:nono: No Fuel Day - 19/11/07

People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

but on the 19th November - DO NOT BUY PETROL FROM ANYWHERE.

& FUCK THE GOV'T!!

fill up all yer want the next day though.

I wish my fellow countrymen and women would do such a thing here in Japan....I don't have a driving licence (at age 20!) and I don't drive, but petrol is up at 150 yen a litre, which is a record high for here in Japan. If taxes were lowered on petrol, then it would be slightly cheaper, even in the high crude oil prices.

People in Japan who drive need to rise up and protest, IMO, instead of just complaining.

i know allllllll about it Leather Girl!! I really do.

What the heck?

THIS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR NON-PARTICIPATION IN NEXT MONDAYS BOYCOTT IS NOW EXTENDED TO "CORBY, ENGLAND".

(like London, they also do not drive)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION!! :)

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: So you fill up the day before or the day after, what fucking difference does that make???

Big oil still gets their money, and the government gets it's taxes, so I fail to see how you are really making a difference...will the government collapse because the revenues come in a day later???

this is very important to us Jeff.

not everyone has an unleaded horse (for transport) in their back garden, like you, you know.

Buy a bicycle

Gazfella wrote: Buy a bicycle

springs from nowhere. springs from nowhere.

King John Honest John wrote:

Gazfella wrote: Buy a bicycle

springs from nowhere. springs from nowhere.

Alwiite geeezaa!

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

but on the 19th November - DO NOT BUY PETROL FROM ANYWHERE.

& FUCK THE GOV'T!!

Utter bollocks. I suppose you'll boycott the pubs that sell beer 10p a pint dearer than elsewhere?

James Thomas wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

but on the 19th November - DO NOT BUY PETROL FROM ANYWHERE.

& FUCK THE GOV'T!!

Utter bollocks. I suppose you'll boycott the pubs that sell beer 10p a pint dearer than elsewhere?

already boycotted mate. already boycotted. that 10p-extra-a-pint announcement was made last month.

El Jarvo wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

Cockerknees done summat to get your back up, Kershie?

Eastenders!

WHAT A DISCUSSION!!

I've heard that ~Manc one though. classic accent for Eastenders. he's on the run from his former gang-mates, including Hazel, in Albert Square of course. No one will ever be able to find him there!! even if he hides behind the fruit and veg stall, or a clothes rack.

King John Honest John wrote:

El Jarvo wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

Cockerknees done summat to get your back up, Kershie?

Eastenders!

WHAT A DISCUSSION!!

I've heard that ~Manc one though. classic accent for Eastenders. he's on the run from his former gang-mates, including Hazel, in Albert Square of course. No one will ever be able to find him there!! even if he hides behind the fruit and veg stall, or a clothes rack.

calm down calm down, its only a programme (shite one at that)

El Jarvo wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

Cockerknees done summat to get your back up, Kershie?

Eastenders!

The trouble with that Al is Liverpool fans wont take ANY responsibility for those two sad days. I know Hank, John etc will probably call me all kinds for saying it but Heysel IS why english clubs were banned from europe.

Liverpool fans are very quick to mention Hillsborough, but play down Heysel all the time. Sorry, but they cant have it both ways.

Its something that i know winds a lot of none Liverpool fans up, and is best not spoken about. Anyway, why you reading the Liverpool forums Al?

There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

[black]DAMN[/black] FCUKING [black]STRAIGHT!![/black]

*don't worry. i hate the w-nker too.*

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

Like I inform anyone who will listen, the guy is the anti-christ.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

[black]DAMN[/black] FCUKING [black]STRAIGHT!![/black]

*don't worry. i hate the w-nker too.*

So I take it that both of you failed your economics courses...

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

[black]DAMN[/black] FCUKING [black]STRAIGHT!![/black]

*don't worry. i hate the w-nker too.*

So I take it that both of you failed your economics courses...

On the contrary...

You should know your economics better. You just don't know how damaging the Iraq war is to the US economy, as well as the world economy. No wonder the Canadian Dollar is about to be at par with the US Dollar.

