@ludocrat I owe you ... By: stevebishop. on 22 Apr 11, 06:09:24 @ludocrat I owe you an apology for calling you a name caller. Unusually for a sceptic you are patronising as well. Your hubris does you credit as it? exceeds the normal dross we have to put up with for daring to have a different opinion.
@ludocrat I owe you ... By: stevebishop. on 22 Apr 11, 06:08:52 @ludocrat I owe you an apology for calling you a name caller. Unusually for a sceptic you? are patronising as well. Your hubris does you credit as it exceeds the normal dross we have to put up with for daring to have a different opinion1
@stevebishop
... By: ludocrat. on 21 Apr 11, 08:59:19 @stevebishop
Scientists "...in the climate field of research" eh? Interesting qualifier (and unusually accurate for an alarmist). Well, they would wouldn't they? Given the fact that they invented the nonsense in the first place. As for you, "surly" is definitely the right word. Although I would add "brainwashed" and even "incoherent". But not dangerous - I don't think you? people are dangerous any more because you've been comprehensively found out. Including the air miles-addicted Moonbat.
respect. love the ... By: biennialist. on 12 Jul 10, 03:05:04 respect. love the arrest? attempt. a real human nowadays, should be heralded.
Surly the name ... By: stevebishop. on 19 Jan 10, 06:12:13 Surly the name calling and insults of? the sceptics just go to show how shallow their arguments are and that they only have insults and not facts to throw around. More than 99% of scientists in the climate field of research believe in global warming which is stronger than the HIV - AIDS and the smoking and lung cancer science, yet we go with that without question becuse the evidence is still so strong. The truth is that the sceptics have nothing. Nothing, well except their name calling.
This is the? ... By: noirgris0. on 05 Jan 10, 21:35:37 This is the? bitterest pill as far as I'm concerned
Unbelievable. ... By: thegreatfearblog. on 04 Dec 09, 18:17:07 Unbelievable. Disgusting nwo Fabian crypto communist? liar!
Well, well.
Love ... By: TroyaE117. on 07 Nov 09, 00:55:58 Well, well.
Love miles don't apply to Monbiot, do they?
Not? for him is the pull of the moral compass.
at least he's ... By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:56:22 at least he's exploring realistic options/solutions as a human race... there will come a time when humans influence climate change at a frightening magnitude; before that time comes, his book will provide some guidance for us to prevent catastrophe. at
also, this topic isn't just engineering related. much more is involved, such as politics and economics. so when it comes to technical details,? give him a break.
no other ... By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:50:16 no other alternatives? especially? when he has to be somewhere on schedule?
he's a regarded ... By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:35:23 he's a regarded professor. i read his book; he exposes companies and organizations that pump false information in media and internet about climate change. he also investigates the actual efficiency proposed solutions and alternatives, such as renewable energy. for example, he talks about problems with current solar panels? designs, and the idea of the energy internet. don't judge monbiot so quickly.
Sir Jonathon ... By: n1ckotene. on 26 Aug 09, 12:54:24 Sir Jonathon Porritt is a well known environmentalist.?
He has admitted that in one year he took 42 flights. Typical of these people, do as I say not as I do. If flying was really that bad why is he flying?
AIrcraft are ... By: twoeggcups. on 10 Aug 09, 11:57:50 AIrcraft are massively lighter and necessarily more aerodynamic than any other form of mass transportation. A large aircraft has no peers in terms of efficiency. Just making the concrete and steel for a railroad will use colossal amounts of energy. Monbiot, of course, endlessly talks about things he doesn't understand to (engineering and technology - he's a zoologist) to other? non-engineers so we can pretty easily discount what he has to say - he exists in a engineering iliterate echo chamber.
"Sceptics": (a term ... By: scruvydom. on 31 Jul 09, 13:45:23 "Sceptics": (a term you don't deserve as it implies reasoned weighing of evidence), go die in a hole.
People worth talking to: Surely high-speed trains would be carbon neutral if they're electric and the electricity supplied is from renewable sources? I can well understand? the carbon cost of /building/ the things, not to mention potential local ecological damage, but I see trains as the best alternative to flying we have.
This guy is a major ... By: phoebus1966. on 15 May 09, 12:06:03 This guy is a major f*up - knwos nabsolutely nothing and pretends knows all --- aaargh! --- man you are such an ignorant f* --- stop right there? psuedo intellectual tripper and read paul pantone to start! Aaargh! is this really happening!
What a scam artist! ... By: n1ckotene. on 05 Feb 09, 21:26:42 What a scam artist!
