GLOBAL WARMING

[Park Life 71]

50k to save a life is the cost-effectiveness angle.

 

I noted the other day GSK are investing in the UK and creating jobs. Give your boys a pat on the back fella.

[wolfy 12]

Plans to immunise all kids against flu today as well. A good day for our tinfoil hat lovers.

It's not a good day for anyone.

 

This stuff has been coming for a while and is simply an experimentation to see how we cope with the shit put into our bodies.

Babies are now the target of the flu vaccine and at first it will be optional, yet they will make sure that parents are scared into having their kids so called vaccinated.

 

Look who they give the vaccines to right now....Old people, disabled people, people with diabetes and other ailments, all in the name of stopping them getting the flu, yet they have never been able to cure the flu when people get it but somehow can counteract it by giving the weak a vaccine that actually gives them virus symptoms of some sort, made out to be a mild form of the flu.

 

There's too many people on this planet and there's too many sick people in this country as well as old people who are deemed not to be contributing to the economy and are deemed as no use.

 

Experiment on the weak and frail and old and the population can be trimmed to acceptable levels but because we appear to be living too long, or should I say, WERE living too long, as in, those from the war years who lived on rations and weren't subjected to a life of Domestos and a million other bacteria killers, who's bodies were not only stronger (immune wise) but they are still walking to the shops themselves carrying their own shopping back in their 70's and 80's, whilst 50 year old's and younger, are struggling to with all kinds of ailments.

 

We are saturated in pills for this and that, in-fact every sniffle or ache, there is a variation of syrups and pills, plus a lorry load of various anti biotics that are given to patients like sweets for nothing more than a sore throat that years ago would have been fought off with a few bowls of soup and rest.

 

We have foods that are drenched in all kinds of preservatives and what not, of which we really have no clue about except to be told, it's to keep the quality, yet you can freeze freshly caught fish and make your own soups to freeze etc and all are just as enjoyable as anything manufactured and frozen or tinned, yet we don't cram shit like that into them.

 

Sell by dates are designed to make you eat your food quick or bin it so you get back to the supermarket and stock up again.

Milk rarely goes off, no matter if you have it in the fridge for a week, yet years ago it would be sour in 2 days, assuming it lasted that long, so what the hell are they putting into that.

 

Global warming is simply a scare tactic to make us toe the line and pay more of our hard earned money buying so called environmentally friendly things that are probably nothing of the sort.

 

Just my opinion like.

[Renton 21614]

 

Just my opinion like.

 

 

What a strange life you must have.

[wolfy 12]

 

What a strange life you must have.

Aye, it's canny strange.

[Gemmill 44853]

Incredible that the men in black haven't neutralised you yet, Wolfy. Giving away all their big secrets.

[wolfy 12]

Incredible that the men in black haven't neutralised you yet, Wolfy. Giving away all their big secrets.

They're too busy with the street banner crew that's in their face.

Tinfoil hat wearing dip shit's like myself are just a mere pimple on their arses. lol

Edited July 26, 2012 by wolfy

[Kid Dynamite 7025]

If we are being poisoned by milk and flu vaccines why is our life expectancy going up?

[Happy Face 29]

Geoengineering: Testing the Waters By Naomi Klein - October 29th, 2012

 

Published in The New York Times

 

For almost 20 years, I’ve been spending time on a craggy stretch of British Columbia’s shoreline called the Sunshine Coast. This summer, I had an experience that reminded me why I love this place, and why I chose to have a child in this sparsely populated part of the world.

 

It was 5 a.m. and my husband and I were up with our 3-week-old son. Looking out at the ocean, we spotted two towering, black dorsal fins: orcas, or killer whales. Then two more. We had never seen an orca on the coast, and never heard of their coming so close to shore. In our sleep-deprived state, it felt like a miracle, as if the baby had wakened us to make sure we didn’t miss this rare visit.

 

The possibility that the sighting may have resulted from something less serendipitous did not occur to me until two weeks ago, when I read reports of a bizarre ocean experiment off the islands of Haida Gwaii, several hundred miles from where we spotted the orcas swimming.

 

There, an American entrepreneur named Russ George dumped 120 tons of iron dust off the hull of a rented fishing boat; the plan was to create an algae bloom that would sequester carbon and thereby combat climate change.

 

Mr. George is one of a growing number of would-be geoengineers who advocate high-risk, large-scale technical interventions that would fundamentally change the oceans and skies in order to reduce the effects of global warming. In addition to Mr. George’s scheme to fertilize the ocean with iron, other geoengineering strategies under consideration include pumping sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to imitate the cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption and “brightening” clouds so they reflect more of the sun’s rays back to space.

 

The risks are huge. Ocean fertilization could trigger dead zones and toxic tides. And multiple simulations have predicted that mimicking the effects of a volcano would interfere with monsoons in Asia and Africa, potentially threatening water and food security for billions of people.