Indeed*!*

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

[black]DAMN[/black] FCUKING [black]STRAIGHT!![/black]

*don't worry. i hate the w-nker too.*

So I take it that both of you failed your economics courses...

On the contrary...

You should know your economics better. You just don't know how damaging the Iraq war is to the US economy, as well as the world economy. No wonder the Canadian Dollar is about to be at par with the US Dollar.

Indeed*!*

War increases spending, which increases production, which increases employment.... how then does war damage an economy?

well if the price of oil is artificially inflated (after all, production, and hence supply are now on the up compared to shortly after you occupied the country), it pushes up transport, production and power costs. It also causes much less disposable income to be available to consumers.

Annnnnnd the price never goes back down ever no matter what. I mean, supply and cost of supply should drop dramatically once you finish the pipeline you invaded afghanistan for, will the price drop? Will it FUCK!

You want cheap petrol?

talk everyone you know into buying biosdiesel cars so supply of petrol outstrips demand, the fuckers will be begging you to take it.

And I DID pass my ecconomics, albeit at o'level (roughly thr rquivalent of a community college degree in the states from what I seen in Chicago)

Doesn't too much fuel increase global warming?

If so, put the price of fuel up...

Nick King wrote: Doesn't too much fuel increase global warming?

If so, put the price of fuel up...

only if the money goes to making better alternatives.

Well that would be true, but supposedly the lack of oil from Iraq really hasn't impacted the global market. There was a false 'shortage' to increase prices, but it has been noted, , at least here in the US, that prices have been artificially low for a number of years... only now inflating to meet the market's price. At least that's what Congress found out over here last year when they turned the oil companies upside down because of the large gas hike....

but even if oil prices went up, that would be on the global economy and wouldn't have issues with the worth of the American dollar like sub-cultured was discussing...

Doctor? wrote:

You want cheap petrol?

talk everyone you know into buying biosdiesel cars so supply of petrol outstrips demand, the fuckers will be begging you to take it.

The problem with biodiesel right now, is that the take up in the US isnt high enough. The US Govt have offered a rebate to biodiesel producers ( I think its $1 a gallon), but it also applies to exports, which is the main area US biodiesel refiners are targetting.

Currently Europe is flooded by US government funded biodiesel, which is coming in cheaper than EU countries can produce it. A false economy however, as the tankers and ships etc required to transport it dont run on the stuff.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Currently Europe is flooded by US government funded biodiesel, which is coming in cheaper than EU countries can produce it. A false economy however, as the tankers and ships etc required to transport it dont run on the stuff.

Only in America could they transport "green" fuel in non-green-fuel ships!

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

You want cheap petrol?

talk everyone you know into buying biosdiesel cars so supply of petrol outstrips demand, the fuckers will be begging you to take it.

The problem with biodiesel right now, is that the take up in the US isnt high enough. The US Govt have offered a rebate to biodiesel producers ( I think its $1 a gallon), but it also applies to exports, which is the main area US biodiesel refiners are targetting.

Currently Europe is flooded by US government funded biodiesel, which is coming in cheaper than EU countries can produce it. A false economy however, as the tankers and ships etc required to transport it dont run on the stuff.

Not to mention that bio deisel is only inexpensive when the demand is low.... as soon as demand gets high, then it competes with food resources and the price sky rockets, not just the fuel, but the food as well. Not a complete alternative, only a nice band-aid....

Hail to the alcohol, the cause and solution of all our past, present and future problems :beer2:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Actually, if you want to reduce the price of oil...kill all those pesky Chinese and Indians who are now using much more oil than they used to...that would lower demand, and thus, lower prices...

remember...supply and demand...

Dubya didn't really do much to increase the demand from those two countries...so he can't be THE ONLY cause for higher oil prices...

Remember every time there is a "crisis" in the middle east Venezuela etc, the price of oil goes up. Neither production has to actually fall nor wars break out. Me smells a rip off. Well that recent attempt to pacify certain countries in the middle east certainly didn't help.

