In The News

[Village]

This is where the AGW believers have lost the plot. In only labelling everything Mankind does as evil and wrong.

Why? None of these blind believers in Manmade climate change have ever explained this point.

The truth is that all species compete and hundreds of species become extinct all of the time due to competition with other species. Some species win out, others dont. This is not unnatural, this is totally natural and Mankind must also compete in this arena.

The next step that the AGW brain deads will take is that they will recomend euthenasia of our own species. But rest assured, the hypocrisy of these idiots will ensure that its not themselves who will get murdered to save the world from ourselves....oh no....just as they recommend to everyone else that we should walk to work, stop travelling, stop eating meat and stop breathing; these AGW doogooders will continue consuming and burning fossil fuels and are not prepared to give anything up for themselves.

Merry Christmas.......my message to all you doogooders out there who want to save the world is to take this time of celebration to listen to the advise of one very special man whoe's birthday it is today. He actually gave his own life to demonstrate his love for Mankind. How far are you prepared to go in demonstrating that you actually believe enough about what you preach to the rest of us?

Edited December 25, 2011 by Village

[BornFromTheVoid]

You're all crazed,and unless you're broadcasting from a solar-powered papier mache PC (made from recycled toilet rolls,natch) which is gathering energy thru' the chink in the roof of the cave you're all residing in,you're all hypocrites. Now clear off and leave us be.

Have you ever produced anything more than insults and rhetoric on this forum? Odd that you continue returning to a topic you seem to despise, I think a slight masochistic streak must be at play!

I have to say though, I honestly don't get what you hope to achieve with your posts. Would you mind explaining?

This is where the AGW believers have lost the plot. In only labelling everything Mankind does as evil and wrong.

Why? None of these blind believers in Manmade climate change have ever explained this point.

The truth is that all species compete and hundreds of species become extinct all of the time due to competition with other species. Some species win out, others dont. This is not unnatural, this is totally natural and Mankind must also compete in this arena.

The next step that the AGW brain deads will take is that they will recomend euthenasia of our own species. But rest assured, the hypocrisy of these idiots will ensure that its not themselves who will get murdered to save the world from ourselves....oh no....just as they recommend to everyone else that we should walk to work, stop travelling, stop eating meat and stop breathing; these AGW doogooders will continue consuming and burning fossil fuels and are not prepared to give anything up for themselves.

Merry Christmas.......my message to all you doogooders out there who want to save the world is to take this time of celebration to the advise of one man whoes birthday it is today. He actually gave his own like to demonstrate his love for Mankind. How far are you prepared to go in demonstrating that you actually believe enough about what you preach to the rest of us?

More impressive evidence based, objective work, you're doing your viewpoint a wonderful service.

A little quote from the man himself, my favourite bible quote actually,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater than these shall he do

Jesus certainly didn't doubt our capabilities...

I wonder how long until the climate & environment section gets put on hold now, it's a pity it had to drop to this level

Anywho, have a good one all!

[Lauren]

Whether you believe in man made global warming or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the human race IS polluting the earth and gradually taking away it's resources at an unsustainable rate. Instead of focusing on whether this is a natural or unnatural process how about doing everything on your power to make sure the only planet that we call home is protected to the best of our abilities?

As a SCUBA diver the decline in ocean life and degradation of coral in the last 10 years alone is really quite shocking. Quite simply if the fish go (and that won't take long with current fishing methods) then everything else goes. It saddens me that only now ocean conservation has come to the fore. I guess it was a case of out of sight out of mind.

It's sad that as humans being the smartest species on the planet would have worked out much earlier down the line that we were being too destructive to our planet. Sadly money corrupts a lot of the time and any smart person knows being selfish now will only lead to disaster in the future. It's a sad indictment of our species really.

I find the mindset of 'well there's no evidence for it so I'll just carry on on my merry way' quite scary to be honest. Sometimes you don't need scientific papers to know something isn't doing any good. Some example are cutting down rainforests or pumping sewage and chemicals into the sea. You don't even really need much intelligence to work out that is not good for the planet and will cause long term damage. You wouldn't dump rubbish in your own house so why metaphorically do it to our planet? Sure some things are unavoidable, but you'd think we'd be intelligent enough to work out that unavoidable things that are damaging should be done in the most environmentally friendly way possible.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Lauren

[Gray-Wolf]

A Merry Christmas to one and all!

