refuted?

Moving on, we’ll leave the IPCC behind for now

Good thinking, who would rely on the word of a body of people who are in it solely for their salaries, few of whom are climate scientists, BTW?

and go back to some key arguments being put forward:

You say that CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming
See The Royal Society’s guide to Climate Change

The Royal Society, which has been at the forefront of science for three and a half centuries, feels the science of climate change has reached a point where they are attacking misleading statements – not merely hosting a debate. That itself is a powerful argument.
See also:
Global Warming is caused by the sun
and
Climate changed is not caused by humans which also points out that volcanoes are responsible for less than one percent of the emmisions due to human activity.

I’ll only bother to answer the last comment, in that one fair sized volcanic eruption does more natural harm to the atmosphere than the last 100 years of unnatural motorised transport has.

And please lets move away from acusations of brainwashing. I’ve always considered science behind such debates and I fight propaganda in all forms.

You’re fighting a losing battle against propaganda, because you’ve fallen for it already.
Someone saw a bandwagon and jumped on it, leaving the taxpayer as the only loser.

At the end of the day, each to his own, as a wise (young) man recently said, “Let’s wait for 30 years to pass and see what happens.”

Well I haven’t got 30 years left to wait, so tough.

In approximately 6.5 billion years, Earth will melt and when the human race disappears long before that happens, which it certainly will, tough again.

If the end of the world happened tomorrow, only one person would die, you and in my case, me.;)
Taking the broad canvas into consideration, not a great loss either way.:diablo:

I didn’t mention Al Gore – but yet you feel it necessary to attack his lifestyle, not the evidence for his campaigns.

Moving on, we’ll leave the IPCC behind for now and go back to some key arguments being put forward:

You say that CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming
See The Royal Society’s guide to Climate Change

The Royal Society, which has been at the forefront of science for three and a half centuries, feels the science of climate change has reached a point where they are attacking misleading statements – not merely hosting a debate. That itself is a powerful argument.
See also:
Global Warming is caused by the sun
and
Climate changed is not caused by humans which also points out that volcanoes are responsible for less than one percent of the emmisions due to human activity.

And please lets move away from acusations of brainwashing. I’ve always considered science behind such debates and I fight propaganda in all forms.

CO2, a gas that is proven not to be the cause of global warming.

:rolleyes:

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the sterile, timeworn arguments that people keep spouting about MMGW being a fact.

Something more interesting is out there to be found, but it’s highly unlikely that those who are convinced are bothering to look any further.
They’re happy in the false knowledge that they’re doing their best to save the planet from certain destruction by CO2, a gas that is proven not to be the cause of global warming.

Of course, you could be wrong.

Couldn’t you?

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the sterile, timeworn arguments that people keep spouting about MMGW being a fact.

Something more interesting is out there to be found, but it’s highly unlikely that those who are convinced are bothering to look any further.
They’re happy in the false knowledge that they’re doing their best to save the planet from certain destruction by CO2, a gas that is proven not to be the cause of global warming.