 

So far, these proposals have mostly served as fodder for computer models and scientific papers. But with Mr. George’s ocean adventure, geoengineering has decisively escaped the laboratory. If Mr. George’s account of the mission is to be believed, his actions created an algae bloom in an area half of the size of Massachusetts that attracted a huge array of aquatic life, including whales that could be “counted by the score.”

 

When I read about the whales, I began to wonder: could it be that the orcas I saw were on their way to the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet that had descended on Mr. George’s bloom? The possibility, unlikely though it is, provides a glimpse into one of the disturbing repercussions of geoengineering: once we start deliberately interfering with the earth’s climate systems —whether by dimming the sun or fertilizing the seas —all natural events can begin to take on an unnatural tinge. An absence that might have seemed a cyclical change in migration patterns or a presence that felt like a miraculous gift suddenly feels sinister, as if all of nature were being manipulated behind the scenes.

 

Most news reports characterize Mr. George as a “rogue” geoengineer. But what concerns me, after researching the subject for two years for a forthcoming book on climate change, is that far more serious scientists, backed by far deeper pockets, appear poised to actively tamper with the complex and unpredictable natural systems that sustain life on earth —with huge potential for unintended consequences.

 

In 2010, the chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology recommended more research into geoengineering; the British government has begun to spend public money in the field.

 

Bill Gates has funneled millions of dollars into geoengineering research. And he has invested in a company, Intellectual Ventures, that is developing at least two geoengineering tools: the “StratoShield,” a 19-mile-long hose suspended by helium balloons that would spew sun-blocking sulfur dioxide particles into the sky and a tool that can supposedly blunt the force of hurricanes.

 

The appeal is easy to understand. Geoengineering offers the tantalizing promise of a climate change fix that would allow us to continue our resource-exhausting way of life, indefinitely. And then there is the fear. Every week seems to bring more terrifying climate news, from reports of ice sheets melting ahead of schedule to oceans acidifying far faster than expected. At the same time, climate change has fallen so far off the political agenda that it wasn’t mentioned once during any of the three debates between the presidential candidates. Is it any wonder that many are pinning their hopes on a break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency option that scientists have been cooking up in their labs?

 

But with rogue geoengineers on the loose, it is a good time to pause and ask, collectively, whether we want to go down the geoengineering road. Because the truth is that geoengineering is itself a rogue proposition. By definition, technologies that tamper with ocean and atmospheric chemistry affect everyone. Yet it is impossible to get anything like unanimous consent for these interventions. Nor could any such consent possibly be informed since we don’t —and can’t —know the full risks involved until these planet-altering technologies are actually deployed.

 

While the United Nations’ climate negotiations proceed from the premise that countries must agree to a joint response to an inherently communal problem, geoengineering raises a very different prospect. For well under a billion dollars, a “coalition of the willing,” a single country or even a wealthy individual could decide to take the climate into its own hands. Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, an environmental watchdog group, puts the problem like this: “Geoengineering says, ‘we’ll just do it, and you’ll live with the effects.’ ”

 

The scariest thing about this proposition is that models suggest that many of the people who could well be most harmed by these technologies are already disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Imagine this: North America decides to send sulfur into the stratosphere to reduce the intensity of the sun, in the hopes of saving its corn crops —despite the real possibility of triggering droughts in Asia and Africa. In short, geoengineering would give us (or some of us) the power to exile huge swaths of humanity to sacrifice zones with a virtual flip of the switch.

 

The geopolitical ramifications are chilling. Climate change is already making it hard to know whether events previously understood as “acts of God” (a freak heat wave in March or a Frankenstorm on Halloween) still belong in that category. But if we start tinkering with the earth’s thermostat —deliberately turning our oceans murky green to soak up carbon and bleaching the skies hazy white to deflect the sun —we take our influence to a new level. A drought in India will come to be seen —accurately or not —as a result of a conscious decision by engineers on the other side of the planet. What was once bad luck could come to be seen as a malevolent plot or an imperialist attack.

 

There will be other visceral, life-changing consequences. A study published this spring in Geophysical Research Letters found that if we inject sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere in order to dial down the sun, the sky would not only become whiter and significantly brighter, but we would also be treated to more intense, “volcanic” sunsets. But what kind of relationships can we expect to have with those hyper-real skies? Would they fill us with awe —or with vague unease? Would we feel the same when beautiful wild creatures cross our paths unexpectedly, as happened to my family this summer? In a popular book on climate change, Bill McKibben warned that we face “The End of Nature.” In the age of geoengineering, we might find ourselves confronting the end of miracles, too.

 

Mr. George and his ocean-altering experiment provides an opportunity for public debate about an issue essentially absent during the election cycle: What are the real solutions to climate change? Wouldn’t it be better to change our behavior —to reduce our use of fossil fuels —before we begin fiddling with the planet’s basic life-support systems?