Some dude in the building I work in is trying to convince me that oil actually isn't a fossil fuel, but some sort of earth by product. Something to do with the earth's core, the depth oil is found at and the amount that actually has been pumped from some places such as Saudi Arabia vs available supply. Now that is an interesting theory. Cambo can you confirm.

Now if we could only harvest the energy of those pesky bogong moths. It beats me how they get through all my fly screens.

Whatever, me thinks we are being ripped off.

I've gone one better - pulled into Tesco last night - put air in my tyres, even topped up the screen wash which was all FREE - filled up my car to the hilt with petrol............and er, didn't have my card with me. Tescos had to write me out an 'I owe you' note for 36 quid! Got 7 days to pay it, or the heavy mob will be round with their trollies!

Going totally off topic - was out last night so didn't catch Eastenders, but saw bits and bobs of it on Tuesday - is that what all this rubbish storyline is about - because he's left a footy firm, or have I missed something?

NOOLigan wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Actually, if you want to reduce the price of oil...kill all those pesky Chinese and Indians who are now using much more oil than they used to...that would lower demand, and thus, lower prices...

remember...supply and demand...

Dubya didn't really do much to increase the demand from those two countries...so he can't be THE ONLY cause for higher oil prices...

Remember every time there is a "crisis" in the middle east Venezuela etc, the price of oil goes up. Neither production has to actually fall nor wars break out. Me smells a rip off. Well that recent attempt to pacify certain countries in the middle east certainly didn't help.

Some dude in the building I work in is trying to convince me that oil actually isn't a fossil fuel, but some sort of earth by product. Something to do with the earth's core, the depth oil is found at and the amount that actually has been pumped from some places such as Saudi Arabia vs available supply. Now that is an interesting theory. Cambo can you confirm.

Now if we could only harvest the energy of those pesky bogong moths. It beats me how they get through all my fly screens.

Whatever, me thinks we are being ripped off.

Ron, being a geology major I can tell you that your guy is an idiot... all the oil is in sedimentary rock, which means it was produced at the surface and buried over time. It is absolutely nowhere near the core. The oil in the middle east was created by old bogs, the dead plant life (peat) was buried quickly by the bog, never giving it the chance to decompose. The bogs were a result of the formation of Pangea. Around the Pennsylvianian time period the middle east was at the equator, increasing plantlife and the wet conditions to create bogs. When the deposition occurs, the pressure of sediment laid over top makes the peat turn to coal. If lowered further, then pressure is compounded by heat, which creates oil. The oil then rises up and collects in pools, usually under bedrock. Since most areas biomass only is 1% in concentration (too small to collect), which is why you can't get it everywhere. Hope that helps

Hope the price of oil goes to $500 usd a barrel,i might moan when i have to fill my car up but,reap the benefits as i own several thousand B.P shares

If the fookin yanks all didnt drive round in their 4x4/suv's then their would be plenty of petrol left over for us all!

Going to be selling my shares soon and investing in the bio-fuels market- tis the future!

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

wrote: Hope the price of oil goes to $500 usd a barrel,i might moan when i have to fill my car up but,reap the benefits as i own several thousand B.P shares

If the fookin yanks all didnt drive round in their 4x4/suv's then their would be plenty of petrol left over for us all!

Going to be selling my shares soon and investing in the bio-fuels market- tis the future!

but our women need their SUVs to take the kids to soccer practice...

it's true...I've seen it!!!

I mean, do you really expect one woman and one child to shoehorn themselves into a Renault???

And whats wrong with Renault's?

p.s got a txt of banshee earlier and he said if i saw you in the c/room i had to call you a fookin poof!

EdelBrock wrote:

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote:

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Trans-Kraftwerk Express wrote:

Sub-Cultured*!* wrote: There is only one reason/cause/root of all of this non-stop fuel price increase:

George Wanker Bush!

Indeed*!*

[black]DAMN[/black] FCUKING [black]STRAIGHT!![/black]

*don't worry. i hate the w-nker too.*

So I take it that both of you failed your economics courses...

On the contrary...

You should know your economics better. You just don't know how damaging the Iraq war is to the US economy, as well as the world economy. No wonder the Canadian Dollar is about to be at par with the US Dollar.