Oh lets care for the environment, find? out more in my book.
Its scaremongering with his own profit at the heart of it.
The only ones who ... By: Spurgeon123. on 15 Jan 09, 17:47:06 The only ones who believes a word this man is saying are devout atheists who? believes there is no order to the universe and its up to his speeches and lecturers to save this poor misguided planet and its population of greedy consuming polluters. If he acutally believes what he is saying, he'd stop flying and I bet he's flown more miles than anyone listening to him and he'd plug his butthole so as to keep his methane from warming the planet
If you say? so ... By: scudlington. on 01 Dec 08, 10:37:59 If you say? so nob'ead.
Go George!? By: jroy375. on 02 Nov 08, 11:15:46 Go George!?
and, did it? work? ... By: dizid10. on 15 Oct 08, 10:57:23 and, did it? work? ;p
Perhaps the ... By: NaeWea. on 26 Sep 08, 18:01:41 Perhaps the question we should be asking is that of 'motive'.
What do the anthropogenic G.W. proselytizers stand to gain by their apocalyptic scare mongering?
And, conversely, what do the GW deniers stand to gain?
What about: the UN, the EU, governments, utilities, corporations,? filmmakers, media moguls, newspaper columnists, filmmakers, to name but a few 'concerned parties'?
Few of us can competently scrutinize climate science. But we can
unveil the real motives behind its sale or denial.
Go George!? By: dmbdmbdmbdmbdmb. on 15 Apr 08, 19:10:22 Go George!?
Sailing ships could ... By: Teratornis. on 12 Apr 08, 05:07:32 Sailing ships could make a comeback. See the videos about SkySails on YouTube. Basically a large computer-controlled power kite for a ship. The first one cuts oil use by up to 30% on the MS Beluga SkySails, a cargo ship. Improved models could provide more tractive power.
However, traveling for the sole purpose of moving information is stupid. We can use high-definition? videoconferencing instead. See Cisco's Telepresence for a look at the future. Get off Hubbert's curve and onto Moore's law.
I? am testing to ... By: itenddotcom. on 23 Mar 08, 22:17:28 I? am testing to post first comment
If we limit ... By: bcronin79. on 13 Mar 08, 21:26:31 If we limit biofuels to use for air travel, there would not be pressure on land. Air travel only accounts for 1-2% of.
You need to specifiy the? resource from which you are making biofuels ... biofuels from corn is a disaster, like you say. However, next-generation Biofuels will have a good net energy benefit.
Latest comments made on this video:
By: stevebishop. on 22 Apr 11, 06:09:24
@ludocrat I owe you an apology for calling you a name caller. Unusually for a sceptic you are patronising as well. Your hubris does you credit as it? exceeds the normal dross we have to put up with for daring to have a different opinion.
By: stevebishop. on 22 Apr 11, 06:08:52
@ludocrat I owe you an apology for calling you a name caller. Unusually for a sceptic you? are patronising as well. Your hubris does you credit as it exceeds the normal dross we have to put up with for daring to have a different opinion1
By: ludocrat. on 21 Apr 11, 08:59:19
@stevebishop Scientists "...in the climate field of research" eh? Interesting qualifier (and unusually accurate for an alarmist). Well, they would wouldn't they? Given the fact that they invented the nonsense in the first place. As for you, "surly" is definitely the right word. Although I would add "brainwashed" and even "incoherent". But not dangerous - I don't think you? people are dangerous any more because you've been comprehensively found out. Including the air miles-addicted Moonbat.
By: biennialist. on 12 Jul 10, 03:05:04
respect. love the arrest? attempt. a real human nowadays, should be heralded.
By: stevebishop. on 19 Jan 10, 06:12:13
Surly the name calling and insults of? the sceptics just go to show how shallow their arguments are and that they only have insults and not facts to throw around. More than 99% of scientists in the climate field of research believe in global warming which is stronger than the HIV - AIDS and the smoking and lung cancer science, yet we go with that without question becuse the evidence is still so strong. The truth is that the sceptics have nothing. Nothing, well except their name calling.
By: noirgris0. on 05 Jan 10, 21:35:37
This is the? bitterest pill as far as I'm concerned
By: thegreatfearblog. on 04 Dec 09, 18:17:07
Unbelievable. Disgusting nwo Fabian crypto communist? liar!
By: TroyaE117. on 07 Nov 09, 00:55:58
Well, well. Love miles don't apply to Monbiot, do they? Not? for him is the pull of the moral compass.