It's a shame that that Man Jesus did not have modern media to pass on his message with!

Why must , all of a sudden, every person with concerns about man's impacts on his world around him be attacked as being 'wrong' and abhorrent?

We , who believe we can , and are ,impacting our planet do nothing other than ask 'awkward questions' of folk who do not believe in such. If they feel that the answers the facts make them give cause them hurt then just ignore the questions?

If we are told we are wrong we use our data/knowledge to show why we do not feel that this is so (within the realms of 'reasonable doubt'). We do not resort to name calling (though we may give our impressions of what certain 'groups' of folk are like!).

Yet again BFTV is correct in his observations and it would seem that the Trolls would now like nothing better than to have the section closed down and so I would implore all to ignore the ad homs and that we ought not 'feed' the Trolls. They must truely see that they are now being left well behind by the science and that the only way to 'Win' the debate is to now close the debate for all (and so they were not 'beaten' they just could no longer argue their corner......so it's a draw!)

Edited December 25, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

If I may make an observation if Darwinian theory is going to used as an argument. In fact I'll just post a passage from Dawkin's A Devil's Chaplain. I hope I'm not feeding the trolls GW.

I prefer to stand up with Julian's refreshingly belligerent grandfather T. H. Huxley, agree that natural selection is the dominant force in biological evolution unlike Shaw, admit its unpleasantness unlike Julian, and, unlike Wells, fight against it as a human being. Here is T. H., in his Romanes Lecture in Oxford in 1893, on 'Evolution and Ethics'

Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.

That is G. C. Williams's recommendation today, and it is mine. I hear the bleak sermon of the Devil's Chaplain as a call to arms. As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs. My previous books, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, extol the inescapable factual correctness of the Devil's Chaplain (had Darwin decided to extend the list of melancholy adjectives in the Chaplain's indictment, he would very probably have chosen both 'selfish' and 'blind'). At the same time I have always held true to the closing words of my first book, 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'

If you seem to smell inconsistency or even contradiction, you are mistaken. There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one. For good Darwinian reasons, evolution gave us a brain whose size increased to the point where it became capable of understanding its own provenance, of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them. Every time we use contraception we demonstrate that brains can thwart Darwinian designs. If, as my wife suggests to me, selfish genes are Frankensteins and all life their monster, it is only we that can complete the fable by turning against our creators. We face an almost exact negation of Bishop Heber's lines, 'Though every prospect pleases, And only man is vile.' Yes, man can be vile too, but we are the only potential island of refuge from the implications of the Devil's Chaplain: from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste.

On a brighter note I've just been given a single malt that I've not tried before. See you Tuesday.

Edited December 25, 2011 by weather ship

[laserguy]

Whether you believe in man made global warming or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the human race IS polluting the earth and gradually taking away it's resources at an unsustainable rate. Instead of focusing on whether this is a natural or unnatural process how about doing everything on your power to make sure the only planet that we call home is protected to the best of our abilities?

It's sad that as humans being the smartest species on the planet would have worked out much earlier down the line that we were being too destructive to our planet. Sadly money corrupts a lot of the time and any smart person knows being selfish now will only lead to disaster in the future. It's a sad indictment of our species really.

Yes,I've always said this. No argument there at all and as pointed out elsewhere I try to do my best and live a frugal life. But this simply does not register with AGW types for the simple reason that I don't agree with them! My actions count for nothing until I reluctantly shrug my shoulders and acknowledge that they were right all along,after all. Hah! My 'beef' lies specifically with the premise that our CO2 is causing some sort of planetary atmospheric disturbance, I thought I'd made that clear over the years?

BFTV - I don't despise the topic,but find it amazing that it's still got legs with some people. I guess I'm hanging on in there to watch its demise. I'm sorry you find my input insulting,but now you mention it I find all the doom insulting and rhetorical,too.

weathership - I do not,nor have ever taken medication for the implied mental problem. (Does that not count as an insult,BFTV?). The greatest purveyor of doom and destruction on here has a well-known penchant for a mind-altering member of the cannabiciae family of herbs - noted for its tendency to induce delusions and paranoia. It appears to be working very well.