Indeed*!*

War increases spending, which increases production, which increases employment.... how then does war damage an economy?

Because it increases spending on unproductive items. It destroys capital. (If you are a die-hard Marxist you could argue that capitalism needs war (and the associated death and destruction) to destroy excess capital in order avoid the 'over accumulation of capital' and keep the system going, but I didn't think you were a Marxist.)

If it were otherwise one could aid the economy by gathering all the nation's wealth into a big pile and blowing it all up. Even Dubya hasn't tried that.

And if you are suggesting that public spending from taxes boosts the economy, why not have a publicly-funded health care system? What would be wrong with 'tax and spend' if that were the case?

I hope to God there won't be war with Iran, or the world's oil supply will probably dry up entirely and everyone's economy will be in the toilet.

Well there are few things missing from yer points there.

First, War spends over a wide spectrum, whereas health care spends in one small area (I'm not against health care, but only mentioning where yer idea is flawed). War spends in the automotive, aero, food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, medical and everything inbetween. Not only increased economy in the US, but also alot of Europe (as most of the rebuilding materials are purchased from Europe). There is far more being spent upon than just bullets and bombs. Also this war has brought the US military into the 21st century, when most of our supplies and equiptment was from the Korean War or Vietnam Conflict. Healthcare only spends within the hospitals and medicine, granted slightlyoutside, but no where near the spectrum war does. The major drawback, of course is over-spending, raising the countries debt, which in turn devalues the dollar... but doesn't end there, as this is also off set by the booming economy, increasing employment and reducing poverty. Economics is all just one big shell game, and war benefits an economy more than it hurts it...

Where will you be in say five years, when the war is hopefully over and the rest of the world has invested in new consumer products, infrastructure and manufacturing techniques, instead of funding "democracy" in the middle east.

Your bubble is already bursting.

The first signs are there with the falling US dollar and the looming (that's right, it is far from over) sub-prime crisis. 1.

Just name one current successful US consumer product that is actually made in the good ol USA.

Just an example they tried flogging us the Taurus here a few years back. The local Ford product beat its pants off.

Putting all ones eggs int the military industrial complex is short sighted. It makes a few companies rich and yes it employs military personnel, but where is the wealth coming from to fund all this.

Oh yes huge budget deficits. Now there's a good strategy. BTW here's another tax cut. The next administration of whatever side of your politics is going to have a tough task fixing this.

Now I need to relax again and I'm not feeling particularly well.

1. you may think that the sub-prime crisis has nothing to do with this, but if more people had a better job, or even a job, then there'd be no need for it. Good jobs come with a good economy.

King John Honest John wrote:

El Jarvo wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

Cockerknees done summat to get your back up, Kershie?

Eastenders!

WHAT A DISCUSSION!!

I've heard that ~Manc one though. classic accent for Eastenders. he's on the run from his former gang-mates, including Hazel, in Albert Square of course. No one will ever be able to find him there!! even if he hides behind the fruit and veg stall, or a clothes rack.

there are still stalls in england? i thoughtby now it would be mud huts.with pigeons on top of them.

King John Honest John wrote:

El Jarvo wrote:

King John Honest John wrote: People from that London can ignore this message. coz i know, no one from there can drive.

Cockerknees done summat to get your back up, Kershie?

Eastenders!

WHAT A DISCUSSION!!

I've heard that ~Manc one though. classic accent for Eastenders. he's on the run from his former gang-mates, including Hazel, in Albert Square of course. No one will ever be able to find him there!! even if he hides behind the fruit and veg stall, or a clothes rack.

there are still stalls in england? i thoughtby now it would be mud huts.with pigeons on top of them.

NOOLigan wrote: Where will you be in say five years, when the war is hopefully over and the rest of the world has invested in new consumer products, infrastructure and manufacturing techniques, instead of funding "democracy" in the middle east.

Your bubble is already bursting.

The first signs are there with the falling US dollar and the looming (that's right, it is far from over) sub-prime crisis. 1.

Just name one current successful US consumer product that is actually made in the good ol USA.