By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:56:22
at least he's exploring realistic options/solutions as a human race... there will come a time when humans influence climate change at a frightening magnitude; before that time comes, his book will provide some guidance for us to prevent catastrophe. at also, this topic isn't just engineering related. much more is involved, such as politics and economics. so when it comes to technical details,? give him a break.
By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:50:16
no other alternatives? especially? when he has to be somewhere on schedule?
By: justcallmetheKING. on 06 Sep 09, 04:35:23
he's a regarded professor. i read his book; he exposes companies and organizations that pump false information in media and internet about climate change. he also investigates the actual efficiency proposed solutions and alternatives, such as renewable energy. for example, he talks about problems with current solar panels? designs, and the idea of the energy internet. don't judge monbiot so quickly.
By: n1ckotene. on 26 Aug 09, 12:54:24
Sir Jonathon Porritt is a well known environmentalist.? He has admitted that in one year he took 42 flights. Typical of these people, do as I say not as I do. If flying was really that bad why is he flying?
By: twoeggcups. on 10 Aug 09, 11:57:50
AIrcraft are massively lighter and necessarily more aerodynamic than any other form of mass transportation. A large aircraft has no peers in terms of efficiency. Just making the concrete and steel for a railroad will use colossal amounts of energy. Monbiot, of course, endlessly talks about things he doesn't understand to (engineering and technology - he's a zoologist) to other? non-engineers so we can pretty easily discount what he has to say - he exists in a engineering iliterate echo chamber.
By: scruvydom. on 31 Jul 09, 13:45:23
"Sceptics": (a term you don't deserve as it implies reasoned weighing of evidence), go die in a hole. People worth talking to: Surely high-speed trains would be carbon neutral if they're electric and the electricity supplied is from renewable sources? I can well understand? the carbon cost of /building/ the things, not to mention potential local ecological damage, but I see trains as the best alternative to flying we have.
By: phoebus1966. on 15 May 09, 12:06:03
This guy is a major f*up - knwos nabsolutely nothing and pretends knows all --- aaargh! --- man you are such an ignorant f* --- stop right there? psuedo intellectual tripper and read paul pantone to start! Aaargh! is this really happening!
By: n1ckotene. on 05 Feb 09, 21:26:42
What a scam artist! Oh lets care for the environment, find? out more in my book. Its scaremongering with his own profit at the heart of it.
By: Spurgeon123. on 15 Jan 09, 17:47:06
The only ones who believes a word this man is saying are devout atheists who? believes there is no order to the universe and its up to his speeches and lecturers to save this poor misguided planet and its population of greedy consuming polluters. If he acutally believes what he is saying, he'd stop flying and I bet he's flown more miles than anyone listening to him and he'd plug his butthole so as to keep his methane from warming the planet
By: scudlington. on 01 Dec 08, 10:37:59
If you say? so nob'ead.
By: jroy375. on 02 Nov 08, 11:15:46
Go George!?
By: dizid10. on 15 Oct 08, 10:57:23
and, did it? work? ;p
By: NaeWea. on 26 Sep 08, 18:01:41
Perhaps the question we should be asking is that of 'motive'. What do the anthropogenic G.W. proselytizers stand to gain by their apocalyptic scare mongering? And, conversely, what do the GW deniers stand to gain? What about: the UN, the EU, governments, utilities, corporations,? filmmakers, media moguls, newspaper columnists, filmmakers, to name but a few 'concerned parties'? Few of us can competently scrutinize climate science. But we can unveil the real motives behind its sale or denial.
By: dmbdmbdmbdmbdmb. on 15 Apr 08, 19:10:22
Go George!?
By: Teratornis. on 12 Apr 08, 05:07:32
Sailing ships could make a comeback. See the videos about SkySails on YouTube. Basically a large computer-controlled power kite for a ship. The first one cuts oil use by up to 30% on the MS Beluga SkySails, a cargo ship. Improved models could provide more tractive power. However, traveling for the sole purpose of moving information is stupid. We can use high-definition? videoconferencing instead. See Cisco's Telepresence for a look at the future. Get off Hubbert's curve and onto Moore's law.
By: itenddotcom. on 23 Mar 08, 22:17:28
I? am testing to post first comment
By: bcronin79. on 13 Mar 08, 21:26:31
If we limit biofuels to use for air travel, there would not be pressure on land. Air travel only accounts for 1-2% of. You need to specifiy the? resource from which you are making biofuels ... biofuels from corn is a disaster, like you say. However, next-generation Biofuels will have a good net energy benefit.