 

Unless we change course, we can expect to hear many more reports about sun-shielders and ocean fiddlers like Mr. George, whose iron dumping exploit did more than test a thesis about ocean fertilization: it also tested the waters for future geoengineering experiments. And judging by the muted response so far, the results of Mr. George’s test are clear: geoengineers proceed, caution be damned.

[Park Life 71]

Chemtrails to reflect the sun has been in operation for at least a decade.

[wolfy 12]

If we are being poisoned by milk and flu vaccines why is our life expectancy going up?

Look around you...does it look like anyone's life expectancy is going up?

[Renton 21614]

Office of National Statistics. IN ON IT.

 

Mind, might be a fair point in Hartlepool.......

[The Fish 10856]

Adults with serious mental illness (SMI) die about 25 years earlier

[wolfy 12]

Global warming is a pile of shit.

The ozone layer with it's hole, is another pile of shit.

The excuses they make...cows farting and aerosols and emissions is laughable.

All you have to remember is, what goes up, must come down, which means, nothing is making any holes in any ozone layer.

 

Whatever we throw at this planet, it will just sit back and laugh at and continue doing what it does.

[CleeToonFan 1]

Thank God for idioms, solving all the worlds problems.

[ChezGiven 0]

All you have to remember is, what goes up, must come down, which means, nothing is making any holes in any ozone layer.

Bullet proof logic that.

[SloopJohn 0]

[Kid Dynamite 7025]

Chemtrails to reflect the sun has been in operation for at least a decade.

 

Surely chemtrails cover about 0.002% of the sky. Negligible effect really

[Happy Face 29]

http://xkcd.com/1732/

 

Great illustration of the extent of warming.

 

"The earth's temperature has always changed" made to look like the foolishness it is.

[ohhh_yeah 2964]

 

.

 

[Isegrim 9772]

 

You should start at 1:23:55

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21915]

i'm trying to go vegan (again). inspired by the cowspiracy doc on netflix.

it's probably the single biggest thing you can do as an individual if you're worried about things like greenhouse gasses, deforestation, environmental degradation and so on. reducing the amount of animal products we consume will do a lot more than using a bag for life, reducing water consumption or, turning down the boiler or the temperature on the fridge. the problem is people are prepared to do those things but no one wants to be told how to eat. 

and there's a reason why vegans are in the minority: it's fucking hard work. first of all, there's the farting from all the beans and pulses - rank, even by my standards  

i'm going ok monday to friday, but probably eating about 60-70% vegan across the course of the week. eating out in restaurants is the toughest bit. i've surprised myself with how well i've managed without eggs but no cheese is a killer. i'm not sure i'm quite ready to live a life without pizza. 

then there are things like wearing leather shoes and drinking wine, neither of which ready to give up either, and the fact that a growing movement of well-meaning middle class westerners is going to do little in the face of the massive rise in demand for meat from emerging markets like china.

still, if the world went vegan we could save a piece of land the size of the african continent to grow trees and end climate change. 

@Parklife baiting 

 

[Renton 21614]

30 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i'm trying to go vegan (again). inspired by the cowspiracy doc on netflix.

it's probably the single biggest thing you can do as an individual if you're worried about things like greenhouse gasses, deforestation, environmental degradation and so on. reducing the amount of animal products we consume will do a lot more than using a bag for life, reducing water consumption or, turning down the boiler or the temperature on the fridge. the problem is people are prepared to do those things but no one wants to be told how to eat. 

and there's a reason why vegans are in the minority: it's fucking hard work. first of all, there's the farting from all the beans and pulses - rank, even by my standards  

i'm going ok monday to friday, but probably eating about 60-70% vegan across the course of the week. eating out in restaurants is the toughest bit. i've surprised myself with how well i've managed without eggs but no cheese is a killer. i'm not sure i'm quite ready to live a life without pizza. 

then there are things like wearing leather shoes and drinking wine, neither of which ready to give up either, and the fact that a growing movement of well-meaning middle class westerners is going to do little in the face of the massive rise in demand for meat from emerging markets like china.

still, if the world went vegan we could save a piece of land the size of the african continent to grow trees and end climate change. 

@Parklife baiting 

 

Climate change is the most important issue of our times.

 

Not convinced going vegan is the answer like, methane has 10 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 and yet you admit to becoming a farting machine?

 

Anyway, no thanks, we are omnivores. And forget about being a hypocrite wearing leather (you are), but what are you air miles like? Are you giving up holidays too? 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

9/10 people don’t really give a fuck about global warming. 

[Monkeys Fist 42417]

5 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

I don’t really give a fuck about global warming. 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

6 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

 

True. Like the overwhelming majority I carry on with life as normal bar the odd bit of forced domestic recycling. Most who argue differently are crying crocodile tears.