Just an example they tried flogging us the Taurus here a few years back. The local Ford product beat its pants off.

Putting all ones eggs int the military industrial complex is short sighted. It makes a few companies rich and yes it employs military personnel, but where is the wealth coming from to fund all this.

Oh yes huge budget deficits. Now there's a good strategy. BTW here's another tax cut. The next administration of whatever side of your politics is going to have a tough task fixing this.

Now I need to relax again and I'm not feeling particularly well.

1. you may think that the sub-prime crisis has nothing to do with this, but if more people had a better job, or even a job, then there'd be no need for it. Good jobs come with a good economy.

Oh yes, happy days, USA becoming something other than a big bully.

Wellllll the thing is, that the moment the Chinese can outbid the yanks for oil, they'll use their super powerful christian reasoning (we are god's people, Jesus hates chinks), and nuke all round them.

Just count yourself lucky the dunno where Oz is.

Of course, the UK has oil, so we're boned.

Am I the only person who thinks biofuels are a little daft? I mean sure, every ounce of carbon exhausted by cars from this years crop, will be re-absorbed by next years in order for it to grow, but there are other pollutants involved. Surely instead of messing around looking to extend the life of the infernal combustion engine, we should put the money into working out what comes after. Otherwise we're talking about the equivalent of us never inventing electric or Diesel locomotives, but instead working how to get diesel to run steamers.

Ronnie, calm down dude... I did mention that war boosts economies with the price of a deficeit... but most of the world isn't hurting economically because of the war... that's all I'm stating (and yes I said MOST)...

Economy is a shell game... make the people feel all warm and fuzzy inside and the economy is doing well... make people scared and they sellsellsell into a collapse...

I'll be the first to agree that the US is loosing its economical impact by moving everything overseas... creating half-assed merchandise and overcharging for it. I wasn't banging a drum fer the ol' US of A there Ron...

As for the US being a bully, well that is not entirely incorrect, but not entirely true either. Let's not all be pessimists now....

ok, ball in someone else's court to come up with an unimaginative response to how the US of A is actually the bully of the world...oh the down tradden ye all are... wallowing in misory because of it...pah!

I'm only talking reason here, not emotion.....

All I was trying to say is that that the rest of the world doesn't owe you guys a living and sooner or later you will have to face the consequences of Bush's policies. I'm almost tempted to call then Keynesian or even Socialist, if the benefits weren't restricted to such a narrow level of society.

At least FRD did constructive things.

Invest in the future. as I said above. You can't keep conning us into buying Super Hornets.

Bush's economic policies will come back to bite you sooner or later.

You are living in a fools paradise. The next president will have to deal with the deficit.

NOOLigan wrote: The next president will have to deal with the deficit.

Mate, your grasp of US politics is EXTREMELY tenuous if you believe that.

Their whole ecconomy runs on IOU's from other countries, their debts are never paid and their deficit never gets balanced out.

Much like my own country really, it's been broke and in debt since the restoration (when my bit of it was just a slave colony).

An eco question for our eco warriors....

Should we make an effort to restore the Earth to her natural condition?

If so, ponder this, where did the CO2 we are currently releasing come from?

Doctor? wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: The next president will have to deal with the deficit.

Mate, your grasp of US politics is EXTREMELY tenuous if you believe that.

Their whole ecconomy runs on IOU's from other countries, their debts are never paid and their deficit never gets balanced out.

Much like my own country really, it's been broke and in debt since the restoration (when my bit of it was just a slave colony).

It's a shell game people! Every president has done it...

Example: One of the funniest dupes of all time that people jumped on the band wagon for was Clinton's "surplus". Supposedly he had saved enough money in the budget to have this "surplus". But this is crazy as we are seriously in debt, negating any surplus we might have... However, people gobbled this info up and the economy went on strong, because people felt we had a "surplus".

Every president will play this game, They HAVE to or risk a collapse of our economy. So Bush has not destroyed our economy... realistically it has been the greed of wealthy corporations and the laziness of the American worker (who demands all sorts of benefits).

