• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Global Warming

I'm still sitting on the fence with global warming, only time will tell if it proves to be right or wrong. I do think however that the focus is all wrong, if you cut down most of the worlds forests and burn the old ones (fossil fuels) then it's going to have some affect yes. But rather than trying to cut the use of fossil fuels why don't we focus more on not destroying the forests? These are the biggest soakers of Co2 are they not?
 
Hi Richard,

Only 60% of those eligible to vote did so in the last general election. I did not vote myself so was in the 40% group. I didn't vote simply because I could not find any party worth voting for. The last government made an appalling mess whilst this coalition of fools are doing little better.

A domestic politician walks up onto a podium or in front of a TV camera and trots out a speech carefully written by trusted aids without having the foggiest idea what he/she is talking about. They bumble through a political career with some stumbling into a seat in the cabinet if they have the right mates. There they carry on waffling about lots of stuff they know now't about until either their government gets chucked out or they get caught fiddling or breaking the law. Only to pop up once again spouting more absolute nonsense in the European Parliament but getting paid a hell of a lot more to do it.

Frankly, I'd be a lot better off if I voted for our coal man. At least he does an honest days work.

Regards,

Lee.

Lee,

We are of like mind then, It's a complete waste of time voting for any of them as any semblance of integrity they ever may have had has been blown out of the water with the sleazy events of the last few years.

Therefore the question is .....what do we do to make them more honest and accountable. Firstly we abolish the "party" system as they put their own interests before those of the country when push comes to shove. We then vote for our representatives based on ability, intellect and strategy......if they are incompetent they get the sack, just like the rest of us.
 
They're all corrupt and only look after themselves!!
 
Wasn't it John Dewey who said

"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance"

If this is true and I believe it is, then politicians are corrupt as they look out for the interests of business over the interests of the voting public.

No wonder the voting turn outs are so low as it doesn't matter who gets voted in, they all pamper to business so are pretty much the same.

As Noam Chomsky recently said;

"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats."

As in the U.S so in the UK, just change the names.
 
Last edited:
Alex if you really believe the Daily Mail only reports the news and has no political axe to grind then you are terminally deluded

Read the links i posted debunking the Mail's usual misrepresentation of the facts, if you can't be bothered to read another side of an argument whats the point in having a debate

I am not deluded Stewart, any more than you are. Nor am I naieve enough to assume political neutrality of the press. Without this resorting to a tit for tat dispute, do you actually take your own advice and listen to the other side of an argument yourself?
My point is that not every article that does not support your view, whatever it's source, can be automatically dismissed as being of a political persuasion and therefore of no value. Like many on here I have heard both sides of the debate for years and remained unconvinced by the evidence that convinces you and others. This does not lead me to accuse these people of terminal delusion and the inabilty to have a debate either. We have to accept that sometimes our strongly held views will be questioned and this subject, at least at present, has arguments both ways.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it John Dewey who said

"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance"

Martin,

Actually it was not John Dewey. It was George Crutchbasket on his way back from an all day session in the Cockwell Inn where he had consumed large amounts of Cornish Rattler. To date this is the only thought he has ever had.
 
I'm still sitting on the fence with global warming, only time will tell if it proves to be right or wrong. I do think however that the focus is all wrong, if you cut down most of the worlds forests and burn the old ones (fossil fuels) then it's going to have some affect yes. But rather than trying to cut the use of fossil fuels why don't we focus more on not destroying the forests? These are the biggest soakers of Co2 are they not?

I think it's a question of sustainability, the Greens bye word, but the burning of fossil fuels is perhaps the most damaging of all we do.

When you look at the vast numbers of cars that will be on all the streets in all the major cities of the World then the future is dim as far as the Planet we live in is concerned.

CO2 is damaging the ozone layer, to deny that would be foolish and certainly many scientists agree that this is the case.

But of course to find alternatives to oil for our huge appetite is the rub, and I don't think the likes of India China and even America will 'toe the line' with heavy fossil fuel fuel tax's that we impose, the love of the motor car will outweigh any common sense I fear.

However we must still fight on, but certainly the cutting down of hardwood rainforests doesn't help, but this timber is a resource to many poor, and of course to many rich so corruption is rife.

So the truth is stark I am afraid...we need to ditch our cars or find an alternative power source to drive them, and who's to say there is not the solution already out there?

The oil rich companies and countries would not be keen to invest in an alternative to run our cars, not until the extracted the last drop of crude and squeezed the last breath out of Planet Earth.

Greed, it's killing us all.
 