Right,me and the family are walking 3 miles to the in-laws for Xmas lunch. I'm taking a little home-made beer and wine (very 'green') and I'm not lining the pockets of those nasty capitalist brewers and swelling government tax coffers. Why,even the waste product from my brewing activities goes to a neighbours chickens,and I get lovely organic eggs in return. Win win win! The AGW types will find fault somewhere,probably our increased respiration from walking causing more CO2 emissions than the car would so we should really stay home to save the planet.... Aaarrgghh.

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV - I don't despise the topic,but find it amazing that it's still got legs with some people. I guess I'm hanging on in there to watch its demise. I'm sorry you find my input insulting,but now you mention it I find all the doom insulting and rhetorical,too.

weathership - I do not,nor have ever taken medication for the implied mental problem. (Does that not count as an insult,BFTV?). The greatest purveyor of doom and destruction on here has a well-known penchant for a mind-altering member of the cannabiciae family of herbs - noted for its tendency to induce delusions and paranoia. It appears to be working very well.

Not necessarily that your input is insulting, but that you tend to just "take the p**s" out of those who agree humanities activities (mainly CO2 emmissions) have many negative impacts. Seen as you so completely disagree with humanities impact on climate, do you believe that the scientists producing papers on the subject attributing some of the change to our activities are idiots/corrupt/doing it for the money or something else?

As for weathership's post, yep, that was an insult, which I wouldn't really agree with. But he has also posted numerous scientific papers, which is something I've not seen you do. You've also mentioned your dislike towards the "holier than thou" attitude, yet you seem to be the only one boasting of your sustainable lifestyle here...

Enjoy your walk, at least it's not an icy trip this year!

[Village]

Mankind does nothing more and nothing less than any other species on this planet.

There is a problem with some peoples need to exagerate the power of Mankind. The problem as I see it is that people have become too comfortable and their daily concerns are trivial.

My point is a simple one, all those who worry about the climate eversoslightly changing should be thankful of Mankind's achievements to date. These achievements are the very reason that one is lucky enough to have the time to ponder what may or may not be in a few hundred years forth.

That is a luxury which has been born out of Man's ability to use resorces to his advantage.

When the next natural real systemic shock comes then everybody will be denied this luxury. It will be every living thing for themselves. Your time wont be spent pondering hundreds of years forth, it will be minute by minute decissions simply to stay alive.

That will most definitely bring the climate change believers into the real world. A world which will focus their minds on the truth that Man has no power over anything. The last thing on these individual's minds will be a hundred years forth. If they dont get it at that point....finally...then they may as well curl up and die. But remember one thing....even a blade of grass has more inteligence than that and does concentrate all its efforts on staying alive and proliferating.

The end game is all about a race.....we are in a race to develop a sustainable alternative to survive away from this planet. Yes it takes resources, yes it takes sacrifice....but if we dont get on quickly and realise this dream we will be consigned to the dustbin along with every other extinct species known to have dwelled this planet. We have one shot...time is running...the clock is ticking....perhaps we will have an alternative in just a few hundred years forth. If we dont....nature will take us down as history has demonstrated all too often in the past.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Village

[knocker]

weathership - I do not,nor have ever taken medication for the implied mental problem. (Does that not count as an insult,BFTV?). The greatest purveyor of doom and destruction on here has a well-known penchant for a mind-altering member of the cannabiciae family of herbs - noted for its tendency to induce delusions and paranoia. It appears to be working very well.

It was not meant as an insult per se but an attempt to highlight the complete lack of reasoned agument in your previous post which was:

You're all crazed,and unless you're broadcasting from a solar-powered papier mache PC (made from recycled toilet rolls,natch) which is gathering energy thru' the chink in the roof of the cave you're all residing in,you're all hypocrites. Now clear off and leave us be.

[Lauren]

Mankind does nothing more and nothing less than any other species on this planet.

I'm sorry but that's really not true is it?

I don't know any other species that can destroy acres of rainforest everyday, pump tonnes of sewage and chemicals into the ocean everyday, overfish and waste fish, destroy miles and miles and miles of important habitat to mine natural resources. The list goes on.