EdelBrock wrote:

ok, ball in someone else's court to come up with an unimaginative response to how the US of A is actually the bully of the world...oh the down tradden ye all are... wallowing in misory because of it...pah!

I'm only talking reason here, not emotion.....

The US isn't the 'bully of the world'. There's a very long list of awful things the US has done, but there's plenty in the credit column also.

The US just needs to remember the first Spiderman movie! 'With great power comes great responsibility'. The US gets criticised a lot because if it screws up it buggers up the whole planet whereas if Lithuania, say, gets things wrong it doesn't affect anyone outside of Lithuania.

Oh, the other motto the US should remember is 'be nice to people on the way up because you'll meet them again on the way down'. Britain probably should have paid more attention to that one, come to think of it.

Doctor? wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: The next president will have to deal with the deficit.

Mate, your grasp of US politics is EXTREMELY tenuous if you believe that.

Their whole ecconomy runs on IOU's from other countries, their debts are never paid and their deficit never gets balanced out.

Much like my own country really, it's been broke and in debt since the restoration (when my bit of it was just a slave colony).

My grasp of economics isn't very good, but I thought the US could get away with having such deficits as long as the $ continued to be the international currency (so the US can pay foreigners with dollars). Now the dollar is looking really feeble (and, worse, becoming unfashionable amongst rappers - Euros are now the in-way to show your bling, apparently) that might one day become a problem.

404 error wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

ok, ball in someone else's court to come up with an unimaginative response to how the US of A is actually the bully of the world...oh the down tradden ye all are... wallowing in misory because of it...pah!

I'm only talking reason here, not emotion.....

The US isn't the 'bully of the world'. There's a very long list of awful things the US has done, but there's plenty in the credit column also.

The US just needs to remember the first Spiderman movie! 'With great power comes great responsibility'. The US gets criticised a lot because if it screws up it buggers up the whole planet whereas if Lithuania, say, gets things wrong it doesn't affect anyone outside of Lithuania.

Oh, the other motto the US should remember is 'be nice to people on the way up because you'll meet them again on the way down'. Britain probably should have paid more attention to that one, come to think of it.

and I completely agree, the collapse of the US will most likely be due to our rappers

Doctor? wrote: An eco question for our eco warriors.... Should we make an effort to restore the Earth to her natural condition?

If so, ponder this, where did the CO2 we are currently releasing come from?

I resisted the bait long enough Cambo.

How exactly would we 'restore the Earth to her natural condition"? What is her natural condition? She's been in fluctuation since the begining of formation.... or natural condition for humans to survive?

There really isn't anything we can do to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We have to rely on natural CO2 sinks to take their time to do thier processes (i.e the ocean, ocean critters, granite weathering, etc.).

CO2 has been coming from many areas... Burning/decomposition of biomass, volcanic activity (especially basalt flows), weathering of carbonate rock, respiration (especially from , and of course.. everyone's favorite, burning of fossil fuels. But don't ferget methane, which has 4 times the greenhouse effect than CO2... much has been incresed due to livestock increases...

but the climate is so much more complex than just CO2 percentage... but Gore would like you to believe that is the main driver....

Hehe EB, you're too clueful to be the victim of this, but..........

See all that CO2 we're "making". We get it from fossil fuels. They got it because they used to be plants and wee beasties. And those plants and wee beasties got it from?

The atmosphere.

Ergo we are merely returning Earth to her pre-life (ie natural) condition.

AYYYYTHANKYOOO

Besides, as you said, some would like us to think CO2 is the bogeyman. However, a profile of sun temperature fits climate records MUCH better than any CO2 level comparison. And besides that....who F*in cares if we wipe ourselves and some other species out? Evolution works that way. Perhaps Global Warming (that they now call climate change since things are not actually getting hotter), is something else I can blame religiotards on?

If yer talking sunspots as solar intensty increases, their amount is negligible... but added to many other things they can tip the climate one way or other... more importantly is the eccentricity of orbit around the sun, the Eath's tilt and precession. These are main drivers... but climate can't be pinned on only one thing (i.e. CO2).. it is the interact of the biosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, astronomy and all the chemical processes inbetween... there is no simple graph (like Gore likes to show) to explain the climate... short term or long term....