Hi Alex,

Whilst in the throws of debate I am always gratified by the knowledge that no matter how wrong I may appear to be, I can always withdraw knowing I was absolutely right.

I was in Germany two years ago on a river cruise going up the river Rhine. We had some wonderful company that we shared the entire trip with. Another four couples all from different backgrounds. One evening over dinner we chatted for a while about wildlife and the state of the planet. Pauline, a school teacher who was well into her second bottle of wine made a statement;

"PENGUIN'S!! she exclaimed. "What good are they!?? What do they do apart from waddle around ******** everywhere! They jump in the sea swim about a bit, catch a few fish then come back. Go back catch a few more fish then come back. Carry on ******** and make a noise. Tell me, what good are Penguin's!!??"

And do you know what? What good ARE Penguins??

Regards,

Lee.
 
A look at an arctic circle map of 20 years ago and one of now tells you all you need to know. Something is not right.
 
A look at an arctic circle map of 20 years ago and one of now tells you all you need to know. Something is not right.

no one disputes the climate is changing Lee. The debate is how much of it is man made and how much natural cycles. Despite what a lot of people have said about the major oil companies denying it's man made to protect their interests, there is no doubt that a great many people will get very fat by pushing the man made theories too
Whichever proves to be right we can be assurred of one thing. Somebody is going to fleece us in the name of putting things right :(
 
We are already getting fleeced. There will be no end to global warming either until man forgets about filling his pockets and the environment comes first and sadly I cant see that happening this millennium.
 
Fact is "Global warming" as a theory only came around after .some none govermental funded (private funding) scientists who was studing earth core samples in the early 20th century 20's or 30's .discovered that the earth was set to enter another period of extreame cold weather known as a mini or micro ice age and that this wasn't the first there was one in the 1700/1800's where the themes would regulary freeze over solid ,and there would be decades of exstreame winters then small periods of mild weather thes are spaces around 150-200 years apart and these was small cycles within longer weather pattens lasting for thousends of years and it has been so since the earth was formed and started to cool .they also knew about the hole in the ozone layer and that it'd probably always been there it was thought too be part of the mechanism of the weather system of our planet and acts like a valve it opens and shrinks periodically

now when the established scientific comunity herd this at first they accepted it .then those who was funded by company's and goverments started to rubbish these idea's and put forwards a alternative theory ,the complete opersite that the climate wasn't about too cool down and head into a mini iceage but was in fact going to warm up that the natural gap in the ozone was man made and we was all going to suffer the concuquences of greenhouse gasses and for us here in britain we would have to get used too longer hotter summers etc,and there would be water sortages etc etc.now those with the deepest pockets shout the loudest and we're bow beaten into believing their propaganda .

global warming doesn't add up for three simple facts ,since the hot melten mass was pulled into the suns orbit and space debis helped form a crust the earth has been in a propetral state of cooling ,thats a proven fact .

second fact is ,if you collected every ounce of carbon man has produced ever 500,000 years or so ,from Neanderthal man and his predecessors through to the homosapian dominace right up to today ,including all the excess carbon china produces (10x more than the uk has since the industrial revolusion) and add on the expected amount of carbon for the next 50 years ,you would still be 1000% less than the total carbon emmitted when krakkatoa blew ,and that was herd the world over ,the resulting gasses and ash /debris in the atmosphere only reduced tempratures 2-3 deg's for the following few years then they returned to normal ,and even before that event a much bigger eruption of Mount Tambora (1815)7000 times more powerfull than the first atomic bombs only lowered the global temp 5degs and incidently caused what was known in the us as the year without a summer. even natural events don't have a big impact on global weather or permanent changes because of the third fact

and the third fact is as Einstein would say is the relativity of time ,time is not lineer ,time is relative .put it this way time to us is ever increasing in frequency of its passing ,everything seems slow to us as we're in that moment of time period the last 150 years seem like a long periode ,but in the grande scheme of things its not even a nono of a millisecond ,we only see and experance things in our timescale but the weather cycles ,within ever increasing cycles spanning millions of years .we are basically at the atomic level of time .we live in a time bubble and no matter how much so called carbon /greenhouse gasses we produce is insignificant and doesn't even blemish the weather system let alone effect it ,in the grande scheme of things spread out over the universal time scale

we simpley don't create enough to make a meaningfull impact ,even little volcano's produce more carbon/greenhouse gasses per year than man does .