I'm no hippy, but even I'm not blind enough to see we are by far the most destructive species on this planet and we are possibly the only species to use resources so unsustainably.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Lauren

[laserguy]

Ok guys,I'm willing to bury the hatchet before this gets out of hand! Sorry to all I've upset - tact was never a strong point. Best wishes an' all that to all of you,and I bet we're all still at it at this time next year (hopefully)! Right,gotta go for that Xmas lunch... the car's winking at me. Nah,we'll leg it.

[songster]

I don't know any other species that can destroy acres of rainforest everyday, pump tonnes of sewage and chemicals into the ocean everyday, overfish and waste fish, destroy miles and miles and miles of important habitat to mine natural resources. The list goes on.

Oh, we're certainly more destructive than most species. Less destructive than some historical species, of course. Consider the first photosynthesising cyanobacteria, which converted the entire atmosphere from methane to CO2/water and laid down banded iron oxide formations metres thick. Archea would say the Earth has never recovered from that. Extinction, and radical climate change, is simply part of life.

I don't therefore see any particular moral opprobrium in manmade climate change - yes, it leads to extinction, but also to new niches for new species in future. But I am worried that one of the niches we're in the process of destroying is the niche for "an advanced technological species". If we wipe out human civilisation - which is in my view not an impossibility if we flood our coastal population hubs and render our arable land unfit for our current crops - there will not be enough easily-extractable resources for any other species to get started. To find coal and gas we now have to go down miles, we've already used the easy-to-get stuff. We couldn't start from scratch again, and nor could any other species.

A completely separate issue is the way we destroy ecological niches without creating new ones: cut down a boreal forest and replace it with a pine monoculture, or replace rainforest with palm oil plantations, rubber plantations, etc. This is most definitely an ecological crime against the planet.

Edited December 25, 2011 by songster

[Devonian]

Oh, we're certainly more destructive than most species. Less destructive than some historical species, of course. Consider the first photosynthesising cyanobacteria, which converted the entire atmosphere from methane to CO2/water and laid down banded iron oxide formations metres thick. Archea would say the Earth has never recovered from that. Extinction, and radical climate change, is simply part of life.

That might well be the case, but has (or perhaps will) any species have had such an impact over such a short period of time? Almost certainly not?

Morals. Looking out at night to the darkness and near nothingness of space I have to say I do feel a moral responsibilty (or perhaps just a responsibilty) for this truly amazing planet. So much of the universe is either nearly nothing or lifeless that to do away with any species of life seems to me to be nigh on impossible to defend. Imo.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Devonian

[laserguy]

Even considering our incredible intellect,powers of reasoning,compassion and every other myriad facet that sets us aside from all other species,has anyone thought that a higher power might be at work here and our species is destined to run its course - whatever that may entail and result in? I wouldn't call myself religious or a believer in God ( the mere mention of such could lead this thread anywhere!) but ye I've had plenty of moments like the one you describe Dev,and I just wonder. Ye we can all do our bit and try our best and all that (as I do but not for AGW/climate change motivations!) but I fear that best intentions however inspired and motivated,we may be swimming against an unstoppable tide.

[knocker]

Even considering our incredible intellect,powers of reasoning,compassion and every other myriad facet that sets us aside from all other species,has anyone thought that a higher power might be at work here and our species is destined to run its course - whatever that may entail and result in?

So that's Darwin and latter day adaptions to his theory, that I think is generally accepted, out of the window. Who exactly is this higher power? Without bringing metaphysics into it why cannot it be quite simplistic and think along the lines that "incredible intellect,powers of reasoning" are being deflected by various other reasons such as consumerism. Precisely I think what Dawkins meant. How can species be destined to run their course unless one beieves in some religious claptrap?

[Village]

I'm sorry but that's really not true is it?

I don't know any other species that can destroy acres of rainforest everyday, pump tonnes of sewage and chemicals into the ocean everyday, overfish and waste fish, destroy miles and miles and miles of important habitat to mine natural resources. The list goes on.

I'm no hippy, but even I'm not blind enough to see we are by far the most destructive species on this planet and we are possibly the only species to use resources so unsustainably.

In your opinion you think we are destructive....I am interested in how this thought entered your mind..so please explain why you use the term destruction when all we do is no more and no less than eny other living thing?