Plus here's fun info for you Cambo... if global warming keeps happening did you know that Europe will go through a little ice age? You'll have ice front property there in Britian, where you'll have trouble growing even yer prized potatoes... where was Gore on that fun interesting little expectation of global warming?

i was thinking more of the longersolar cycles actually. the sun is rhythms upon rhythms.

Mars is warming by a comparable amount anyway.

Didn't they say that we've got until 2050 to rectify our CO2 emissions?

Well, by that time, I'll be 80 (and probably not know who I am or who anybody else is)!

Carry on smoking!

EdelBrock wrote: If yer talking sunspots as solar intensty increases, their amount is negligible... but added to many other things they can tip the climate one way or other... more importantly is the eccentricity of orbit around the sun, the Eath's tilt and precession. These are main drivers... but climate can't be pinned on only one thing (i.e. CO2).. it is the interact of the biosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, astronomy and all the chemical processes inbetween... there is no simple graph (like Gore likes to show) to explain the climate... short term or long term....

Plus here's fun info for you Cambo... if global warming keeps happening did you know that Europe will go through a little ice age? You'll have ice front property there in Britian, where you'll have trouble growing even yer prized potatoes... where was Gore on that fun interesting little expectation of global warming?

Well, yes, its the interaction of many factors, but that's precisely what the climate modellers model. And the result is a prediction of significant warming.

Personally I used to be agnostic. 'The Satanic Gases' was one of the most scientifically literate presentations of the case against anthropomorphic C02 driven warming, but since the major objections raised in that book seem to have been resolved (upper atmosphere temperature soundings anomaly - corrected for both balloons and satellites, cooling post WW2 - shown to be due to particulate pollution, alternative sunspot->cloud formation theory - fails to fit the data post 1980), I now reckon its most likely true.

Also I believe the models now show the Gulf Stream won't turn off (thank God!) so the UK won't freeze.

Sadly, I don't think there's a snowflake in hell's chance that anything will be done about it. The costs are so high and the room for creating doubt so large. I just hope the warming is on the lower end of the predictions. The UK will probably do OK, though we'd have to withdraw from the EU to stop all the southern Europeans moving here to escape desertification.

(solar cycles can't be causing it directly, the sun's output hasn't changed significantly. And the sunspot-clouds theory, which briefly sounded convincing, doesn't fit the data after 1980, apparently, which is why the graph they showed on 'the great global warming swindle' ended abruptly at that date.)

There is no doubt global warming is happening, and CO2 does play a factor in it... however it is impossible to see how the earth's systems will react to the change in temperature. There are many feedbacks into the system that could cause paradoxes during a warming period. The main issue is that, from our measurements of ice cores and ocean floor cores, we are having more CO2 than has been dated for 250,000 years... and we don't know what will happen... models are nice, but even thee 3 dimensional models can't predict what will happen, there are simply too many factors that bounce off each other.

The NAC shutoff is a possibility, especially because the artic shelf fell into the sea a few years back... it is believed that it was keeping the ice on the continental shelf... with the added warmth and the pressure of the ice, could cause water to form at the ice/ground contact, and act as a lubricant. The worry is that the ice will all slip into the sea... that increase of fresh water in the Atlantic will shut the NAC off, as it is the salinity and temperature that run the current. If this did happen it would shoot Europe into a similar event like the Younger Dryas, which was the last time the current shut off. If the NAC shutoff, drastic climate changes in Europe would happen in as little as 10 years.

But the models do show that the main drivers of our climates are the Earth's eccentricity, tilt and precession. There are many things that can push it one way or other, but at least they believe it enough that all the models use this as the base equation... everything else is simply added to it. I'll try to find some graphs that illistrate how our climate is linked to these, and it's quite appartent looking at it.

GRAPHS OF: 100000 year is Eccentricity 41000 year is Tilt 23000 year is Precession

This shows if you add the following of the aspects of the Earth's orbit (from graph1), the amplitudes added form the bottom graph here.

