global warming bullshit, truth ,man myth or just nature????

Like wise Bertie Ahern.
2800 euro per week pension.
 
Sponsored Links
The government grabs over 50% of what we earn in some form of tax or another.
Yet thats not enough. Thay have to borrow billions.

So the biggest back hander they give you at the end of the day is debt.
What's the solution? (genuine question with no barbs attached here Norcon - we've had our little play for today ;) )
 
Was it as long ago as my original (well, second if you discount swidders whom I pressed autodestruct on?)
 
Sponsored Links
Its all them condensing boilers gushing out bloody plumes of thick white smoke that is definitely causing the Global warming, I would say bring back the real log fires!
 
Its all them condensing boilers gushing out bloody plumes of thick white smoke that is definitely causing the Global warming, I would say bring back the real log fires!
Can you turn them off with the flick of a microswitch when everything is up to temperature?
 
If its not due to global warming where are all these floods coming from, we never had this many in the past.

The level of consciousness has risen that's all. 20 years ago there might be a mention of flooding somewhere other than the UK. Now it's beamed live as it happens and repeated on a 15 minute rolling schedule.

During the floods in Devon a couple of years ago it was noted that there was more media covering the event than villagers affected by the flooding.. :rolleyes:

I -through work- and via my previous partners father have been following this since the mid eighties.
He being involved in the film "the great global warming swindle" was obviously firmly against mainstream manipulation of the data for the furtherance of political aims.
He was reasonably firm in that it was suggested to Thatcher back then that the rise of China was inevitable and given the population which was expected to rise (as wealth grew) despite the child ban would drain the '1st' world of resource and there would be a shift of power towards the East.

The global warming scare was a way of trying to reduce dependency on natural resources and also try to slow China's development. (currently increasing consumption of energy at the rate equivalent of opening coal fired power stations a week)
One of the things he was also quite adamant was the need to preserve fossil fuels and suggested oil was such a valuable commodity it was nonsensical to burn it

He feels strongly that the Earth climate is forced by various issues primarily from the Sun and it's affects..



He's in there and if you have any concerns he lives in a small 3 bed terrace house in Crawley...





 
Am I right in thinking that the Netherlands are below sea level and when was the last time we heard of flooding there,or is global warming/climate change selective in dumping all its moisture on us.
 
He was reasonably firm in that it was suggested to Thatcher back then that the rise of China was inevitable and given the population which was expected to rise (as wealth grew) despite the child ban would drain the '1st' world of resource and there would be a shift of power towards the East.

The global warming scare was a way of trying to reduce dependency on natural resources and also try to slow China's development. (currently increasing consumption of energy at the rate equivalent of opening coal fired power stations a week)
Whether one believes the global warming theory or not it seems to me that polititians have missed a trick here. They could introduce an "Unnecessary transport " tax which would please the envoirmentalists and result in much less fueloil being burned in ships as tat was shipped back and forth across the globe and would also keep jobs and manufacturing at home or would that policy effect the 1% of billionares who make their fortune from trade?
 
He was reasonably firm in that it was suggested to Thatcher back then that the rise of China was inevitable and given the population which was expected to rise (as wealth grew) despite the child ban would drain the '1st' world of resource and there would be a shift of power towards the East.

The global warming scare was a way of trying to reduce dependency on natural resources and also try to slow China's development. (currently increasing consumption of energy at the rate equivalent of opening coal fired power stations a week)
Whether one believes the global warming theory or not it seems to me that polititians have missed a trick here. They could introduce an "Unnecessary transport " tax which would please the envoirmentalists and result in much less fueloil being burned in ships as tat was shipped back and forth across the globe and would also keep jobs and manufacturing at home or would that policy effect the 1% of billionares who make their fortune from trade?

the term 'unnecessary' opens up a huge can of legal worms and therefore unworkable. Also forget the 'lets attack the rich' angle as that is just a red herring. If people did not buy the goods which were transported across the world then there would be no billionaires

I wonder if anything within your reach right now was locally sourced: say within 10 miles..?
 
An additional lorry tax per road mile would certainly encourage us to use local produce instead of shifting food around the country. The roads would last a lot longer, car journeys would be faster, and almost certainly a lot safer. So lots of benefits, you might lose the economies of scale and you wouldn't be able to demand out of season fruit and veg, but we got on fine like that thirty odd years ago.

The road haulage industry is a powerful lobby though and certainly a load of jobs in the business. But forcing large trucks off the road using taxes would almost certainly be beneficial for all sorts of reasons.
 
An additional lorry tax per road mile would certainly encourage us to use local produce instead of shifting food around the country. The roads would last a lot longer, car journeys would be faster, and almost certainly a lot safer. So lots of benefits, you might lose the economies of scale and you wouldn't be able to demand out of season fruit and veg, but we got on fine like that thirty odd years ago.

The road haulage industry is a powerful lobby though and certainly a load of jobs in the business. But forcing large trucks off the road using taxes would almost certainly be beneficial for all sorts of reasons.

So your idea of going forwards is to go backwards.. Hmm not going to happen. We 'could' quite as easily ban all sorts of frivolous things but again progress is not made by banning stuff.

The idea of increasing the cost of goods via the back door in the form of additional taxes will mean low income families will be hit harder than the richer ones. Besides all fruit and veg is transported and it is priced as the market will bear. If there is no competition local farmers will naturally adopt a "Take it or leave it" approach which will mean farmers get rich selling life sustaining produce..
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top