When you eat your meat and three veg, do you really believe you are being destructive simply because you have altered the molecular structure of carbon molecules?

Since their is no primary cause for anything, every cause is the effect of another cause including your very existence. Now applying your logic that makes you a mistake. Why dont you apply the same term and rules to every other living thing which also consumes and alters the environment around it?

If you think you are a mistake, Is this simply a mindset of yours or did you borrow the theory from somebody else?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Village

[Lauren]

In your opinion you think we are destructive....I am interested in how this thought entered your mind..so please explain why you use the term destruction when all we do is no more and no less than eny other living thing?

When you eat your meat and three veg, do you really believe you are being destructive simply because you have altered the molecular structure of carbon molecules?

If thats the case then why dont you apply the same term to every other living thing which also consumes and alters the environment around it?

Is this simply a mindset of yours or did you borrow the theory from somebody else?

For the reasons I gave above. I'd be interested for you to name one species on this planet that is more destructive and whose actrions have greater consequences than humans.

Of course every species is destructive in it's own way, but nowhere near on the same scale as we are. Furthermore those other species do not have the intellect to realise they are being destructive and thus cannot do anything about it, we do and we can.

If you look at various tribes around the world, they take only what they need, use every part of it and in such a way that is sustainable. Granted that's much easier to do when you are a small tribe, but the logic is the same.

I really don't understand the mindest that it is OK to be destructive, because everything else is. You will change nothing thinking like that.

[Gray-Wolf]

EDIT: Bah! Humbug!!!

Edited December 26, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

For the reasons I gave above. I'd be interested for you to name one species on this planet that is more destructive and whose actrions have greater consequences than humans.

Of course every species is destructive in it's own way, but nowhere near on the same scale as we are. Furthermore those other species do not have the intellect to realise they are being destructive and thus cannot do anything about it, we do and we can.

If you look at various tribes around the world, they take only what they need, use every part of it and in such a way that is sustainable. Granted that's much easier to do when you are a small tribe, but the logic is the same.

I really don't understand the mindest that it is OK to be destructive, because everything else is. You will change nothing thinking like that.

Cyanobacteria are thought to have turned a reducing atmosphere into an oxidising atmosphere. That's great consequences. As it happens, it laid the foundations for more complex life, such as ourselves; I think that the argument is somewhat flaky on this basis. If we are warming the Earth (and the Earth is warming, the only real argument is quantitatively how much we can blame ourselves) who can say whether or not this opens a niche for other 'better' forms of life? There's some evidence that the Cambrian explosion - thought to be responsible for the vast vast majority of life on Earth - occurred in an atmosphere that is some 4degC warmer than today (today ~18C, and Cambrian ~22C) Do you want to exclude the opportunity for niches to appear for other 'better' forms of life?

Invasions by other species will always occur, although it has accelerated due to the great degree of human travel, and this leads us onto that marvellous term: 'sustainability' What exactly does that mean? Nothing can be sustained permanently - that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - this implies, then, that the goal of sustainable life is to kick the can far enough down the road so that people that have no connection to us, our children, or our grandchildren (or even further forward) have to suffer the consequences that we are no doubt inflicting. Indeed, I suspect that we 'know' that our progeny will be richer, more successful, more technically able than us; so in many ways, they will be better able to cope with any atmospheric catastrophe.

When we've plundered every raw resource this planet has to offer - which is axiomatic, unlike the notion of sustainability, which frankly seems to me to be an idiopathic oxymoron - what happens then? The nth degree of arguing this has to be that the best way to cease polluting our planet is to cease to exist. Or, perhaps, selectively breed human beings based on some nominal sense of what gives value to society with the effect of disallowing existence to those of no perceived worth thus limiting the size of the human race, therefore limiting our consumption. I cannot, I will not, subscribe to that point of view. That, to me, is a horror story of magnanimous proportions.

So where are we, then? Well, we must attempt - and I say attempt because it is virtually impossible by reason of the laws of physics - to limit all forms of pollution that we emit: that includes CO₂. Even if one does not subscribe to the apocalyptic high end scenarios, it is surely wise, on the basis of the precautionary principle alone, to do this. But make no bones about it, this action is about kicking the proverbial can down to the road for someone else to pick up. For someone else to fix. For someone else to suffer.