This shows the O18 content of climates (from ice cores, seafloor cores, etc.) and how they corrilate with the Earth's orbit graph2... this shows basically how glaciations and warming coincide with each other.

*O18 concentration in ice shows climate temperature. Basically there are two forms of oxygen, O16 and O18 (the number being nuetrons). O16 is lighter so evaporates off the ocean more readily. In hot enviroments O18 also evaporates, but in cold mostly O16 does. The ratio of O16/O18 calculates the climate of the time.*

This shows ice thickness in a given year as measured from the ice core samples. The thicker the ice, the colder it was obviously, but if you look at the Earth's orbit graph2 you can see how they coincide

This one shows all the above in one simple graph, this is the easiest to understand, but thought the others would help explain it further...

I thought I'd never say this, but I think I need Cambo to make sense of these graphs. ;)

Are they the same ones used in the that Climate Swindle Documentary?

In the words of Snorrie, "use a pie chart."

Ron,

Sorry, should have posted info on the bottom to explain what you are looking at. I edited it to explain a little more, so hopefully this answers yer quuestions?

What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

Relax people, you need to deal with the fact that the planet is not ours and that we have no right to totally halt it's development.

I mentioned before, that BBC series "Coast" where they constantly made a huge deal of all the changes that had happened round the UK in the last few hundred to few thousand years and made comments like "change is the very essence of coastline". THEN got to some bit of the coast that is ABOUT to change and it was like "ooooh we are irresponsible evil cunts, we HAVE to stop this happening, oh woe is us". Fucking comical.

I think those graphs show what is known as the Milankovitch cycle, right? (I once knew someone doing a PhD on that topic, not that I know much about it apart from the name)

But my understanding is that all that stuff is incorporated in the models and can't explain recent warming (the timescale is quite different anyway - having just looked it up its a 100,000 year cycle, not a question of decades as the recent trend has been).

I wonder if Gore's movie (which I haven't seen) is doing more harm than good? Are people getting hung up on the C02/temperature graph that he shows?

Its not as if climate scientists base the theory on that graph, just looking at the correlation and saying C02 causes warming. (The C02 change in that graph lags the temperature change anyway - the argument is that there's a feedback effect)

The verdict on global warming comes from the predictions of the models, which include all the known science, including the Milankovic cycle, and which show you need the human produced C02 to get predict the current degree of warming and predict C02 will make the warming worse in future. The models now do a reasonably good job of 'retrodicting' the past climate, which implies they include enough of the factors to be relied on.

My understanding is that the cycles you show are the relatively better understood parts of the model, the biggest uncertainties are over things like water vapour.

But yeah, I don't think there will every be quite enough certainty in the models to persuade people to pay the huge costs needed to stop warming. So we are probably all screwed.

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

Relax people, you need to deal with the fact that the planet is not ours and that we have no right to totally halt it's development.

But we understand the factors that made the earth warmer before, and when we include those in the model they don't explain the present warming - human made C02 does. We aren't trying to halt its development, merely not to change it ourselves quite so rapidly.

Oh, just understood your point about where the C02 came from, you're saying living organisms took the C02 out and now living organisms are putting it back? A bit too cosmic/fatalistic for me. Surely 'rights' are a human invention anyway, so if we want to give ourselves such a 'right' we can?

Edit - another objection, 'life' originally took the C02 out over a very long time period, millions of years, giving the planet time to readjust - the point about human C02 production is that its put a huge amount back in over an extremely short time-scale.

And the desire to avoid global warming isn't about a fuzzy new-age idea that we shouldn't change the planet, its about the practical consequences for human beings.

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Shhhh!! It's so much easier to shout IMPEACH BUSH...

...even if there is more evidence now than ever that it could be a possibility, given McClellan's account of the Plame affair. Fingers crossed, but the Democratic Congress of Pussies can't do shit about anything.

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Exactly!

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote: What they show, is that the Earth has been hotter before the 4x4 was invented.

ummmmm... those graphs have nothing to do with CO2 content there Cambo.....

Exactly!

aaahhhhhhh! Totally read that differently the first time 'round... got it