i'd rather beleave the scientist with no aligence to companys or goverment funding ,that we are in fact heading into a mini iceage ,and that the world did indeed warm up for a short period but as a result of natural forces of nature and earth own climate control ,this is where the hole in the ozone comes in ,it allows more solor radiation to enter the atmosphere over a period of time this has the effect of releasing much needed water reserves (the ice cap melt a little) thus putting extra moisture into the lower atmosphere and push cold waters south the extra heat in the upper atmosphere acts against the gulf stream hyper winds ,which are the planets thermoniter these keep the balance between cold air and warm (hi/lo pressure systems) now the excess water in the north atlantic is picked up by the prevailing weather pattens hurricane/typhoones etc but these are cold systems ,(unlike the warmer ones further south) these weather fronts build in intercity (huge reserves ,that'll fall as snow)

the mini ice age scientists ,predicted a mini ice age in the northern and southern hemerspheres ,now this isn't a full blown real ice age (that'll pop along in 8-12,000 years or so ,no this mini ice age is a perlonged period of extreame cold weather ,rivers like the themes freezing up loads of snow each winter for longer .with sort interviening periods of milder winters.

goverments and energy companys backed the so called global warming theorys because they saw a means too a end ,mainly profit ,higher dividends for energy companys and more tax money for goverments .

our ancesters suffered extreame periods of cold weather and now its our turn ,at least we can sit nice and comfortable in our central heated houses and not stuck in drafty old caves .global cooling is cyclic it comes in waves (peaks and troffs) and we're on the creaste of a wave (peeks = extreame cold periods,troffs = warm periods) and not yet peeked

get used to it ,global warming is just propaganda ,global cooling is fact ,as to how this effects fishing ,we need to re-learn to fish with the cold.

the condition of the rivers is down to poor preporation for severe weather and poor land management ,if the water companys didn't spend their profits and invested them into the inforstructure ,instead of raising the prices so we pay twice for the same thing,its their job to maintain the inforstructure from the profits they make ,not pas the buck and then put up the prices ,god forbid their dividends should drop ,after all profit is everything but its not just there greed ,its the goverments fualt as well for pushing the extra building of housing on floodplaines then having to force the problem downstream by building flood barriers ,they allow over imigration as more populas means more taxes ,more home owners means more tax's and so on and so forth.

the country and countryside has been mismanaged for generations and will continue to do so until the way we run this country changes ,making money/profit at all costs will oneday implode just as communism did. capitalism will distroy itself .in the meantime we suffer ,no one ever said life was suposed to be fair.
 
Last edited:
A look at an arctic circle map of 20 years ago and one of now tells you all you need to know. Something is not right.

Absolutely right Lee. It's identifying exactly what that something is that is the problem. If we knew for sure, we may (or may not) be able to take effective measures to mitigate it. Most of the ineffective nonsense we have been paying through the nose for thus far, such as wind and river turbines, are purely money making (for those involved) stop gaps that virtually everyone involved knows will never make an ha'porth of difference. They are a 'jobs for the boys' stunt in an effort to be seen to be doing something, while the government/s fiddle and faff about doing not a lot of any real use. Again :rolleyes:

What is certain is that deforestation is the major problem we face at the moment. The global rain/tropical forests are the lungs and CO2 sinks that we rely upon for our existence, certainly in the way we recognise at this moment. Despite that, they are disappearing at an ever escalating rate, in large part to satisfy the insatiable greed of international companies, and the huge 'other world' of obscenely rich executives and shareholders those companies revolve around. Deforestation is ongoing and seemingly unstoppable, basically because the companies involved will use any trick available, usually in the form of kick backs, and the third world countries where the last remaining vestiges of these vital forests exist...are ruled by corrupt governments all too willing to take those bribes. As a result, deforestation is apparently shaping climate and geography, and is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions (slash and burn etc.). So...the forests that once were the major natural means of mitigating other sources of those damaging emissions....are now major contributors to those same emissions in their death throws. And all in the name of the big buck...senseless greed.

It seems nodody is quite sure as to the exact extent of deforestation, but scientists estimate that one fifth of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960 and 1990. Apparently rainforests 50 years ago covered 14% of the world's land surface, whereas now that figure is down to only 5–7%, and that those last outposts of tropical forests will be gone by the middle of the 21st century.

So next time you or I eat a 'Big Mac' (The need for ever more Beef range is one of the major contributors) or fail to notice the palm oil content in next to everything we eat (vast palm plantations for oil is another massive problem), or follow the latest trend of seemingly acres of 'decking' in our back gardens, we are tacitly agreeing to allow this outrage to continue. So very, very sad.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top