So, I beg of you, please let's drop the term sustainable. It is, frankly, and if you'll excuse the obtuseness, a bloody lie.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

When we sent folk for long duration stays in the old space lab we noted that the human body started to 'change'. we laid down less bone due to not weight bearing etc. This suggests that , over time, the human race would diversify if we chose ,or were froced, to move off world. We would ,as we always have ,adapt.

But what of the planet? Is it to be our epitaph? Are we to leave a dead world populated by microbes and nought else? Is this the final destiny of the world that gave rise to us?

We see parellels in nature for the offspring to do just that to their 'mother' so why not us?

[laserguy]

So, I beg of you, please let's drop the term sustainable. It is, frankly, and if you'll excuse the obtuseness, a bloody lie.

So I've wasted my time and money all along then by buying those 'bags for life' from the CO-OP? Kidding - a great post and what I was alluding to earlier about the "higher power" - articulated by your good self in a way I could never approach. The higher power not necessarily meaning God but the one-way direction we're headed towards critical mass and subsequent collapse regardless of the tinkering and hand wringing and whooping an' wailing along the way. All this nonsense about saving the planet and all the flora and fauna on it,actually translates to saving ourselves for a little while longer. But we already know that,right?

[VillagePlank]

Yes, 'sustainable' living just kicks the can further down the road sufficiently enough so that we don't have to witness the consequences of our consumption, and, if all is well and good, leaves us with a nice warm glow deep inside and avoids all the guilt and, of course, enables schadenfreude of a hitherto never seen before nature. Inevitably, then, it is the vanity of those who pronounce such credentials, and nothing at all to do with the (long term) problem.

That is not to say 'let's keep on polluting' I would be utterly devastated if someone interpreted my posts in that way. Our duty to ourselves, our progeny, is to limit pollution as much as we possibly can on the basis of the precautionary principle. If CO₂ could be seen in the same way as throwing MacDonalds packaging out of the window of a moving car, then, perhaps, we'd be much further down the line.

I recall that it became UK law to fit double-glazed windows to UK houses. Why is it not law to fit solar heating and panels to all new roofs? There's plenty that can be done ... at least the can can be (partially) kicked down the four-billion year road ....

Edited December 27, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[laserguy]

That is not to say 'let's keep on polluting' I would be utterly devastated if someone interpreted my posts in that way.

Me too,but that's exactly what the AGW faithful have been doing ever since I joined this forum. Gotten used to it,now...

[knocker]

That is not to say 'let's keep on polluting' I would be utterly devastated if someone interpreted my posts in that way. Our duty to ourselves, our progeny, is to limit pollution as much as we possibly can on the basis of the precautionary principle. If CO₂ could be seen in the same way as throwing MacDonalds packaging out of the window of a moving car, then, perhaps, we'd be much further down the line.

I recall that it became UK law to fit double-glazed windows to UK houses. Why is it not law to fit solar heating and panels to all new roofs? There's plenty that can be done ... at least the can can be (partially) kicked down the four-billion year road ....

I would be very surprised if anyone interpreted your post in that way BW. Two obvious eamples spring to mind CFCs and the destruction of the ozone layer and acid precipitation. One was acted on internationally fairly quickly with the Montreal Protocol although the problem will take years to be resolved not helped by global warming and the stratosphere getting colder.

The other was somewhat belatedly tackled mainly because there were strong vested interests involved and the science was perhaps not quite so clear cut as everyone was not involved equally. It's sobering to think it's only in recent years that the area around Swansea has been cleared of the massive pollution brought about when it was the leading copper smelting area in the world in the 19th century. In fact the impact of acid precipitation was not taken that seriously internationally until the 1980s and even then we were a tad reluctant.

Me too,but that's exactly what the AGW faithful have been doing ever since I joined this forum. Gotten used to it,now...

I lean towards the AGW argument but I wasn't aware that I took this stance.

Edited December 27, 2011 by weather ship

[laserguy]

I lean towards the AGW argument but I wasn't aware that I took this stance.

I wouldn't lump you in with the hardcore AGW cognoscenti anyway,ws. They know who they are :winky: !